Sitting of 27 November 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) (No. 2) BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
  WORCESTER CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Drug Pricing
    Mr. Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultation he has had with the pharmaceutical industry following his statement on 8 November about drug pricing.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): As I announced on 8 November, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health will have discussions with the pharmaceutical industry about the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme. Arrangements have been made for him to meet representatives of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry shortly.
    Mr. Hunter: Can my right hon. Friend give any assurance that measures resulting from that statement will not effectively amount to denying NHS patients certain important drugs? I have in mind in particular the arthritis drug, Distalgesic.
    Mr. Fowler: Branded drugs, which have been specifically developed for the relief of pain and inflammation in rheumatism and arthritis, will still be available. At present, Distalgesic is not in that category. We are committed to the limited list scheme, but the whole point of having the consultation period is to listen to the arguments on particular drugs. That is why we are having consultations.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the Secretary of State aware that his first attempt to introduce a rational prescribing policy is to be very warmly welcomed, that he should strongly resist the selfish and distorted propaganda of the pharmaceutical industry, which is now screaming blue murder, and that the only advice he should accept about implementing this very good proposal is independent advice?
    Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I think he will agree with me that there is a balance to be held in these proposals. It in no one's interest to take measures which will damage the research-based pharmaceutical industry in this country. I believe that in the Government's proposals we are not doing that, and we are making useful savings in the Health Service budget. On those grounds I think that the proposals should, as the right hon. Gentleman says, be supported.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I, too, commend my right hon. Friend on the decision that he has taken and on the consultations into which he has entered. Will he take every opportunity, with the rest of us, to make it clear to patients that they will not be medically disadvantaged by the sensible decision that he has taken and announced?
    Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That point needs to be emphasised. There will, of course, be generic alternatives to the branded drugs which will not be prescribed free on the National Health Service, so there is no question of patients being disadvantaged by the steps that we have taken. We are having consultations so that we can ensure that that does not happen.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Does the Secretary of State accept that many of us on the Liberal Benches accept the benefits of genuine generic substitution, but will he confirm that it is his intention that all drugs presently available will continue to be available either across the counter, because prescription is not required, or by reason of their generic equivalence?
    Mr. Fowler: The drugs which are available across the counter will continue to be available across the counter. The vast majority of the drugs that we are talking about do not need a prescription in any event. They can be bought from chemists.
    I confirm that the intention is that there should be generic alternatives to the branded drugs that they replace.

    Mental Health Act Commission (Membership)
    Mr. Stan Thorneasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether medical members of the Mental Health Act Commission receive additional sessional fees from their employing authorities in respect of their work with the commission.
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Consultants who are members of the Mental Health Act Commission may need to adjust their clinical commitments to accommodate their commission work. If, as a result, patient services might be reduced to an unacceptable level, health authorities should seek to make good the loss by employing a locum or in some other way. If that is not feasible, they may, at their discretion, award payment for one temporary extra session to the commission member.
    Mr. Thorne: I thank the Minister for his reply. Can he state whether commissioners who are self-employed or employed by private employers receive payment in the form of fees for their work as commissioners?
    Mr. Clarke: They receive expenses. At the moment we do not think that it is a good idea to put all the commissioners on a fee-paying basis. We look sympathetically at any situation in which a member might

    763
    suffer hardship or difficulty, but we have an extremely strong commission, with very good members, and they do not have to be paid a fee for their work.
    Mr. Proctor: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the chairman and members of the Mental Health Act Commission on their work, because the commission has been going only a short time but has become a responsible body in this area?
    Mr. Clarke: I shall pass on my hon. Friend's congratulations to Lord Colville and his colleagues.

    Hospital Wards, South Manchester
    Mr. Alfred Morrisasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take action to avert the closure of up to eight hospital wards in south Manchester.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): If any such proposals come to us, under well-established procedures, Ministers will decide on their merits.
    Mr. Morris: Is the Minister aware of the district administrator's statement that his health authority has done everything that it can to balance its budget by efficiency savings and by reducing equipment, maintenance and building programmes, but that it may still have to close a maternity ward, a children's surgical ward, a chest ward, a chest clinic and even a cancer ward at Christie hospital at weekends? Is it not clear, as the community health council insists, that patient care is now at risk in south Manchester? In view of the Government's oft-repeated assurances that they will protect patient care, will the Minister now act urgently to correct the underfunding of this health authority?
    Mr. Patten: I have been following events in south Manchester with care. What the right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten is the increased resources that have been put into south Manchester over the past two years— an additional million of capital and an additional £1·2 million of revenue for cardiology and renal services. More patients are being treated in south Manchester than ever before. There is no truth in the assertion that patients are suffering there. No final decisions have been made about any of the wards to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and, if they are made, Ministers will consider them carefully, as they always do, in the best interests of patients.
    Mr. Mark Carlisle: As someone who was a patient in the Wythenshawe hospital for several weeks in the middle of last year, I should like to ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware of the tremendous reputation and expertise of the chest unit at Wythenshawe hospital? Does he accept that if the service is severely reduced that is bound to have an adverse effect on the facilities available not only in the district but throughout the region?
    Mr. Patten: It is very good of my right hon. and learned Friend to pay that compliment to those who looked after him in that hospital. Of course, we are aware of its high reputation. No recommendations about its future, or the future of any of the wards, have yet been referred to Ministers for decision. Should that happen, we shall of course consider most carefully any suggestions that have been made by the local health authority.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that the community services in south Manchester and the surrounding districts are already grossly overstrained and that it is almost inescapable that some cuts will have to be made because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said, the district has not been able to balance its books without making cuts? If ward closures take place, it will inevitably mean that the community services, which are already overstrained, will fail in their primary target of serving patient needs.
    Mr. Patten: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern for those in the area, but he is speculating about what might happen should decisions be taken at some time in the future. The district health authority must face its present problems of overspending, and face them hard. While saying that, I applaud the approach of the district health authority in looking first to the needs of patients and not to the funding of empty or unnecessary beds, particularly with the changes in the pattern of medical care, when many people wish to go home at weekends and even more people wish to have day surgery rather than stay in hospital for many days unnecessarily.

    NHS (Government Support)
    Mr. Sumbergasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the level of Government support for the National Health Service in the next financial year.
    Mr. Fowler: As I recently announced, the Government plan to spend next year a total of £17 billion on the National Health Service in Great Britain. This represents an increase of £700 million on the anticipated expenditure for 1984–85 and is £200 million more than that previously announced in the 1984 expenditure White Paper. The funds allocated to health authorities will be increased by 1 per cent. over and above what would be required merely to keep pace with the forecast rate of inflation. These figures demonstrate the reality of the Government's continuing commitment to the Health Service.
    Mr. Sumberg: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there is increasing public concern that the NHS does not have sufficient funds and resources to combat and publicise the danger of patients contracting AIDS as a result of blood transfusions? If that is so, will he assure the House that sufficient funds and resources will be made available to the NHS?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes, I think that I can give that assurance. The Government are taking a number of actions. We are seeking to become self-sufficient in Factor 8 so that imports are no longer required. I very much hope that that will be done by 1986. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health has issued leaflets. Perhaps, most important of all, we are seeking ways to test blood donations. No screening test has yet been developed, but a pilot trial will be started in London in the next few weeks.
    Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: However much the Minister may seek to mislead the House and the country with statistics, does he agree that his statistics presume a pay increase of only 3 per cent. for nurses and ancillary staff? Does he admit, therefore, that, despite all the

    765
    Government's protestations, those people have suffered, are suffering and will continue to suffer a substantial reduction in their standard of living?
    Mr. Fowler: Untypically, the hon. Gentleman's remarks are not a fair commentary on our plans. We are providing an extra £700 million cash in Great Britain. If pay is settled at the 3 per cent. which the Government think reasonable, there will be 2 per cent. cash left for growth within the Health Service. Health authorities have cash budgets and they must plan within them. In that respect, there is no difference between the Health Service and any other service or industry.
    Mrs. Jill Knight: When issuing statements and information documents about these important matters, will my right hon. Friend avoid using phrases, such as "relative technical limitations of the input volume methodology", which confuse rather than clarify and hamper the excellent story which the Government have to tell about their record in the Health Service?
    Mr. Fowler: I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance on that. To the best of my knowledge, I have never issued anything remotely similar to that in my name, and I shall certainly see to it that none of my ministerial team does so either.
    Mr. Eastham: The Minister insists on giving percentage figures. Do those assessments include the ever-increasing number of pensioners, which is currently growing by about 100,000 per year, thus adding considerably to the burden on the Health Service?
    Mr. Fowler: Of course, we accept that, and that is why we are providing more cash for the Health Service. It is no use the hon. Gentleman making dismissive gestures. We are providing 5·5 per cent. more cash for the Health Service next year than was provided this year. One of our main reasons for doing that is the very argument which the hon. Gentleman put forward. His comments signally fail to undermine the Government's commitment to the Health Service.
    Mr. McCrindle: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that although his proposals on generic prescribing will save the NHS money, there is no doubt about the efficacy of the alternative drugs and that those who have suggested that we are moving towards having one Health Service for the rich and another for the poor are guilty of mischievous nonsense?
    Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Although there is some laughter on the Opposition Benches, I had thought that that was the policy of the Opposition, too.

    Benefits
    Mr. Pikeasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider extending to all the long-term unemployed the high long-term rates of benefit as recommended by the Social Security Advisory Committee.
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): As I told the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 12 November, the necessary resources of about £500 million are not available to implement this
    766
    proposal, which in any case raises wider questions about the supplementary benefit scheme more properly considered in the current social security review.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that one of the main areas of concern connected with unemployment at present is the growth of long-term unemployment? Does he further accept that the longer that people are unemployed, the greater the expenses that they incur, because their belongings wear out? Should not the longterm unemployed be given a fair deal, should not resources be made available to meet their requirements, and should not the supplementary benefit system be changed so that assistance can be made available by way of unemployment benefit?
    Mr. Newton: That view has been put forward by many who have given evidence to the supplementary benefit review, so of course it is a view that we shall consider.
    Mr. Galley: In view of the present abuses, will the Government consider, in consultation with the Social Security Advisory Committee, the possibility of new arrangements for mortgage interest payments for the longterm unemployed and others to be made direct to the lender, not to the borrower?
    Mr. Newton: I note what my hon Friend says. As I have said before, I am conscious of the concern expressed about the particular instance. However, I hope that, when pressing the point as a generality, my hon. Friend will accept that many people might well feel that it should not be an automatic consequence of becoming unemployed that their building society should immediately be informed by the local social security office.
    Mr. Kirkwood: If cost is a reason for not extending the long-term rate of benefit to all claimants, will the Minister consider the SSAC's compromise arrangement of introducing it first to those claimants with dependent children?
    Mr. Newton: That is another view that has been put forward to the supplementary benefit review. I answer with some hesitation only because those who say that this should be a priority rarely say which other matters should be given less priority in its place, which is the necessary concomitant.
    Mr. Meacher: Given that the cost of extending the benefit to the long-term unemployed would be about £500 million a year, how can the Government justify refusing that benefit to the unemployed when they have this year handed out almost exactly the same sum—£520 million— to the very rich by halving stamp duty on stock exchange transactions and abolishing the unearned income surcharge? Is this not the most blatant example yet of having one law for the rich and another for the poor and the unemployed?
    Mr. Newton: The most effective action that the Government can take to help the long-term unemployed is to improve the prospects for employment. [Interruption.] It seems extraordinary to me that the Labour party should apparently believe that unemployment problems do not involve increasing the prospects for employment, but it may explain some of the strange remarks made by Opposition Members.
    Mr. Wareing: The Government are not doing it.
    Mr. Newton: Our aim is to improve prospects for employment. Part of that policy is to stimulate and encourage investment, and we are doing that with considerable success.

    Joint Finance Agreements
    Mr. O'Brienasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider the current financial problems facing local authorities with joint finance agreements with health authorities; and if he will consult the Association of Directors of Social Services and area health administrators on the matter.
    Mr. John Patten: The working group on joint planning, which we have set up with the National Association of Health Authorities and the local authority associations, will be looking at the arrangements for transferring resources between health and local authorities. The group is expected to complete work next spring and we shall consult health and local authority interests on its findings.
    Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister take into consideration the serious circumstances facing local authorities whose resources are being cut while there are demands for extra resources for the elderly, the mentally ill and the disabled? Will he examine the tapering system and ensure that services that are in being will not be lost to communities because of penalties imposed on local authorities by the Department of the Environment?
    Mr. Patten: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's constructive attitude. By saying that, I do not wish to do him any personal political harm. However, some of the problems facing local authorities are of their own making. One has only to consider the high disparity of unit costs in, for example, the provision of local authority accommodation for elderly people to see that. Of course, we shall consider the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. We are looking forward to receiving advice in the spring from the body to which I have referred.
    Mr. Sims: I know that my hon. Friend will welcome schemes, such as that in my constituency, by which mentally handicapped people are being moved from institutions to small homes. Will he bear in mind that, if the scheme is successful, the next step will be for those people to go into individual accommodation, but that they will still need the services of, for example, social workers? Will he therefore persuade our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to ensure that local authorities have the funds to maintain an adequate number of social workers to continue the process?
    Mr. Patten: We greatly admire the work being done in my hon. Friend's constituency involving the movement of those who suffer mental handicap back into the community and, we hope soon, into flats and sheltered accommodation of their own. Local authorities have the power to protect the especially vulnerable. Many local authorities, Labour as much as Conservative, have done exactly that recently by good and prudent housekeeping within the substantial sums of money that they already get.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the Minister confirm, or deny, the hardship caused by his joint financing alteration to the local authority, the health authority and the mentally ill and severely frail people who live in Salford?
    Mr. Patten: As we have increased expenditure on joint finance by 50 per cent. in real terms since 1979, I do not know how anyone can speak of hardship.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend is well aware of the policy pursued by successive Governments of transferring mentally ill and handicapped people from hospitals into the community. Will he assure the House that the Government will provide adequate funds to ensure that the facilities, the services and the care that were available to such people while they were in hospital are available to them when they move into the community?
    Mr. Patten: We are already providing at least £100 million this year for joint finance schemes. In addition, we are making it possible for health authorities, with patients who go back into the community, to transfer permanently money which will not count against targets for local authorities. We also have several centrally funded initiatives, such as the care and community initiative, at a cost of £16·5 million, and the helping carers to care initiative, which costs £10 million.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister confirm, or deny, that his Department issued guidance to regional health authorities, including that in Yorkshire, to alter the rules in calculating bed norms, thus substituting commercial criteria for technically derived criteria, with the result that there is a serious under-estimation of the need for beds in future, especially for the elderly?
    Mr. Patten: The modern Health Service does not have bed norms. It is concerned not with beds but with treating patients. We are treating more patients than have ever been treated in the history of the National Health Service. The hon. Gentleman could play a constructive role in his area where, I am told by local people, joint planning between health authorities and the social services department is not going well. He should do all that he can to smooth the growth of an effective joint planning procedure such as we have in several authorities elsewhere in his area.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: I accept that partial abatement from penalty during the period of joint financing has helped, but does the Minister agree that there is a growing reluctance among local authorities to embark on joint financing because of the improbability of being able to cope with it under rate-capping when the taper is finished? That is especially so in local authority areas where the need is greatest, as the possibility of rate-capping there is highest.
    Mr. Patten: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his characteristic courtesy in welcoming what we have been able to do, which he thinks has helped. Of course I appreciate the tapering problems which some authorities face, but we have no evidence that joint finance is not being taken up, because a record sum of money is being taken up—about 95 per cent. of the money available to local authorities.

    Maternity Services Advisory Committee
    Mr. Galleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects the publication of the third report from the Maternity Services Advisory Committee.
    Mr. John Patten: The committee's report should be ready early in the new year.
    Mr. Galley: I acknowledge the valuable work of the MSAC and the growing improvements in maternity services, particularly in perinatal mortality rates, but does my hon. Friend agree that further research needs to be done into cot deaths? What steps is he prepared to take to monitor the situation more closely and to arrange more research into this harrowing topic?
    Mr. Patten: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about the MSAC, which has so far produced two excellent reports. We are looking forward to its third report in the new year. A considerable amount of work is going on at present into the problems of cot deaths, and Professor Knoweloen from the University of Sheffield will shortly be reporting on the results of a trial examination of these problems that has been going on for the last seven years. We look forward to receiving that shortly in the new year.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Assuming that the advisory committee will reinforce the demands of the Select Committee for better standards of care for the distressed newborn, does the Minister accept that his Department's responsibility is to ensure that those standards are enforced? That is different from recommending. Is that not particularly so, given that in social class 4 in the west midlands the perinatal death rate of distressed babies rose from 13·1 in 1981 to 13·3 in 1982, which is way above the national average?
    Mr. Patten: We have drawn the attention of all regional and district health authorities to the recommendations of the MSAC. I know that the hon. Lady shares my pleasure that we have seen recent record reductions in perinatal mortality in this country.

    National Insurance Contributions
    Mr. Tim Smithasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received about the level of the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions.
    Mr. Fowler: Since 1 August 1984, eight letters have been received about the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions.
    Mr. Smith: Is it right that anyone earning as little as £35·50 a week should suffer any deductions from pay? Is my hon. Friend aware of the bunching that is now taking place below the earnings limit and the gap that is opening up between this and the income tax threshold? As part of his social security reviews, will he look at ways in which the limit might be increased?
    Mr. Fowler: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are already looking at the structure of national insurance, including the lower and upper earnings limits. Like him, I am concerned about the cliff-edge effect of national insurance, where just below £34 one pays no national insurance and just above £34 one pays £3 contributions. We are examining that and shall certainly try to improve it.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does the Secretary of State accept that apart from the concern which he has expressed—and I welcome his words—the Opposition are also concerned that the upper earnings limit is so low? That makes it a regressive tax, as, the wealthier one is, once one gets beyond the upper earnings limit there is no contribution at
    770
    all. Will he therefore confirm that perhaps in this respect the Government will be at least as harsh to the rich as to the poor?
    Mr. Fowler: I have just told my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) that we are looking at both the lower and upper earnings limits. That is part of the work of the reviews, and when they are published I shall seek to respond to the hon. Lady.

    "Another Story"
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what study he has made of the book "Another Story," by Mrs. Jean Carr, a copy of which has been sent to him, relating to his Department's treatment of relatives of service men killed in the Falkland Islands and of service men maimed in the conflict, and their families.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): I read the book with interest and duly noted its comments.
    Mr. Dalyell: Does the Minister accept as fact the description by Mrs. Jean Carr of his Department's handling of the case of Mrs. Jane Keoghane, a pregnant widow of a Welsh guardsman, which is described on page 53? If so, what will he do about it?
    Mr. Whitney: I do not accept that description as fair in the case of Mrs. Keoghane, or in any of the other cases. A total of 225 cases were dealt with as a result of the Falklands war, and there was reason for some improvement in some of them. However, I believe that overall the Department's conduct was exemplary.
    Mr. Dickens: How was my hon. Friend able to take seriously the sincerity behind the question asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who time and time again has pointed his finger at the British task force with regard to the sinking of the Belgrano, which undoubtedly saved hundreds of British lives?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question relates to Mrs. Jean Can's book.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Minister aware that there is strong feeling that the widow to whom my hon. Friend referred was shabbily treated? Is he satisfied that service men who must leave the forces because of a deterioration in their medical condition are fully informed of the benefits available to them when they leave?
    Mr. Whitney: I do not believe that there is any justification for the view that Mrs. Keoghane has been shabbily treated. At one stage she was in receipt of double benefit, but there was no question of asking her to repay it—quite justifiably. All the benefits available to service men as a result of the Falklands war are well known, and the Ministry of Defence and my Department have taken action to ensure that that knowledge is widespread.
    Later—
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will be within your recollection that on Question No. 9 you intervened in the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens). Would it be in order for me to say that I have never criticised service men? My criticisms have been related to politicians. Am I to understand that you asked the hon. Member to withdraw the remark? In the hubbub that followed, did he do so?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not recollect that there was any particular problem with that question. I think that the integrity of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is beyond dispute in this House.

    National Health Service
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of the gross domestic product was spent on the National Health Service in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how this compares with the percentage in 1978.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The United Kingdom spent 5·6 per cent. of the gross domestic product on the National Health Service in 1983. The corresponding figure for 1978 was 4·8 per cent.
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those figures show clearly that the Government are giving the National Health Service a higher priority than did the Labour Government?
    Mr. Clarke: They certainly do. They show where it counts most. Last year, hospitals treated 3·5 million more cases than were treated during the last year of the Labour Government.
    Mr. Latham: In making these financial decisions, is my right hon. and learned Friend trying to persuade his Department away from the idea that all mothers-to-be must have their babies born in central areas? Maternity units are extremely important in rural areas.
    Mr. Clarke: A great deal of clinical advice is that it is safer to have babies born where there is ready access to emergency provisions. However, the atmosphere in many small maternity units is much preferred by mothers-to-be and their families. Therefore, we try to balance those two considerations when difficult cases come before Ministers.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that the most recent Health Service workers' settlement has left the West Cumberland health district with a bill of £175,000 to pay? The only way that it can find the money is by cutting back on the maintenance of hospital buildings. Does the Minister agree that that is a false economy? Is not the only solution to the problem for the Government next year to provide our health district with additional moneys to secure the future of our hospital?
    Mr. Clarke: With respect, the hon. Gentleman's health district and others were provided with substantial extra funds to cover the additional cost of the pay settlement. The Government met about 80 per cent. of it by increasing cash limits. That leaves a contribution to be made in other ways. However, all local authorities are identifying cost improvement programmes and ways of increasing their efficiency, and the sums being saved by eliminating waste and improving performance easily cover any additional cost of the pay settlement and also provide for growth in patient services. I do not know enough about the details of West Cumbria, but I hope that none of our districts is resorting to false economies when real ones can be made.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister aware that under the Government's policy on the National Health Service, which he calls expansion, 193 hospitals have been closed and only 35 opened? If that is expansion, will he confirm
    772
    that next year there will be a contraction when, for the first time, he forces health authorities to cover the full cost of pay rises above 3 per cent. for Health Service workers? Does he expect Health Service workers, who are among the lowest paid, to subsidise the NHS by taking a real pay cut when thousands of rich people are being given massive tax handouts?
    Mr. Clarke: We should all bear in mind the strictures of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) about the figures that we use. The figures for hospitals opening and closing are amongst the silliest which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) ever uses. He knows that we close small, old hospitals and open bigger new hospitals. The total number of new beds provided under this Government is almost equal to that of the total number of beds lost from the older hospitals. What is more important—as patients' stay in hospital are shorter—is that we treat more patients. The Health Service is not in the business of conserving buildings or providing empty beds; it is for treating patients, and 3½ million more patients each year are being treated than before. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about next year's pay settlement. We plan for a cash increase of 5½ per cent. on top of this year's health spending. Out of that, of course the Health Service has to find its pay costs, just as every other major service has to.

    Computers
    Mr. Franksasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what initiatives are being taken by his Department to promote the greater use of computers to help general practitioners.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We are evaluating the use of microcomputers by 140 GPs in a scheme funded by my hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology. The study is looking at the benefits of computers in patient care and practice management, and its results— to be published late next year— will show how useful computers really are to GPs. We are also preparing a factual report on about 20 different GP computer systems to help GPs who are interested in computers to make an informed choice.
    Mr. Franks: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Does he accept that the pooling of computerised information about patients suffering from diseases such as cancer and multiple sclerosis will speed up tremendously the research into a cure for those diseases? Will he consider making capital grants available for that specific purpose?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is one of the great potential advantages of computerising general practice. We are not, of course, inhibiting GPs' choice of computers, but it would be helpful if all the systems were compatible so that we could examine the choice. We have already made substantial capital funds available to the scheme which I described— the so-called "Micros for GPs Scheme" funded by the Department of Trade and Industry. We shall consider further ways of encouraging the worthwhile spread of computers.
    Mr. Dobson: All that said, will the Minister confirm that the DHSS reimburses GPs for work on manual card index systems but does not reimburse them if they want to buy a computer?
    Mr. Clarke: That is an extremely simplified version of the system, and I shall not give a long and elaborate one. GPs are partly reimbursed through the present expenses system for buying computers. We do not reimburse them in full. We must leave the GPs to make some judgments of their own about how much a computer is worth to their practices.

    Death Grant
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce measures to raise the death grant to at least £300; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Newton: We have been continuing to give consideration to our policy towards the death grant in the light of the response to the consultative document published in March 1982, which revealed no clear public consensus. This consideration will now be carried forward within the context of the wider re-examination of social security which my right hon. Friend has set in hand.
    Mr. Skinner: Is it not a fact that if the £30 death grant had been uprated in the same way as the Government are keen to uprate supplementary benefits to attack strikers, it would have gone up to something well over £300 in real terms? Will he also bear in mind that on 5 February 1982 when my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) brought in a Bill which was talked out by the Government, one of those hon. Members who took part in the campaign was made a Whip for his services in talking out the Bill? No consultation of any kind has been taken into account. If the Government can find £4,500 million to smash the NUM, why can they not find sufficient money to pay for a decent funeral?
    Mr. Newton: I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman has the nerve to accuse the rest of us of trying to talk out his question. To increase the death grant to the level that the hon. Gentleman suggests would take almost exactly the amount of money that would be required to do what one of his hon. Friends was urging earlier—to extend the long-term rate of supplementary benefit to the long-term unemployed with children. I know what my priority would be.
    Mr. Yeo: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is widespread support for a substantial increase in the death grant to restore its real value, but that it would be acceptable to have it means-tested so that those who died leaving even a relatively small capital sum would not be eligible for it?
    Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will not expect me to pre-empt the result of my hon. Friend's review in this respect any more than in any others, but he has made a sensible point.

    Wrightington Hospital (Children's Ward)
    Mr. Robert Atkinsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to be able to make a further statement about the proposed closure of the children's ward at Wrightington hospital.
    Mr. John Patten: As my hon. Friend knows, I have written to the regional health authority seeking certain assurances following his earlier representations. I shall write to him again shortly.
    Mr. Atkins: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Does he recognise that the decision about the proposed closure has taken a great deal of time, and that many people around the area are concerned about the future of this children's ward? Does he also recognise the importance of retaining the team together, so that the facility for treating children suffering from arthritis is maintained in the area?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend has been a powerful advocate of this cause, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover). I hope that my hon. Friend recognises, by the care that we have shown for this small group of children, that we care very much for those, however small in number, who are disadvantaged.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Alan Howarthasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that miners in Yorkshire are returning to work because, in their own words, they are ashamed of intimidation and sickened by violence? Should not that unequivocal condemnation of violence be endorsed by every hon. Member? Is not the refusal by the president of the National Union of Mineworkers to call off the violence a sign of the unscrupulous means which the Left is willing to use to get its own way?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, and it would be as well if violence were condemned by every member of the NUM and every member of the TUC, but the acid test—
    Mr. Skinner: Acid test?
    The Prime Minister: The acid test is whether the violence will be stopped. It could be stopped by the leadership of the NUM if it chose to do so. The other acid test is whether the TUC guidelines will be followed
    Mr. Hattersley: Has the Prime Minister had any discussion today about those Swiss and American bankers and brokers who are buying forward to obtain British Telecom shares, and offering 40 per cent. above the part issue price, even before the issue is closed? Can she give an estimate of how much will be lost to the Exchequer by this most recent example of the bungling of a flotation by her Government?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Exchequer will have its money by virtue of the underwriting. The right hon. Gentleman cannot stand the success of the British Telecom flotation.
    Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Lady either does not understand the law or is careless of its application. The practice that I have described is illegal, or would be illegal if it were operated by British speculators. Why does she condone, and even boast about, the practice, which would be illegal were it operated within the ambit of the British courts?
    The Prime Minister: If a practice is illegal in the British courts it is dealt with totally and utterly impartially, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware. I return to what I said. The right hon. Gentleman does not want more extensive share ownership and therefore he condemns the privatisation of BT.
    Mr. Nichollsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that disarmament talks are to be resumed is a complete vindication of the defence policies of the West? Is she therefore surprised that CND, at its latest annual conference, responded by refusing even to criticise the USSR, and in that way was simply pursuing policies which bring aid and comfort to this country's potential enemies?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the Soviet Union has been brought back to the negotiating table by NATO's firmness in implementing its dual track decision. I welcome the agreement to go back to the negotiating table and I hope that it will be successful. It would not be successful had we all gone for unilateral disarmament. I well remember Mr. Andropov's statement:
    "Let no one expect unilateral disarmament from us. We are not a naive people."
    Dr. Owen: Does the Prime Minister recall the 1950 election manifesto on which she first fought? Does she remember the words:
    "We regard the maintenance of full employment as the first aim of a Conservative Government."?
    Does she still subscribe to those words? If she did, would she not be better placed to speak for the majority of the British people?
    The Prime Minister: Governments should do everything that they possibly can to achieve the financial framework to maximise employment in Britain. At the same time, they must see that industries keep abreast of technological advance, as this Government are doing, and not extinguish the very enterprise from which jobs will come. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have the same policy. He usually tries to imitate Conservative Governments.
    Mr. Allen McKayasked the Prime Minister if she will list her offical engagements for Tuesday 27 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McKay: Does the Prime Minister realise that her utterances and those of her right hon. and hon. Friends on the coal industry dispute, this most damaging of disputes, are, to say the least, less helpful than they could be? Does she not realise that instead of dividing and being divisive she should now use her power and influence to bring the people to the negotiating table? In addition, in the interests
    776
    of the mining communities, will she set in motion a public inquiry into events on the picket lines? In short, will she act like a Prime Minister and a leader, or does she just not care?
    The Prime Minister: I think that I probably care more about the future of the coal industry than many of those in the leadership of the NUM. There are very good jobs available for miners if they wish to return to work. It is the leadership of the NUM which, without consulting the miners, is deliberately making them suffer privations, and making some of them suffer violence and intimidation, which has totally and utterly split the NUM. That is the fault of the leadership of the NUM.
    Viscount Cranborne: During the course of her busy day, will my right hon. Friend take time to consider the proposition that to cut the overseas services of the BBC is as short-sighted as the threat to cut the Endurance before the Falklands war?
    The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. I believe that all organisations, including the external services of the BBC, have a duty to get full value for money and to run their services efficiently. I believe that that is what my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has seen to it will happen.
    Mr. Winnick: In view of the attack on the Government's economic policies last week by the Secretary of State for Energy, is it not surprising that he should wish to remain one of her Ministers? Or does the Prime Minister believe, as many hon. Members do, that the right hon. Gentleman likes office far too much to act on his supposed convictions over the misery of mass unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: I have my right hon. Friend's speech with me. Will the hon. Gentleman say precisely what he regards as an attack on the Government? I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have read the speech.
    Mr. Marlowasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend scotch the silly rumour which has appeared in today's press and elsewhere that the Government are intent on attacking Conservative families by in some way taxing or means-testing child benefit? Does she not agree that, though it may be well merited to give more money to the poorest families in society, the best source of those funds is not the remainder of the family sector?
    The Prime Minister: There are many rumours about. I cannot say what will be the result of the four inquiries which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is conducting. There are many rumours about, directed at trying to stop the very things that those inquiries are trying to consider, to ensure justice both for the taxpayer and for those in receipt of social security benefit. We are determined to conduct those inquiries well and thoroughly, and the results will be brought before the House in due time.
    Mr. Maginnis: In the light of the tragic death today of Deputy High Commissioner Norris in Bombay and the alltoo-frequent acts of terrorism from which we all suffer,

    777
    would it not be intolerable if Yasser Arafat were allowed to visit the United Kingdom? Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that he will not be granted a visa to do so?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there will be a statement after Question Time on the assassination in Bombay. However, I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in expressing our deepest sympathy for the widow and family of Mr. Percy Norris, our deputy high commissioner, who died as a result of this morning's tragedy.
    As far as I am aware, no application for a visa for Mr. Arafat has yet been received, but if one is received it will be considered in the normal way.
    Mr. Jannerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentlemen to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Janner: Will the Prime Minister please consider the anxiety and problems caused to local authorities by the transport of Chevaline and other nuclear missiles through their areas without prior warning having been given to the police or fire authorities? In view of the persistent refusal of Ministers to give the House any reassurances whatever, will she personally inquire into the matter, with particular regard to what would happen in the horrific event of an accident?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the decision to go ahead with the Chevaline modernisation of Polaris was confirmed by the Labour Government, so he cannot be against the modernisation of Polaris. From his question, I understand that he is not against necessary movements, but only against them being made without warning having been given to the local police. I shall inquire about the matter that he has raised.
    Mr. George Gardinerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gardiner: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of her colleagues on her perceptive analysis last night of the danger facing democracy in this country? When she is able to return to her theme of the Fascist Left, will she point out that the vicious intimidation of miners, their wives and children has seen no equal since Oswald Mosley's blackshirts brought fear to the homes of Jews throughout the East End?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that the intimidation and violence that we have seen is a blot on the face of Britain and has done our reputation abroad and our trade untold damage. I sometimes wonder whether that is the object of the Labour party, which supports the strike.
    Mr. Ashtonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ashton: Will the Prime Minister find time today to tell us when she last visited Moscow and negotiated a nuclear arms reduction with the Russians?
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to what Mr. Andropov said—I would not be so naive.

    Portsoy
    Mr. McQuarrieasked the Pime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Portsoy.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. McQuarrie: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will join the rest of the House in agreeing that the communiqu? issued this morning in Brussels with regard to the lifting of restrictions against the people of Gibraltar—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has asked the wrong supplementary question, as his main question refers to Portsoy.

    Engagements
    Mr. Bill Walkerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Walker: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is naive indeed to imagine that because people say that their missiles are not targeted on a certain country they cannot then be retargeted at short notice? Consequently, is not an agreement on such lines meaningless and worthless?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that such an agreement is totally worthless. I understand that a similar offer was made in 1978.
    Mr. Frank Cook: In her recent statement at the Guildhall the Prime Minister said clearly that the good work, loyalty and allegiance of the miners would not be forgotten. Will she take the opportunity this afternoon to give a similar assurance about the good work, loyalty and allegiance displayed by those men and women who, 30 or 35 years ago, offered good work, loyalty and allegiance on Monte Bello, Maralinga, Christmas and Malden Islands? If she will give that assurance, will she tell us clearly in what way it will be manifested?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that this Government never forget the good work of those who have served their country well and truly. I cannot be more specific than that.

Deputy High Commissioner, Bombay (Assassination)
3.32 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Richard Luce): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the murder of our Deputy High Commissioner in Bombay.
Shortly before 0800 local time, or 0230 GMT, three shots were fired at our Deputy High Commissioner in Bombay, Percy Norris, on his way to his office. He was hit in the temple and the heart, and died in hospital at about 0845 local time. I am sure that the whole House will wish to register its deepest sympathy for and condolences to Mrs. Norris and her family.
We understand that no one has yet claimed responsibility for this cowardly and senseless murder. The House will be aware of reports that a man of European appearance was observed on the scene at the time of the killing, but I must emphasise that it is premature to speculate on who may have been responsible or what their motive may have been. The Indian police are making every effort to capture the assailant and are co-operating closely with our High Commission.
Upon learning of the assassination, the Indian Government immediately provided extra security for British diplomatic premises, including British Council offices. The Indian Prime Minister, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, has expressed his deep distress at the tragedy and his condolences to Mr. Norris's family in a message to the Prime Minister.
Security arrangements for British officials serving overseas are a high priority and are kept under constant review in the light of the known threat. We take this matter very seriously. The House will forgive me if I cannot go into details, for obvious reasons. I can, however, say that the security of our Deputy High Commission in Bombay was inspected last year, and the recommendations have been carried out. More recently, the Indian authorities agreed to provide additional measures of their own. But I emphasise that it is not possible for diplomats, any more than politicians, to carry out their functions properly and to be assured of absolute security at all times.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has said, this appalling crime demonstrates once again the danger faced by members of the Diplomatic Service, along with others in public life, from acts of terrorism around the world, which we all strongly condemn.
Mr. George Robertson: The whole House shares the sense of horror and outrage at the brutal and senseless assassination of Mr. Percy Norris. I associate the Opposition with the sincere condolences expressed to Mrs. Norris and her family. This desperate murder underlines the increasing dangers faced by our diplomats, even in friendly countries. It should remind us all that security for our missions and representatives overseas must be appropriately tight.
It is suggested that there might be a connection between the murder and the press coverage in Britain of celebrations in Southall after Mrs. Gandhi's death. Have the Indian people been made sufficiently aware of the fact that such reports are the sign of a free press and not an endorsement of such behaviour by the British people?
780
Is the Minister satisfied that the protection of our missions from possible terrorist threats will not be in any way compromised by any cut in the Foreign Office budget? Will the Minister make it clear that no terrorists, whether here in Britain or abroad, will persuade this country and its Parliament to alter their friendship and long-standing links with the people of India?
Mr. Luce: I am sure that Mr. Norris's family will be extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the condolences he has expressed. Whatever the adjustments in the expenditure of the Foreign Office, which were announced last week, security remains the highest possible priority. Expenditure on security for the protection of diplomats in various parts of the world has increased considerably during the past few months and years, and, as far as we can see, that expenditure will continue to increase, because there are special dangers to diplomats in various parts of the world.
On the question of the views on Mrs. Gandhi's assassination which have been expressed in this country both in the press and by, I think, a tiny minority of Sikhs, I believe that the Government and people of India will be in no doubt of the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am sure that her statements echo the views of the majority of people in this country. Those who have been rejoicing at Mrs. Gandhi's death are only a tiny minority. We utterly and totally condemn those views.
There was at Mrs. Gandhi's funeral the strongest possible demonstration on behalf of all hon. Members of the great friendship between this country and the people of India. The Indian authorities have reacted solidly and sharply to the serious incident that took place this morning.
Sir Peter Blaker: Conservative Members wish to be associated with my hon. Friend's expressions of sympathy to Mr. Norris's family and his tribute to the foreign service in the risks its officers run in carrying out their duties. Is the House right in interpreting my hon. Friend's answer to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) as an assurance that, whatever the security measures deemed to be necessary, they will not be constrained by cost considerations anywhere in the world where they are required?
Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. I give him a strong assurance that the highest possible priority will be given to the security of our diplomats in whatever part of the world they may be.
Mr. James Callaghan: I wish to associate myself with the expressions of shock at the criminal murder of Mr. Percy Norris. Only three weeks ago, on the day of Mrs. Gandhi's assassination, I arrived in Bombay to be met by Mr. Percy Norris and his wife. They assured me and took immediate care of my security and safety. They regarded themselves as being responsible for my safety until the time I left. Mr. Norris was a most unassuming and capable officer. Mr. and Mrs. Norris had arrived in Bombay shortly before my visit. They were both looking forward eagerly to serving this country in India, as they did. Mrs. Norris especially told me of her enthusiasm for her new task. I and I am sure the whole House would like to express our deep regret and sorrow to Mrs. Norris. I hope that she will be given strength during this period of trial.

781
I should like also to express our sympathy to Mr. Norris's driver, who had driven Mr. Norris and his predecessors for 20 years. I express also sympathy to the staff of the Deputy High Commissioner to whom Mr. Norris's death must have come as a great shock.
Mr. Luce: I am sure that Mrs. Norris and her family and the whole Diplomatic Service will be moved by the right hon. Gentleman's tribute and will be grateful to him.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: I associate myself with the tributes paid to the Norris family. Does not this sad episode illustrate the dangers to which the foreign service officials are exposed and give the lie to the stories of diplomatic lassitude and luxury which some newspapers attempt to spread? Was Bombay considered to be a dangerous posting?
Mr. Luce: People are becoming increasingly aware of the difficulties and dangers that many diplomats face in some parts of the world. We remember the recent serious incident involving the British ambassador in Beirut.
The Indian authorities and ourselves have kept in close touch about any security threat. We believe that we were as aware as we could be, following the regular assessments, and I can add nothing more about that.
Dr. David Owen: Liberal and SDP Members extend their sympathy to the wife of Mr. Norris and to the Diplomatic Service, which must be grieving at the loss of a dedicated servant. Does the Minister agree that, despite that loss and the feelings aroused in the House, nothing must be said or done to call into question or doubt the capacity of India to pull together and to survive the shattering blow that it has recently experienced? Above all, nothing should be said in this country to cause any suspicion in India that we have anything but confidence in the Indian Government and people to overcome the problems of sectarian violence and religious and other rivalries and disputes. Despite our loss, that must be the main feeling coming out of the House.
Mr. Luce: I am sure that the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman are those of the vast majority of hon. Members and of the British people. After this morning's tragedy, the Indian authorities extended to us the utmost co-operation in seeking out the assailants.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: As one who, like you, Mr. Speaker, holds Indo-British relations dear, may I be associated with the sentiments that have been expressed? Will my hon. Friend take pains to ensure that no inflammatory statements are made by members of Indian minorities in this country, because if such statements are relayed to India they may cause grievous
782
problems and perhaps put British lives at risk? I accept what my hon. Friend said about security, but does he agree that, although expenditure on security has been increased, the nature of the threat has increased many times more?
Mr. Luce: I assure my hon. Friend that we constantly review and monitor the threat to our diplomats in all parts of the world, and will continue to do so.
On my hon. Friend's first question, all that I can do is to express the hope that no members of the British community will express views that will exacerbate the tensions that exist following the assassination of Mrs. Gandhi and this morning's tragic murder. I am sure that what my hon. Friend has said is an appeal which can go out from the House to the British people.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: In the light of the tragic and ghastly murder this morning, and in view of the understandable need to increase expenditure on security measures in defence of our staffs abroad, was not the Foreign Secretary's statement on the Foreign Office budget the other day all the more deplorable?
Mr. Luce: No. I have already made it plain in answer to an earlier question that the adjustments to the budget that were announced last week will have no effect on the priority that we give to security. I stress again that expenditure on security has increased, is increasing and, as long as we think it necessary, will continue to increase.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation from this country was received in Bombay two years ago with tremendous warmth and friendship? We should be in no doubt that this shocking and dreadful atrocity does not reflect the views of most people in Bombay or in the rest of India.
Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that the horror that has occurred is as shocking for the people of Bombay and India as it is for us.
Mr. Mark Hughes: We welcome the fact that security is to be extended to British Council activities in India, but how is it to be paid for when the budget has been reduced?
Mr. Luce: The security of British Council and, obviously, of diplomatic premises is the responsibility of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That remains the case.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard to the succeeding business. It is an Opposition Day and I have a large number of applications to take part in the debate.

HMS Conqueror (Officer's Diary)
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your help in relation to the somewhat surprising referral to the Director of Public Prosecutions of the publication in The Observer of the diary of a naval officer of HMS Conqueror. As I have here a copy of that same diary, which I have used in relation to questions in the House and public statements, can you advise me whether I am also liable to be referred to the DPP, or whether I am immune as a Member of the House?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows that it has never been the practice of the Chair to give advice to hon. Members from the Chair. If the hon. Member will write to me about the matter, I shall look into it and see what I can do to help him.
Mr. Foulkes: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. My question relates to the responsibility, which you take very seriously, of protecting the interests of Members. As the diary was published some months ago in The Guardian and elsewhere, there is a suspicion that the action has been taken now deliberately to gag Members of this House. Can you help us in relation to that?
Mr. Speaker: This is the first that I have heard about the hon. Member having a copy of the diary. As I have just said to him, if he will write to me and let me have a look at this, I shall gladly do so and see what I can do to help him.

SUPPLY
[4TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered
SUPPLY

  Natural Environment and National Heritage
  3.47 pm
  Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move,
  That this House recognises the widespread concern about the alarming deterioration of the natural environment; supports the conclusions of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission, and the National Heritage Memorial Fund, together with numerous voluntary organisations, which call for urgent legislation, greater government involvement and funding in order to protect the natural environment and national heritage; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to respond immediately with action and legislation.
  The motion is based not simply on the views and conclusions of the Labour party but on a wide-ranging collection of views and conclusions of statutory bodies, Select Committees of this House and of another place, non-governmental organisations and interest groups which reflect and represent the views of millions of people in Britain. Their conclusions, like ours, are based on a massive burden of well-documented evidence which has been accumulated in some cases in spite of official commercial and industrial attempts to prevent its disclosure.
  We have provided time for the debate because of the seriousness of the many threats to our environment and heritage and because of the continued feet-dragging reluctance of the Government to respond adequately to the scale and nature of those threats.
  The Government are failing at national and international level to match up to the challenge. While it is clear and agreed that only co-ordinated international action can succeed in tackling, for example, questions of world poverty, acid rain and the law of the sea, the Conservative Government display mean-minded narrowness of vision in the face of mounting criticism and pressure for action.
  In 1983 alone, 15 million children died in the developing world as a consequence of hunger and malnutrition. It was as if the combined under-five populations of Britain, France, Italy, Spain and the Federal Republic of Germany had been wiped out in a single year. Yet, faced with a crisis in Ethiopia, likely to be repeated in Chad and elsewhere, the Government cut overseas aid.
  After years of negotiation, discussion and debate on the law of the sea at the United Nations, Britain displays a dog-in-the-manger attitude to overwhelming international opinion, and hangs on to the coat-tails of President Reagan and American industrial lobbies. Will the Minister tell the House of the Government's intentions with respect to the convention? We believe that Britain should sign for a variety of well documented and very important reasons. The closing date is 9 December 1984, and the House is entitled to know what the Governmen intend to do.
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: What has this to do with the motion?
  Dr. Cunningham: We in the Labour party want action on national and international levels: that is what it has to do with the motion, if the hon. Gentleman is interested.

  785
  We want policy initiatives and action to be taken through five general areas. National and international intervention in development is essential. A free market economy does not work to protect the environment. We must tackle the institutions, Government Departments and public bodies and establish a freedom of information Act. A major review of the operations and environmental impact of all energy industries, particularly the nuclear industry, is essential. We must act with more urgency and vigour to protect the countryside from the increasingly malign impact of agriculture. The Government should review the industrial opportunities arising from environmental protection policies and devise a strategy to protect British industry and create jobs.
  Of course, action to protect, sustain and enhance the environment poses a fundamental dilemma for Conservatives, particularly those who have nailed their reputations to a market forces view of the world. Environmental protection, conservation and pollution prevention and control demand intervention. This is a major difference between the Conservative Government and the Labour party. We believe that without intervention in economic and industrial development, without proper systematic planning and control over the use of resources, land, water, energy and the marine environment, the problems of environmental and ecological damage are unlikely to be arrested, let alone eliminated.
  For us in the Labour party, that argument has always been a tenet of our approach at national and international level. It is nowhere more apposite than in dealing with environmental policy. The very history of industrialisation should be the only lesson from which we need to learn, that market forces are no respecters of resource use or the environment. Surely it is ironic, particularly for Conservative Members, that the common agricultural policy, responsible as it is for such major threats to the countryside, should benefit from massive intervention while the pan-European problems of acidification do not apparently qualify for such an approach.
  The development of ecology as a science of man and nature has done and will continue to do us all a massive service if we heed the lessons and note the warnings. However, I do not agree, nor does the Labour party accept, that we can or should abandon development either for ourselves or for the developing world. Improved economic performance is, on the contrary, a prerequisite to the solution of the problems that we face. To argue otherwise is simply to betray millions of people, to condemn them to squalor, poverty, disease, malnutrition, ignorance, illiteracy and death.
  The Labour party in government would bring new urgency to the problems of urban renewal, especially in the inner cities and conurbations, new housing, refurbishment programmes, clearance of dereliction and, most important, the freedom for local authorities to get on with the job. That would ease pressures on land and help to protect the green belt. We are committed to greater support for public transport, the development of which would make a significant contribution to reducing pollution and congestion.
  Energy conservation policy should be upgraded and given a new sense of purpose. The energy industries are massive consumers of land, financial resources and raw materials. On taking office, the Government abandoned energy conservation policy, and energy supply industries continue to dominate thinking about energy policy and its
  786
  pollution consequences. Energy consumption must be systematically examined and, where possible, reduced so as to conserve resources and to improve energy productivity in order to reduce consumer costs.
  I believe that opposition to a new environment policy is institutionalised in this country in Government Departments, public bodies, business and commerce. We must tackle the institutions and public bodies. Every aspect of public policy should have a planned environmental conservation input from the outset. In conjunction with this, we require a freedom of information Act in the public interest so that the fullest possible debate on the facts can take place.
  The Department of the Environment should be strengthened. I take this opportunity to express our great regret at the Secretary of State's unfortunate accident and to wish him a speedy and complete recovery. The Department should be strengthened in terms of personnel and upgraded in terms of governmental influence. The damage caused by staff cuts in the Department must be reversed. The Department of the Environment seems to have become entirely defensive about its role and responsibilities in environmental protection and is being driven by EEC legislation. We want Britain to take initiatives and to lead the case for improved environment policies, but the Department of the Environment seems singularly unable to deal with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on anything like equal terms. The closing of the National Water Council and the exclusion of the public and press from the meetings of regional water authorities were retrograde and regrettable actions by the Conservative Administration. There is also scope for major improvements in the operations of the National Coal Board, the Central Electricity Generating Board and the oil and nuclear industries.
  The Government have been laggard in their approach to the problems of acid rain so seriously spotlighted by the tenth report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution. It is not good enough to hide behind research and the need for concentrated international action, important though that is. It is estimated that 80 per cent. of acid precipitation in Britain is generated here, so it is a self-inflicted wound. We support the commissioning of a full national survey of the impact of this, more promotion of fluidised bed combustion systems, more action on the scrubbing of flue gases and a target date for significant real reductions in emissions rather than reductions resulting from the decline of our industrial economy.
  In the civil nuclear industry we call for the abandonment of the operation of the Official Secrets Acts so as to facilitate more open debate. We also require a target date for an end to nuclear discharges into the marine environment with a step-by-step reduction in discharge authorisation until that target is reached. I have asked Ministers about this before, but it is clear that they cannot define in any sensible terms what the principle of ALARA is supposed to be. The Department has declined to give me a definition in the House. In reality, the principle is meaningless.
  We also want a restriction of the personnel involved in NIREX and in the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee and the inclusion of more representation of trade unions, elected local authority members and environmental organisations. We seek a complete review of their proposals and a reconsideration of the financing of major national public inquiries on this

  787
  and other issues of contention. In addition, the boards of all public bodies involved in civil nuclear power should be strengthened by the inclusion of a director with specific responsibilities for environmental policy matters.
  I represent an area in which the nuclear industry operates and I well understand the public concern about that industry. I believe that our proposals are the minimum required to ensure that the development of nuclear power does not outstrip public acceptance and understanding of what is involved.
  In addition, the Government should abandon the NIREX proposals to store waste at Billingham and Elston, and institute a complete review of waste disposal policy, including dumping at sea, about which I understand the Holliday committee is shortly to report. We should return to the policy of the Labour Government's 1977 White Paper on nuclear power and the environment, and ensure that the creation of wastes from nuclear activity is minimised— great pressure should be brought on the industry to bring that about—that waste management problems are resolved before any major expansion of nuclear power is undertaken, and that the handling and treatment of waste should be carried out with due regard to environmental circumstances. However, I have no doubt, nor does the Labour party conference, that the nuclear generation of electricity is here to stay and will always form part of any national energy policy.
  The Government suffered an embarrasing defeat on their green belt proposals and are now trying to circumvent their promises to the House and to many of their own supporters. That is evident from the approach to the county of Avon's structure plan, where the Secretary of State proposes housing expansion in areas expressly rejected by the council, in its planning strategy. That is a serious example of an attempt by the Government to get out of their promises to the House.
  By comparison with the energy industries, and historically, agriculture has always been presented environmentally as a benign industry. That is not true in the modern world. We must take action to halt the overuse and abuse of pesticides and fetilisers. Damage being done to flora and fauna, topsoil and water courses is serious and increasing.
  The physical destruction of heaths, moorland, marshes, meadows, wetlands, deciduous woods, hedgerows and sites of special scientific interest should simply be halted. To quote the 1983 annual report of the Nature Conservancy Council again:
  "There is just about enough habitat left to ensure continuity of Britain's wild plants and animals—if it is conserved. The danger is that, if it is not wholeheartedly protected now, in ten years time it will be too late."
  The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 has failed and cannot combat the massive and often malign impact of the common agricultural policy of the British countryside. We regret and condemn the Government's failure to take advantage of our repeated offers to facilitate a Bill to amend that Act, and to provide Government time to do so. A private Member's Bill is simply not an adequate substitute for proper Government action.
  On the protection of the landscape, the Wildlife and Countryside Act never really got off the ground, because it was grafted on to a system of Government policies and financial instruments working in the opposite direction
  788
  —against conservation rather than for it. The Government's proposed conservation amendment to the EEC's agriculture structures regulations would cover, at most, only 4 per cent. of the countryside. It is an insufficient response to the call of environmentalists of all parties for integration of environmental considerations into agriculture policy across the board.
  First, the Act cannot succeed unless it forms part of a wider reform of agriculture policy, as well as being fundamentally amended itself. In the latter respect, the Government's intention to close the three-month loophole is not sufficient.
  Secondly, another serious weakness in the arrangements to protect landscapes and the wider countryside is the absence of any requirement for farmers outside national parks and sites of special scientific interest to get prior approval for operations subsidised by the Ministry of Agriculture. The Act should be amended now so that the pre-notification arrangements currently applying in national parks should be extended to cover the country as a whole, and especially areas designated as areas of outstanding natural beauty.
  Thirdly, if conservation policies are to have any effect in the countryside, there must be a realistic system of reserve back-up controls and order-making powers to be operated by local authorities. The most damning indictment of the Act's failure is that at least 245 SSIs have been damaged or destroyed since the Act was passed. Although the Government have offered to close the loopholes in sections 28 and 29, the fact remains that a maximum of 15 SSIs and proposed sites have been damaged or destroyed because of those loopholes. In other words, 230 sites have had their conservation interest damaged, diminished or wiped out because of other weaknesses in the Act. Similar losses will be prevented only if the emphasis on voluntary restraint is replaced by effective control. The Nature Conservancy Council and the national park authorities must have some effective stop order allowing them to prevent damaging developments from occurring on nationally important sites.
  Mr. W. Benyon: On what information does the hon. Gentleman base the charge about the number of SSSIs being destroyed? The figure is questioned strongly in certain quarters, where it is believed that it is totally inaccurate.
  Dr. Cunningham: My figure is based on published information.
  The compensation system on which the Act's protective mechanisms are based has rightly come in for a great deal of criticism from many quarters, including the Back Benches on both sides of the House. While some form of compensation is necessary, and the idea is supported by most parties, it cannot be right that there is no discretionary element in payment, that agricultural subsidies are included in the payments for profits lost, and that landowners can get compensation simply by threatening to destroy a site. It would be perfectly possible to make compensation payments discretionary in the same way as agricultural capital grants are discretionary now, and for the agricultural subsidy element to be removed from compensation calculations.
  For effective conservation in the countryside, it is essential to encourage farmers to look after the natural features of their land. We therefore advocate the changes

  789
  in the compensation system that I have outlined. Money should go to farmers who need it rather than to those who are in a position to demand it, and the Ministry of Agriculture capital grant aid rules should be changed so that payments are available for farmers who carry out positive conservation work such as coppicing broadleaved woodlands, clearing bracken and scrub, managing water courses with conservation in mind, dry stone walling—all these are matters with which I am familiar in Copeland— maintaining hedgerows with conservation in mind, and fencing in order to allow natural regeneration.
  The land drainage activities undertaken by water authorities and internal drainage boards have been among the most controversial conservation issues of the past five years, for four reasons. Land drainage operations threaten some of England's finest remaining wetland landscapes, including Halvergate marshes and other marshes throughout the Norfolk broads and the Somerset levels. The principal justification for the operations is agricultural production— usually of cereals, which are in surplus anyway.
  The economic justifications used in support of these schemes for obtaining grant aid from the Ministry of up to 50 per cent. of the cost have never been disclosed, despite repeated requests by conservationists and hon. Members to see any cost-benefit analyses supporting the schemes. The water authorities and the Ministry have always refused to publish the information.
  The new duty laid on water authorities and internal drainage boards by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to
  "further conservation of landscapes and wildlife in their drainage operations"
  has made no noticeable difference in the number and type of schemes being brought forward. What precisely did the Government mean or intend when they referred in the Act to "further conservation"?
  These are specific criticisms of the Government's record on these issues and two further points are worth making. The Government announced in 1982 their intention to undertake a review of land drainage. The interdepartmental review was referred to extensively in the House of Lords debate on 8 March 1983 which is reported in Hansard from column 131. At column 139 Lord Skelmersdale said on behalf of the Government that the discussion paper would be published "shortly." That was 20 months ago and we are still waiting. In June 1984, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave assurances that the review would be published in the summer of 1984. That was recorded in Hansard for 7 June at column 429. The review has still not appeared. The delay in its publication has not been explained and meanwhile precious wetland landscapes and wildlife sites are being threatened.
  The Government's Food and Environment Protection Bill has been strongly criticised as avoiding key issues such as the disclosure of information, control of spray drift in aerial spraying and warning labels on food. Again the proposals lack bite and determination to control the abuse of pesticides which is crucial to wildlife and plant life.
  At most, sites of special scientific interest will protect less than 10 per cent. of the British countryside. Much wildlife lives outside them and, even in the latter, maintenance of populations of many birds depends on there being healthy populations elsewhere. For most people, contact with wildlife and enjoyment of the
  790
  countryside depend not on designated sites but on ordinary countryside areas. Agriculture and forestry occupy 89 per cent. of Britain and are the two most significant activities that affect the countryside and its wildlife. Their postwar impact has been enormous and, for some habitats and species, simply catastrophic. "Nature Conservation in Britain", which is published, by the Nature Conservancy Council, quantifies the losses—95 per cent. of lowland herb-rich hay meadows, 80 per cent. of chalk and limestone grassland, 40 per cent. of lowland heath, 30 to 50 per cent. of ancient woods and about 50 per cent. of marshland. Unquantified but equally tragic has been the loss of wildlife from farms and woodland due not to the destruction of habitat but to the use of pesticides and cropping systems that are inimical to their survival.
  There are many other important issues. The Royal Commission was right to have doubts about the Government's intentions about implementation by 1986 of part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. As I have said before, the Minister should make a clear statement of intent on this matter. The cost of acting to control pollution is often raised, but such investment frequently results in economic gain, market opportunities and creation of jobs, as NEI Engineering has recently made clear in a note which was sent to hon. Members. The dumping of waste at sea, the slow-down in public investment in sewage treatment and the transport across national boundaries of toxic wastes all need urgent attention. A new working relationship between the Government, local government and voluntary bodies should be established to develop momentum on environmental protection. Ironically, in this as in other matters, abolition of the metropolitan counties will be a backward step because they have taken a lead on issues such as green belt policy, land reclamation and archaeology, to name but three important topics in the conservation debate.
  The impact of people on their environment is increasing and will continue to increase as mobility and demand for sport, recreation and leisure increase. They will continue to grow, as will pressure on the countryside in and outside national parks. Government funding of the development of sport and leisure facilities must be increased to take account of that and to prevent the over-use and damage that result from too many people having too little access to the areas and facilities that they require.
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: No., I am coming to the end of my speech.
  I should like to quote from the Nature Conservancy Council's 1980 annual report. It says:
  "The next 18 months could well determine the future for nature conservation in many parts of the country. There are at least some glimmers of hope in the greater public awareness and an Act of Parliament which with minor amendment must bring great benefits. The greatest imponderable of all, however, remains whether the financial structures of agriculture can be reformed in a way that befriends nature conservation. Until this happens we remain gravely concerned and there is little time to set matters right."
  There is no evidence that the Government have the will, the sense of urgency or the determination to tackle, let alone resolve, these problems. That is why we shall be voting on these issues tonight.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "recognises the care and attention paid by Her Majesty's Government to the natural environment and the national heritage; pays tribute to the good progress made by the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission and the National Heritage Memorial Fund; approves of the encouragement given to the many voluntary agencies in these areas; and notes the increased resources Her Majesty's Government propose to devote to protecting the environment and the heritage in 1985–86."
  We wholeheartedly welcome the debate. The Opposition have rather helpfully allowed us half of one of their days to focus on two areas of policy on which the Government's record is excellent and to which the Labour party's contribution, with, of course, some honourable exceptions in the case of a handful of Back Benchers, is rather pitiful. It was the late Anthony Crosland who said that Labour was:
  "glaringly weak on the environment, in which the National Executive Committee appears to take no interest".
  Nothing has changed and I can only sympathise with the view of the poor old Bury, North constituency Labour party that
  "Conference views with concern the public ignorance of the ecological commitment of the Labour Party".
  I am afraid that, in spite of the eloquent speech made by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the public will be none the wiser. All we have heard today is an ancient and familiar political sound—the noise of a skilful politician climbing on a bandwagon. The Opposition motion is one of the worst drafted that I have ever seen put before the House.
  Dr. Cunningham rose—
  Mr. Waldegrave: You have had your speech, Jack.
  Hon. Members: Disgraceful.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I associate Christian names with friendliness.
  Dr. Cunningham rose—
  Mr. Waldegrave: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as he has reduced the debate to a personal level and says that we are trying to climb on a bandwagon. Perhaps I might refer him to a letter that is being circulated by two Conservative Members and which was sent to Opposition Members today. It concerns a bypass in Devon and says:
  "We believe this attempt to gag environmental organisations could do damage to our future relations with such groups and could certainly affect our attempt to strengthen the green image which our Party has been at pains to develop."
  Who is jumping on bandwagons?
  Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman's intervention explains why I shall not give way to him again—it was rather feeble. The motion is badly drafted. There is nothing in common between the various reports that have been produced by all of these bodies. The motion is simply a list of everyone the Labour party could think of.
  None the less, it would be churlish not to welcome the hon. Gentleman aboard. I am grateful for what he said
  792
  about my right hon. Friend, who I am sure would have been happy to welcome the hon. Gentleman on board in person. I extend that welcome to the small number of his colleagues who are present. The hon. Gentleman has reasonably good support on the Opposition Front Bench—the rival Front Bench has since departed—but the Government have attracted twice as many of their Back Benchers as the Labour party. That should not obscure the different approaches that our two parties adopt to this area of policy, as to others.
  The hon. Member for Copeland was perfectly fair when he said that the Labour party has a completely different approach. Our approach, both to the natural environment and to our artistic and cultural heritage—of which the hon. Gentleman said not a word— starts from the assumption that the role of the state, vital though it is, is in the end ancillary to that of the private citizen.
  Our beautiful countryside was the product not of state planners in the first place but of the million-fold decisions of private owners. The state certainly has a vital role as a moderator of change, conciliator and sometimes arbitrator of conflicting interests, and sometimes, in critical situations, as the deployer of long-stop powers. This is so in the two huge areas of the nation's life which we are now discussing. As much in the arts and the manmade heritage as in the natural environment, it is not state committees and bureaucracies that create things, but recalcitrant artists and individuals. The state must tread warily if it is not to extinguish the very pluralism and diversity that a healthy artistic culture needs.
  Labour is bound to start from the opposite position. Even from so moderate a spokesman as the hon. Member for Copeland, we cannot miss the wishful hankerings for even more state planning, state control, ministeries of culture, and all the rest. Therefore, the debate is timely if it reminds us that a Conservative Government are not, and should not be, simply in the business of an endless competition with the Opposition to see who can create the biggest and best state bureaucracies. Where the state should act, it should do so efficiently. It should deploy the right resources and listen to the best advice. These things we have done and will continue to do, but all that will be as nothing if the basic framework within which farmers and landowners in the countryside, and artists, architects, patrons and owners in our cultural life, go about their business is wrong.
  That is why our fundamental approach to countryside matters is based on a twofold reform of the framework within which farmers and conservationists live together. In fact, they are often the same people, as the huge growth of the fanning and wildlife advisory groups show.
  First, the Wildlife and Countryside Act establishes for the first time a system whereby we can show farmers and others that we are willing to put resources into conservation in the countryside and to accept that in certain important areas conservation is a valid objective of public policy alongside farming. Those who do not believe that any policy is sufficiently virile unless it deploys compulsion in all directions hope that the approach embodied in the Act will fail. Unfortunately, events have proved them wrong.
  Since the Act was passed we have seen the growth of a new consensus among farmers and conservationists, issuing in welcome policy statements from the National Farmers Union, and the Country Landowners Association as well as from the Nature Conservancy Council, the

  793
  Countryside Commission and others. The atmosphere has been transformed, and no one involved in conservation doubts it. The reason is crucially to do with the way in which it has been shown that, under the Act, conflicts can be resolved and agreement sought. It is absurd to hail the newly-emerging consensus on countryside matters and then deny that the most important Act for decades on the subject has not played a crucial role in the growth of that consensus. Of course it has.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), as well as some of the Minister's hon. Friends such as the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), spent 100 hours or more in Committee on the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Many of those on hours were spent discussing MAFF money in relation to conservation. After the time which has elapsed, will the Minister identify the amount of MAFF money that has gone into conservation, or is no such figure available?
  Mr. Waldegrave: The principal budgetary burden remains with my Department. It is right that it should do so. I shall shortly come on to ways in which we should seek to divert and direct CAP money into conservation objectives. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is an important objective.
  Mr. Peter Hardy rose—
  Mr. Waldegrave: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is an expert in these matters, but I must continue. The hon. Member for Copeland made quite a long speech and I do not want to take as long.
  Our critics said that we would not provide the resources or that they would be absurdly large or impossible to provide. To their irritation we have provided the money. There has been £7 million more this year for the Nature Conservancy Council, an increase of 45 per cent., and a 75 per cent. real increase since 1979. There will be a further £2 million for the Countryside Commission next year, a 23 per cent. increase since 1982–83. Here I pay tribute to William Wilkinson of the NCC and Sir Derek Barber of the Countryside Commission and their staffs who are making a reality of the policy we all want. I do not believe that sums such as this—£38 million between the two bodies— are absurdly large, given that they represent the commitment of this House and the Government to the conservation of the countryside and our natural habitats.
  I said that the Government's approach to the reconciliation of interests in the countryside had two aspects. The first is the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The second is the explicit attempt for the first time to put into EC law, with the agricultural structure directive amendment, powers to use CAP money for conservation objectives. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has taken this initiative in Brussels, and it has been widely welcomed by conservationists and farmers.
  The House might like to know that in support of this initiative I have raised the subject of the interaction of agriculture and the environment with Commissioner Narjes of the Environment Council, and I shall be tabling a memorandum at the next Council of Ministers meeting on 6 December to follow this through.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce rose—
  Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate my wishing to continue. The danger of such wide-ranging debates is that Ministers speak for far too long. My Department has so many relevant programmmes, domestic and international, about which I would be delighted to tell the House, but the patience of the House might not necessarily match my enthusiasm. I shall, for example, leave the general subject of water pollution to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, who has the whole matter well under control.
  Before I turn to the other great subject of the debate, which unfortunately slipped the attention of the hon. Member for Copeland, I should like to answer some of the specific points he raised. He asked about the law of the sea convention and rightly said that we must come to a decision by 9 December. That is so. We shall come to a decision, but I cannot announce it today. He was right to say that the deadline has not yet been reached.
  I was glad to hear his important reaffirmation of bipartisan support for nuclear power generation. This is another area of good sense in which the hon. Gentleman is increasingly a lone figure in his party. We shall study the Holliday report carefully. At first glance it is an interesting and useful report, and we shall come back to the House in due course.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about immediate prospects of amendment to the Wildlife and Countryside Act. He rightly referred to the Nature Conservancy Council, which considers that only minor amendment is needed. I believe that there is a consensus in the House for a limited change—principally to block the three-month loophole— but for no more at present. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are considering whether the original route proposed—a private Member's Bill—can meet this need.
  Air pollution and endangered species also come within my responsibility. On air pollution, acid deposition and motor car exhaust pollution dominate the current debate. But this debate is not timely for setting out the Government's position. It would be discourteous to the Select Committee if we tried to pre-empt our response to it. That should be given in a very few days, most likely next week. There is no secret in the fact that the Government see great problems for Britain in any further dramatic diminution of the 40 per cent. drop in sulphur emissions that has already been achieved. We are studying carefully the European Community Commission's two stage approach to car exhausts, and see some hope for progress. We must not allow any slippage in the recently agreed date for the removal of lead from petrol. We shall, therefore, seek to keep progress on lead separate from that on other vehicle pollutants. That will minimise the danger of slippage.
  However, I take this opportunity to say that the Government's concern about endangered species, which is represented by our vigorous action when we had the presidency of the European Council, has not diminished. On the contrary, where we think there is illegal trade, 'we shall pursue it rigorously. My Department is convening an action seminar of international enforcement officers in Bristol in two weeks' time to devise ways of making enforcement even more effective.
  I am especially worried about the illegal trade in birds of prey, through which large profits can be made and which has possible connections with the international drug trade. I have already placed a moratorium on imports and

  795
  exports of gyr falcons and peregrines. We are imposing a moratorium on all movements of all diurnal birds of prey between the United Kingdom and Germany on the advice of our enforcement team.
  Many hon. Members will have received letters urging more action regarding swans, which die from the ingestion of fishermen's lead weights. Swans are not an endangered species, but we take the matter exceedingly seriously and have made it clear that if an effective voluntary agreement cannot be reached we shall consider legislation.
  Our fundamental approach to the arts and built heritage is not philosophically dissimilar from our approach to the natural environment. There is a proper role for the state, but state domination would be death. That is why the independence of the Arts Council in specious arguments over accountability is so vital, and why the independence, made real by the method of its funding, of the National Heritage Memorial Fund is so important.
  As usual, critics call for more compulsion, for example to ban the export of pictures, which in most cases would not be here except for the existence of free trade in the past. It is interesting to see what the NHMF says in its annual report. It states:
  "This country had never benefited from trade protectionism … our export control system is an enlightened one which steers a careful course between the desire to retain in this country what we most cherish and unwillingness to interfere with the rights of owners."
  That is exactly the balance that we seek.
  Earlier this year we established two further arm's length agencies, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission under Lord Montagu, and the Trustees of the Tower of London Armouries under Lord De L'Isle, to reinvigorate our management and presentation of some of the best monuments, historic houses and some of the world's oldest collection of arms and armour. They have started well and we have made the necessary money available— more than £50 million next year for the HBMC.
  The last word on the provision of resources for the conservation of our cultural heritage should lie with the independent NHMF's annual report. It states:
  "We have good reason for confidence, not only in this Government's commitment to the objectives of conservation, but in their willingness to provide adequate funds to achieve these objectives."
  We are grateful for that tribute, which is certainly the truth.
  I am aware that in the past there has been some disappointment about the Government's response to the report of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, some of which is relevant to the debate. During our last debate on this subject, some Select Committee members underestimated their effect on policy-making. It is certainly true that the recommendation about revised ministerial responsibility was not accepted. However, an important step was taken in the direction urged by the Committee through the return of the Arts Minister to the Cabinet. I am sure that that is right.
  I will not list all the items where we accepted the Select Committee's advice, for example, business sponsorship, information, trading activities of museums and galleries. However, on one important matter where the Government have not immediately accepted the recommendations—
  796
  tax changes—it does not mean that the subject is dead and buried. Work will continue to see whether present measures can be further improved.
  The Government have a fine record and will work hard to improve it further. We have passed Acts, set up institutions and provided money to back them, where necessary. Plenty more remains to be done in future, and, as our record shows, we shall do it.
  4.33 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: The Minister welcomed the debate but provided little evidence to justify the claim that the Conservative party deserves respect from those interested in conservation and related subjects. He seemed to excuse the Government's pathetic record by suggesting that they must tread warily to avoid reducing the advantage which may accrue from individual endeavour. That sort of advantage has brought some of our rural areas in the past 30 years near to desolation. If there is desolation as a result of the people whom the Minister wishes to protect, in future many individuals will never get the inspiration which past generations of Britons have enjoyed.
  The Minister prayed in aid the developing consensus between the forester, the farmer and the conservationist. I welcome that consensus, and I may have made a small contribution to achieving it. The Minister must realise that those who do not approve and are not part of the consensus do not care for their colleagues' views and wreak havoc. While the Government fail to take action, those havoc wreakers continue to destroy our countryside and the heritage which we have an obligation to treasure. Those havoc wreakers will applaud the Government. They are imbued with the Government's monetarist policies and may continue to be protected by them.
  It is no good the Minister paying well-deserved tribute to Mr. Wilkinson and his colleagues in public agencies with responsibility. The Minister did not respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who said that the Nature Conservancy Council's report clearly stated that the next 18 months would be critical for many areas of British conservation. There has been no firm commitment from the Government; merely a gesture and a welcome ban on exports of diurnal birds. That is welcome, but the position is far more critical than the Government's complacency seems to suggest.
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: How does the hon. Gentleman square the circle when he considers that the Government have given an additional £7 million to the Nature Conservancy Council just for those purposes?
  Mr. Hardy: For some years, the hon. Gentleman has claimed a commitment to and interest in conservation. If he believes that the £7 million screwed from the Government as a contribution to conservation will allow people to respect the Conservative party's commitment to the cause, he is greatly mistaken.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland was right to start the debate with a broad approach. Conservation must be based not on a local, ecological evaluation, but on the planet as a whole. We see the topsoil of the globe, which is its principal resource, being destroyed, deserts extending by millions of acres a year, the world's fresh water polluted and the seas overfished. Quite rightly,

  797
  Opposition Members and hon. Members to the Left of the Conservative party are beginning to marvel at the way that the Conservative party is sticking its head into the increasing areas of sand.
  The topsoil is being removed in Africa. That has enormous implications for western Europe. We are determined to ensure that the Government, in serving a proper international commitment, recognise the need for action in this country. At the moment, it is fair to describe the Conservative party's position as niggardly in provision and lethargic in response. It is no good the Minister saying that there will be one amendment to the three-month loophole. He could have closed it last year. He will recall that in the spring I presented a Bill which was found to be technically deficient only two days before I hoped it would be passed on the nod in July. It would have closed that loophole, and important areas which have been destroyed and disfigured since then would have continued to benefit future generations.
  Too many areas of great importance have been destroyed or disfigured. Too many areas which are not classified as sites of special scientific interest, but which are of enormous local importance and which have given pleasure to many people throughout the length and breadth of our island, are being destroyed. That is especially true of hedgerows.
  The Minister will recall that the Government blocked a Bill that I introduced designed to protect important and significant hedgerows in Great Britain, despite the fact that it was supported by the consensus to which the Minister has referred. We then discovered that thousands of miles of hedgerows had been uprooted and destroyed with public support by the use of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money. That money was devoted to destroying the hedgerows which the law said should remain in perpetuity. But the Government's response then showed some slight imagination. They decided to cancel the remaining grants for the destruction of hedgerows and to give people grants to establish new ones.
  There are many farmers on the Conservative Benches. A few of them, who are in the House at the moment, will recognise that a newly-planted hedgerow, whilst welcome, is of far less ecological benefit than one which may have taken 2,000 years to develop. Thousands of miles of hedgerow, some of which is 2,000 years old, have been destroyed and the taxpayer has funded that destruction, and this imaginative, conservation-caring Government blocked an initiative supported by Members of all parties to resolve the problem.
  I want to make a brief plea for hardwoods. The Forestry Commission seems to be suggesting that we have just as much hardwood in this country as we had 30 or 40 years ago, but the Minister will recall that the definition of hardwood being used today is different from that which was used in the 1940s.
  I believe that the Forestry Commission is inaccurate and that the NCC's assessment, as quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland, that since the war we have lost between 30 and 50 per cent. of our traditional woodland is more accurate. It is essential that something be done. For example, we must ensure the proper management of our woodlands. We need to ensure that small woodlands, which are increasingly vulnerable, are protected. At present, people can take 30 cu m of timber from a wood every quarter. That is all right in a large wood, but it could destroy a small copse within a relatively
  798
  short time. We need to see a greater degree of imagination used in the management of our woodland resources than the Minister and his colleagues currently show.
  There is the issue of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. I am glad that the hor.. Member for Dumfries (Sir Hector Monro) is in the Chamber, because he was present in Berne when the Berne convention was signed I was present as chairman of the relevant Council of Europe Sub-Committee. I welcomed his comments at Berne when he said that the Government would be first and foremost in their response to and implementation of this convention of wildlife and the habitat. They were not the first, and they may be the most niggardly in western Europe.
  Part I is admirable, although I want to see some improvement in the protection of the badger. The conservation world has demonstrated that that is necessary. On the whole, part I is good because it does not cost the Government anything, but when we come to protect not the wild creatures but the habitat upon which they depend, we are far more parsimonious. The Government seem to want to take the credit for that which they can do without spending money. They are rot prepared, even with the gesture of the extra £7 million referred to by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle), to spend more. The Minister cannot claim that that is a satisfactory way to protect the habitat which the Government are committed to preserve.
  We do not trust the Government far. I hope that within the next few months the Council of Europe— I still maintain the chairmanship of the necessary committee—will monitor the position. It will study every member state to see how each one has implemented the commitment into which it entered under the Berne convention.
  The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 was supposed to enshrine and embody that commitment. We are disappointed with it. If the Minister wishes to see some credit accrue to the United Kingdom, I trust that he will ensure that when my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) presents his Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Bill, he will be allowed to embody within it those matters which will be reasonable and consistent with achieving what the hon. Member for Dumfries claimed.
  The Government are inflicting large-scale unemployment on the country. At the same time as creating enforced leisure, they must provide for that leisure which will otherwise accrue. They will fail dismally unless they recognise that a major part of the meaning and wealth of leisure for our country lies in the countryside. The millions of people who are unemployed and the millions who are retired or work shorter hours are entitled to demand that the countryside which they wish to enjoy should remain worth enjoying.
  The Government's record is deplorable. I hope that the Minister's commitment, and his claim that the Conservative party deserves a green mantle, will be fulfilled. At the moment, the claim is preposterous.
  4.45 pm
  Sir Hector Monro: I welcome the debate. I should declare an interest as a member of the Nature Conservancy Council, the council of the National Trust for Scotland and a number of other conservation bodies. I am somewhat involved at the sharp end but I speak for myself.

  799
  I am astonished by the motion. We all have a common objective and it is out of place to cause acrimony when conservation cries out for harmony.
  We need a constructive approach to evolution in the countryside and to the whole of the heritage. We have an excellent record, and I support my hon. Friend the Minister. The Opposition must have had a few twinges of conscience when they put down this motion. I have been 20 years in the House and I have the record of the legislation relating to conservation. The Opposition have produced only one significant piece of legislation other than a private Member's Bill, which was presented by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). The legislation set up the Countryside Commission in 1969. I speak about Scotland as well as England and Wales, and the Countryside Commission has been the most splendid organisation with an especially gifted chairman. He has the feel of the countryside and the experience to understand economic problems. He will need all his skills as the demand for leisure space places more and more pressure upon the countryside.
  The Countryside Commission publication, "A Better Future for the Uplands", was a notable contribution to conservation. The only other piece of Government legislation tabled by the Labour party during those 20 years was the ill-fated Countryside Bill of January 1979. We were mercifully saved from its provisions by the 1979 general election. The Bill had it all wrong, and I am delighted that our policy of voluntary agreement has successfully overtaken the Labour idea of compulsion for Exmoor which is what the Bill dealt with. That is all that the Labour party did in the period of maximum destruction of the countryside during the 1970s, with the corn explosion and its repercussions on hedgerows, trees and wetlands. During all that time the Labour party did nothing and yet here it is putting forward a singularly inappropriate motion.
  The Government have had a different approach. To touch for a moment on the heritage, when I was in the Department of the Environment I was involved with the setting up of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, which has been a great success. The Government have made fiscal changes. There have been changes in capital taxation, income tax concessions, zero-rated VAT. The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission has been set up and, of course, the National Heritage (Scotland) Bill is presently going through the House.
  Our policies are going well. Of course, all historic houses are expensive to maintain and one should never underestimate owners' problems and we should give them the help that they need. I pay tribute to the Government and to the National Trust for the part that they play in maintaining the heritage of our great country houses that mean so much to the people of this country and the tourists who visit it.
  The hon. Member for Wentworth referred to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. We started from scratch in 1979 with a major environmental Bill, bringing in, as he mentioned, part I, dealing with wildlife, of the important European directive. The Bill's proceedings were long and contentious and if we had had a little more time, we might have been able to pick up the incorrect emphasis, or even an omission in sections 28 and 29 in part II, dealing with management agreements and SSSIs. I should
  800
  be happier if we were rectifying these important points through a Government Bill, because so much can happen to a private Member's Bill, even if there is good will on both sides of the House to see it through to enactment.
  It would have been easy today to have got the measure through the House with the corrections to which I have referred, because opinion has changed so dramatically during the past few years, partly, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, because of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. There has been a notable swing towards conservation, not only through the National Farmers Union and the farmers themselves but through bodies such as the Country Landowners Association, and the Scottish Landowners Federation and because of the distinct change in the attitude of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food towards conservation. It now has an adviser, and one can see in the recent press release on capital grants how it is thinking all the time in terms of conservation. That is a major step forward and one that is most important.
  It is a basic argument in dealing with conservation and the countryside that agriculture is profitable, and consequently the rural economy comes into consideration when we are dealing with conservation. We must look after the things that matter in the countryside, such as the rural schools, the village halls, the buses and so on. They should all be developed within a proper economic attitude to the countryside, as this helps conservation. I am glad that the Ministry is now looking towards supporting conservation and helping with the farm and wildlife advisory groups and through assistance from the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service which now has a distinctive conservation role.
  Meanwhile, the Nature Conservancy Council has pressed on with its notification and renotification procedures for SSSIs and with making management agreements. It is learning all the time through experience and welcomes the addition of million announced by the Government. That must not be underestimated by Labour Members. It is specifically to help with the SSSIs and management agreements, and comes on top of the significant budget that the NCC has in the first place. All organisations such as the NCC would welcome more money, but, within the constraints of public expenditure, the Government's recent response was most significant.
  The relationship between the NCC, the farmers and the landowners is getting closer, although there is some way to go. The farmers now see management agreements not as negative but as positive arrangements that give them advice and assistance and can produce something valuable for conservation. There is no wish in the NCC to see SSSIs as areas of sterilised land. Far from it. There is a great deal that can be done in the SSSIs about which agricultural interests need have no fear.
  We have a common purpose, and thousands of SSSIs are under no threat. We need some give and take in the countryside, and an acceptance that sometimes country folk see things a little differently from those who come from the town. It is no more so than in the world of country sports. We have to give credit to the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Game Conservancy and the British Field Sports Society for what they do for habitat and wildlife conservation. They have a right to pursue their interests without interference. We must watch out for EEC directives that may not necessarily be in the best interests of the country.

  801
  Many conservation groups do an excellent job, while others sometimes leave me in despair. Some appear to judge their success by outrageous headlines and sometimes, sadly, by illegal action. As the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, one often sees headlines saying things like, "Failure of the Wildlife and Countryside Act." That is an inaccurate and foolish statement. The Act has not failed, but all Acts on the scale of this one need time to show their full results. For instance, we have made singularly little progress over marine nature reserves. It will take time to bring to fruition all the things that we set out to do a few years ago.
  The countryside is what it is largely because man made it that way. Man provided the frame and the gilding for a beautiful picture, and although we may lose a few SSSIs, new areas of conservation are developing every day. I sometimes wish that those who criticise what is happening in the countryside so much would get into a light aeroplane and fly around England, Scotland and Wales at about 1,000 feet, and look down at the ground to see what lovely countryside we have. It is far from being the desolate area described by the hon. Member for Wentworth and his friends.
  I sometimes have a wry smile about bulls on footpaths. I was heavily criticised about that at the time the Bill was being debated but the results that were predicted have not materialised.
  I stress again the importance of the NCC. It has published its policy in "Nature Conservation in Great Britain". That contains an analysis of the problems and a statement for action, plus plans for its development under the new corporate plan. The Government have made money available and I know of no case where lack of funds has been a limiting factor in dealing with conservation. That does not mean to say that those who have land that is possibly under threat should think that they can pull wool over the eyes of the NCC and get money from a soft touch. They will not.
  The Act was a catalyst for action. It made people think about conservation, and much that has happened in conservation has happened since the Act's arrival. There is no doubt that attitudes have changed. Of course the Act's provisions can be improved, but so can the NCC, the Countryside Commission, and organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which can improve and develop their policies year by year.
  The countryside has taken a millenium to evolve. Change cannot take place overnight. It takes time and constructive discussion, but we should never be complacent. Nevertheless, we are going the right way. The pace towards conservation is accelerating every day. There is room for everybody to enjoy the countryside, its facilities and its beauties in happiness, but let us all work together and not in the disharmony proposed by the Opposition.
  4.58 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the opportunity to debate these important subjects. Earlier, there was some discussion about who was climbing on to whose bandwagon. It will no doubt be recognised that many of the issues raised in a debate such as this have been campaigned for by my right hon. and hon. Friends for many years, particularly when it was much less fashionable to do so. We have recognised that over many years, national success can be measured
  802
  not only by quantifying terms such as the GNP, but by the increasing importance of the quality of our lives, of the air, of the purity of the waterways and the way in which we exercise the stewardship of our national resources and heritage.
  We welcome a wide-ranging debate which allows us to discuss issues as wide as the delays experienced in protecting and establishing rights of way and the transport of radioactive waste by land and sea. I endorse what the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said about the law of the sea convention. He said that in the remaining time available to us we should sign that convention as an act of faith towards those in the developing nations, with particular reference to the mineral resources referred to in that convention.
  If the hallmark of the motion is breadth, the feature of the Government's amendment is complacency. There are some signs that the Government are becoming a little more responsive to environmental issues— slightly green at the edges—but they have a long way to go before they merit the self-congratulatory plaudits of the amendment.
  Let me give the Government a practical suggestion. They may take advice from the Royal Commission if they wish. If adopted, it would show that the Government had some willingness to take environmental matters seriously. I see no reason why, when Bills are published, there should not be an environmental impact statement attached to it, if it is appropriate:. For example, the Local Government Bill has a statement on its financial consequences and its effect on public service manpower. The Government should give guidance to highlight those issues of significance to our heritage and environment.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Local government legislation may not appear to have environmental consequences, but I hope that hon. Members will accept that t proposed abolition of the GLC, with its historic buildings department which has an enormously good reputation, and its replacement by a quango will have such consequences. We should ensure that such Bills take into account the consequences to the environment, of which people may not otherwise be aware.
  Mr. Wallace: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is not immediately apparent from the Local Government Bill that there are such consequences. For example, the body which puts up blue plaques around London may lose the coherent approach which enables it to identify worthwhile items of heritage in London.
  The amendment omits any reference to the Royal Commission on environmental pollution. That is regrettable when one has regard to the complex volume of work which the Royal Commission has undertaken during the 13 years that it has been in existence.
  To some reports of the Royal Commission the Government have given a speedy response, hut, regrettably, to others, such as the fifth report, the Government took seven years to respond. Although it is nine months since the most recent report of the Royal Commission, which reviews much of its previous activity and looks towards the future, we have not yet had any response from the Government. I hope that the Minister will say when we can expect a response to that tenth report.
  The Royal Commission is omitted, but the Countryside Commission is mentioned in the amendment.

  803
  Unfortunately, it does not appear to have fared better in achieving a Government response. The recent report "A Better Future for the Uplands" and the related report by the RSPB, "Hill Farming and Birds", are both important and serious contributions to current discussions on agriculture and conservation. One may not necessarily agree with all the recommendations and views; none the less they merit a serious Government response. It would be welcome if the Government would say when they intend to publish a full response to those two major reports.
  In his speech the Minister referred to the draft regulations which have been submitted to the EC on efficiency in agricultural structures. He said that they have friends in the farming community and in the environmental lobby. However, he did not say whether they have friends in the EC. One or two bodies have expressed some concern about the Government's position if they do not succeed in persuading our European colleagues about the merits of the draft regulations. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister would say something about the Government's fallback position.
  Much has been said about the Wildlife and Countryside Act. That legislation came under attack from all sides before it found its feet. There is widespread agreement in the House that it has some serious shortcomings, such as the three-month gap between the notification and confirmation of SSSIs when, if the owner chooses to be irresponsible, he can easily destroy the special site. Section 29 contains the problem of the possible gap between the end of the three-month period for negotiation of a management agreement if no such agreement is forthcoming and the time that it takes to make a conservation order.
  I think that all hon. Members recognise that the measure introduced in the previous Session by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) commanded widespread support. It is the view of the House that such a measure should be on the statute book. But it would appear that the Government are not now disposed to introduce legislation and would rather leave it to a private Member. Perhaps the situation is worse than that. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has a great interest in the matter, but if the contents of his Bill were such that they did not entirely meet with the Government's approval, I fear that the Bill might not necessarily be given the fair wind that it would require to reach the statute book. We shall not be impressed, and I do not think that many outside the Chamber will be impressed, if parliamentary games and tactics stop worthwhile legislation getting on to the statute book.
  If there are to be differences of opinion—as there are—on what is needed to improve and amend the Act, surely the proper place to debate that is on the Floor of the House or in Committee in the context of a Bill. We need a Bill, preferably sponsored by the Government in Government time, so that the issue can have the full airing that it deserves.
  In that context I would have constituency viewpoints to put forward. I can safely say that the Act has not been the most welcome legislation in my constituency. The farmers and crofters in Orkney and Shetland are not particularly anti-conservation. The fact that birds, such as the hen
  804
  harrier and the whimbrel, which are rare in the United Kingdom, remain there evidences the conservationist attitude of my constituents over many years.
  The key to the Act is clearly the co-operation and trust between farmers and conservationists. I regret that that cooperation has been put under considerable strain in Orkney and Shetland. There have been considerable feelings of bureaucratic imposition on the traditional sturdy independence of the crofters and farmers. At times it is felt that too large an area has been designated and that the appeal procedure is limited. Indeed, it is felt that the NCC is judge and jury in its own cause.
  When the farmer receives his list of notifiable operations, too often he assumes them to be prohibitions. That has led to a breakdown in trust and confidence. That highlights a slightly wider problem. If we are to notify and re-notify the many thousands of owner-occupiers whose land is covered by SSSIs, that must clearly be done properly so that trust and confidence can be built up. To do that, the NCC requires far more staff than it has. The staff must not only possess the necessary nature conservation expertise but understand the farming way of life, particularly of farmers living in marginal areas. The NCC clearly lacks staff. When the House passed the Wildlife and Countryside Act it imposed duties on the NCC, and we have an equal duty to provide the NCC with the resources to carry out those duties.
  Reference has also been made to the level of compensation. Clearly, the Act is open to abuse. People have threatened to develop land on which they previously had no intention of undertaking development. One reads of the possibility of between £50,000 and £100,000 per annum being given not to drain Elmley marshes. Everyone recognises that there should be a tightening up on such abuses and that we should not be paying out vast sums to prospective speculators or maverick farmers. But at the same time the regulations should ensure adequate finance to compensate the marginal farmer who has to forgo some expanded production in the interests of conservation.
  It is possible to accommodate both agricultural and conservation interests. But we need to find ways in which management agreements are seen not solely in restricted and negative terms, but as containing a strong and very positive component. They should be sensitive to the particular needs of rural communities. For example, I think of my constituency and of islands, such as Fetlar and Eday, where almost all of the economic activity relates to agriculture. To adopt a negative, restrictive approach to conservation in such areas threatens one species, in particular—man himself.
  There is, therefore, a need for positive management. We must always keep before us the thought that the countryside should not be turned into a museum or a place to which only tourists or weekenders go. Moreover, it should not be turned into a place to which only botanists or ornithologists go to do their research. The countryside should be a living place in which people have their homes and work in harmony with their environment.
  In recent months two major environmental issues have illustrated the close connection between the environment and energy. I refer to the major issues of acid rain and radioactive waste. It is clear that hon. Members cannot do justice to a subject like acid rain during such a wide-ranging debate as this. It deserves a debate of its own. I think that the Government were once disposed to hold such a debate, but they have had a change of heart. That fuels

  805
  the suspicion that they are not taking the problem seriously enough and are bowing to some pressure from the Central Electricity Generating Board.
  The figure of how much sulphur dioxide is put into the atmosphere has already been given. We believe that the time has come for a more positive response to be made, involving programmes of desulphurisation. Such programmes would help to clean up the environment and go a long way towards stimulating jobs in many parts of the country. I endorse what the hon. Member for Copeland said about radioactive waste. As I said during our debate in March on the tenth report, I agree that there is a need to reconstitute NIREX and the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee to include a wider range of people, such as those from interested environmental bodies.
  The fears about Sellafield have not gone away. Indeed, they are extending up the west coast of Scotland. Notwithstanding the Black report, we believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland should undertake independent monitoring and establish an inquiry into the position of the Scottish coastline. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, shakes his head. I can understand him thinking that there is no need to raise unnecessary fears. Unfortunately, those fears already exist. I receive letters in my postbag on the subject, as, no doubt, he does. Indeed, if the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) were present, I am sure that he would tell us that he receives similar letters. Those fears exist. There should be an inquiry into the matter.
  I wrote, I believe, to the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, on a matter relating to proposals by a company called ENSEC to place radioactive waste under the seabed. As far as I know, those proposals have received little support from the radioactive waste industry. Indeed, I believe that any attempt to dump it—as has been suggested—under Stormy Bank in the Pentland firth would meet with downright opposition from my constituents. However, I have written to the Minister on that subject, and perhaps he will write to me telling me what the present status of those proposals is.
  There is clearly an inter-relationship between energy policy and the environment. Energy conservation has obvious consequences for the environment. The Severn barrage and even windmills have consequences for the environment. That is why we believe that there is a need to resuscitate the commission on energy and the environment and to give it wider terms of reference, as recommended by the tenth report of the Royal Commission. Although the Government put the commission into suspended animation, they did not kill it off. In February 1983, a Government spokesman said that it would and should be revived if there was a pressing need.
  We can clearly identify issues such as radioactive waste and acid rain as providing urgent need to take social and environmental factors into account when deciding on an energy strategy. At the end of the debate I hope that the Minister will let us know what the Government's intentions are with regard to the commission on energy and the environment. If he cannot do so, then perhaps he will write to me and let me know the situation.
  I now wish to draw my remarks to a close—[Hots. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Those hon. Members who say
  806
  that should realise that, if more alliance Members were called, I would not need to deal with every subject. I have tried to cover a wide spectrum.
  It is clear that the environment is important to our wellbeing. Sometimes decisions have to be taken at international level if they are to be effective, but often our environment is best shaped by those who live locally and can respond best to-what is going on. That is why I believe that many decisions may well be taken wrongly if they are taken by a remote Secretary of State or quango. We believe that local involvement, sensitivity to local needs, and, wherever possible, local decision-making are the keys to a successful environmental policy.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Sydney Chapman: I too welcome this debate on environmental matters. However, I do not accept the terms of the motion and deplore the tenor of some of the speeches made by Opposition Members. I have a particular regard for the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and applaud the initiative that he has taken on so many environmental issues, but the strictures that he showered on the Government and on Conservative Members were not only unfair but counterproductive. Those who care about the environment—and they exist in all parts of the House—know perfectly well that if we can obtain a consensus about the sensible and practical policies that should be undertaken, we are far more likely to be effective with Governments of whatever hue.
  Mr. Hardy: Although I recognise that there are Conservative Members who share the view that there should be a consensus, they seem to be very thinly represented on the Treasury Bench. Indeed, when they have made a clear case, the Government have rejected it.
  Mr. Chapman: I am sorry, but I do not accept that. In the past decade, Conservative Governments have clone many good things. One thinks, for example, of the setting up of the Department of the Environment by the drawing together of some of the chief Ministries that had a great influence on environmental matters. I think also of the Control of Pollution Bill, which was introduced in the dying days of the Conservative Government of 1970 to 1974. There is also the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the planned elimination of lead in petrol. Moreover, 2·5 million acres of interim green belt land have been added to the millions of acres of established green belt land, and there have been recent initiatives to promote and maintain our architectural heritage.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) is Chairman of the Environment Committee, but is away attending an important international conference on the environment. He asked me, as acting Chairman of that Committee, to say that it would be unwise to comment on the Wildlife and Countryside Act, or at least on part II of it, which relates to sites of special scientific interest. The reason for that is that the Committee is shortly to make some recommen.dalions to the Government.
  It would also be wrong of me to talk about the recently published report on acid rain. It represented a most comprehensive examination of the problems, but my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has promised a debate upon publication of the Government's response to that

  807
  report. However, I shall say one thing about part II of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. It mainly concerns itself with more than 4,000 sites of special scientific interest, covering about 1·5 million acres. But that represents less than 5 per cent. of the total countryside. Therefore, I shall address a few remarks to the wider countryside issues that have been raised.
  It is estimated that in the past 35 years over half our lowland heaths have been lost, half our fenlands drained, over one third of our ancient woodlands felled and over one quarter of our upland heaths and grasslands destroyed. A dramatic change has taken place in our countryside. I use the word "fenlands" because it might be imprudent for an aspiring Tory Back Bencher to use the word "wetlands".
  The dramatic change is principally the result of the intensification of agriculture but that is not the farmer's fault. It is the fault of successive Governments who have wished for and willed— for good reasons or bad—maximum food production. That has been achieved by a system of agriculture subsidies.
  The loss of and damage to our natural habitat is not principally the farmers' fault. They have acted quite properly by taking the opportunities offered. In any case, the countryside should not be preserved in aspic. The worrying factor is the scale of the change. At the least, we must supplement financial support for agriculture with a more coherent and comprehensive structure of grants for conservation.
  I take particularly to heart what the hon. Member for Wentworth said about the grubbing up of so many hedgerows— the seedbeds of much of our rural tree stock. The scale of the loss of hedgerows has been reduced, but the problem is still worrying. I declare an interest as the president of the Aboricultural Association.
  In England alone there are over 5,000 conservation areas and over 300,000 buildings listed as being of architectural or historical interest. Yet, year after year, hundreds, if not thousands, of buildings— our architectural inheritance— are either damaged or demolished. I suggest it might now be time to give organisations and planning authorities another two years to decide which further buildings should be listed, and then impose a moratorium for at least five years, or possibly 10 years, when no further buildings could be listed. Then we could concentrate modestly increasing resources on trying to prop up, repair and truly preserve buildings already listed. We should concentrate on the conservation of excellence rather than the preservation of mediocrity.
  I hope that I am not complacent, but I believe that this Government's record deserves commendation, not condemnation. It is sometimes difficult to reconcile the nation's economic needs and the conservation of the environment. We have to ensure a balance between commerce and conservation. This Government can take some credit for elevating the environment to the higher political status that it now justifiably enjoys. I ask the House to reject the motion and to vote for the amendment.
  5.25 pm
  Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: People living in urban areas have environmental rights. My constituents have suffered severe hardship. The Clifton valley in my constituency has suffered total degradation. It has been
  808
  spoilt by industrial abuse. The Greater Manchester council decided to sump waste at Lumn's lane in the valley. Local people were prepared to accept that further degradation, because they hoped that the land could be converted to a recreation area. That possibility gave the people great joy. That was the great hope—the dream. Then along came the vandals from the Department of the Environment. After all their suffering, the Department decided to worry my constituents even further by suggesting that the area be used as a dump for low-level radioactive waste. We protested, but failed.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) was right when he said that an environmental impact statement should be made in such circumstances. He also said that local authorities should be consulted. That makes sense. The people who live in an area should have a say about what happens there. That is reasonable and fair. The local authority, which is responsible for the disposal of rubbish, should also have a say.
  The Greater Manchester council said, "We will not place low-level radioactive waste in the area." The Salford city council said that it did not want the waste in its area, but the wise boys in London said "Yes, you will have it." What an example of democracy. I am reminded of the line in the song,
  "Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die."
  Everyone says that low-level radioactive waste is safe, but nobody wants it. The final test is whether the inspectors would accept it in their back yards. They ensure that it is transported in metal containers, but then it is dumped in plastic bags. I am not exaggerating. It is causing fear and terror among my constituents. Anyone can organise a petition, but hundreds upon hundreds of people in the area are organising petitions. They are deeply concerned and affronted.
  The Minister must reconsider. Low-level radioactive waste disperses quickly, but it must be guarded. To dump such waste in plastic bags 1·5 m below ground is madness. I do not see why my constituents should have to put up with it.
  The Manchester ship canal has served this country well. It is not a canal in the accepted sense of the word; it is a canalised river—a river turned into a canal. It was used from Salford to the sea when it was prosperous. The canal is not as prosperous now. Its prosperity seems to have stopped half way down. The Manchester Ship Canal Company is anxious to cease its obligations on the landward side. The canal has become part of the water table. It is a natural environment in the area, even though it is man—made. I urge the Minister, in deciding the future of the Ship Canal Company, to take account not only of environmental but of commercial interests.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Baker: I shall not follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) who spoke with passion.
  I welcome the debate, but I resent some of the attacks on farmers and landowners that we heard at the beginning. In my experience, numbered among them are the best conservers and preservers of the environment that I have come across. We should be careful before accepting the figures given by pressure groups, albeit important, respectable and responsible ones such as the Nature Conservancy Council. I believe that the figures cited for the loss of SSSIs and traditional woodlands have been

  809
  shown to be inaccurate. It was, therefore, unwise of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to rely upon them in presenting the motion. The Government's conservation record is good.
  In my first speech in the House I expressed my concern and, I believe, the concern of many for the environment. I advised the House of the dangers from mass tourism. I compared the effect of mass tourism upon the centre of London with the effect on Badbury rings near my Dorset home. Today, we read of the effects of mass tourism on Hadrian's wall. If anything, that small example should show us the threat to our heritage and environment.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is not the answer to give access to far more of our countryside so that tourists are spread more thinly and particular honey spots are not damaged in that way? It is important to have more access.
  Mr. Baker: It might be the answer, if that were the result. Unfortunately, I do not believe that it is. What must be done is much more complicated. We certainly should not encourage the development of mass tourism.
  I want to make four points. First, I hope that, in the spirit of co-operation to which many hon. Members have referred, there will no longer be a debate about the place of the private landowner and private owner of heritage assets. Undoubtedly, the National Trust does a good job, but the trust and the Government can only be a weapon of last resort. Inevitably, we will depend upon individual owners of heritage houses and assets. The individuals who own beautiful houses work harder, invest and care more for their houses and possessions than any statutory or public body could ever do. In my experience, those individuals are just as prepared to share those houses and possessions with the public as any public body.
  I look to those who are becoming, have become and will become—if our economy succeeds in the way we hope—the newly rich. It is shocking to mention the newly rich, but I hope that they will see that one way of applying their wealth for the benefit of the general public is to acquire those heritage houses and assets so that they can look after them and share them with the rest of us. If we accept that idea, we must look at ways of encouraging individuals. I believe that there are ways in the taxation system— in capital and income taxes— to encourage individuals to apply their wealth in that way.
  Secondly, I would like the Government to play a more positive part in encouraging museums and galleries to charge those who wish to see the beautiful exhibits. Undoubtedly, that is a good way of improving the facilities of museums and galleries and of making them more attractive. It is a way also of financing the purchase of the heritage assets that the museums and galleries wish to acquire. There are easy ways of making exceptions for those who are out of work and for schoolchildren who cannot afford to pay the charges.
  My third point concerns the environment. When I was being lobbied by a helicopter company I had the opportunity of doing what my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) suggested—flying at 1,000 ft over the south of England. I was struck by the disappearance of wild countryside and the way in which the country had been neatly parcelled out. I noted also the pressure of development in the south of England. We all talk about what farmers do in the course of earning their
  810
  living. Of course, farmers must earn their living, and we should support that. We do not, however, mention the pressures applied to those who live and work in the countryside. The pressure from development in the south of England is greater today than it has ever been.
  Mr. Robert Adley: Particularly in Dorset.
  Mr. Baker: I heard my hon. Friend say, "Particularly in Dorset". He has anticipated my next remark.
  Dorset's population and:ate of development are well above its structure plan level and greater than the levels in many other parts of the country. I believe for environmental reasons, apart from any others, that the development of planning in that part of the south of England must be restricted. I hope that Ministers in the Department of the Environment will do much more than they have done in past years to uphold local planning decisions. The way in which those decisions are overturned is giving cause for great concern.
  I want more development in our inner cities. The people of Liverpool who may wish to enjoy the environment in Dorset and the people of Dorset are concerned that the centre of Liverpool should remain a place in which people want to live and work so that the environment in Dorset, which is different, can be maintained.
  I decided to mention my fourth point after noting the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction. I hope that he will comment on any encouragement he may give to the private rented sector. This aspect is not irrelevant to the subject we are discussing, and my hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that. If we intend to develop the inner urban areas and at the same time to provide for job mobility, while riot allowing areas such as Dorset to provide the bulk of new houses, we must look much harder at developing the private rented sector. There is a great opportunity for my hon. Friend to undertake the radical and, ultimately, successful reforms to which I believe he is sympathetic.
  I hope that this spirit of co-operation in discussing our heritage and the environment will continue, because that is the right attitude for preserving what we value.
  5.39 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On 14 January there will be a trial of two men, one from Solihull and one from Ashby-de-la-Zouche, who are accused of uprooting a water soldier—stratiotes alo ides—at Ludham marshes.
  As far as we can gather, that will be the first time that there has been any prosecution under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. After all the many hours some of us spent in Committee, deciding what was to be notified and the various categories to be included in the Bill, we have to wonder whether that is a sensible way for Parliament to proceed. If we are only now to have the first prosecution, what were we doing, spending all that time on the Bill? That is a genuine question.
  Is it a surprise to the Ministers that this should be the first prosecution? Are they worried that the legal authorities have little detailed knowledge of this type of Act and therefore find it difficult to prosecute?
  The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): The hon. Gentleman, with his long experience in the House, will know that although we may describe the principles, I cannot get involved—and I should have

  811
  thought that the hon. Gentleman would not want to get involved—in the details of a case in which he says a prosecution has been brought.
  Mr. Dalyell: I leave the matter by saying that this is the first time that a prosecution will have been brought. My general question is whether it is sensible for us to proceed by supposing that the authorities can prosecute in such detailed and possibly arcane matters.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We also spent a long time in Committee dealing with marine nature reserves. They are clearly the Government's responsibility, but the Government have done even less about them.
  Mr. Dalyell: I was intending to ask about that, but the question has been properly asked for me, so we can save time.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee spent a long time arguing about whether Ministry of Agriculture money should be used for conservation purposes. The Sandford amendments are relevant here. Is it possible to identify the amount of Ministry money devoted to conservation purposes since the passing of the Act? The answer may be zero.
  We spent a long time in Committee on pre-notification arrangements. Why have the arrangements for prenotification by farmers been curtailed? Is it because of the shortage of personnel or is it a matter of policy? Some of us thought that the pre-notification obligation on farmers was a civilised way of getting their co-operation and a sensible way to proceed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) mentioned the serious weakness in the arrangements to protect landscapes and the wider countryside in the absence of any requirement for farmers, outside national parks and SSSIs, to get prior approval for operations subsidised by the Ministry of Agriculture. My hon. Friend said that the Act should be amended so that the pre-notification arrangements that apply in national parks were extended to cover the whole countryside. That is an important and reasonable request. Will the Minister who is to reply at least comment on it?
  Lord Belstead wrote to me on 21 November about Halvergate, saying that some of the legal arrangements had been sorted out. I suspect that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment is familiar with the letter that raised the question of European money. What have the Government learnt from the Halvergate experience? In the cooler light of day, with winter coming on, what will be done to stop such situations arising in the future?
  We could talk for hours about the resources available to the Nature Conservancy Council and the Natural Environmental Research Council, but we have only minutes available. The broad question is whether the Government are satisfied with the resources made available to the NCC for its day-to-day work and to the NERC for making grants, particularly to universities. Should the NERC be given more money? Is it as desperately short of money as it claims?
  The chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, Lord Charteris, has asked for more Government funds. I do not think that any response has been made. I do not ask that much more money should be given to the fund,
  812
  because I am not sure that it is a top priority. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) made clear, the urban environment has many pressing problems.
  I ask a different question. In giving money to the fund, is any account taken of the employment opportunities provided by labour-intensive work? Some of us think that heritage funds should be given more willingly if that money can be used, particularly in repair work, to create jobs, especially in areas where there is a desperate shortage of employment. Is account taken of the number of skilled jobs, albeit in crafts and possibly old-fashioned work, such as lead-working or stonemasonry, that can be provided through money given to the National Heritage Memorial Fund?
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Christopher Murphy: To talk about the failures of Government policies to safeguard the natural environment and national heritage of Britain is to be, in the current phrase, gratuitously offensive. The emphasis laid on those matters by the Wildlife and Countryside Act and by the National Heritage Act is surely evidence of the falseness of that claim. Many of my hon. Friends have shown that clearly.
  However, that is not to say that further action is not urgently needed in some respects. I should like to direct the attention of the House not so much to the wide scope of the debate as to the "scape" of the land and to consider not so much areas "beyond the fringe" as the fringe itself. In land use terms, there are three "scapes"—townscape, farmscape and wildscape. Between those "scapes" are the fringes—"rurban" fringe and marginal fringe.
  The consequence of the derelict inner city has been the invasion of the green field site by urban dwellers and urban companies alike, thus turning farmscape into the "rurban" fringe. Some measure of that can be seen from the fact that recent surveys estimate that "rurban" fringe now occupies twice the area of townscape, and consists of a chaotic mixture of rural and urban land uses in mutual conflict. There is an inevitable knock-on effect of such a change to the farmscape, resulting from the diminution of properly utilised townscape. The effect is on the wildscape, often heath or moorland.
  Now there is a marginal fringe, where the farmscape is encroaching on the wildscape, thus creating an uneasy mixture of farmland and woods or rough grazings. Therefore, no longer do we have the traditional benefit of a compact, busy, well-functioning, built environment, with well-used parks making up the townscape, and uninterrupted, food-producing land with scenic attractions, giving us the farmscape. Instead, we are diminishing those assets in favour of uncomfortable fringes that are less appropriate for our requirements, both economic and pleasurable.
  Government action has rightly been concentrated, during the life of the last Parliament, and continuing into this one, on overcoming urban deprivation by utilising innovations such as the urban development corporations and enterprise zones, and has correctly laid emphasis on the private sector. Now is the time to be considering the ways of tackling most successfully the rehabilitation of land in the "rurban" fringe, and then, for the future, to ensure that the adverse consequences of the marginal fringe are overcome.
  I am especially conscious of the growth of the "rurban" fringe, and its effect on the farmscape, representing as I

  813
  do a constituency in Hertfordshire which almost borders Greater London. In addition, having two new towns on what were green field sites enhances one's appreciation of the importance of successful land use.
  To overcome such problems, it is necessary to seek a well-founded and operational conservation partnership. Government, both national and local, is one partner which sets the economic and social conditions in which nature conservation must operate. Farmers and land owners are another, as custodians of much of the national heritage. Conservationists, together with interested scientists and concerned members of the public, provide a further element of that partnership. The future success of Government policies to safeguard the natural environment and national heritage of Britain will be greatly enhanced if such a triumvirate of partners can be bound together, both in conservation decisions and in conservation actions.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Ron Davies: I am privileged to follow the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy), who made an interesting and intriguing speech.
  The offence that the hon. Gentleman seems to have taken when Opposition Members criticised the Government because of their policy towards the environment should be taken at face value, because he supports a Government who support the common agricultural policy, which in turn supports an economic system which places a higher value on profit than on anything else. It is those pressures which require farmers and food producers to act in a way that is detrimental to the environment.
  The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) recognised that Government economic and agricultural policy have been forcing farmers, in pursuance of profit, to do things which are damaging to the environment. The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield should not take offence when Opposition Members criticise the Government for adopting those policies.
  I am prepared to accept that Conservative Members are genuinely concerned about the environment and are sincere in their expressions of concern for it, but if they are to be meaningful in their expressions of concern they must recognise the economic systems which are causing the problems.
  Viscount Cranborne rose—
  Mr. Davies: I shall not give way, because I have not yet had time to develop my speech. If the opportunity arises, I shall be prepared to give way later to the hon. Gentleman, although I recall that when I last did so there was some disagreement between us.
  I am concerned with the problem of the operations of the Forestry Commission, and particularly its impact on the environment in my native country, Wales. In July this year the commission announced that it would be closing the conservancy office in Cardiff, with a loss of 45 jobs. It also meant that the commission had lost an opportunity. The commission has as its primary purpose the production of timber. It does not at present have a responsibility for wider conservation issues. Following a reorganisation, the commission lost an opportunity to branch out and to use its resources, staff and expertise, in a much more constructive way to enhance our natural environment. Unfortunately, instead of taking that opportunity the
  814
  commission ignored it, and decided that it would merely follow the requirement placed on it by the Government, in pursuance of its charter, for timber production, and to be efficient in economic terms. It closed down the office without any thought of the consequences for the local community. That is an example of the way in which the commission is failing to adapt to changed circumstances.
  I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House understand why the Forestry Commission was established. We understand the strategic argument for timber production and the need to be self-sufficient in times of war, although I do not know what we shall be able to do with 1 million hectares of coniferous timber when the next war breaks out. We are aware of the economic argument and the need, for economic reasons, to be as self-sufficient as possible in timber production, although, despite all the efforts of the Government and the support given to the Forestry Commission and the private sector, we are still producing only 9 per cent. of our national timber needs, and 10 per cent. of that timber is of such little value that it has to be exported for pulp purposes.
  We have not realised that the responsibility that was placed on the Forestry Commission no longer exists; at least, successive Governments appear not to have noticed it. In 1972 the Treasury did a cost-benefit analysis of the operations of the commission, and said that it
  "could find no reason for increasing the area under timber arid even had difficulty in justifying investment in maintaining the existing area and stock."
  The analysis went on to say:
  "There are no strategic considerations— defence or commercial—relevant to new afforestation."
  That was 12 years ago. Since then the Forestry Commission has done very little other than to follow the well-trodden path of allowing mature, historic, ancient woodlands to be destroyed, and to allow or encourage the march of coniferous plantations across some of the most attractive and valuable parts of our natural landscape, at an increasing cost to the public. That is what has happened over the past 12 years since the Treasury report 'was published. It shows, to say the least, a considerable lack of imagination on the part of the Forestry Commission. It has not realised that there are changed circumstances, and now has no strategy for dealing with the problems of the environment and of conservation which are increasingly coming to the fore in the 1980s.
  I should like to mention two consequences of the operations of the Forestry Commission. First, there is the loss of our upland areas. They are the areas which maps now designate as the less favoured areas— broadly above 500 metres. The Royal. Society for the Protection of Birds, in a survey, calculated that since 1946 about 197,000 hectares of moorland have been lost. In my native south Wales, about 50 per cent. of the total upland areas has been lost since 1946. Between 1976 and 1983, we have lost 11,300 hectares of upland area to afforestation. That is worrying, because it means that we have lost a valuable and precious habitat in terms of flora and fauna. In particular, we have lost the bird life which can flourish on upland areas. The Forestry Commission has at least been party to destroying employment in agriculture and associated industries. The employment that the commission itself has provided has proved to be transient, to say the least.

  815
  A report in The Guardian of 24 September 1984 mentions present Government policies towards the Forestry Commission, requiring it to dispose of assets. The report says:
  "Communities are also threatened. Probably the most extreme example is the recent sale of the 1,500-acre Brycheniog Forest in Brecon, South Wales, for more than £2·5 million to a private forestry group. Ten workers were made redundant and Llaneglwys, the hamlet dependent on the forest, is threatened. Its houses were built by the commission in the 1930s and the local agricultural workers' district secretary, Mr. Stuart Neale, fears that the community could die."
  Therefore, in addition to the destruction of the employment that existed before the Forestry Commission's operations, we now find that because of its operations the employment that it generated is also being destroyed. We know the cost to the Exchequer and to the environment. Studies have shown the contributory effect of afforestation to acid rain. No benefit is accruing to the Treasury or the environment as a result of the commission's operations.
  Secondly, there has been the loss of broadleaved woodland habitat. That ancient woodland is valuable as a resource in economic terms and in terms of its habitat and landscape value, and its use to the people for recreation and associated purposes. A report by the Council for the Protection of Rural England, endorsed by the Nature Conservancy Council, showed that since 1947 between 30 and 50 per cent. of that ancient and semi-natural woodland has been destroyed. Since the war about 60,000 hectares of mature oak woodland in England alone have been destroyed by the operations of the Forestry Commission. In my own county of Gwent, since the turn of the century, we have lost about 67 per cent. of our ancient woodland. The commission is sanguine, to say the least, in its treatment of those figures. Its report entitled "Broadleaves in Britain" states:
  "Contrary to popular belief there has been no appreciable change in the total area of broadleaved woodland over the past 30 years."
  That view is challenged by almost everyone who is concerned with the countryside. It is challenged by the NCC, the Countryside Commission, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, Friends of the Earth and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. We all understand the way in which the censuses have been done. We understand the way in which the Forestry Commission has been interpreting the figures that have been produced. We know that the commission is conning the British public when it says that there is no loss in the total standing area of native woodland.
  A new approach is needed. New policies are needed. My colleagues on the Front Bench have made it clear that if the Government are prepared to introduce policies that will provide protection to existing SSSIs they will receive support from the Opposition. The Government know that if they introduce policies requiring the Forestry Commission to have a broader remit and to look at the demands of other users, they will receive support from the Opposition. If the Government develop new policies for environmental conservation and impose them on the Forestry Commission, they will receive support from the Opposition. Above all, if the Government require the commission to achieve greater co-operation and more meaningful consultation with other public bodies such as
  816
  the water authorities, local authorities and conservation organisations, they will have greater support from the Opposition.
  The Government may argue that legislation will be needed. If so, they will find that there is broad agreement. Agreement now stretches even as far as the National Farmers Union. In its recent publications the union has said that it understands and accepts the nature of the problem. There is now a clear responsibility on the Government to recognise that consensus and to act upon it.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I welcome this debate on the countryside. The very fact that we are holding it is not the result of a mere esoteric interest within this Parliament, but a reflection of the public's growing interest in our natural heritage and its demand that we do more to protect it.
  The Opposition attack the Government on their record. They cannot be blamed for doing so, for that is their role. We heard the attack by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). o However, I believe that the more dispassionate observer looking back at this time in years to come will see that it was this Government who presided over the most significant change of attitudes to the countryside this century. How much more effective it is to engineer a change of attitudes than to produce a plethora of words, as Opposition Members, including the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), do.
  Whatever the minor failing of the Wildlife and Countryside Act— the Government are committed to seeing that those loopholes are plugged— we must accept it as a landmark for conservation and the protection of special sites. The Government can take much credit for it. However, as with many such advances, the Act has also helped to illuminate the path ahead. Above all, it has made us aware that conservation in the wider countryside, not just in the special sites, is also crucial, and we must do more about that.
  Bodies normally in controversy agree on moves needed to protect the wider countryside. For example, we might expect the voluntary bodies and their 3 million members to spring to the defence of our natural heritage in the wider countryside. We might even understand that the Countryside Commission should support them. However, in addition, the Country Landowners Association and even the National Farmers Union have said that we must seek a better balance between farming and conservation in the countryside. One is amazed and delighted that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food admits that the goal of agricultural production is not the only one to be pursued, but that conservation is also important. That is a bandwagon indeed, partly created by Government action and partly a reaction to what the public want. We are witnessing a significant change in attitude.
  However, it is clear that the Government must respond even more than they have responded so far. The countryside needs greater protection; the public want action; and the time is ripe and correct to do that. I welcome several signs that more is to be done, particularly the substantial extra resources going to the Nature Conservancy Council, but more action is needed. In pursuit of progress, I should like to recommend action in four areas.

  817
  First, the Government must enshrine as a principle the reality that no more habitat should be destroyed to increase agricultural production. It is one thing to farm existing land well—we must do that—but it is quite another to destroy valuable habitat with taxpayers' money simply to add to farming surpluses. All grants for that purpose must cease, and the money saved must be put back into conservation—into the countryside. In that respect I also welcomed the decision by the Ministry not to give grants for drainage on the Derwent Ings. I await with anticipation the paper on the future of drainage.
  Secondly, we must draw a distinction between the prosperous farming areas in the east and the tougher conditions in the west. We must sustain the fabric of agricultural and rustic life in the most difficult farming regions. Recently the Countryside Commission called for an integrated approach to farming in the uplands. Why should not a 60-acre farm in Wales, for example, have 10 acres or more as productive woodland and be sustained as a viable farming unit using grants saved from other parts of the agriculture budget? We must welcome the Ministry's initiative to get Common Market funds and an integrated and balanced approach to farming in the less favoured areas.
  Thirdly, I should like to refer to agricultural sprays. As a farmer, I now spray my wheat crop four or five times, or more, per year. I have to do that if I am to have an economic yield. Yet, as a naturalist, I am absolutely convinced that spraying causes the destruction of much insect life and is having a profound and damaging effect on wildlife on my farm. If we could make sprays with a specific effect and precise application, we would do more for wildlife than almost any other measure would achieve. Therefore, I urge more research on the use of sprays in agriculture.
  Fourthly, I must mention acid rain. One has only to visit Scandinavia to recognise the calamity that haunts those countries. There are dead rivers and dead forests, becoming ever larger in extent. It is beyond doubt that sulphur dioxide emissions from this country are partly to blame. I support the Select Committee's call for direct action now. We must join the 30 per cent. club and start a programme of emission control. To do that would not just be to accept our responsibility and to regain much good will. To ignore the crisis now will lead not just to further damage to the environment but to an ignominious U-turn in the future. In general, I support the Government's action in encouraging the right trends to protect our environment, but I cannot do so on acid rain.
  I have spoken specifically about the protection of our remaining habitats, the need to support an integrated approach to farming, to find a solution to the damage caused by agricultural sprays and to act rather than bluster on acid rain. Nevertheless, I believe that in general the Government understand the steps that need to be taken to protect our natural heritage. They must now spell out their programme. Indeed, they must go further in the education of the public and of farmers. After all, the best protection of all for the wider countryside to which I have mainly referred is for the farmers themselves, who are the custodians of the land, to understand how best to manage their hedgerows, look after their woodlands, dig out and protect their ponds and encourage their marshes. Ultimately it is the farmer who, with understanding, can do all those things for the benefit and health of our natural heritage.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. Chris Smith: I support the Opposition motion. I do so as an unashamed advocate of the care of our natural heritage and countryside not just as an especially precious part of our national heritage but as an aspect of our life and culture which is a solace for the hearts, the eyes and imagination not just of those who live and work in the countryside but of people like my constituents who are encased in the inner cities in areas of high unemployment and deprivation. Those people need and desire the escape and solace provided by the natural environment, and it behoves this House to remember that and to cherish our heritage.
  Press reports suggest that the Government wish to be seen as a Government who care for the environment and for green issues. Like their sister party in West Germany, they wish to outgreen the greens. They are constantly telling us of their concern about these issues. The Under-Secretary of State claimed today that the Government had a fine record on the issues involved in this debate, but I wish to look behind the words at what the Government have actually achieved, because the reality is very different.
  The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) dealt excellently with the subject of acid rain. So far, the Government have refused to endorse the 30 per cent. reduction declaration made in Ottawa by most European nations. The Government have expressed sympathy and concern about the problem, but they have accepted the line constantly peddled by the Central Electricity Generating Board that more time and research are needed before action can be taken. That is not good enough. The damage is not confined to Scandinavia and Germany. In Galloway, in Wales and in the Lake District, this country is beginning to see the effects of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution. Emissions from our power stations and motor vehicles are a prime cause of that pollution. If the Government do not take immediate action, they will be storing up a great deal of trouble for the future. I hope that the Minister, when winding up the debate, will give us a great deal more hope than we have been given so far about the Government's determination to reduce the emissions of pollutants, especially from power stations, and to ensure that our air is cleaner, clearer and safer for the benefit of the environment and all of us.
  Again, in their attempts to handle the difficult balance between agricultural and conservation interests the Government have so far failed to appreciate the problems now besetting us. Some aspects of the Wildlife and Countryside Act have rightly been applauded, but it has failed to deal with other problems. Both sides now agree that the three-month loophole on designation of SSSIs must be plugged. The Act is defective in other ways. I hope that the forthcoming report of the Select Coimnittee on the Environment, of which I have honour to be a member, will show clearly the areas requiring amendment. So far, the Government have not introduced their own legislation to improve the Act, but they have made it widely known that they would welcome a private Member's Bill to do their work for them. I believe that in taking that attitude they are shirking their responsibilities in relation to the Act, but, if they decide to persevere with that course, I hope that they will give a warm welcome to the Bill likely to be proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark).

  819
  Many Conservative Members have pointed out that a major problem of the Wildlife and Countryside Act is that it relies purely on the voluntary principle in relation to conservation in areas other than SSSIs. I do not believe that that principle is sufficient. However great or welcome the change of attitude of the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association in the past two years, that does not mean that in each and every instance farmers and developers of agricultural land will concern themselves, as they rightly should, with the conservation interest.
  Looking beyond the operation of the Wildlife and Countryside Act and the Government's pathetic record on acid rain, there are other aspects of environmental concern. Selling off Forestry Commission sites to private commercial interests involves untold potential dangers for the way in which those sites are used and developed. The Government have consistently refused to make available the information about pollution by private enterprise. The proceedings of water authorities take place entirely in secret. Grants are available from central Government to enable national park authorities to enter into management agreements. Central Government provide 90 per cent. for Dartmoor. Why do not other national parks benefit to the same extent? The Government's record on the environment, across the board, is very disappointing.
  We should remind ourselves again of the overall picture. We should remember the losses that the country has experienced since the second world war—losses of lowland heaths, limestone pavements, ancient woodlands, lowland fens, uplands, grasslands and heath. We should remember that a quarter of the moorland on Dartmoor has been ploughed up for agricultural development since the second world war, and that in the Northumberland national park vast areas are still reserved for the use of the Ministry of Defence and are not open for the public to wander over.
  We should remember that there are many faults in our countryside and in the way in which the Government fail to protect and preserve that countryside. That should not surprise us very much. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, who has primary responsibility for these matters, made a revealing comment in his speech. He said that the countryside as we know it today is the product of a millionfold decision by private citizens. That may well have been true in the past. However, it is not private citizens who proposed to plant forests across the lower slopes of Creag Meaghaidh; who are buying up the land being sold by the Forestry Commission; and who are engaged on the agri-business development of farmland and prairie around the country. It is not private citizens who sit in the CEGB and refuse to acknowledge that they are the largest producers of sulphur dioxide in western Europe. Such matters are determined by the operation of large-scale commercial enterprises which have no concern whatsoever for the countryside and the environment.
  We must demand of the Government— as the representative of our community—to be concerned, to take an interest and to take action before it is too late to preserve those items of our environment which are so precious a part of our heritage and which are far too valuable for us to lose.
  6.23 pm
  Mr. Esmond Bulmer: I declare an interest as a member of the executive committee of the National Trust, a position that I share with the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), which suggests that some of the divisions between us are more apparent than real. I propose to speak briefly, drawing on that experience. The trust is responsible for some of our greatest houses and gardens, miles of our most beautiful and vulnerable coastline, large areas of the Lake District and many acres of farmland, moorland and woodland.
  Many people from overseas visit the houses, which are increasingly centres for a wide variety of recreational activities. They are also, thanks to co-operation with the Manpower Services Commission, providing much useful work for those who have left school and not yet found a job.
  The House will realise that a great house is not simply a museum. The house is a living entity and, with its surrounding park, provides scope for a great deal of leisure activity.
  The Government's first great contribution is in reducing inflation to tolerable levels. In the 1970s, as hon. Members will remember, labour, building and energy costs rose so steeply that it was impossible for the National Trust to accept houses with confidence that any endowment would be sufficient.
  The House will understand that preserving such houses cost effectively demands that, so far as possible, the original family should stay there. The Government have therefore made a further contribution by reducing rates of taxation and, through the maintenance fund, in trading tax concessions for access for the public. We can begin to feel that the prevention which is so much better than the cure has been advanced.
  We must still expect casualties, and there was one recently with Caulke. The Conservatives pledged themselves to drawing the teeth of capital transfer tax, but that tax still has teeth, and the sums involved were so large that the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund were not able to provide all that was necessary. The Minister has shown some expertise in getting the Treasury to change its mind, and I believe appreciate that greater flexibility is desirable. The fact that the Treasury would not accept the Hardwick route, allowing land not of heritage quality to be accepted as an endowment, was a retrograde step.
  Those who served on the Committee which considered the National Heritage Bill know that the claims made on the trustees of the fund are very great, are increasing, and are likely to be more than the Treasury will give. When three great houses are all concerned at the same time—Caulke, Belton and perhaps Keddlestone— the sums involved are greater than the resources currently available to the National Heritage Memorial Fund. It would also be sensible for the Government to consider whether they could reduce one area of demand by moving towards the American system of providing tax incentives to people prepared to buy pictures and give them to galleries after their time. The potential call on the fund is enormous, given the increasing value of pictures in private hands.
  I turn my hon. Friend's mind to two other factors. First, there is an opportunity which has already been mentioned today. As it has become clear that farm productivity has reached the point when subsidy must be cut, some of the

  821
  money which previously was devoted to the subsidies should be directed towards conservation in one form or another. The Achilles heal of the Wildlife and Countryside Act is lack of funds.
  I hope, too, that more research can be undertaken into the technology of low-input, low-output farming. Any hon. Member who visits the Lake District will understand that small is beautiful and that the pattern of that landscape demands that it should be economically possible for people to stay there.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will also address himself—if not today, then later on—to a problem created by the phasing out of the metropolitan counties. Speke hall in Liverpool and Lyme park in Manchester are both, under the proposals which are currently in hand, to pass to district councils. There is every reason to fear that those councils will not have the resources to meet the financial demands of the full repairing leases under which those properties are held from the National Trust at the moment.
  I believe that we all share a dedication towards the idea of preserving for future generations the best of what exists in the country today. It is difficult to recreate the confidence which characterised those who laid out the parks in the 18th century, but we can at least ensure that the landscapes which came to fruition years after they were planned are preserved, and that all the opportunities for recreation are developed in a constructive way. We can ensure that our children value all that is good in our past because it is in their determination and that of all of us to preserve what is best that the hope lies. It is an issue which I believe is above party.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I understand that I have three minutes—
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your guidance about what an hon. Member has to do to get called? I was in for the opening speeches and unavoidably had to go to chair a Statutory Instruments Committee, providing a quorum for that Committee so that at least one Conservative Member could be in here trying to catch your eye. I returned as soon as that Committee's proceedings had finished. I have sat here and listened to rather more of the debate than many hon. Members who were called earlier and left almost as soon as they had finished their speeches.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) has been here throughout the debate. I was not aware of the reason why the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) left the Chamber, but I knew that he was not present for part of the debate. I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand me if I say that he is a Front Bench spokesman and has other opportunities to speak in the Chamber. It is part of my responsibilities to look after the interests of Back Benchers who have rather fewer chances.
  Mr. Skeet: I now have two minutes.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that conservation and the integrity of the environment is probably one of the most important aspects of life. However, I recollect the groundnuts scheme being formulated for east Africa in 1948. The British Government threw away £36 million in a great project that, unfortunately, did not conserve the countryside. I use that as an illustration in only one respect.
  822
  I have read from cover to cover the report of the Select Committee which considered the question of acid rain. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister has not made any observations in response to that report. Perhaps I may make a few observations. First, there are multiple causes of the problem. There is not just one component—sulphur dioxide. Power stations are not solely responsible for the devastation of the forests in Germany. Ozone and aluminium leached from the soil may also be responsible. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who spoke to me outside the House a moment ago, is aware that only 2 per cent. of the sulphur dioxide produced in the United Kingdom travels to Norway. Secondly, there is little to be gained from throwing money at the problem as the solution is likely to be extremely expensive and may not result in the blessings that we all seek.
  Unfortunately, my time is now up and I cannot make the remarks that I intended to make.
  6.32 pm
  Dr. David Clark: The short speech of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet)—I should have liked to have heard it develop, and perhaps he will have another opportunity to do that—and the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) highlight the difference between the two sides of the House.
  Today's debate clearly illustrates the general disquiet at the Government's policy and their handling of environmental matters. Such matters affect the quality of life of millions of people and the surroundings in which they live. I do not need to declare my views on the environment. Since I came here in 1970 with my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and some Conservative Members, some people have been prepared to declare their faith in environmental issues, even when it was not fashionable to do so. That is part and parcel of our Socialist philosophy and why we are prepared at times to say unfashionable things.
  It has been a great disappointment to the Opposition for the past 12 months—I do not wish to dwell on the point but it must be put on the record again—that, while we have offered to participate with the Government in taking remedial action on the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, they have not been prepared to respond. After all, we have delivered. Last year we delivered on the Crown land legislation and would have done so again. I hope that we can remedy this and other matters in other ways. We are prepared, even at this late stage, to make common issue with the Government to apply cosmetic improvements to their policy as long as the result is less damaging to our countryside and environment. However, we disagree fundamentally with the Government's basic approach.
  I was also disappointed with the presentation of the Minister's speech. His speech did not do him justice. It was thin and he failed to address himself to the key areas of conservation. However, I am prepared to give him full marks for honesty because his speech reflected the Government's environmental policy: it is one of thinness and irrelevance.
  There are several reasons for our tabling the motion. The first, which my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) dealt with, has not been stated widely enough. I refer to the international effect of the environmental movement. I was especially anxious to

  823
  learn that the Minister for Overseas Development has abolished the full-time post of environmental scrutineer in our Third world aid programme. Is that the case? If so, may we have an assurance that Environment Ministers will try to get a replacement for that vital role? We have only to see the terrifying pictures on television of Ethiopia and perhaps even the Sudan to realise that, while we pump aid into those countries, it is only an intermediate solution and that we need to do something about the environment.
  Acid rain is another international problem. I do not want to go into detail because I hope that the Government will stand by their word and initiate a full-scale debate on the issue. The Government's stance is isolated and untenable. They should immediately sign the 30 per cent. declaration which was drawn up at Ottawa and support the EEC in the 60 per cent. reduction of sulphur dioxide and the 40 per cent. reduction of nitrous oxide.
  In regard to the North sea, the Minister managed to salvage something out of the Bremen conference at the end of October. However, the British Government were again seen as the laggards of Europe. The Minister got together a face-saving formula about there being another conference in two years, but during the next two years much damage will be done to the North sea. Nothing has been done about waste dumping and nothing has been done about protection of the North sea. If the Minister talked to fishermen and seamen who ply from the north-east coast to Scandinavian countries he would hear evidence of the need for action. We believe that the Government have failed in their international obligations. That is morally wrong and to the disadvantage of British industry.
  On the domestic scene, my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) pungently made the point that the environment concerns the urban as well as the rural scene. Part of my Socialist philosophy rests on that. People from towns want to go out and enjoy the beauties of the countryside, but they also have a right to live in a pleasant environment. There is no need for urbanisation to be ugly. I should have thought that the advances of technology and planning made that unnecessary. However, there is still much work to be done to clean up our older industrial areas. Today I checked on the top four unemployment areas in England—1 had better not mention Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales. They are south Tyneside with 25·5 per cent. unemployment, Hartlepool with 24·9 per cent. unemployment, Middlesbrough with 24·5 per cent. unemployment and Sunderland with 22·4 per cent. unemployment. They are all potentially attractive areas. Each has a coastline, and with a little help and a considerable amount of public investment the environment could be greatly enhanced. But the Government's policy on the clearance of derelict land is ineffective, especially in such areas, because the partnership scheme between the private and public sectors simply does not work in areas such as the north-east, where there is no private presence. I ask the Government to look seriously at this point. I know that they will shortly receive an approach from the Tyne and Wear county council, which wishes to discuss this matter, and I hope that they will respond positively to that request.
  In its report in June this year, the Nature Conservancy Council said of farming:
  824
  "Of all human activities that are damaging to nature, agriculture is overwhelmingly the most important because of the sheer scale of its impact".
  As someone who tried to eke out a living on the land in the north-west, I can vouch for the veracity of that statement. I also recognise the scale of technological change and the impact of EEC policies on agriculture since I worked on the land more than 20 years ago. We now have over-production and despoliation, and the time has come for a change in policy.
  Many times, farmers have said that Tom Williams, who I think came from Wentworth, was the best thing that ever happened to British agriculture. They never voted Labour, but that is what they said.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Some have done.
  Dr. Clark: I apologise to my hon. Friend. The Agriculture Act 1947, which has served this country well, was based on self-sufficiency. The time has now come when the basic tenet of that Act is no longer strictly applicable. We are not now concerned with self-sufficiency so much as with over-production. I would not mind that over-production if we had the capability of transposing it to Third world countries, but we have not. Therefore, we need a definite statement that the Government are prepared to subjugate some of their MAFF policies to the interests of the wider environment.
  "There is potential within"—
  the Wildlife and Countryside Act—
  "for setting farmers against conservationists, in a manner which we feel to be expensive, undesirable and unnecessary, in an unequal struggle in which the conservation of our countryside and wildlife can only lose in the long run."
  Those are not the words of the Labour party. They were contained in this year's annual report of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. Conservative Members have said that there is not much wrong with that Act, but it contains some basic flaws, as the Bow group paper repeatedly states. We want to try to rectify them.
  I associate myself with everything that has been said about the disappearing SSSIs. I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) refer to the NCC as a pressure group and to doubt and question its scientific findings. That was unworthy.
  We believe that the Forestry Commission and MAFF should be subjected to the same constraints as the water boards. We should like to see prenotification extended. We desperately want to see the creation of marine nature reserves, and action is needed on drainage. Those aspects of the Wildlife and Countryside Act have been widely explored, and I support most of the criticisms that have been made.
  I had the pleasure of leading for the Opposition on the National Heritage Act. We supported it because it adopted a less elitist approach to the conservation of our national heritage, which is a heritage of working people just as much as of the grandees of the past. Many of us have complained that our approach to the built environment has been far too elitist. Because of that, many people who would have wished to benefit from our cultural heritage have missed out.
  Today, the Hadrian's wall advisory panel produced a report drawing the Government's attention to the problem of mass tourism. That part of Northumberland needs mass tourism simply because no jobs are available. However, may we have a Government asssurance of a major

  825
  initiative towards a new approach? The Northumberland county council has bought a worn-out used quarry on the border between Northumberland and Cumbria. Will the Government give immediate assistance to develop it into an archaeological and historical park? I ask that because today there has emerged an adventurous scheme in South Shields to rebuild the eastern guard post at Hadrian's wall, the best preserved urban fort in the country. The county council has put forward an imaginative scheme, but must now go through the process of a long and expensive public inquiry.
  That area is in desperate need of jobs, because 25 per cent. of the people there are out of work. Such a scheme will attract 250,000 visitors, and in no way will that harm the archaeological interpretation of that site.
  Mr. Nicholas Baker: Before the hon. Gentleman pleads for mass tourism, will he consider the impact on the environment, about which he cares, as is manifest from his remarks? I understand the need for jobs, but jobs in mass tourism as opposed to more selective tourism could have a devastating impact on the environment.
  Dr. Clark: I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. The answer to the problem is that put forward by my hon. friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). If people are congregating at the same narrow spot, we must try to get them to visit other places. Hadrian's wall is a good example. People visit one or two specific sites, yet there are many others which they should be encouraged to visit. However, given the restrictive access policy that is often adopted by private ownership, that is not possible. I hope that the Government will also consider the suggestion of the Hadrian's wall advisory panel that there should be a footpath along the length of the wall.
  There have been declarations of surprise from Conservative Members at the ferocity of the views expressed by my hon. Friends. They should not be surprised. We feel particularly strongly that Government policies do not fully match the environmental challenges with which we are faced, and on occasions those policies are irretrievably damaging our countryside and environment.
  Most of us represent areas which have suffered from the industrial ravages of the past, which has resulted in a legacy of unbridled free enterprise. Consequently, many generations have suffered immensely, and the quality of their lives has been permanently impaired. Most of us thought that we would never see such unbridled industrialisation again, but we now have a Government who are the declared proponent of the free enterprise system—the enemy of conservation and the environment. The Government's environmental policy is the most reactionary in western Europe. Compared with the Prime Minister, President Reagan appears to be a paid-up member of Greenpeace. As least he had the decency to sack his Secretary of State for the Environment when he proved to be a failure.
  We tabled the motion, not because we are tired of the Government's crocodile tears on environment matters, but because the Government are damaging the environment and reducing the quality of life of many British people.
  6.50 pm
  The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Ian Gow): The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)
  826
  started and ended his speech in a way which he will live to regret. He started with the implication, which I find especially unattractive, that only Socialists can be concerned about our natural environment and the national heritage of Britain. Conservative Members indignantly resent that charge. I believe that possessions which are owned, whether by a public body or by a private individual, are held by hon. Members, who are elected as temporary custodians and trustees for future generations whom we shall not see.
  The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made a long and rambling speech. Whatever may be said about my speech, it will not be long, because I have been left only 10 minutes. It is a tribute to the House that so many hon. Members have been able to speak during a debate which has lasted only just over three hours. We will have had 16 speeches in all.
  Conservative Members have been puzzled by the choice of topic. We are greatly surprised that the Labour party chose for one of its precious Supply days a matter on which we believe the Government have an outstanding record and on which the Labour Government's record was not one of which they could be proud.
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State reminded the House of the keen interest which he and I take in motions for the Labour party conference. I studied the motions which were before the comrades when they were in Blackpool last month. [Interruption.] The former Patronage Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks), seems to make a habit of coming in and from a sedentary position interrupting Conservative Members. If he wishes to make an intervention now, I shall gladly give way. It appears that he does not.
  A motion before the Labour party conference, which was submitted by the Buckingham constituency Labour party, urged the Labour party to develop its policies on the environment and to communicate them more effectively to the electorate. I expect that a similar motion will be submitted to the comrades when they meet in 11 months' time.
  The hon. Member for Copeland asked about the Control of Pollution Act 1974. It was left to this Government—the announcement was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) in February 1981—to embark on a four-year programme to bring the Control of Pollution Act into effect. We have decided that the major provisions of the Act will come into force by July 1985 and that part II of the Act will be entirely in force by July 1986. As a result, water authorities will have full powers of control over all inland waters, estuaries, underground water and the sea along the coast. They will have the means to tackle pollution of water, the careless handling of transport and the storage of chemicals. From the end of January proposals for major discharges of water must be advertised and be open to public objection and inquiry before a decision is taken. At the same time, water authorities will institute registers showing the performance of discharges. These will be open to public inspection from next summer.
  The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) raised a constituency point which with characteristic tenacity he has pursued with my hon. Fritend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. He spoke with deep sincerity. When my hon. Friend met the hon. Gentleman recently, he told him that he would submit all of the papers to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. That

  827
  was done. As a result, all the hon. Gentleman's representations about Lumn's lane have received the most careful consideration by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and by me separately. We have all reached the conclusion that, on the basis of the best and most objective scientific advice that we have received, what is proposed will be safe and will present no danger to the health of the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised some specific points. I explained to him why I did not want to comment on the prosecution which he mentioned. He asked what would happen next to Halvergate. We are still considering the recommendations of the joint working group. We are aware that further steps are needed if we are to avoid next year the problems which we have faced this year. I shall write to him about the other points that he raised.
  The hon. Member for Copeland spoke about the effect of farming methods on the landscape and habitat. Incredibly, he seems to have forgotten that, although the Labour Government, which he adorned for some time, had the opportunity to introduce legislation of that sort, this Government introduced the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The House knows that the operation of that Act is being examined by the Select Committee on the Environment. I do not wish to anticipate its findings. However, there is wide agreement that the Act has done a great deal to change attitudes to conservation in the countryside. That point was made in a powerful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who used to be a distinguished Minister in the Department of the Environment.
  The Government's decision to provide further resources for the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission is positive proof of our commitment to making the Act work.
  Regarding our built heritage, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England has made an excellent start. I endorse the tributes paid earlier to my noble Friend Lord Montagu. We have protected the parts of the heritage which Parliament decided should remain directly in the Government's care. The tower of London and Hampton court have seen further improvements with greater public access and an increased number of visitors.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) referred to an accelerated survey of listed buildings which we initiated in 1981. That is proceeding rapidly and on time. The number of listed buildings has risen from 280,000 in 1981 to 328,000 last month. By 1987 we shall have the most comprehensive, scholarly and detailed listings of historic buildings in the world.
  Decisions taken now will profoundly affect the quality of the built and the natural heritage for future generations. We need to look beyond the individual cases, important though they are, which have been raised in the debate. We need to put them in the wider context of what should be our joint purpose—to preserve the built and the natural environment.
  The nation has inherited a marvellous legacy of historic buildings and a wide variety of landscapes and habitats. The majority of those are looked after by private individuals or bodies such as the National Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The
  828
  Government's purpose is to create conditions in which responsible and concerned attitudes can flourish. The measures that we have taken to enable the owners of historic houses to continue their stewardship and to encourage farmers to manage and conserve their lands are proving effective.
  The Government understand that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is not perfect. The voluntary bodies do a great deal to protect our heritage. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has nearly 500,000 members. The National Trust has 1 million members. The Government are determined to build upon the successful initiatives that we have taken. The Government and the people are joint trustees for the next generation. The Government will discharge that trusteeship.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 276.

  Division No. 21]

  [7.00 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Dobson, Frank

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Dormand, Jack

  Alton, David

  Douglas, Dick

  Anderson, Donald

  Dubs, Alfred

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Eadie, Alex

  Ashton, Joe

  Eastham, Ken

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

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

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Ewing, Harry

  Barnett, Guy

  Fatchett, Derek

  Barron, Kevin

  Faulds, Andrew

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Benn, Tony

  Fisher, Mark

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

  Flannery, Martin

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Forrester, John

  Blair, Anthony

  Foulkes, George

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Boyes, Roland

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Garrett, W. E.

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  George, Bruce

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

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

  Gould, Bryan

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

  Gourlay, Harry

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Hardy, Peter

  Buchan, Norman

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Haynes, Frank

  Campbell, Ian

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Home Robertson, John

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Cartwright, John

  Howells, Geraint

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Clay, Robert

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  John, Brynmor

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Johnston, Russell

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cowans, Harry

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Crowther, Stan

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lambie, David

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Leadbitter, Ted

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

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Deakins, Eric

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Dewar, Donald

  Litherland, Robert

  Dixon, Donald

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  829

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Rogers, Allan

  Loyden, Edward

  Rooker, J. W.

  McCartney, Hugh

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Rowlands, Ted

  McKelvey, William

  Ryman, John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McWilliam, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Madden, Max

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Marek, Dr John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

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

  Maxton, John

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meacher, Michael

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

  Meadowcroft, Michael

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

  Michie, William

  Snape, Peter

  Mikardo, Ian

  Soley, Clive

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Spearing, Nigel

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Stott, Roger

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Strang, Gavin

  Nellist, David

  Straw, Jack

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  O'Brien, William

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Tinn, James

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Torney, Tom

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Wainwright, R.

  Park, George

  Wallace, James

  Parry, Robert

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Patchett, Terry

  Wareing, Robert

  Pendry, Tom

  Weetch, Ken

  Penhaligon, David

  Welsh, Michael

  Pike, Peter

  White, James

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Prescott, John

  Wilson, Gordon

  Radice, Giles

  Winnick, David

  Randall, Stuart

  Woodall, Alec

  Redmond, M.

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Rees, Rt Hon M. ('Leeds S)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Robertson, George

  Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe and

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Burt, Alistair

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Butcher, John

  Ancram, Michael

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Arnold, Tom

  Butterfill, John

  Ashby, David

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

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

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Baldry, Tony

  Chapman, Sydney

  Batiste, Spencer

  Chope, Christopher

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Churchill, W. S.

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Benyon, William

  Cockeram, Eric

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Colvin, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Conway, Derek

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Coombs, Simon

  Blackburn, John

  Cope, John

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cormack, Patrick

  Body, Richard

  Corrie, John

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Critchley, Julian

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Dickens, Geoffrey

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

  Dicks, Terry

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Dover, Den

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Dunn, Robert

  Bright, Graham

  Durant, Tony

  Brinton, Tim

  Dykes, Hugh

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Evennett, David

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  830

  Fallon, Michael

  Major, John

  Farr, Sir John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Favell, Anthony

  Malone, Gerald

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Maples, John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Marland, Paul

  Forman, Nigel

  Marlow, Antony

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Mather, Carol

  Fox, Marcus

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Franks, Cecil

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gale, Roger

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Merchant, Piers

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Gorst, John

  Moate, Roger

  Gow, Ian

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Moore, John

  Greenway, Harry

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

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

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Grist, Ian

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Grylls, Michael

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Mudd, David

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Needham, Richard

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hannam, John

  Newton, Tony

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Harris, David

  Onslow, Cranley

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heddle, John

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Hickmet, Richard

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Parris, Matthew

  Hind, Kenneth

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Pawsey, James

  Holt, Richard

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howard, Michael

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'Idford)

  Powley, John

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Price, Sir David

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Irving, Charles

  Raffan, Keith

  Jessel, Toby

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Rost, Peter

  Key, Robert

  Ryder, Richard

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Knox, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lang, Ian

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Latham, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Silvester, Fred

  Lightbown, David

  Sims, Roger

  Lilley, Peter

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lord, Michael

  Speller, Tony

  Luce, Richard

  Spence, John

  McCrindle, Robert

  Spencer, Derek

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  MacGregor, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Squire, Robin

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Stan brook, Ivor

  Maclean, David John

  Stanley, John

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

  Steen, Anthony

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Stern, Michael

  Madel, David

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  831

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Walden, George

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Waller, Gary

  Sumberg, David

  Walters, Dennis

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John David

  Warren, Kenneth

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Watson, John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Watts, John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Whitfield, John

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Whitney, Raymond

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wood, Timothy

  Tracey, Richard

  Woodcock, Michael

  Trippier, David

  Yeo, Tim

  Trotter, Neville

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Waddington, David

  Mr. Tim Sainsbury and

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Mr. Michael Neubert.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House recognises the care and attention paid by Her Majesty's Government to the natural environment and the national heritage; pays tribute to the good progress made by the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission and the National Heritage Memorial Fund; approves of the encouragement given to the many voluntary agencies in these areas; and notes the increased resources Her Majesty's Government propose to devote to protecting the environment and the heritage in 1985–86.

  Shipbuilding Industry
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  During the previous debate, no fewer than 17 speakers were called, including those from the Front Benches. If we can do as well in this debate, I am sure that hon. Members will be pleased.
  7.12 pm
  Mr. John Smith: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the deepening crisis in the British shipbuilding industry and the massive redundancies, already announced and in prospect; and demands urgent action by the Government to maintain this vital industry.
  When the redundancies of 2,100 at Swan Hunter and 790 at Vosper Thornycroft were announced last week, the alarm felt by the Opposition at both the consequences and implications of even more job losses in British Shipbuilders was such that we rapidly initiated this debate in Opposition time. In the first instance, our concern is for the communities in both parts of Britain that have had to face yet another major addition to the relentlessly increasing total of the unemployed. I also fear that these redundancies are a further addition to the army of highly skilled unemployed. Many of those who will be thrown on the dole by these redundancies are, like so many of their predecessors, highly skilled workers whose talents we need to harness, not reject.
  In a recent study on the east end of Newcastle upon Tyne, where, as the House knows, there is a heavy concentration of shipbuilding, the city council discovered that skilled workers account for 49 per cent, of the male unemployment total in that area. The effect of these redundancies will go far wider. For every person employed in shipbuilding, there are at least three in ancillary industries and services who depend on the industry.
  We deplore these redundancies and their effects, but we also fear them as a sign of the deepening crisis that is affecting the whole of our shipbuilding industry, and we fear that more redundancies are likely to follow in the other shipbuilding areas unless there is an urgent change of policy by the Government. I hope that the Government will not seek to suggest that our fears and those of the shipbuilding communities of Tyneside, Wearside, Merseyside, Clydeside and elsewhere are unfounded.
  It is widely, and correctly, believed that there is a level below which it is not possible to maintain a viable shipbuilding industry, and that we are perilously close to that level, if we have not already gone below it. If the Government do not believe us or those in the shipbuilding areas, I hope that they will not disregard the views of Sir Robert Atkinson, whom they appointed as chairman of British Shipbuilders. In an interview reported fully in the Sunderland Echo, on 23 July this year, he said that it was his belief that the industry had reached a critical point beyond which it could not survive. He went on to say— and this was in July, long before the present redundancies were announced—that any further contraction or closure would mean that the industry was no longer able to offer the range of facilities that it required for viability. The article reported him as saying:
  "'The industry has reached the bare minimum needed now'.
  He believes the Government must be called upon to intervene to save the industry.

  833
  'I am a non-party man and a non-political man. All I care about is preserving a strong shipbuilding and engineering industry in Britain … and it breaks my heart to look at what has been done to shipbuilding in the past 18 months,' he said.
  It is his great fear that the intention is to close yards one by one.
  He said he was a great admirer of Mrs. Thatcher, but it's his belief that the Prime Minister has been badly advised 'by people who do not understand shipbuilding and its importance for the future.'"
  There may be some sitting on the Treasury Bench whom he had in mind. For the Government's appointed chairman to speak in those terms about the industry that he supervised is an indictment of the Government's stewardship of the shipbuilding industry.
  The Government's defence today, as we see from their amendment, is that, despite the closures, the rundowns, the redundancies and other signs of retreat, they have done well by the industry because they have
  "provided over £1,000 million … to British Shipbuilders since 1979".
  On some occasions the Government are less careful about the words. "Provide" often becomes "subsidy", although the Government know well that it is simply not true that there has been a subsidy of any such amount.
  Let me once again refer to the views of the ex-chairman, Sir Robert Atkinson, on money provided to BS. He took the figure as £800 million but he may have been referring to the period up until he demitted office. The article said:
  "He"—
  Sir Robert Atkinson—
  "said much has been made of the £800-million Government aid to shipbuilding from nationalisation to the time he left the BS Chair. But he said this was a 'half truth'— because the industry was so under-capitalised, one half of that £800-million was in fact used as working capital and in capital expenditure, not in direct subsidies."
  The article went on:
  "The industry had to compete with the Far East where shipbuilding was subsidised to such a degree that ships were being built for the cost of materials or less. 'Even if our men worked for nothing and we paid no rent or rates or overheads, we could not match them," he said. But he warned that if the Far East succeeded in destroying our shipbuilding industry then their own ships would no longer be so cheap."
  I want to refer to one further point in that interview with Sir Robert Atkinson. He says some things that Labour Members would not wholly approve of or agree with, but it is important that the House knows what he said. The article said:
  "He said it was true that in the past the industry had had a 'strike happy' reputation and the first question asked abroad was whether delivery times would be met. But he said: 'The unions may be to blame for a lot in the past, but in my time they accepted a pay freeze and massive redundancies just to keep their industry ticking over. Their reward for that has been closure and threat of closure.'"
  That is a striking thing for the former chairman of an industry to say. The article went on:
  "He pointed out also that in comparing productivity rates with Europe, what was often forgotten was that the wage rates were twice as high on the Continent. He said that during his Chairmanship—40-million worth of computerised equipment had been brought in with the co-operation of the workforce, and orders had been won from abroad—including the first orders from Norway in 25 years—through aggressive marketing. But what was happening now was that owners had lost confidence in the British shipbuilding industry because they sensed a 'lack of dedication and commitment' to it on the part of the Government."
  Mr. Michael Fallon: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way so early
  834
  in Sir Robert's speech. Would he not have been more up to date to quote the present chairman of BS who, in Shipbuilding News for September 1984, was quoted as saying:
  "I believe that had we taken some very difficult decisions; in 1977–78 a more competitive industry would have been preserved than that which we have today."
  Had the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Government taken the decisions that were necessary then, would we not have had a much better industry today?
  Mr. Smith: I regret having given way to the hon. Gentleman, who cannot rise to the level of seriousness that the debate demands. Such facile attempts at witticism are not suitable to the debate. The point is that the ex-chairman, appointed by a Conservative Government, has condemned not only what has happened in the industry but has expressed a complete lack of faith in any commitment by the Government to the industry's future.
  I quoted Sir Robert Atkinson at some length because it is important that the House and the nation should realise that the crisis in the shipbuilding industry is crucial, is happening now, and is thought to be happening now by those who know and care about the industry, and it is now that urgent action is required.
  The first thing that the Government can and should do is to end the nonsense of privatising the warship building yards. There is no doubt that they are and will be the most profitable section of the industry. What possible sense is there in a strategy for a beleaguered industry which involves disposing of the profit-earning part and leaving the more difficult merchant shipbuilding sector unsupported and alone in the midst of the worst shipbuilding recession that we have ever seen?
  There is, as was made clear by the present chairman in evidence to the Select Committee—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that what the chairman said is valid—no commercial reason for privatisation of the warship yards. The proposal did not come from BS. It came from the Government and it is they alone who must bear the responsibility for their folly.
  It makes us ask the Minister—and ask very directly— whether the Government have any commitment to merchant shipbuilding in Britain. If it continues to decline, will the Government stand by and let it disappear? We know that the money raised by the sale of the warship yards will not go back to the industry; it will go to the Treasury where it will be lost among the billions of pounds spent on maintaining on minimum standards our army of unemployed. The irony will be—in this crazy world of Tory monetarist economics—that the proceeds from the sale of public assets may be used to pay for the unemployment caused by the Government's failure to support the same industry.
  I do not imagine that there is one Minister who, if he were in charge of his own business and wished to stay in it, would sell the most profitable parts. Why then should they handle the nation's assets, of which they are only temporary stewards, with less care than they would bestow upon their own concerns?
  Mr. Gerald Malone rose—
  Mr. Smith: I have given way already. This is a short debate and I must try to allow as many hon. Members as possible to take part.
  Privatisation could be halted now and if it were it would be a sign that the fight to preserve and to maintain the

  835
  British shipbuilding industry had started in earnest. Let there be no doubt that this maritime nation needs a shipbuilding industry. We live by trade and our Navy is crucial to our defences. If we depend on others to build our ships, we shall not be able to guarantee the security of supply which is crucial to our national survival.
  Under this Government we have seen the steepest decline in our shipping industry in almost its entire history. Both those trends— the declines in shipping and in shipbuilding—need to be halted by the adoption of a maritime strategy for the nation based on the maintenance and prosperity of our shipping and shipbuilding industries. It is the Government's task to bring the industries together, as other countries do. It was the order of 125 ships by the Sanko Shipping Company in Japan which rescued the Japanese shipbuilding industry and maintained its prosperity. The British Government should put on their agenda as an item of maximum importance the devising of new means— by tax concessions or more direct Government assistance— as other Governments do, to maximise the orders for British ships in British shipyards. I am less concerned about the precise means adopted— although I deplore recent changes which go in the opposite direction—than with the establishment of this maritime strategy as a national objective. It is the will above all which is lacking and which must be found.
  The Government must also resolve to halt redundancies in the shipbuilding industry. If it is true—I believe that it is—that the industry is now at a minimum level, or even below it, the line has to be drawn and it has to be held. Otherwise, we shall see a remorseless decline as yard after yard in the merchant sector declines and closes. If that means, as inevitably it does, that Government support for the industry has to increase, that must be accepted as the necessary price for maintaining a crucial industry.
  Instead of allowing it to be believed that the Government have little commitment to BS after the privatisation of the warship yards, an absolute determination to maintain the industry must be acted upon. Of course, BS, in this fiercely competitive world, must be as efficient as possible and it needs the support of everyone in the industry. If the Government signalled their commitment, there would be no difficulty in creating an atmosphere of total commitment by everyone within it to its success.
  A useful example of that new-found commitment would be to reverse the foolish decision to close the engine factory at British Shipbuilders' engineering works— I refer to the BS(ETS) project—and thereby to end the project to build a new slow-speed diesel engine. British industry depends crucially, in all its areas, on new product development. It is tragic to see a project of such potential, in which only recently substantial investment was made, being closed. I fear that that is yet another example of Britain's industrial retreat. We should not be abandoning such an area of economic activity. As the Institute of Marine Engineers recently proposed, the engine project should be made part of a larger project for a total machinery propulsion system that would greatly upgrade marine engineering capability in the United Kingdom.
  However, I fear that the Government do not seem to be disposed towards seeking new ways forward for our shipbuilding and marine engineering industries. Above all, what is lacking about the Government's policies, their
  836
  attitudes and their statements and about all their actions towards the shipbuilding industry is, as Sir Robert Atkinson so convincingly demonstrated, a commitment to the industry's success. But inside and outside the industry it is widely believed that the Government are simply indifferent about whether the merchant yards will survive. It is a serious charge, but I have to say that evidence is accumulating in favour of that view.
  For this state of affairs, the Government deserve to be roundly condemned by all who care not only for the industry but for the national interest. We shall express our condemnation by voting for the motion in the Lobby.
  7.31 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'recognises the efforts being made by the British shipbuilding industry to overcome its present difficulties; notes that the Government has provided over £1,000 million of taxpayers' money to British Shipbuilders since 1979; recognises that only by becoming more competitive can the British shipbuilding industry have a secure future; welcomes the efforts of the industry's management to achieve that objective; and endorses the Government's decision to return British Shipbuilders' warship building interests to the private sector as soon as possible.'.
  I welcome the debate as an opportunity to set the record straight. After the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), it certainly needs quite a bit of unbending.
  I agree that there is cause for concern about the merchant order book. The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the worst ever recession in shipbuilding. Of course, there must be concern about the international trading conditions that we face, and I agree that that concern is heightened by the inevitable redundancies at Swan Hunter and Vosper Thornycroft. But to listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, one would think that the whole world was queuing up to buy British ships and that it was only the obstinacy of a British Government that was stopping those orders. But nothing could be further from the truth. World demand for ships is deeply depressed. Even the Japanese are feeling the draught. The Ministry of Transport in Tokyo was reported the other day as having said that new building orders that were received between April and September amounted to only 3·9 million tonnes, which was 47 per cent, down on a year earlier.
  The figures for our other competitors in Europe, including Italy and France, were also substantially down over the same period. But the latest figures in Lloyds Register show that in the 12 months to June 1984 the tonnage ordered in UK yards was up 8 per cent, over the same period. Despite the right hon. and learned Gentleman's arrival on the Opposition Front Bench to look after trade and industry for the Labour party, that party seems to get its needle stuck in the same groove. Again and again it suggests that the Government are doing nothing to support the industry. The Labour party repeats itself, so I need not be too abashed about repeating myself. The Labour party continues to peddle the myth that the Government have done nothing for the industry.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East quoted some of the figures of support under this Government. He referred to £1 billion since 1979 as being

  837
  designed to compensate for the under-capitalisation of British Shipbuilders. But unfortunately the truth is that a large part of that £1,170 million since 1979 has gone to pay for losses in British Shipbuilders. In the past two years it has lost £117 million and £161 million. Not all of that Government money has been to compensate for under-capitalisation. A large part of it has also gone for investment. This year, there will be support to the tune of about £217 million. Of that, £100 million is for investment for the long term.
  The scale of losses seen in the recent past cannot be tolerated and would not be tolerated by—if it is possible to imagine such a thing—a Labour Government. I do not think that they would put up with it. British Shipbuilders must take steps—as it is doing—to stem the losses and to improve its performance. The half-year results will be available next month. I am confident that those for 1984–85 will be substantially better than those for the past two years. But unfortunately that does not reflect any dramatic upturn or improvement in the merchant shipbuilding business. It reflects the ending of huge losses on offshore work. Alas, British Shipbuilders has some way to go before regaining its competitiveness.
  In such debates I am always accused of knocking the labour force or the performance of British Shipbuilders. But I acknowledge that British Shipbuilders is beginning to see marked improvements in throughput per man, in accordance with the corporate plan. The successful conclusion of the phase V pay agreement has opened up substantial changes in work practices. We are heartened by the return to work at Cammell Laird of the huge majority of the work force in the face of illegal and disruptive action by a small group of militants. I congratulate the back-to-work committee on its courage and on the lead that it has given. The dropping of the overtime ban by Swan Hunter and the attempts there to get the Atlantic Conveyor back on schedule have been equally welcome. But when there is concern in several yards— as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said— about new orders and the possibility of running out of work, it represents all the more encouraging evidence of the work force changing its attitude and being prepared to deliver ships on time in accordance with specifications.
  Such a performance will give potential customers confidence in the yards. It is only if customers are confident about the performance, delivery and price that they will be persuaded to place orders in British yards.
  Mr. Malone: It would be of great interest to the shipyard workers in my constituency who work in a very profitable yard called Hall Russell if my hon. Friend gave an undertaking tonight that, when the yard is sold, it will be sold for the purpose of shipbuilding. He has said that he is keen to reward those who are successful in the industry, and my constituents would welcome his undertaking.
  Mr. Lamont: I shall come to that point later and I believe that I shall be able to go a long way towards satisfying my hon. Friend with an undertaking.
  Despite recent events and improvements, British Shipbuilders has unfortunately sometimes acquired a poor reputation, which takes a long time to live down. We still have a long way to go, but we must acknowledge that if the present rate of improvement and the present optimistic developments continue British Shipbuilders will certainly deserve to overcome that reputation.
  838
  I return to developments in Brussels and in the Community. Last week, I and other EC Ministers in the Industry Council agreed to a two-year extension of the Community's fifth directive on shipbuilding aids. That provides the framework for aids in 1985 and 1986. Like its predecessor, which was accepted by the Labour Government, this directive refers to degressivity of aid, but it is able to be interpreted flexibly and will permit the Commission to respond to our proposals for an improved aid regime for the United Kingdom industry.
  The House will recall that the Government told the Commission that it was their view that we needed a more generous aid regime in order to get the orders that are needed by our yards. I regret that the matter has not yet been concluded.
  I saw Mr. Andriesson last week and had one of the several conversations that I have had with him. I hope to talk to him again this week. I left him in no doubt that, despite our dislike of subsidies, we believe that a higher level of intervention is justified. I left him in no doubt that the Government are not prepared to tolerate the multiple collapse of our merchant shipbuilding industry. It is unfortunate that matters have not been concluded, but in the meantime, as I have made clear to the House before, the Government are prepared to help to achieve orders on a case-by-case basis.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: I was waiting for my hon. Friend to mention the percentage rate of grant. Currently the rate is 17 per cent. Does my hon. Friend intend to campaign for an increase to 35 per cent.?
  Mr. Lamont: I do not want to quote details of individual figures and the House would be amazed if I did. That would be a remarkable step in the middle of negotiations. We have made it clear that there should be an increase in the intervention fund level.
  There are grounds for concern about the order book. We need to secure orders to prevent a gap in the present work loads. For that reason the chairman of British Shipbuilders has outlined a number of potential orders that could fill the gaps.
  The House will understand that because of commercial confidentiality I cannot discuss the individual orders or the terms on which such orders might be obtained. However, I can confirm that British Shipbuilders is dealing with a far higher level of inquiries than it was a year ago. It has given me a list of potential orders totalling 159,000 compensated gross registered tonnes. It remains confident that with suitable support it can secure the planned total of orders of 200,000 compensated gross registered tonnes. We remain in close touch with British Shipbuilders and we shall give all the support that we can to achieve those orders.
  The Opposition may not like the principles in the EEC's fifth directive. They may not like the idea that the EEC has some say in the aid that we give to our industry. However, they accepted the principle when, in a flash of European enthusiasm, they accepted the fourth directive. With that went the principle of reducing subsidies to shipbuilding. They were right. Subsidies are not at the heart of the problem. Subsidies are not the answer.
  The differing nature of aid in different countries makes it difficult to make exact comparisons. West Germany, Denmark and Belgium give smaller production subsidies than we do. The success of Finland's shipbuilding industry

  839
  is much publicised here, not least after the launching of the Royal Princess. That ship was built and delivered by a private sector yard that pays high wages and receives no subsidy.
  The Opposition spokesman, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East, constantly reminds us that there is no free market in shipbuilding. That is true. We understand that, but it does not absolve us or the industry from the need to improve efficiency and productivity. It is not correct to say that the answer lies in more and more subsidy by the Government.
  One of the ways in which British Shipbuilders can become more competitive is, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman hinted, in adopting a sensible product strategy. In the past British Shipbuilders, although only a small builder on a world scale, has tried to cover the whole market range. The result was a product range comparable with that of the old British Leyland. Far too many designs chased far too many orders. For that reason we welcome Graham Day's determination to implement a practical and realistic product strategy. Realistically and rightly he recognises that the United Kingdom cannot hope to compete with huge far eastern yards in building the largest ships— the very large crude carriers and the bulk carriers.
  If British Shipbuilders attempts to cover all the markets it will fail to satisfy any of them adequately. For that reason the corporation is reshaping its product strategy. The emphasis will be on fewer basic designs but it will offer tailor-made packages around those designs to satisfy individual customers.
  British Shipbuilders is concentrating its marketing efforts on the most promising growth areas such as vessels for offshore work in which it has substantial expertise. With the Stena ships at Sunderland it has two advanced vessels under construction.
  Product development is a continuing requirement. British Shipbuilders has set up a number of product development groups to take the strategy through from conception to design, product engineering, production planning and to marketing. That is the right approach for a commercial, competitive shipbuilder in the 1980s. It demonstrates that the industry needs thought, planning and policies and not simply throwing more money at it. The corporation is adopting that approach.
  Mr. John Smith: I expected the Minister to make some comment on Sir Robert Atkinson's views. Does he admit that it is a matter of serious anxiety when a former chairman of British Shipbuilders has such a low opinion of the Government's commitment to the industry and their current plans for its future?
  Mr. Lamont: I totally disagree with Sir Robert Atkinson. The Government are committed to maintain the maximum competitive and efficient shipbuilding industry. However, we are not prepared to throw endless sums of money at the industry. I was not clear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman advocated, but he seemed to say that we should throw even larger sums of money at the industry.
  If British Shipbuilders can win orders, the yards' work load will stretch through the best part of next year and beyond. It will be able to look forward to a more stable
  840
  period during which it can continue to make the changes necessary to improve competitiveness. It will gain the orders only if it can satisfy customers' needs.
  That also applies to engine building. British Shipbuilders has been forced to rationalise and to restructure facilities to bring capacity more closely into line with demand. The announcement by British Shipbuilders earlier this month about the formation of a new company, Clark Kincaid Ltd, with sites in Greenock and Wallsend, marks the culmination of the current rationalisation programme. It is important that its engine-building capacity should not get out of line with potential demand determined by the order book. The order book is as crucial for engine building as it is for the merchant yards.
  Since July the Ministry of Defence has announced the award of a number of major warship orders. They include a nuclear submarine at Vickers, a replacement for the Sir Galahad at Swan Hunter and the first of the new type 23 frigates at Yarrow. A total of 32 ships are under construction in British yards— at British Shipbuilders and the private sector. They have a total value at today's prices of £2,800 million.
  In addition, a number of other potential orders are in the pipeline to meet the Navy's requirements under the defence programme. The most imminent is the order for the type 22 frigates, for which the Ministry is currently evaluating tenders from three yards. I appreciate the keen interest and anxiety at the length of time that this is taking. The Secretary of State for Defence hopes to be able to announce his decisions before the end of the year.
  Sir David Price: The tenders were originally required by last October. When I took a deputation to the Minister I was told that they should be in by last Christmas. It is now nearly a year later and I received a written reply today which merely says that the time elapsed merely because the Minister allowed it to.
  Mr. Lamont: I suggest that my hon. Friend addresses his remarks to the Secretary of State. I appreciate his anxiety, but I have given the best information that I have.
  British Shipbuilders has already told the unions, when warning them of the present redundancies, that they clearly need to keep the numbers employed at the warship yards under review in the light of developments in the order book. There clearly remains some uncertainty about the precise levels of demand in different yards, but the picture for the warship yards is far from discouraging.
  I turn to the question of privatisation.
  Mr. Robert C. Brown rose—
  Mr. Lamont: I shall not give way.
  British Shipbuilders is making progress on privatisation. It has already issued the offer for sale document for Brooke Marine. It intends to do the same for Hall Russell and Yarrow before the end of the year. We hope that the other yards will follow early in the new year. The Government's intention, wherever possible, is to sell the yards to purchasers who intend to continue shipbuilding and who can demonstrate that they have the necessary skills and finance.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lamont: I shall not give way.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: The Minister gave way to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone). Why will he not give way to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North?
  Mr. Lamont: This is a short debate, and I have given way several times.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: On that point—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The Minister is obviously not giving way.
  Mr. Lamont: That would be a good policy to follow.
  Mr. Robert C. Brown rose—
  Mr. Lamont: I give way even to Tories on the other side. [Interruption.] I am sure that the whole House will listen to what I have to say about privatisation. It may, in some instances, be possible to have management by buyouts. We are also attracted to the idea of an element of employee participation, just as happened in the National Freight Corporation. That amounts to real public ownership. We do not intend, however, that that should be an obligation.
  Final decisions will be made on an examination of the skills, the finance and the terms of the contract between British Shipbuilders and the purchasers. We shall hold in reserve the possibility of a flotation for either some or all of the yards, if necessary. We believe that privatisation holds out the hope of a more efficient industry, just as privatisation has helped to make ship repair more efficient. A number of ship repair yards which have come out of British Shipbuilders have improved their order books. They are not yet out of the wood but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) will know, they have a remarkably improved prospect. We believe that privatisation holds out the hope of a better future both in wages and jobs for those who work in the industry.
  We expect that British Shipbuilders will be able to adhere to the timetable we have set and to complete privatisation by the end of March 1986. It should now be clear to the whole House that the Opposition's motion is misconceived and has no basis. The motion refers to shipbuilding as a whole—warship building as well as merchant shipbuilding—and to recent redundancies. The most recent redundancies have been those to which the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East referred—in the warship building side. It is wrong to talk of a crisis in warship building. Warship builders earn their living by meeting the needs of the Royal Navy and by exporting naval craft. The recent redundancies reflect the sad fact that we have more capacity than is needed for the naval programme. We have been unable to fill that gap by export orders, as we used to do when those companies were in private ownership. Perhaps, when the yards are returned to private ownership, we shall manage again to recapture some of those export orders.
  The position of the merchant yards in Britain is more difficult, as it is all over the world.
  "Shipbuilding industries all over the world from Japan to Sweden are accepting the inevitability of contraction, and Britain cannot be insulated from this world trend."—[Official Report, 24 February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 1652–53.]
  Those are not my words; they are the words of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). Events from the Opposition Benches are better seen in perspective when standing on their heads. The Opposition are not only standing on their heads in what they say in this
  842
  debate but are a little late in demanding action. We are already taking action. We are continuing to provide the essential support which the industry needs. We have appointed a chairman who is prepared at long last to tackle the problems of inefficiency and uncompetitiveness. We are seeking agreement from the Commission for improved intervention fund support. We are backing the industry to win new orders.
  British Shipbuilders needs the recognition and support of the House for what it is doing to make the industry more competitive. The House should welcome the support that the Government are giving to the industry. The House should welcome also the Government's decision to return the warship yards to the private sector. Above all, we do not need the motion tabled by the Opposition. I invite ray right hon. and hon. Friends to reject it and to support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I reinforce Mr. Speaker's appeal for brief speeches, because a number of hon. Members with strong constituency interests are anxious to catch my eye.
  7.55 pm
  Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: As an example of complacency, the Minister of State has surpassed himself in talking about the extremely difficult position of the shipbuilding industry. His only solution appears to be privatisation. The hon. Gentleman rounded off his speech with a statement about how privatisation will save the industry. I remind him of a bit of history. When Court Lines collapsed and Sunderland Shipbuilders almost went down, it took a Labour Government to nationalise the yard way ahead of nationalisation and to save the yard from the private sector. That is a piece of history which shows how that yard was saved. The Minister's complacency in referring to privatisation saving the industry is rubbish.
  I hoped that the Minister would come forward with more factual information to help the House and the industry with something a little more practical, but the hon. Gentleman failed dismally. We do not need a lecture about the state of shipbuilding throughout the world. One need only look at order books around the world to see that the Japanese and Koreans are cornering the market and that British Shipbuilders is not the only body to suffer. All the European yards are suffering at the same time. We need to make up our minds whether we want a shipbuilding industry, and that is the question that the Minister should be posing to himself. Can we, as an island trading nation, afford to go down that nick? Frankly, I suggest that we cannot go down that line.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) spoke of a maritime policy, and I hoped that the Minister would say something about that. Unless we have some sort of maritime policy which does not leave shipbuilding on its own to market forces without considering shipping as well, the shipbuilding industry is doomed, especially if it looks to the Government for help. During the past nine years, British shipbuilding has more than halved. Some European countries are in an even worse position. The yards in Norway and Holland have few orders on their books. Some yards have no orders.
  We can examine the operations in other countries which are not, by any stretch of the imagination, well off. Most

  843
  of the orders in the Italian shipyards are from Italian shipowners; most of the orders in the French shipyards are from French shipowners; most of the orders in the German shipyards are from German shipowners; and most of those in the Dutch shipyards are from Dutch shipowners. With the exception of three CEGB colliers, which are being built at Govan Shipbuilders, not one ship order has been placed in British shipyards. The only exceptions are those connected with oil exploration.
  I accept that the Minister faces problems involving the confidentiality of the order books of British Shipbuilders which limits how much he can tell the House. British Shipbuilders is doing a first-class job. I agree with the first part of the Government amendment. British Shipbuilders is stumping the world looking for orders, but it needs backing from the Government. I am glad that the Minister is fighting for a larger intervention fund, but there are other sources of finance available for building ships. We have been stumping the Third world, and it is not easy to get orders there, because of difficulties over prices, credit, and so on. The Government could take immediate action to help the shipbuilding industry.
  I should like to be able to take the Minister of State on trust. He said that there were a number of orders in the pipeline for British Shipbuilders, but that he could not tell us what they were and that we ought to trust him. The work force at Austin and Pickersgill does not have time to trust the hon. Gentleman. Lay-offs and redundancies at the yard will be announced this weekend because the order book is practically empty. That is one of the finest yards in Britain—enclosed, modernised and with a work force which has gone along with all the things that the Minister talked about, has agreed to the removal of almost all lines of demarcation and delivers ships on time.
  There are orders in the pipeline, wating for the Government to give the go-ahead. We have recently built two ships for Ethiopia, which requires two more. Those orders are there for the taking. The first ship went into service in Ethiopia this week, and the purchasers are highly satisfied with it. Ethiopia is paying thousands of dollars a day for six charter ships. It wants to replace them with its own ships. It has had two from Austin and Pickersgill and two from Italy. Two more are wanted from Austin and Pickersgill.
  The Minister knows that there is a section 2 grant application on his desk. Is it being blocked? If the Ethiopian orders are placed now, the Austin and Pickersgill work force will not have to be laid off and there need be no talk of redundancies. That is a positive way in which the Government could help.
  I advised the Department of Trade and Industry that I would raise these matters in the debate, and I hoped that the Minister of State would mention at least the Ethiopian orders. They are vital to Sunderland, where we have 24 per cent. unemployment. It is essential that we do not add to that unemployment.
  There is another order in the pipeline. I understand— I put it no higher than that, though I have checked with the Overseas Development Administration— that another ship could be ordered by the Government—the order is wholly in the Government's gift— for overseas development and that only Austin and Pickersgill could fit out that ship. It is an SD14 that is to be modified for the St. Helena shipping company to include facilities for
  844
  passenger travel. I am told that the order has to be looked at by a project committee that will have to consider what sort of cabins to install and so on. Someone ought to get his finger out. This is an urgent matter, because that order could keep the work force in my constituency in work. There are ships that could be ordered now.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bagier: No. This is a short debate and I am challenging the Minister of State. If he wishes to reply, I shall gladly give way to him.
  I know that some of my hon. Friends, especially from Tyneside, will want to discuss the ridiculous suggestion that the naval yards should be privatised.
  The Minister's speech was extremely complacent. I want to hear from the Government at the earliest opportunity what will be done about orders for Sunderland and when the Government will plan a maritime policy that covers not only shipbuilding, but shipping, so that we can have British ships built in British yards.
  8.4 pm
  Mr. Neville Trotter: We are indeed facing a worldwide problem, but that does not make it any less serious for those of us in the north-east who are facing a crisis. If we do not get orders within weeks, there will be more redundancies in the region. Our debate takes place against that short-term background.
  In the longer term, it is important to remember the commitment to the industry made tonight by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. That commitment has been made before, but it needs to be repeated, because it is inevitable that people faced with a short-term crisis will have doubts about future support for the industry. I do not believe that the Government can be faulted in the financial help that they have given—£1,130 million. The industry has had great support from the Government and we have a continuing commitment for the future. I believe that the Government will honour that commitment, but that does not prevent short-term fears and worries, particularly in the north-east.
  Like the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier), I have heard it suggested that there may be an SD14 order coming from St. Helena. If so, it should be brought forward within the next few weeks. It would be ridiculous to get the order next year when we are facing redundancies now that could be avoided.
  Mr. Sayeed: The point that I wanted to put to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) was that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and I went to St. Helena and recommended to the Overseas Development Administration that option 2B of the ECL report should be taken up. That option proposes an SD14 with accommodation for 150 to 200 passengers. The order is in the gift of the Government, it is needed for shipbuilding in this country and it is the right option for St. Helena.
  Mr. Trotter: I also understand that the ship that has been running the service is out of action following a fire on board. Perhaps the owners need a new ship as urgently as the builders need one.
  In the short term, there is also the continuing problem of who is to get the order for the type 22 frigates. The Minister of State reminded us that the matter has been kicked around for well over a year. If we are to have a

  845
  force of about 50 frigates, which seems to be the figure to which we are committed, and if we do not intend to spend two or three years modernising each of them in the naval dockyards, we shall need to order about three frigates in a year so that we can maintain the number in operation. Therefore, it is high time that we placed the orders for the type 22. Let us have them before the end of the year. If we do not have an announcement by then, there will be more redundancies in the warship building yards. There is a short-term crisis for jobs in the north-east and the Government can and must take action to help with that problem.
  We need to speed up the consideration given to the matching of financial terms. In the present state of the world market, our overseas competitors often offer good bargains, and, although the Export Credits Guarantee Department may agree to match those bargains, orders can be lost because the ECGD does not take its decision quickly enough. It is no good eventually matching a competitor's terms if it is too late. I do not know the details, but perhaps such considerations apply in the case of the ships for Ethiopia and some for Mexico which may also be available.
  The problems of the immediate future are extremely serious, but I believe that answers will be found within the next few weeks. In the longer term, there is no doubt that we shall retain a warship building industry, but we must also have a hard core of merchant shipbuilding capability. I believe that we are now close to that hard core and it is time, after all that our industry has gone through—in common with the other shipbuilding industries in Europe— that we developed a long-term plan for merchant shipbuilding in this country.
  One of the problems is the intervention fund. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his sterling efforts in fighting against the people in Europe who do not agree with us on the subject. They have perhaps other ways of financing their shipbuilders. I understand my hon. Friend's not wanting to commit himself on the suggested figure of 35 per cent. mentioned earlier in the debate, but it is a simple statement of arithmetic. Unless there is that percentage of aid, there will be hardly any orders. That seems to be the level of assistance that is needed if we in Britain and the rest of Europe are to match the competition from the far east.
  We cannot be optimistic about far east competition. In my judgment, it will get worse. China is looming on the horizon in the longer term as a builder of ships. In debates in this House a few years ago, when the main problem was competition from Japan, I suggested that there would soon be a problem with competition from Korea. That has proved correct. Sadly I now prophesy that China will soon be a serious competitor, with very low labour costs. That will make it very difficult for western shipbuilders to compete without maximum efficiency and a proper degree of public support.
  In talking of Britain's strategic interests in shipbuilding, it is fair to mention that it is not simply the shipyards that are involved but the suppliers of pieces of ships all over Britain. The House is well aware of my interests in the marine equipment industry. There is no doubt that for every person engaged in assembling a ship in our shipyards there are three more people in factories making the parts. The firms concerned have done reasonably well in the export market because they are able to export parts of ships to foreign builders, especially in the far east, but they need
  846
  a home base. If there is no hard core of shipbuilding in Britain, the marine equipment industry will have a very hard future.
  I should like to say a word or two on behalf of the small shipbuilder. I am sure that British Shipbuilders, through its contacts with Ministry officials, has close contact with those handling the Community rules, but small shipbuilders do not have that ready access. They cannot sort out their problems by picking up the telephone. It is especially difficult for the small shipbuilders if we are still tied officially to the 15 per cent. or 17 per cent. intervention fund limit. It is very hard for them to obtain orders if they cannot give quotations to their customers in the knowledge that they are assured of reasonable assistance.
  I congratulate the Government on the substantial support that they have given to the shipbuilding industry in the past five years, and I congratulate them on their commitment for the future. But we need the maximum assistance in the next few weeks to enable us to obtain orders and to maintain our skills and employment in the north-east. We also need, in the near future, a long-term plan for the merchant ship building industry.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: The speech of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) illustrates how wrong the Minister was to dismiss the criticisms made from the Opposition Benches. Understandably, the hon. Gentleman, coming from Tyneside, made exactly the same sorts of criticisms and pleas to the Minister as were brushed aside in the Minister's speech.
  I represent a part of the north-east where the Tees, one of the three rivers, has almost no shipbuilding left. We have Smith's Dock, and that is the last vestige of a great shipbuilding industry on our river. In other parts of the region—other hon. Members can testify to it—the same dreadful slide to oblivion is taking place.
  This evening the Minister served the House with the usual diet of jam tomorrow. He assured us that the Government are following all the right policies and that everything will be all right at the end of the day. The Minister's speech will bring precious little consolation to the shipyards on Tyneside, Wearside, the Clyde and other parts of the country. They are tired of hearing that there will be jam tomorrow. They are tired of the way that the Government are carving up the industry while they are breaking their backs in trying to make a success of it. As the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) said, that is particularly true of the north-eastern region, where people scrapped their summer holidays to get a ship launched on time. They have broken their backs in trying to succeed, but all they are getting from the Government is the eternal assertion that privatisation is the answer, that no more subsidies can be given, and that it is a question of market forces, when we all know that there are no market forces operating in the industry and have not been for years.
  I am very disappointed with the Minister's speech and I echo what other hon. Members have said. He should not have dismissed the remarks of the former chairman of British Shipbuilders in the way that he did. He should have given a proper reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who made the accusation that our shipbuilding industry is getting into an

  847
  unviable state. Those remarks were echoed by the hon. Member for Tynemouth. The Minister should not brush the accusations aside, and I hope that in the reply to the debate the Minister will tell us the Government's views on the current state of the British shipbuilding industry and how they think it will be able to remain as a viable force, not only in providing a merchant marine, which the trading interests of the country require, but in meeting our defence interests.
  In the shipbuilding industry, as with so many other industries in regions such as the north and north-east, we can see the chickens coming home to roost. It is an inevitable consequence of the Government's economic policies, pursued since they came into office in 1979. There is no demand for the products of the shipbuilding yards, and the Government have taken very little action internationally to stimulate demand in the world economy, which is vitally important in getting the orders that the industry so desperately needs. As a consequence, there are major question marks hanging over large sections of the industry.
  The Government's answer to the problem is to sell off the profitable warship yards and to have the management of British Shipbuilders spending time not on getting orders, improving efficiency and having a competitive industry, but on privatisation. I have worked in nationalised industry and I have seen at first hand how management's time is spent in dealing with Government interference and the ideological hang-ups of Governments who try to determine the objectives of the industry. The management and the work force are deflected by that interference from their true objectives— to make the industry a success.
  The Government must bear a heavy responsibility for distracting the management and work force of British Shipbuilders and of the shipbuilding industry from the major problems facing them, and for concentrating instead on the privatisation programme. The Government should drop that programme and let the management get on with the task of facing the major problems that arise from international competition and the low demand in the domestic and international economy. Great damage is being done to what was formerly a great industry. As the damage to employment in the region grows in the months ahead, one hopes that the Government will begin to understand the results of their policies.
  The fear remains that the Government do not accept that there are large sections of manufacturing industry which can and should remain in operation. Since 1979, when the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) was Secretary of State for Industry, many of us have held the view that there were members of the Administration who did not believe that historically Britain could sustain a manufacturing industry. What has happened to the shipbuilding industry is a major example of that aspect of Government policy. It is a sad fact that that should be so, and it is not surprising that the work force in the shipbuilding yards around the country believes that that is true, when there is so much evidence of it, not only in that industry but in so many other sectors of manufacturing industry.
  I should like to say a word on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) about the Hall Russell yard. I hope that the Minister will give a much better
  848
  assurance than he has so far. I should like to see him drop the proposal for selling such profitable businesses. However, if he is to allow British Shipbuilders to go ahead and sell that yard, I hope that he will go further than saying that he hopes that it will be sold to a shipbuilding enterprise, and not for North sea work. It is necessary for that area to have a continuing shipbuilding industry when the offshore work dries up. I hope that the Minister will give a firm commitment on that point.
  I should like to refer to the viability of the industry. It is a crucial point for the whole of our trading and economic interests. It is vital that this country above all, with its maritime interests, should have a clear commitment to a maritime policy and a viable shipbuilding and shipping industry. I echo and agree with the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East and others about the great question mark hanging over the industry.
  However, it is question not just of this country's economic and trading interests but of its defence interests. Our defence capability is not just reliant upon warships. It also depends upon the merchant marine. Nowhere could that have been clearer than in the Falklands dispute. The Government should have learnt that lesson, if no one else has. Merchant ships are just as vital to our defence as warships, especially if we intend to develop the strength to provide a credible non-nuclear deterrent beyond the 30 days of war stocks now being built up by NATO. That requires the merchant ship numbers, types and capacities to maintain world-wide economic shipping, military reinforcement, resupply shipping and shipping in support of military operations, together with a substantial surplus to make good losses. Ship repair and new building capacity is essential on top of that if we are to sustain the defence.
  Therefore, there is a much bigger argument about the industry's viability than simply this country's trading and economic interests. There is also the defence question, to which I hope the Minister will address himself. I hope that he will not shuffle it off to his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, but reply to that point as we are debating such an important matter.
  I hope that the House will support the motion tabled by the Labour party. My colleagues and I will do so wholeheartedly. We look to the Minister to give us more reassurance than his colleague the Minister of State did when he spoke earlier.
  8.23 pm
  Mr. Piers Merchant: As time is so limited, I propose to make only a few brief points. However, I feel bound to speak on this occasion in view of my direct constituency interest, representing a Tyneside seat in an area traditionally dependent on shipbuilding.
  The once great strength of yards on the Tyne brought in the past wealth, employment and enterprise to the city of Newcastle. Even as recently as 10 years ago, 35,000 jobs were sustained on Tyneside and Wearside in the shipbuilding yards. Ten years before that, the figure was nearer 44,000. Today, taking into account recently annouced redundancies, the figure is less than 14,000. In 1926, British shipyards produced about 40 per cent. of world demand. Today the figure is about 2 per cent. The industry is being decimated, and needlessly so. I say "needlessly" because the process is not inevitable. I do not subscribe to the view that the rundown of the shipbuilding

  849
  industry is unavoidable. I do not believe that we must necessarily give up the old heavy industries as part of a historical process and restructure our industry solely along the lines of new technology, electronics and service supplies. I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) on that point.
  Of course, it is eminently sensible for a region and a nation to diversify as widely as possible, and it is highly dangerous to concentrate and specialise overmuch. The Tyne— and the Northern region as a whole, for that matter— suffers from its failure to diversify over the years. Thus the shipbuilding crisis becomes more intense. However, that is a different argument.
  My point is that, even in an admitted world recession and a dire shortage in the world of ship orders following a huge contraction world-wide, shipbuilding industries in some countries seem able to flourish and even to expand. Why cannot our industry flourish as well or at least hold its position in comparison with other countries?
  It would be easy to find a single scapegoat. The circumstances almost cry out for scapegoat politics. Many Opposition Members find it all too easy to discover a scapegoat. Privatisation appears to be the latest one. However, I fear that the answer is not that simple. In fact, many are to blame for the present situation in British yards.
  Before nationalisation, management was hardly an inspiring force powered by bright young entrepreneurs. Their attitude to management was all too often summed up not so much by the modernistic approach of, say, Japanese managers as by the worst attitudes of industrial defeatism— innovative necrosis, under-capitalisation, organisational chaos, and often contempt for their work force, which was more characteristic of the worst aspects of 19th century industrial relations than of the 20th, let alone 21st century. Then came the hand of state interference in the shape of nationalisation, a shake-up that hit the industry at a vulnerable time in a particularly painful way. It resulted in preventing an early and swift response to recession, which might have breathed life into the industry at the most critical moment.
  However, finally and never to be underestimated was the effect of industrial unrest that racked the Tyne yards. The irresponsibility and short-sightedness of union leaders are widely recognised on Tyneside as constituting one of the worst records that the region can summon up anywhere. Time and again delayed orders, strikes— [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]—restrictive practices and poor productivity took their toll. Opposition Members know that fine well. Investment did not come because who would invest in an industry that itself seemed not to want a future? It is sad to see today that the price is being paid that many predicted five or 10 years ago would have to be paid. The sectarian narrowness of union leaders over this decade has contributed largely to the unemployment created in the past few years.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: The hon. Gentleman must reconsider what he is saying because he is talking drivel. He must either reconsider it or cite some examples.
  Mr. Merchant: The hon. Gentleman asks for examples. I shall cite some of the situations of the past few weeks. We are talking not just about industrial disputes over the past five or 10 years, from which one would think
  850
  the union leaders would learn, but about industrial disputes that have occurred in the past few months in the Wearside and Tyneside yards. I shall quote from a report of 29 September in The Journal. It refers to:
  "Sunderland Shipbuilders where 1,900 manual workers at three yards are in the fourth day of a strike following a new pay deal for 28 crane drivers. The strikers say if it can be done for the crane men, the rest of the workforce ought to have a new agreement too …
  Clark Hawthorn, Watlsend where 400 workers are staging token strikes in protest against nine months of short-time working …
  British Shipbuilders (Engineering and Technical Services), Sunderland, where 36 workers are staging a sit-in in protest against manning levels, flexibility arrangements and pay following 18 recent redundancies …A fourth dispute— an overtime ban by 1,800 men at Swan Hunter's Neptune Yard on the Tyne".
  At a critical moment in the life of the industry, four disputes were running at the same time. If that can be justified, anything can be justified. The sectarian narrowness of union leaders for an entire decade has contributed greatly to the high level of unemployment and to the increase in unemployment that, regrettably, those yards are now experiencing.
  It is time that everyone realised that all those faults must be tackled. The damage has already cut so deep that it will not be easy to put things right. Certainly it cannot be done overnight. How much healthier it would be to hear some positive voices from the Opposition and, perhaps more relevantly, from those who lead the men in the yards. I have catalogued disputes that have taken place in the past few weeks. The saddest perhaps was the dispute at the yard building the Atlantic Conveyor, an order specially provided to help the Tyneside yards despite better tenders elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Minister said that he was pleased that that dispute had ended, but in 1984 such disputes should never even start. Everyone in the industry must pull together to prove that British shipbuilding can be competitive, productive and profitable. That, in turn, will attract new investment.
  In the short term, I entirely endorse the request made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) for the swift placing of orders that are within the Government's gift. Nevertheless, I believe that the long-term solutions lie not with the House or even in the realm of politics. As with the rest of British industry, the answers lie fundamentally and ultimately in the attitudes and endeavours of both the work force and the management of the industry itself.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. Ernie Ross: We do not intend that the debate should concern only the thoroughly unnecessary redundancies announced last week, although we are 100 per cent. behind those workers fighting for their jobs. Conservative Members should read the Opposition motion, which continues the campaign that we have waged on behalf of the shipbuilding industry since 1979. We have always stressed that there are problems in the industry worldwide—a stagnant market and competition from the far east where the Japanese and Koreans undercut our prices by huge margins.
  When the industry was nationalised in 1979 it was almost bankrupt. The nation inherited problems of overcapacity and in some cases overmanning. Machinery and equipment were out of date due to lack of investment

  851
  by private owners. Yet Conservative Members want to give back to those people the parts of the industry now making a profit in the forlorn hope that they will keep it running and making profits. The nation also inherited a poor industrial relations situation. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Merchant) that this was and is mainly due to bad management without any real commitment to the industry.
  Unlike Conservative Members, the trade unions have put enormous effort into tackling those problems. The trade union movement accepted changes which meant a reduction in capacity and the loss of 20,000 jobs. The number of bargaining units was reduced from 168 to one so that our commitment to the industry could be based on an overall wage agreement, and, instead of envying and competing with one another, workers in the various yards could work together to produce an industry able to compete with foreign industries. The shipyard workers have made great sacrifices, but those sacrifices have never been acknowledged or reciprocated. Management has remained intransigent and in many cases anti-nationalisation, which has been thoroughly unhelpful and sometimes actually destructive.
  Workers in the industry have faced periods of great insecurity. Thousands of jobs have been axed and the threats of redundancy and privatisation have hung over the industry since the Conservative Government came to power. Meanwhile, the wages of skilled workers in the shipyards have fallen from fourth to twentieth in the league table. The Minister, who is no longer present, called on us to encourage our colleagues in the industry to make a further commitment in the recent wage negotiations. We took up the challenge and discussed it with our colleagues in the shipyards, and they made that commitment. But what has been their reward? There has certainly been no reward for the constituents of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central, who have recently been made redundant or whose redundancy is imminent. The workers in the industry have constantly made commitments on wages and conditions, but the Minister failed to acknowledge that today.
  Unfortunately, neither the Government nor the management have brought the same commitment to the industry. The trade unions recognised from the outset that co-operation was needed if the industry was to survive, but the co-operation has been all on one side. That is why there is now bitterness and disillusion in many areas of the industry. The workers and their trade unions have put forward constructive proposals to both Government and management over many years, but they have been almost entirely ignored.
  We have consistently argued that Britain, as an island nation, needs ships for both trade and defence. That being so, we must plan and control the management of that sector through a maritime agency. We must ensure that United Kingdom owners buy ships from United Kingdom yards. The industry is competing with companies abroad which are receiving far more support from their Governments. In the past 36 years, not one Japanese domestic order has gone to a yard outside Japan. That is the kind of commitment that our shipbuilding industry needs from British owners.
  We also need more flexible application of the intervention fund. Even if the Minister cannot give the
  852
  figures, perhaps he will tell us whether the flexibility secured from the EEC is on the lines called for by British Shipbuilders, allowing unused funds to be carried forward to support the winning of further orders. Just how flexible is the intervention fund to be?
  As we have pointed out before, British industry has lost the ability to design engines, which represent 15 per cent. of the cost of any order. We used to be good at that, but we lost that capacity in 1979. We now have only the slow-speed engines from Clark Kincaid. It is ridiculous that after spending £4·5 million on plant and machinery only 12 years ago that capacity is now lying idle and it is intended to close it down.
  The story of shipbuilding in this country since the Conservative Government took office is appalling. The Government's actions have been based on ignorance and political prejudice. In 1950, the United Kingdom held nearly 20 per cent. of the world market. Today it has about 3 per cent. Last year the United Kingdom won only 1 per cent. of world orders. This year we expect perhaps 2 per cent. We all know what that has done to the work force.
  Most yards are located in areas of high unemployment—the Clyde, the Tyne and the north-west. However, our argument is not based on keeping open an outdated industry for the sake of it. The introduction of new technology offers many possibilities to shipbuilding, which is an integral part of our manufacturing base. It creates wealth and generates economic activity. Instead of closing down yards, we should train our young people to participate in an advanced manufacturing industry.
  What we see in the shipbuilding industry exemplifies the Government's determination to erode Britain's manufacturing base. Last year, for the first time since the industrial revolution, Britain had a deficit in trade in manufactured goods. That happened despite the fact that the vast resources of North sea oil were at the disposal of the Government. The Government have squandered that wealth. Without that oil, the trade balance and the economic pointers would have looked very much worse. In the three months to June this year, output fell by 3 per cent. compared with the first quarter of 1984, showing almost no improvement when compared with a year earlier.
  We do not ask for the shipbuilding industry to be cosseted. We ask for a chance to compete fairly with other countries, including EEC countries, which recognise that shipbuilding has a prime role to play in building up the economic and industrial base.
  It is ludicrous that an island nation should be prepared to abandon an industry crucial to its trading health and defence capability. The Secretary of State for Defence has announced cuts which are necessary in defence spending. There is doubt that new warships are needed by the Navy. Yet billions of pounds are squandered on Trident and cruise. The Government have rammed their inglorious escapade in the south Atlantic down our throats, but they are now failing to put their alleged patriotism into practice. They hesitate to ensure that we have viable merchant and defence fleets.
  We need support not for a dying industry but for one which is being stifled. Other Governments recognise the importance of the shipbuilding industry and take steps to ensure its survival; our Government do not.
  We have put forward positive proposals. We have suggested reserving the coastal trade and the offshore supply sector for vessels flying the United Kingdom flag.

  853
  We have said that we should ensure that coastal shipping users receive the same financial support as rail and inland waterway users. We have argued for supporting our shipyards to the same extent as foreign shipyards are supported by their Governments. We have demanded that British vessels should be required to be built and repaired in British shipyards. We have said there is a need to regulate working time for seafarers in coastal shipping.
  The Opposition have put forward all those proposals, but all that we have heard from the Government is the repeated claim that they are helping the industry. Those who run, or used to run, the industry do not accept that claim. Those who work in the industry do not accept it. The towns, villages and cities that have been, or are about to be, hit by redundancies do not accept it. I am sure that when Conservative Members go into the Lobby at the end of the debate they will not have been convinced that the Government support British shipbuilding.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Cecil Franks: There are many hon. Members in all parts of the House who represent shipbuilding constituencies where the shipyards face the future with considerable apprehension and fear. However, it would be wrong to allow the impression to be given that the picture is the same throughout the country. There are shipyards that face the future with optimism. Equally, we should not allow ourselves to be misled about the reasons for the parlous state of British shipbuilding, which is almost entirely due to the disastrous combination of appalling management, the Luddite mentality of the shipbuilding trade unions and a totally undisciplined work force. That disastrous combination has brought about the state of affairs that the Opposition complained about.
  We can talk as much as we like about what should be done, but unless we can improve the management and the trade union leadership and bring discipline back to the work force our words will remain mere words.
  Warships have been built for the best part of a century in Barrow and Furness. During that period, prosperity has ebbed and flowed. However, 20 years ago, the Vickers management took the decision to specialise and to concentrate on building submarines. That decision was due to the foresight of the then chairman of Vickers Shipbuilding, Sir Leonard Redshaw. Vickers concentrated on that sector, and although it built and launched HMS Invincible, Vickers accepted that that lay in the past and that submarine building lay in the future. Barrow shipyards were the home of the first Polaris submarine, and Trident is now being designed and is in the early stages of construction. However, what has happened in Barrow has not been matched elsewhere.
  I should like to give a parallel. This afternoon I had a meeting with representatives of certain vested interests in my constituency who came to lobby me about the Government's bus policy—a topic which will no doubt consume much of our time in the future. The representatives were the chairman of my localmunicipal transport committee, the chairman of the local Transport and General Workers Union branch and his secretary and the AUEW branch secretary. I told them that they would have to accept that they would be in competition, and they replied that the competition would be unfair and that they would not be able to compete. When I asked why, they said that there were wage and hour agreements with the trade unions. I said, "I am sorry, but this is a different ball
  854
  game. My prime concern is with the consumer— the man who pays his fare. If you have problems with the trade unions, they are for you to sort out. We are living in a competitive world." The same is true with shipbuilding. There is a world of difference between the Government and the Opposition. If one strips aside the philosophies of Socialism and capitalism, one sees that the Opposition are primarily concerned with the interests of the producer and that the Government are primarily concerned with the interests of the consumer. The Opposition cannot comprehend that if there is no consumer there is nothing for the producers to produce.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With respect, the debate is about shipbuilding, not about buses. We all know that there is only one consumer of submarines—the Government.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. Time is short, and we must get on with the debate.
  Mr. Franks: What the hon. Gentleman says is not correct. Vickers have to earn export orders, and there is considerable competition in that area. There is also competition from shipyards in Britain which would dearly love to build conventional submarines. Barrow is in competition and there will be even greater competition after privatisation, but there will be greater opportunity. We are not afraid of privatisation; we are confident. We in south-west Cumbria ask ourselves why should we have had to suffer a wage freeze when we have made profits of £21 million? We are the only part of British Shipbuilders that has been consistently successful. Why should we have to suffer because of the nonsense that has gone on in Clydeside and Merseyside? Tyneside and Wearside are a little better. Why should we be held back when we have good management, a loyal work force and a successful product? Why should we be held back because other parts of the industry have no wish to survive and, frankly, do not deserve to survive?
  Barrow and Furness welcomes privatisation and looks forward to its prosperity continuing to grow. We welcome privatisation— managers and labour— and the Government will give us our opportunity.
  8.48 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: If all our shipyards had order books the length of the Barrow order book, we would be able to give a very different message tonight. I do not want to denigrate any of the work done at Barrow. However, to turn up every day and to know that the order book extends way into the future is a very different experience from turning up each day, as many of my constituents do at Cammell Laird, knowing that the yard is on its last order. The House should bear that in mind when considering the different records in the shipbuilding industry.
  I should like to give the Government three messages. They come not from me, but from my constituents. First, they are looking to this debate to get an answer to whether or not we are to have a viable shipbuilding industry. Linked to that they want to know whether the Government are bringing to the debate the urgency that reflects what is happening in our yards. The Government gave us an example of what they meant by urgency in the previous Parliament. My constituents test whether the Government consider a problem to be urgent by matching their action

  855
  with getting the task force ready for the Falklands. If we compare the Government's actions to safeguard the shipbuilding industry with their efforts to attend to that island way down in the south Atlantic, which most of us thought existed only on the front of postage stamps, the Government are found wanting.
  My constituents cannot understand why the Government continue to let unemployment rise generally, and especially in the shipbuilding industry. They know the line that the Government take—that it is important to contain public expenditure, that that results in a cut in interest rates and that that encourages new business. However, by containing public expenditure, an increasing number of people are put out of work. As a result, more people draw the dole and thus public expenditure rises. The Government are caught in a vicious circle. My constituents are therefore looking for some common sense to be applied to the economics of the shipbuilding industry. We are not asking for more of the enthusiastic rant of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks). We do not want the slogans about the industry being denationalised and from that will come extra jobs. We are not interested in that; we are interested in protecting the jobs that we now have. We shall judge the Government on how well they reply in regard to protecting those jobs.
  I disagree with the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), who is always listened to with respect. He said in his coded fashion— he usually presents a coded message to the Government— that they cannot be faulted on their financing of the industry. Nobody denies that that money now totals £1 billion. The Opposition's dispute has been how the £1 billion has been handed out. It has been given on a year-by-year basis, thus making it almost impossible for British Shipbuilders to plan a long-term future for the industry. We are pleading for a long-term perspective rather than endless short-term measures.
  Mr. Trotter: The problem is that no one has been able to forecast demand for ships. People to whom I have spoken in the industry have been over-optimistic in their assessment of the number of orders that will be forthcoming. That has made it extremely difficult to plan for the industry.
  Mr. Field: That has been part of the difficulty, but another part is the failure to bring forward orders from the public sector. My constituents want there to be urgency in bringing those orders forward and believe that money spent in securing those orders will protect their jobs, lay the basis for the shipbuilding industry of the future and play some part in giving the Government economic success. In those circumstances, fewer people would be drawing the dole and there would be less tendency to push up the public sector borrowing requirement. We have not yet heard from the Government an urgency that in any way matches the crisis of the shipbuilding industry.
  The second message that my constituents want me to advance is that, if Cammell Laird is allowed to fold, that could be the end of a community in our area. Fewer than 2,000 people now work in the yard. Those jobs are important, but they are not the only ones at stake. There will be a knock-on effect to the small businesses that supply the yard. We have talked of a ratio of three jobs in outside industries being lost for every one that is lost in the
  856
  yard. Moreover, if we lose our yard, we shall lose the apprenticeship school and therefore the constant stream of skilled labour to the area. Will the Government walk away and let Cammell Laird close? Will they be like Pontius Pilate and wash their hands? If not, what hope have they to offer to my constituents before we divide at 10 o'clock?
  Thirdly, my constituents want me to recall a theme that now constantly recurs in the Prime Minister's speeches around the country—the enemy within. My constituents want me to tell the Government that they agree with her, that there is an enemy within, but that it is the enemy of unemployment. They want to know what the Government are doing about that enemy which is tearing the heart and guts out of our constituencies and constituents. In Cammell Laird a large number of men have bravely gone against union advice, walked through picket lines and gone back to work. In short, they have done everything that the Government have asked them to do, and they want to know what the Government now intend to do for them. Will the Government just laugh in their faces, or will they come forward with some orders and so protect jobs?
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are five hon. Members hoping to speak, and the winding-up speeches are expected to begin at 9.30 pm. We should all be happy if the five hon. Members would divide the time between them.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Christopher Chope (Southampton, lichen): I wish to address my comments to two parts of British Shipbuilders— Vosper Thornycroft and Vosper Shiprepairers. It is a sad blow for the people of Southampton to learn that there are to be 790 redundancies at Vosper Thornycroft. I am sure that everyone hopes that those redundancies will not have to be compulsory. Lack of orders has led to those redundancies. It is scandalous that the Government have delayed for so long on a decision about type 22 frigate orders. I cannot say that if the orders had been made last year it would not have been necessary to make so many men redundant but, on the evidence, that would appear to be the case. If the Government want two type 22 frigates, is there any justification for their having placed the orders in July 1983 and, even as I speak, not having reached a conclusion?
  I hope that whichever yards win—obviously I put in a strong plea for Vosper Thornycroft— the announcement will be made before Christmas so that some people who work in the warship building sector of British Shipbuilders have a more cheerful Christmas than might otherwise be the case.
  I am sure that the people of Southampton will sympathise with those in Vosper Thornycroft who are victims of market forces, as a result of which redundancies have arisen. I am also sure that people in Southampton are saying, "Is it not a pity that there are other people in Southampton who are determined to impose self-inflicted wounds?" I refer, of course, to the docks. Tomorrow there is to be a mass meeting of people employed in the docks in Southampton. I hope that they will come to their senses and realise that they, too, will be redundant unless they try to make the port competitive, as have workers in British Shipbuilders.
  The privatisation of Vosper Thornycroft could not be any worse than the present situation, and I would expect

  857
  it to be much better. It would mean that the millstone around the neck of Vosper Thornycroft at the loss-making yards would be removed and that would allow the profits which have been made over the years to be reinvested. That would be a strong base from which to win fresh export orders.
  The refit of the Indonesian frigates is an indication that export orders can be won by Vosper Thornycroft. If a quick decision is taken—I implore the Government to make it quick—on privatisation, I am sure that Vosper Thornycroft will be able to win more orders in the world markets.
  Vosper Shiprepairers is in my constituency, but at present it is in limbo because it is awaiting consideration of tenders for privatisation. When does the Minister expect a decision to be taken on the privatisation of Vosper Shiprepairers, and does he expect that firm to be privatised as a whole or in parts? There are three parts of the shiprepair business in Southampton, but the work force and management simply do not know whether British Shipbuilders is planning to sell those parts individually or collectively.
  This is also an area in which an urgent decision is needed. There was the disappointment of losing the quote for the QE2 refit this year, and the 1985 cruise liner refits will be considered early in the new year. Vosper Shiprepairers wishes to prove itself to be more competitive than, sadly, it has been in the past.
  Labour Members who think that competition and competiveness play no part in British shipbuilding will be interested to know that when the QE2 refit was put out by Cunard the lowest tender was £1·8 million from Hapags in Bremerhaven. Other tenders were £1·9 million from a Dutch shipyard; £2·18 million from a shipyard in Hamburg; and £2·7 million from Vosper. Who can expect divisions of British Shipbuilders to win orders if they are as uncompetitive as that? I very much hope that when Vosper Shiprepairs is privatised it will become much more competitive and will win back the cruise line orders.
  Vosper need not necessarily be the lowest tenderer, because travelling from Southampton to the northern European yards involves much steaming time. Nevertheless, it must be more competitive than previously. The figures which I have quoted, which were given to me by Cunard. demonstrate that the yards in Southampton must be more competitive if they are to survive.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I shall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, take note of what you said about brevity.
  The charge against the Government is twofold. First, they have failed to analyse correctly the nature of the crisis in the shipbuilding industry, and from that failure they have moved to the most Lamontable of conclusions. They believe, quite wrongly, that there is a free market in shipbuilding. There is no such thing. If Government policy assumes that there is or, even worse, that there should be, unfortunately our major competitors such as Japan and Korea do not take that view.
  Instead of supporting the industry, the Government intend to smash it and to sell a small part of the remnants to the private sector—almost solely to deal with the requirements of the Ministry of Defence. There is no
  858
  commercial reason for this, because of the nature of pricing naval work. Such privatisation will mean ruination for a fair part of my constituency.
  Swan Hunter, a magnificent yard, is our major employer which deals with both naval and merchant work. It is our belief that the Government are deliberately holding back type 22 orders in order to shed labour prior to privatisation. That is a despicable way in which to treat my constituents, yet that is what they and I believe the Government aredoing.
  The workers there ask, "And what of Swan's management? Where do their loyalties lie? Are they with the interests of the current owners or those of the private consortium which seeks to buy the profitable bit after the Government have killed the rest?" What confidence can that work force have in a senior management which is literally planning to jump ship?
  The Government do not even care about merchant shipbuilding. Swan Hunter is being told "The future lies with warship work"— Conservative party code for saying that there will be no more merchant work. Labour Members understand that there is a world over-capacity, but why do the Government meet that crisis by pulling out of the market rather than protecting a share of it for our nation? The Koreans and Japanese do not believe in free markets. They will buy their share of the world market, and we shall give them ours. If ever the Government protect our merchant shipbuilding, I believe that they will do so when the remnants of the merchant yards have been handed over to private industry, and not before.
  I wish to kill the nonsense about subsidy. Miners, shipbuilders, heavy engineering workers and all the manual workers in the north-east who form part of the industrial base of our nation through their work, wages, insurance premiums and bank accounts subsidise and carry the burden of much of the south-east based service sector of the economy. The Government seek to isolate shipbuilding from the rest of the economy, but that is not possible.
  The Government's policy is disastrous for my constituency. Of the seven wards there, four are shipbuilding wards. In those four wards 49 per cent. of male unemployment is made up of time-served men with five-year apprenticeships behind them. All that skill, is wasted. Despite that dramatic statistic, unskilled workers will suffer even more, if that were possible. They face returning to the days of standing at the gate and trying to get a day's work or of having a three-day contract. My constituents will not accept that.
  In the Rochester estate in Walker, which is in the heart of the shipbuilding community, male unemployment is 73 per cent. At Walker school, which is the community school that serves the shipbuilding area, more than 90 per cent. of school leavers will not find jobs. At my surgery, grown men have broken down and cried because they have no work. There has been a steady increase in hard drug taking and addiction. Last weekend, I met a delegation of mums, all of whom had come to see me about glue sniffing and solvent abuse and wanted to know what could be done to stop their youngsters doing that. That was a clear statement of personal tragedy. What could I say to them?
  Newcastle local authority is having to work hard to prevent council estates in east Newcastle from becoming no-go areas. I have a keen interest in housing, both as a councillor and as a Member of this House. It is the first time that we have faced these sad circumstances.

  859
  This may sound odd, but all credit is due to the Conservative group on Newcastle city council, which does not share the views of Conservative Members. When the council last debated shipbuilding, the Conservative group behaved in a most constructive and generous way about an area which they do not represent—it is clear why they do not. The Conservative group called for state intervention to support a level of employment in the community, for which Conservative Members seem to have no sympathy. All credit is due to that group of councillors but shame to Conservative Members. All credit is due to Tyne and Wear county council, which the Government vindictively seek to abolish, for trying to state the case for the industry through the "Save our shipyards" campaign.
  My constituents demand that the Government change their policy. If they do not, the state will not be able to cope with the consequences, and respect for parliamentary democracy and the law will be irrevocably undermined. They will be undermined by the Ministers' complacency.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: Not surprisingly, the tenor of the Opposition's contribution tonight is that if more money could be pumped into shipbuilding, all would be well. Many people wish that that was the case. The harsh economic facts of life are such that shipping does far more than merely subsidise our home industries. Shipping is an international business and relies on a flow of trade. Ships are required to service the flow of trade. If there is no demand for trade, there is no demand for ships.
  If Opposition Members want to know where the crisis in the shipbuilding industry is, I suggest that they fly to Athens. A third of the world's shipping is controlled from Athens. As one flies into Athens over the Bay of Corinth and then Elefsis bay and looks out of the window, one sees rows and rows of ships laid up. There are not tens or hundreds but more than 1,000 ships laid up in the bays around Athens and in the Corinth canal. That is where the crisis in the shipbuilding industry is.
  One must ask what those ships are doing there. The simple reason is that the cost of operating a ship is fixed. If a ship's earnings are less than its running costs, the shipowner will lay it up. The world's sea lanes are full of ships slow steaming at break-even prices. The days of the get-rich-quick ship operators of the 1950s and 1960s are over. The days of Onassis and Livarnos are finished. There is no demand for shipping any more.
  If a shipowner who has not gone bust occasionally has need of a ship, he has no loyalty which will cause him to come to England. He may have been educated in England, but if he can build a ship more cheaply elsewhere, he will go there. He will turn to the shipbuilding yards of the far east and the Pacific basin where he can have a ship built for two thirds of what it would cost in England. Opposition Members may argue that that is because Asian yards subsidise ship owners. The difference in the price is greater than the subsidy. The work force is more efficient and more productive than the work force in this country.
  The South Korean industry is second only to that of Japan. In 1974 the Korean industry ranked 70th in the world. Last year, it increased its share of the world's order book from 9 to 14 per cent. compared with the United
  860
  Kingdom's share of 2 per cent. Western yards often blame that on unfair competition. The Korean Government are accused of granting excessive subsidies and export credits to enable their yards to quote prices up to 35 per cent. cheaper than those of their European rivals.
  The Koreans, however, will argue that their two largest yards, Daewoo and Hyundai, receive no direct Government subsidy, although they benefited initially from a five-year export credit. The terms, however, are said to be less favourable than those offered by the Japanese.
  The Korean yards are cheaper because they are more modern and more efficient; their raw materials, particularly steel, are cheaper than those in Europe; and they have a disciplined work force. The average working week in Korean shipyards is 60 hours and wages are about one third of those paid in Japan. There is no doubt that their continued expansion is unhelpful to present world over-capacity.
  Mr. John Smith: So?
  Mr. Ottaway: I am trying to explain why no one buys British ships.
  Mr. Smith: What is the hon. Gentleman going to do about it?
  Mr. Ottaway: Ask my hon. Friend the Minister. It is not only the far east that can compete on better terms; the Finnish yards built the Royal Princess within the right time and at the right price. That is why a shipowner will go to Finland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) said, if Hapags can convert the QE2 more cheaply than British yards, the contract will go to Germany.
  The Government should give some financial assistance to shipbuilding. As hon. Members will remember earlier this year we had "Exercise Lionheart" where a number of—
  Mr. Smith: So what?
  Mr. Ottaway: I listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The least he can do is to listen to me.
  In that exercise, a large number of soldiers were carried to Europe by foreign ships. The Government should consider what will happen if those ships are not available in wartime. If we cannot rely on such ships, as the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) said, the Government should consider providing some subsidy out of the budget of the Department of Trade and Industry or the Ministry of Defence to build up the merchant marine so that such exercises can be carried out in the future.
  Money is not the only consideration. We have only to look at the traumatic events that took place in Birkenhead. When a shipowner is deciding whether to build in Birkenhead he will remember the scenes that he saw there earlier this year. A militant core of workers held up construction of a gas rig and HMS Edinburgh. He will decide that it is not worth while building his ship or rig in Birkenhead.
  Mr. Frank Field rose—
  Mr. Ottaway: When the hon. Gentlemen say that something has to be done, I agree. We have to be able to build ships as efficiently as they do in Korea, and we have to sort out our industrial relations. Until that is sorted out, we shall always have a crisis in the shipbuilding industry.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Ted Garrett: Unfortunately, the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, is no longer in his seat. Had he been so, he would have agreed that in Committee and on the Floor of the House he and I have debated, and disagreed, and sometimes agreed on, all the facets of the shipbuilding industry. One thing is certain: he and I have been witnesses to a play that has become a tragedy. We have watched and have now become aware of the inexorable end to this tragedy. Despite some of the statements that we have heard tonight, that inexorable end seems to be that we shall not have a shipbuilding industry. We have been told tonight that the industry is in trouble at the moment, but that it can be more lean and efficient and still have a future. That may be the case, but the proof has not emerged in the debate so far.
  I was singularly unimpressed by what the Minister said. Perhaps I have become cynical and have heard the arguments too often. I know that the 2,100 people employed in the Wallsend yard of Swan Hunter have no possibility of a reprieve from redundancy. The Government have not had the courage to say that the position of the redundant workers is infinitely worse than has been suggested. The Minister said that the future orders were a matter of confidentiality. I have the statement that was made to the employees last week and it lists six options, which obviously include the notional contracts and perhaps some of the tenders being negotiated now. If work resulted from these, I would be a little more cheerful, but it does not seem likely.
  I am beginning to think that the Tyne and Wear will again become isolated industrial deserts. The Government's policy of standing away from the manufacturing base and pretending that it does not exist is to blame. We have seen the near extinction of the steel, cotton, textile and machine tool industries, and so it goes on. It cannot continue. The difference of philosophy between the parties must be submerged in the national interest. We must have a manufacturing base, which must include shipbuilding. If we have not, we are doomed as a nation.
  If the Government's decision to keep away from getting involved in the future of the manufacturing base continues, there is not much hope. The famous rivers of the Tyne and the Wear will be all right because both banks will have green verdant pastures on which the cattle and the sheep will graze. There will be trees, but there will be no people and no jobs. The Minister must sacrifice his blind ideological belief in free enterprise as the answer to our problems. It is not. We must get rid of this ideology and think of the well-being of the 57 million inhabitants of our island. We must think of the people whose jobs depend on some of the decisions that we make tonight.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. Michael Fallon: I speak in this debate, as I have spoken in previous debates, as someone who has a close interest in Redheads Shiprepairer. It is not a financial interest. My hon. Friend the Minister will know, because he was with me on the day that the yard was opened, that I have taken an interest in its work and have kept in close touch since then with Jack Richardson and his men.
  It is worth putting on record that the Government have made it possible for the men in that yard, and for the men
  862
  in Tyne Shiprepairer Ltd. alongside it, to take a stake in their company and to continue to work in jobs which they inevitably lost under nationalisation. Both those yards are already successful. Redheads now has a turnover of some £2 million. Tyne Shiprepairer Ltd. has an order book worth some £3 million.
  Redheads in particular is more than simply a commercial success. I hope that all hon. Members would wish it to be a commercial success in a hostile ship repair environment. It is also a shining example to the rest of the industry, not simply the repair industry, of the much more flexible approach that is required in working practices, entrepreneurship and by going out across the continent of Europe to market one's product.
  I ask Labour Members to reflect on one question. Would Redheads and the men who work in that yard have enjoyed that success and continued to enjoy that success had we gone on with the same old nationalised bureaucratic inflexible industry that they chose to establish in 1977?
  I suggest that the Government should look again at Redheads and consider whether the flexibility there— which both management and staff have shown can change a yard which BS closed because it was making a loss into a yard that the men themselves now own and which is making a profit—can be adopted on a much wider basis in merchant shipbuilding.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Bob Clay: This debate, like previous debates on shipbuilding, has revolved around clear expositions from Labour Members and pathetic excuses from Conservative Members. We have heard the same excuses tonight that we have heard in the past. Nothing has moved on for Conservative Members. We have already lost some yards. But things have moved on for Labour Members because in the next few weeks— not months or years— a massive slice of the industry will go under. Some announcements have already been made in the past few days.
  My constituency is facing sell-offs, closures already announced or closures that will take place if there are not orders at the Deptford yard of Sunderland Shipbuilders and Austin and Pickersgill in the next few days. We are talking about over 3,000 redundancies on the river by March next year. We cannot wait until March next year to get the orders to right that situation.
  I am glad to see that the Minister of State has just returned. I want to remind him of the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) to which we would like specific replies. There is an Ethiopian order. It lies with the Minister's Department. He has had that application now for some weeks, having suggested that Austin and Pickersgill should put it in. When will he respond? Time is running out.
  The Government also have within their gift a decision on the St. Helena order. That again could keep the yard open. The Deptford yard of Sunderland Shipbuilders is also working on its last ship. As I understand it, BS says that that yard is unlikely to get a further Mexican order which it could have had because it cannot compete with cheap French credit. Those are not my words, but those of BS.
  We also understand that ITM Middlesbrough Ltd. would order immediately from Sunderland Shipbuilders a heavy lifting barge for the Morecambe Bay gas exploration

  863
  if the Department of Energy would make up its mind that it wants to place that contract. The Government can make an immediate decision on such matters, and if they do not do so thousands of jobs will be lost. Indeed, no one now disputes that for every one job lost directly in the yards, another three are lost in the immediate vicinity, in subsidiary and ancillary services. Therefore, on one river in my constituency 10,000 jobs will be at stake in the next three months, despite the fact that the area already has a 26 per cent. male unemployment rate and that in some parts of the town, particularly in those where many shipyard workers live, the rate is well above 50 per cent. That is what is at stake.
  The simple questions that we ask about the orders available give the lie to the defeatist claptrap that we have heard from Conservative Members about there being no orders and about the recession making it all impossible. Recession or no recession, we are talking about orders that exist. Someone will obtain them, and it is a question of whether the Government will ensure that they are placed in British yards. In the past few months orders have been lost. Austin and Pickersgill could have had an order from West Germany for two or three ships. There was a price gap of £2 million. So £2 million of further Government intervention could have placed orders in that yard and kept it open.
  I, along with others, wrote to the Minister urging him to ensure that British Shipbuilders and his Department did something to secure that order. But the Department dithered, underbid and lost the order, as some of us predicted would happen. It has now done that twice on the same order. That is either incompetence or a sign that the Department intends to run down the industry and let the yards close.
  Some hon. Members believe that there is incompetence and misunderstanding, but, as I have said before, the evidence points more and more to the fact that the Government have a wilful policy of eliminating merchant shipbuilding in this country. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) quoted the comments of Sir Robert Atkinson in a lengthy and interesting interview with the Sunderland Echo. Since then, Sir Robert has said something even more damning. On regional television, in the north-east of England, he said:
  "When I tried to talk to them"—
  the Government and the Minister—
  "about investment they did not want to know. When I wanted to talk about Research and Development they weren't interested. But if I talked about closing yards or sacking workers, a light shone in their eyes."
  Those are the words of the former chairman of British Shipbuilders, who was appointed by the Government.
  Opposition Members must decide whether Government incompetence is to blame or whether, as Sir Robert Atkinson says, the Government have a policy of deliberately destroying the industry. Unless the Minister can give concrete answers tonight to the questions that have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South and me about those orders and about the Sunderland yards, the shipyard workers will believe, just as we must believe, that they could not give a damn and that they intend to close the yards.
  I shall conclude on a point that has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne,
  864
  East (Mr. Brown). Conservative Members are reaping the whirlwind that they sowed with pit closure after pit closure and the appointment of Mr. MacGregor and Graham Day. They will have the same problem twice over or more if they continue with this policy. Those communities will not tolerate that level of unemployment and hopelessness any more than the NUM does. In some areas, including mine, the workers will fight alongside each other. They have started doing so already. The Government should realise the trouble that they will store up if they allow the yards to close. I only hope that if the violence that comes from the hopelessness and despair, and that is the product of this Government's policies, is unleashed in areas such as Wearside, we shall not hear nauseously hypocritical tut-tutting from Conservative Members. They have been warned. If Ministers do not take action immediately, that will be the inevitable consequence of their abandonment of those communities.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Don Dixon: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) on making a first-class case for our motion. The Minister accused my right hon. and learned Friend of getting his needle stuck. That is a cheek because the Minister has offered the same arguments ever since he became Minister. His only offer is more privatisation. He said that the Government have helped the shipbuilding industry since 1979. That reminds me of the person who said "If things don't improve I shall have to stop asking for your help."
  The shipbuilding industry is in such a state that it cannot afford any more redundancies or contraction. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) talked of practical ways in which we can help in the short term. The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) asked about the industry's viability and the Government's commitment. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) talked about a maritime policy, as recommended by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry way back in 1981. The Government have taken no action.
  Redheads has been mentioned, as it was during a debate on the Queen's Speech. I agree that more talent is stagnating in the labour exchanges than is speculating on the stock exchanges. Redheads prove that the men themselves can run an industry. Perhaps too much say has been given to management in the nationalised industries. Shop stewards certainly complain about that to me.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) spoke about the expected massive redundancies and how communities will react. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) talked about tragedy hitting the shipbuilding industry and said that nothing would be left. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) talked about the number of skilled unemployed males in his constituency.
  The Minister never mentioned the community or the social consequences of redundancies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North said, shipbuilding communities are like mining communities. The living and working environments are tied. When a shipyard closes, a town closes.
  I shall not talk about what happened to the town in which I lived in the 1960s, but in Tyne and Wear 20 per cent. of manufacturing jobs are connected with

  865
  shipbuilding. For every job inside the shipyard two exist outside to service it. In Wallsend 44 per cent. of male employment is in the shipbuilding industry. In Jarrow and South Shields 18 per cent. of male employment is in the shipbuilding industry.
  In my constituency 31·3 per cent. of the male population is out of work. In addition, we heard this week that British Steel is to close its rolling mill there, throwing 246 men out of jobs. Swan Hunter sacked 2,100 men and decided that Palmers at Hebburn would be put into mothballs.
  This is the first time in living memory that no ships are being built on the south side of the Tyne. This Government have done what Hitler's bombers could not do during the last world war. The Government have no feeling for the shipbuilding communities. The reduced spending power of the workers is devastating businesses and shops in our areas. Since the Tyne and Wear "Save our shipyard" campaign started, I have received letters from shopkeepers and other business men who are worried about the effect of redundancies. If the Government had showed spirit and had fought to create employment in our area, they would have done what the Tyne and Wear county council has done. Instead of trying to eliminate the council, the Government would have been emulating it.
  An article in the local paper stated:
  "Any further contraction in shipbuilding and in engineering activities on the north-east coast would do irreparable damage to the future of the nation.
  If the skills and knowledge invested in this area were lost through any further contraction they would never be regained.
  This would be a great loss to the nation as a whole as they are the skills which would be needed in the future.
  All good men and true the length and breadth of the north-east coast should come forward to join a concerted bid to save the industry.
  Now is the time for all men of good standing who are interested in this country and its future to forget their political and other differences and speak out for the sake of the nation."
  Those were the words not of the general secretary of the boilermakers union, or the regional secretary of the TUC but of the former chairman of British Shipbuilders, Sir Robert Atkinson, in an article printed in the Sunderland Echo on 23 July.
  The hon. Members for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks), who has disappeared at the moment, and for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) talked about privatisation. I can tell them about privatisation because I worked in the British shipbuilding industry from the time I left school when I was 14 until I became a Member in 1979. Until 1977, the British shipbuilding industry was in private hands, and they made an almighty mess of it. That is why the industry was nationalised in 1977. If the Labour Government had not achieved orders for Polish ships, there would have been no British shipbuilding industry.
  The Government talk about the entrepreneurs in private industry. There was the Paton report in 1962, the Geddes report in 1966 and the Booz Allen report in 1972. Every one of those inquiries, which were conducted when the British shipbuilding industry was in private hands, complained about the lack of investment and bad management. It was not the men who worked in the industry but the management who had the say about investment during that time.
  A survey conducted in the 1970s showed that there were assets of £825 per British shipbuilding worker. In Germany the amount was more than £1,000 per worker. Initially, it was more than £1,200. In Sweden there were
  866
  assets of more than £1,800 per shipbuilding worker and in Japan there were assets of more than £2,800 per shipbuilding worker. The Minister talked about the £1 billion that has been invested since nationalisation. He said that last year £100 million was invested. In 1981–82 the Japanese merchant banks invested £620 million in seven shipyards. The Korean shipyards, in spite of the fact that they started from a good base, have invested £400 million a year. How on earth do the Government expect the British shipyard workers to compete?
  The Government amendment states that the House
  "welcomes the efforts of the industry's management to achieve that objective".
  I refer the House to the evidence given to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. The chairman asked:
  "I have a personal question for you, Mr. Day. When you took up your job, was your remit given to you … to privatise?"
  Mr. Graham Day replied:
  "I was aware from the media what the government policy was and I was told that in effect my remit had two parts."
  He did not accept any brief in writing from the Government. He learnt about the Government's policy through the media, and took the job on that basis.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North said, Graham Day is doing to British Shipbuilders what MacGregor is doing to the British mining industry. Is it a coincidence that both men come from the western hemisphere? The best thing that the Government could do would be to put them both on a boat and send them back to North America. We would probably have a better industry as a result.
  We are not discussing only shipbuilding. We must consider the shipping industry. For a long time, that industry relied on 100 per cent. depreciation to give it the edge. It was dealt a savage blow when that provision was withdrawn by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Since the Falklands operation, when 54 merchant ships were in the task force, there has been a reduction of more than 200 ships in our merchant fleet, totalling over 8 million deadweight tonnes.
  Apart from Greece, the United Kingdom has the largest fleet in the EC and, consequently, the largest ordering requirement. It is about time that some British shipowners showed the same loyalty to British shipyards that Japanese shipowners show to Japanese yards. Not one Japanese shipowner has ordered a ship outside Japan since 1947. Everyone knows that the Koreans can build ships cheaper than the Japanese, so if we are talking about an open market in shipbuilding, why do Japanese shipowners not have their ships built in Korea? It is because they show a loyalty to their industry that British shipowners do not show to our industry.
  In the past five years, the number of ships ordered by EC shipowners in their own countries has totalled 98 per cent. in Italy, 97 per cent. in Belgium, 82 per cent. in West Germany, 77 per cent. in France, 74 per cent. in the Netherlands, 73 per cent. in Denmark and only 44 per cent. in the United Kingdom. Last year, out of 360,000 tonnes of British owners' shipping orders, 311,00(1 tonnes went abroad. If those orders had been made in this country, our industry would not be in its present state.
  Not only have the Government hit shipping and shipbuilding, but they have hit the people who sail on the ships. They even took away the 25 per cent. tax deduction that seafarers have been given for so long. That costs those men an average of £10 a week and penalises them in comparison with their counterparts in western Europe.

  867
  Some Conservative Members claim that British shipbuilding workers have made no sacrifices since 1979. In fact, they made so many sacrifices that they have fallen from fourth to below 20th in the wages league and they have reduced the number of wage bargaining units from 160 to two— one manual and one staff. It was said some time ago that if British shipyard workers worked for nothing, they would still not be able to compete with the Koreans. It is nonsense for Conservative Members to say that the workers are the main problem in the shipbuilding industry.
  We want the Government to call a halt to all closures in the industry. We have reached the bare minimum for survival and we cannot contract any more. At one time, we used to produce 80 per cent. of the world's tonnage; now we produce less than 2 per cent. We want a halt to privatisation, which would be nonsensical at a time when the industry is facing such severe problems. The private sector has already failed the industry.
  We need a maritime policy and a new system of financial aids to replace the intervention fund. As an island nation, we must retain the shipbuilding, marine engineering and shipping industries. Shipbuilding plays a vital part in our nation's prosperity and in its protection. We have a capability that needs to be sustained and recognised as a national asset. It cannot be used intermittently, turned on and off like a hot water tap and available only when required. To be effective it needs continuous use and constant improvement. It needs continuous investment in men and materials. Once that capability is allowed to be displaced, it will never be recovered. Under the Government's policy, what will happen to the shipping and shipbuilding industry will be the same as happened to the motor cycle industry.
  In the paper this morning I read that the Prime Minister had given a lecture in the Carlton club to some Conservative body on why democracy will last. I have no doubt that many of the people in her audience have never seen a pair of overalls, let alone worn them. If the Prime Minister and her Government let the shipbuilding industry go to the wall, they will be the "enemy within", and they will never be forgiven by the British people.
  9.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): I should like first to respond to the very distinguished speech of the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett), who correctly drew the attention of the House to two themes which concern any hon. Member representing and industrial constituency.
  I reassure the hon. Member that it is the Government's view that manufacturing matters. Eighty per cent. of what we make within our economy is internationally tradeable, and 18 per cent. of service sector activity is similarly internationally tradeable. Therefore, those members of our work force who are committed to manufacturing activity give us very good value for money, and it is this Administration's intention to see that our manufacturing base continues to provide the core of our wealth-creating activity.
  I assure the hon. Member for Wallsend that I do not take the view that long-term unemployment is to be tolerated. I do not take the view that is sometimes taken
  868
  in fashionable debating circles, that somehow structural unemployment is with us for ever. Indeed, I will give the hon. Gentleman two figures which support me in that contention. In 1966, our share of the world's export trade was 14 per cent. In 1983, it was 8 per cent. The steepest falls were not during Conservative Administrations.
  According to the CBI, every 1 per cent. reduction in our world trade represents 250,000 jobs lost. If we are to believe those figures—and I do—surely it is not too risky to say in this House that we can and should regain the level of trade that we had such a short time ago. By getting back to the share of trade that we once had, we can regain 1·5 million jobs. I believe that that is a legitimate target.
  When there is a whirlwind of international competition in the shipbuilding industry, how can we regain our share of the market? How can we fight back in the domestic and the international markets?
  Mr. Robert C. Brown rose—
  Mr. Butcher: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed. Several of his hon. Friends have made distinguished contributions to the debate and I have many questions to answer. I shall try to answer them all in the time available.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) understandably and correctly voiced his concern. He talked about a crisis. A large number of redundancies are contemplated at Swan Hunter and at Vosper Thornycroft. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it is not my intention tonight to criticise the work force or the working practices of the industry at this time. One has to concede that in the past they were not of the best, but lessons are being learned, and people are learning to work together. That gives us the best element of hope for the future.
  Incidentally, I accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's figure that for every job in the shipbuilding construction industry, downstream there are three further jobs to consider. That also has an effect on the communities with which we are concerned. I shall refer to his comments about Graham Day and particularly about competition from the far east. I should like to report, for the time being, that next week we shall be involved in bilateral talks with the Koreans and it is our intention to place at the top of the agenda of the talks the effects that Korean pricing is having in distorting the market for shipping and in eroding their competitive position, which in turn is driving the rest of the world's industry into a downward spiral of ever-increasing subsidy. That cannot be right in the long-term for the Pacific basin. It is certainly not right for the United Kingdom.
  The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) asked about the SD14 order for St. Helena, which involves the Overseas Development Administration's position on the matter. I assure him that we shall make strong representations to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development and ask that the decision be urgently reviewed, although the situation is not quite as straightforward as hon. members on both sides of the House may think.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) talked accurately about the key role of management. Without a good management and a good work force, no amount of public money can rescue any

  869
  company from uncompetitive practices and uncompetitive behaviour. My hon. Friend also talked about the farsighted decision of Vickers. That company specialised; it produced successful results. It produced an excellent facility upon which we can build. I commend my hon. Friend on—
  Mr. Dick Douglas: The Minister has never been in a shipyard.
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Butcher: I commend my hon. Friend on his robust and pugnacious assertions—
  Mr. Douglas: He has never been in a shipyard.
  Mr. Butcher: May I say to the hon. Gentleman that I have worked—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not seemly conduct.
  Mr. Butcher: I neglected to say to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) that at the moment we are negotiating on the intervention fund. We are arguing, as we were reminded by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), for increased flexibility, and my hon. Friend the Minister for State is asking for a much better deal from the European Community on the intervention fund.
  I commend the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on his courage to support those who want to work. He has supported the real right-to-work campaign, which concerns preserving jobs for those who wish to go to work.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) said that he would like to see the earliest resolution of the type 22 issue. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will be minded to bring his decision forward during this year. He is aware that many shipyards, like the one my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen represents, are waiting for that early decision. With regard to the position of Vosper Thornycroft on privatisation, I can confirm that British Shipbuilders is pursuing the privatisation of Vosper ship repair as fast as it can and has had several serious expressions of interest.
  The hon. Member for Stockton, South, together with other hon. Members, asked whether we can predict or guarantee that those who may be bidding for and may eventually take over the Hall Russell facility will continue shipbuilding at Hall Russell. It is the intent of the Department of Trade and Industry that that should be so, subject to the usual questions on viability and the company's competence to continue shipbuilding activity on that site. I hope that that response gives some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Merchant) rightly pointed to the roller coaster progression— some might call it regression— of the industry. He correctly said that working practices were now improving. That improvement must continue because, like a runner, our shipbuilding industry must gather pace and run faster and faster to haul back on the lead gained by our competitors. I hope that the examples of bad practices that he cited will be the last examples of bad industrial relations in the industry. He also reminded us that the capability of both work force and management is the key to success for all the sites up and down the country.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) through his trade union associations has a special interest
  870
  in technology. I am afraid that he will have to wait for a written reply to some of his questions, not least because I suspect that the House is in no mood to discuss the £30 million that British Shipbuilders has committed to projects such as CADCAM— computer aided design and manufacture—automated manufacturing techniques and so on. The hon. Gentleman is well versed in those disciplines and I undertake to give him the appropriate information on investment in those categories by letter. He also asked for greater flexibility in the intervention fund. That is precisely our negotiating position, and we shall continue to press for that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway) vividly pointed out why there is a crisis, illustrating the problem of surplus capacity by pointing to the 1,000 ships laid up in the bay of Greece. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) asked us to look again at Redheads. I confirm that we shall reaffirm the lessons of privatisation there and take on board the lessons learned at that excellent site.
  The hon. Member for Jarrow asked us to think of the community. Of course we bear in mind the effect on communities. That is why we are negotiating the continuation of the shipbuilding redundancy payments scheme.
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Butcher: That is why we, too, are interested in preserving skills.
  Mr. Loyden rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.
  Mr. Butcher: Our help and concern has been very tangible indeed. Regional support on Wearside has been £31·5 million, on Teesside £181 million and on north Tyne £57·8 million. That is not complacency. For south Tyne the figure is £50 million and for Glasgow £88 million. Not only have we put more than £1 billion into the industry: we have recognised the social consequences of redundancies and the particular difficulties faced by communities experiencing structural unemployment.
  We have been accused of complacency. I reject that accusation on four main counts. The first is the now much debated £1,170 million. The second is the negotiation for an increase in our take from the intervention fund and a much better deal for the United Kingdom in Europe. The third is our negotiations with Korea. The fourth is our commitment in hard cash in orders from the public sector for £2,800 million worth of naval vessels spread over nine yards and involving 32 vessels. That is not complacency. We take the comments made in the debate very seriously indeed. We affirm our concern for the industry.
  Mr. Loyden: Rubbish.
  Mr. Butcher: Unfortunately, the hon. Member has not been here for much of the debate.
  On that basis, I ask my hon. Friends to reject the motion. The motion is flawed. It does not identify the key considerations for profitability, competitiveness and our ability to beat international competition. I therefore ask my hon. Friends to vote for the Prime Minister's amendment.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 267.

  Division No. 22]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Garrett, W. E.

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  George, Bruce

  Anderson, Donald

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Gould, Bryan

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Gourlay, Harry

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Ashton, Joe

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Hardy, Peter

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Barnett, Guy

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Barron, Kevin

  Home Robertson, John

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Benn, Tony

  Howells, Geraint

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

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Blair, Anthony

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Boyes, Roland

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  John, Brynmor

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Johnston, Russell

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

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

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

  Kennedy, Charles

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Buchan, Norman

  Lambie, David

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Campbell, Ian

  Leighton, Ronald

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Litherland, Robert

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cartwright, John

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Loyden, Edward

  Clay, Robert

  McCartney, Hugh

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Cohen, Harry

  McKelvey, William

  Coleman, Donald

  McNamara, Kevin

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Madden, Max

  Conlan, Bernard

  Marek, Dr John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Maxton, John

  Cowans, Harry

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Meacher, Michael

  Crowther, Stan

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Michie, William

  Dalyell, Tam

  Mikardo, Ian

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

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

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Deakins, Eric

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Dewar, Donald

  Nellist, David

  Dixon, Donald

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Dobson, Frank

  O'Brien, William

  Dormand, Jack

  O'Neill, Martin

  Douglas, Dick

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Dubs, Alfred

  Park, George

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Parry, Robert

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Patchett, Terry

  Eadie, Alex

  Pendry, Tom

  Eastham, Ken

  Penhaligon, David

  Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpfn SE)

  Pike, Peter

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Ewing, Harry

  Prescott, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  Radice, Giles

  Faulds, Andrew

  Randall, Stuart

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Redmond, M.

  Fisher, Mark

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Flannery, Martin

  Robertson, George

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Forrester, John

  Rogers, Allan

  Foulkes, George

  Rooker, J. W.

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Freud, Clement

  Rowlands, Ted

  872

  Ryman, John

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Tinn, James

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Torney, Tom

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wallace, James

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Short, Mrs H.(W'hampfn NE)

  Wareing, Robert

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Weetch, Ken

  Skinner, Dennis

  Welsh, Michael

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

  White, James

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

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Snape, Peter

  Wilson, Gordon

  Soley, Clive

  Winnick, David

  Spearing, Nigel

  Woodall, Alec

  Stott, Roger

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Strang, Gavin

  Straw, Jack

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Rt Hon John David

  Mr. John McWilliam and

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Mr. Frank Haynes.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Critchley, Julian

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Amess, David

  Dicks, Terry

  Ancram, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Arnold, Tom

  Dover, Den

  Ashby, David

  Dunn, Robert

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Durant, Tony

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Evennett, David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fallon, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Farr, Sir John

  Bendall, Vivian

  Favell, Anthony

  Benyon, William

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Forman, Nigel

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Blackburn, John

  Fox, Marcus

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Franks, Cecil

  Body, Richard

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gale, Roger

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

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

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Bright, Graham

  Greenway, Harry

  Brinton, Tim

  Gregory, Conal

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

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

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Grist, Ian

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Grylls, Michael

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Harg reaves, Kenneth

  Burt, Alistair

  Harris, David

  Butcher, John

  Harvey, Robert

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Butterfill, John

  Heddle, John

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Hicks, Robert

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

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

  Hind, Kenneth

  Carttiss, Michael

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Holt, Richard

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howard, Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cockeram, Eric

  Irving, Charles

  Colvin, Michael

  Jessel, Toby

  Conway, Derek

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Coombs, Simon

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Cope, John

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Cormack, Patrick

  Key, Robert

  Corrie, John

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  873

  Knox, David

  Ryder, Richard

  Lamont, Norman

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Lang, Ian

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Lightbown, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lilley, Peter

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lord, Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Luce, Richard

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Silvester, Fred

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Sims, Roger

  MacGregor, John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Maclean, David John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

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

  Speller, Tony

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Spence, John

  Madel, David

  Spencer, Derek

  Major, John

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Malone, Gerald

  Squire, Robin

  Maples, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Marland, Paul

  Stanley, John

  Marlow, Antony

  Steen, Anthony

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stern, Michael

  Mather, Carol

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Stokes, John

  Merchant, Piers

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Sumberg, David

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Moate, Roger

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Moore, John

  Thome, Neil (Word S)

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Tracey, Richard

  Mudd, David

  Trippier, David

  Murphy, Christopher

  Trotter, Neville

  Neale, Gerrard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Needham, Richard

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Nelson, Anthony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Newton, Tony

  Waddington, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Walden, George

  Onslow, Cranley

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Waller, Gary

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Walters, Dennis

  Ottaway, Richard

  Ward, John

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Parris, Matthew

  Watson, John

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Watts, John

  Pawsey, James

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Whitfield, John

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Whitney, Raymond

  Pollock, Alexander

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Powley, John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Price, Sir David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Wood, Timothy

  Raffan, Keith

  Woodcock, Michael

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Yeo, Tim

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Mr. Michael Neubert and

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 185.

  Division No. 23]

  [10.12 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Favell, Anthony

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Amess, David

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Ancram, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Arnold, Tom

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Ashby, David

  Fox, Marcus

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Franks, Cecil

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Gale, Roger

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Baldry, Tony

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Batiste, Spencer

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bellingham, Henry

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Benyon, William

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Greenway, Harry

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gregory, Conal

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

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

  Blackburn, John

  Grist, Ian

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Grylls, Michael

  Body, Richard

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Harris, David

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

  Heddle, John

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hicks, Robert

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hind, Kenneth

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Bright, Graham

  Howard, Michael

  Brinton, Tim

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Irving, Charles

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A,

  Jessel, Toby

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Burt, Alistair

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Butcher, John

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Key, Robert

  Butterfill, John

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Knox, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Lamont, Norman

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

  Lang, Ian

  Carttiss, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Lightbown, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Lilley, Peter

  Churchill, W. S.

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Lord, Michael

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Cockeram, Eric

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Colvin, Michael

  MacGregor, John

  Conway, Derek

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Coombs, Simon

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Cope, John

  Maclean, David John

  Cormack, Patrick

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

  Corrie, John

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Madel, David

  Dicks, Terry

  Malins, Humfrey

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Malone, Gerald

  Dover, Den

  Maples, John

  Dunn, Robert

  Marland, Paul

  Durant, Tony

  Marlow, Antony

  Dykes, Hugh

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Mather, Carol

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Evennett, David

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Fallon, Michael

  Merchant, Piers

  Farr, Sir John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  875

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Speller, Tony

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Spence, John

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Spencer, Derek

  Moate, Roger

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Squire, Robin

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Moore, John

  Stanley, John

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Steen, Anthony

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Stern, Michael

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mudd, David

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Stokes, John

  Neale, Gerrard

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Needham, Richard

  Sumberg, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Neubert, Michael

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Newton, Tony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Thorne, Neil (llford S)

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Parris, Matthew

  Thurnham, Peter

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Pawsey, James

  Tracey, Richard

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Trippier, David

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Trotter, Neville

  Pollock, Alexander

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Powell, William (Corby)

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Powley, John

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Price, Sir David

  Waddington, David

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Walden, George

  Raffan, Keith

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Waller, Gary

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Walters, Dennis

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Ward, John

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Warren, Kenneth

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Watson, John

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Watts, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Whitfield, John

  Ryder, Richard

  Whitney, Raymond

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Wolfson, Mark

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wood, Timothy

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Woodcock, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Yeo, Tim

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Silvester, Fred

  Sims, Roger

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Mr. John Major and

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Mr. Peter Lloyd.

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Boyes, Roland

  Anderson, Donald

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

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

  Ashton, Joe

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

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Buchan, Norman

  Barnett, Guy

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell, Ian

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Benn, Tony

  Canavan, Dennis

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

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Blair, Anthony

  Clay, Robert

  876

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Cohen, Harry

  McKelvey, William

  Coleman, Donald

  McNamara, Kevin

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Madden, Max

  Conlan, Bernard

  Marek, DrJohn

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Maxton, John

  Cowans, Harry

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Meacher, Michael

  Crowther, Stan

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Michie, William

  Dalyell, Tam

  Mikardo, Ian

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

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

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Deakins, Eric

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Dewar, Donald

  Nellist, David

  Dixon, Donald

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Dobson, Frank

  O'Brien, William

  Dormand, Jack

  O'Neill, Martin

  Douglas, Dick

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Dubs, Alfred

  Park, George

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Parry, Robert

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Patchett, Terry

  Eadie, Alex

  Pendry, Tom

  Eastham, Ken

  Penhaligon, David

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Pike, Peter

  Ewing, Harry

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Prescott, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Radice, Giles

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Randall, Stuart

  Fisher, Mark

  Redmond, M.

  Flannery, Martin

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Robertson, George

  Forrester, John

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Foulkes, George

  Rogers, Allan

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Freud, Clement

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Rowlands, Ted

  George, Bruce

  Ryman, John

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Gould, Bryan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Short, Mrs R.(Whampfn NE)

  Hardy, Peter

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Skinner, Dennis

  Heffer, Eric S.

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

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

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

  Home Robertson, John

  Snape, Peter

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Soley, Clive

  Howells, Geraint

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Stott, Roger

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Strang, Gavin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Straw, Jack

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  John, Brynmor

  Tinn, James

  Johnston, Russell

  Torney, Tom

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Wallace, James

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Wareing, Robert

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Weetch, Ken

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Welsh, Michael

  Lambie, David

  White, James

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Leighton, Ronald

  Wilson, Gordon

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Winnick, David

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Woodall, Alec

  Litherland, Robert

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Mr. John McWilliam and

  Loyden, Edward

  Mr. Frank Haynes.

  McCartney, Hugh

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House recognises the efforts being made by the British shipbuilding industry to overcome its present difficulties; notes that the Government has provided over £1,000 million of
  878
  taxpayers' money to British Shipbuilders since 1979; recognises that only by becoming more competitive can the British shipbuilding industry have a secure future; welcomes the efforts of the industry's management to achieve that objective; and endorses the Government's decision to return British Shipbuilders' warship building interest to the private sector as soon as possible.

  Airey Houses (Grants)
  10.25 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I beg to move,
  That the draft Grants by Local Authorities (Appropriate Percentage and Exchequer Contribution) (Repairs Grant for Airey Houses) (Variation) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 22nd October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
  It may be useful for hon. Members if I explain the circumstances that have given rise to this draft order.
  Some five years ago, serious defects were discovered in a prefabricated reinforced concrete house of the Airey design, of which some 25,000 were built by the public sector in England and Wales after the second world war. The reinforced concrete structural posts of the house— which are concealed within the cavity wall and thus not capable of easy visual inspection— were found to be seriously cracked and spalled as a result of the corrosion of the tubular steel reinforcement within the concrete posts. Further examination of examples of this type revealed that this was affecting, actually or potentially, all houses of this type.
  The defects entail the progressive deterioration, generally within a period of 30 years or so, of the PRC structural members. But for private owners of houses subject to this deterioration, and some 2,000 Airey houses have been sold by the public sector, the problem is not simply technical. In their unrepaired state, the houses are unmortgageable; private owners face substantial losses compared with the price paid by them, and they are unable to move. As most of them bought their houses before the defects or potential defects were detected and their significance understood, neither the purchasers nor the public sector bodies as vendors were in a position to protect the purchasers against incurring these losses.
  This pattern of circumstances emerged first in 1981–82 in respect of owners of Airey houses, though, as hon. Members will know, subsequent research by the Building Research Establishment has revealed that all PRC dwellings designed before 1960 are likely to be similarly affected by the defects.
  On 7 September 1982 my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Housing and Construction, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley), announced the Government's decision to make special assistance available to those who had purchased Airey houses at valuations that did not reflect the existence of the structural defects of the type I have described.
  The scheme of assistance, which came into effect on 14 February 1983, has been administered by the local authorities, and it has been a matter for their discretion whether or not they give help under it and what form of help is given in a particular case. I am glad to say that most authorities have sought to help those who have applied.
  Under the discretionary scheme, eligible owners were able to apply either for a repairs grant of 90 per cent. of repairs costs subject to an eligible expense limit of £14,000 in Greater London and £10,500 elsewhere, or to have their house repurchased by the local authority at its current market value, plus an ex-gratia payment equal to 90 per cent. of the difference between the current market value and the "defect-free" value of the house.
  880
  Expenditure incurred by authorities under the scheme on repairs grants, and ex-gratia payments in cases of repurchase, has been reimbursed by the Exchequer at a rate of 100 per cent. This high rate of contribution is in recognition of the voluntary nature of local authorities' participation in the scheme.
  Three statutory instruments were made to bring the repairs grant component of the discretionary scheme into effect. Two were subject to the negative resolution procedure. The first enabled repairs grants to be given under the Housing Act 1974 in respect of Airey houses— SI 1983, No. 4, the Grants by Local Authorities (Repairs Grants for Airey Houses) Order 1983. The second set the eligible expense limits for such grants—SI 1982, No. 1895, the Grants by Local Authorities (Repairs Grants for Airey Houses) (Eligible Expense Limits) Order 1982. The third order required affirmative resolution of the House and set the rate at which a grant may be given by a local authority at 90 per cent. and the rate of Exchequer contribution towards the cost of that grant at 100 per cent. That order was debated and approved by the House on 24 January 1983.
  The draft order before the House tonight seeks to vary the terms of that third order. Two related orders subject to negative resolution were laid before the House on 9 November— the Grants by Local Authorities (Repairs Grants for Airey Houses) (Revocation) Order 1984, and the Grants by Local Authorities (Repairs for Airey Houses) Order (Eligible Expense Limits) (Variation) Order 1984.
  That brings me to the reason for the laying of this draft order and the related orders. Last Session, Parliament enacted the Housing Defects Act, and under the Act a statutory scheme of assistance for owners of prefabricated reinforced concrete dwellings designed before 1960 is to come into effect on 1 December. Designations and orders have been made for that purpose and the Department and the Welsh Office have issued a circular describing the arrangements. Similar arrangements are being brought into effect in Scotland on the same date though, as there are no Airey houses in Scotland, that country is not affected by the matters of concern to us in this debate.
  Owners of Airey houses who have made no application before 1 December under the discretionary scheme will be able to apply for the assistance to which they are entitled under the Act. Their position will be the same as that of private owners of other types of PRC dwellings in respect of which assistance will now be available. They will no longer be able to obtain that help by applying under the discretionary scheme after 1 December.
  I should like to dwell on this point for just a moment. Many of us heard my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) on the radio this morning. He was seeking clarification of the position of those who wish to have their Airey house repurchased. I think that he was speaking on behalf of his constituents.
  The first point I want to stress is that Airey owners have never had the right under circular 6/83 to require the council to buy back their house. The present scheme is entirely at the discretion of the council. It is for the council to decide whether to operate the scheme and whether to give assistance by way of repairs grant or repurchase.
  One or two authorities do not operate the scheme at all. Others do not agree to repurchase properties, only to give grants. Under the statutory scheme to come into effect on 1 December, those who were eligible to apply under the discretionary scheme will now have a right to assistance.

  881
  Secondly, I wish to clarify the position of those who were delaying an application for repurchase under the discretionary scheme. When the Airey scheme was announced on 7 September 1982, it was decided that Exchequer contribution should be available only in respect of applications for repurchase received in the three-year period up to 7 September 1985.
  At that time there was no prospect of legislation on housing defects generally, and, indeed, there was little evidence that other house types were similarly affected. I have already explained the advent of the Housing Defects Act and in the course of the Bill there was no question but that the new scheme under the Act would subsume the existing discretionary scheme. This will take place on 1 December.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire has, quite understandably, expressed concern about the position of those who have not yet applied for repurchase under the discretionary scheme.
  The only difference between the discretionary scheme and the statutory scheme in this respect is that, for the latter, the Act lays down in section 3 the criteria by which an authority decides whether assistance should be by reinstatement grant or repurchase. For example, repurchase must be the form of assistance offered if the house, after repair, will not provide a further life of 30 years or be mortgageable. I should also draw my hon. Friend's attention to the provision in section 3(5) of the Act to the effect that repurchase must also be the form of assistance offered if it is unreasonable to expect the owner to await or secure the carrying out of the reinstatement works.
  It is true that Airey owners applying under the Act will not be able to guarantee repurchase, but they cannot do that at the moment because they have no right. It would not be correct for their position to be different from that of other owners applying under the Act, especially as there is no specific statutory authority for repurchase under the discretionary scheme. It is worth adding that under the statutory scheme repurchase could take place up to 1994 rather than 1985 and that the terms of repurchase are marginally more favourable to the owner than under the discretionary scheme.
  There is no question of Airey owners having to complete the resale of their houses by 1 December in order not to lose out under the new arrangements. The result which we are trying to achieve by this package of orders, and our advice to local authorities, is that owners who apply by 30 November should have a choice of proceeding under the discretionary scheme or of applying under the Act.
  If Airey owners wish to secure for themselves this choice and they have not yet applied under the discretionary scheme, they need simply make an application under it before 1 December—a letter to the local authority will suffice. But if they do not apply by then, they will still be entitled to assistance under the Act. The only difference will be that, as I have said, under the Act it cannot be guaranteed that assistance will be by means of repurchase, rather than reinstatement, because under the Act the form of assistance depends on the application of the statutory conditions in each particular case.
  Mr. David Harris: Most of us have listened to my hon. Friend in complete bafflement. Will he advise
  882
  us on how on earth we are to get across what he is saying to our constituents? I am at a complete loss as to how to do so.
  Sir George Young: With respect, I think that it is my hon. Friends' job to interpret legislation in the best interests of their constituents. But if my hon. Friend wishes his constituents to keep their options open, they have only to apply under the discretionary scheme before 1 December. In that way they will obtain the advantage of the discretionary and statutory schemes.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Will my hon. Friend confirm that neither the old nor the new scheme applies to houses built originally in the private sector and purchased by private owners? Is it not true to say that no assistance is forthcoming for such private owners?
  Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The discretionary and statutory schemes apply to houses that originated in the public sector. I am reluctant to impose the rest of the order's explanation on my hon. Friends, but I am nearly at an end.
  Mr. Michael Knowles: The advice that my hon. Friend has just given indicates that applications should be made for discretionary grants under the existing legislation before 1 December. But if such an application were made and accepted by the local authorily, would not the applicant then be unable to apply for possibly more advantageous assistance under the Housing Defects Act?
  Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is not quite right. If those involved had not started the work, they could at any point withdraw their application under the discretionary scheme, and reapply after 1 December under the statutory scheme. So the option would be kept open, even if the local authority approved the application, as long as work had not commenced.
  But by way of encouragement to my hon. Friends, perhaps I should state that the position was set out clearly in the draft circular which the department sent to the local authority associations on 25 September and was repeated in circular 28/84 sent out by the Department on 12 November.
  There are Airey owners who have already applied under the discretionary scheme and. whose applications have not yet been brought to a conclusion either in the start of repairs under an approval for grant, or by the completion of repurchase.
  The present package of orders, including the draft order before the House now, deals with cases in which owners of Airey houses have already applied for assistance by means of grant under the discretionary scheme. We believe it is sensible, so far as the local authorities are concerned, that the detailed arrangements for such people should be brought into line with the provisions applying under the statutory scheme.
  The orders which were subject to negative resolution, to which I referred just now, have the effect of limiting the availability of repairs grants under the 1974 Act to Airey owners who have applied by 30 November; and of setting the eligible expense limit for cases which proceed under the revised arrangements, but in respect of which grant has not yet been approved, at £14,000 throughout the country. This brings the limit into line with the expenditure limit set under the Housing Defects Act for the statutory scheme.

  883
  The Act provides that the Exchequer contribution towards reinstatement grants paid by authorities under the statutory scheme should be at the rate of 90 per cent.
  The draft order before the House brings the discretionary scheme into line by providing that the Exchequer contribution in respect of grants approved after 1 December should also be at the rate of 90 per cent.
  I apologise for having to take up the House's time in explaining the background to this draft order. I can see that what is going on is not immediately obvious to the layman. Procedurally, the position is complicated. But our purpose is relatively simple: to achieve consistency of treatment of grants for the repair of Airey houses, whether in the case of discretionary grants which can continue to be given under the 1974 Act or under the statutory scheme provided by the Housing Defects Act.
  I commend the order to the House.
  10.40 pm
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: I understand the queries to the Minister, although the way in which some questions were put to him was less than fair. The Minister tried his best to explain a bad case. It is unacceptable for the Minister to come to the House on 27 November to make a statement that affects several hundreds of people who thought that they had another nine or 12 months to make a decision.
  Airey house owners did not expect to have only a couple of days in which to make a decision, without all the facts being available. They do not know whether they will receive better treatment under the statutory scheme, because that scheme is not the same as the voluntary scheme.
  I welcome the opportunity for hon. Members with Airey houses in their constituencies to raise the issue once again. The Minister said that about 25,000 such houses were built in the public sector in the United Kingdom. They are spread amongst at least 189 housing authorities. The latest note concerning distribution is dated 23 November 1981 and does not include Birmingham. Birmingham built 88 Airey houses and 28 of them are in my constituency.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who cannot be here tonight, confirmed a few miunutes ago that he helped build Airey houses in his constituecy. Mansfield is not on the list deposited in the Library. Will the Minister place more updated information in the Library?
  I accept that about 10 per cent. of Airey houses were built in Leeds, the base of the Airey company. Only 123 of the 189 authorities on the list built 200 or more. The average is 116, and only 59 authorities built more than 169 houses. Most of them built only in tens or twenties. Perhaps someone went round the country telling local authorities, "We have built a lot in Leeds. Why don't you try some out to see how things go?". Some authorities built fewer than 10 Airey houses.
  Purchasers have the choice of selling back to the local authority. That scheme might solve one immediate problem—that of owning an unmarketable asset. But it does not solve all the problems. What happens if the local authority fails to repair the house sold to it? That problem will have to be solved when the legislation takes full effect.
  884
  What will happen to people who have sold back to the council and who wish to remain in their home? Before I knew about tonight's order I received a letter from a constituent dated 20 November. My constituent had sold his house back to the council and was a retired skilled building worker. He said:
  "however, we are very concerned as to the safety aspect of the structural deterioration.
  Five of the six columns that are exposed in the house have long cracks running upwards from below floor levels … These are becoming increasingly worse as time goes by."
  Last Friday, after crawling around under the house, I found cracks 15 in or 16 in long running from the base of the floor. The fact that the owner has sold his house back to the council does not solve his problem. He may be living in a house that is unsafe due to the deterioration of the pillars. He has spent a considerable amount on his house, and is reluctant to continue extending and improving that property because he does not know what will happen to the house in the medium to long term.
  The Under-Secretary of State referred to some of the limits that the Treasury has placed on expenditure. I understand that the estimated average market value cost of repurchase at the time the Housing Defects Bill and the Airey schemes were being considered was put at £1,800 per dwelling. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to respond to the circular issued to hon. Members by Shelter. The organisation highlights the case of two Airey houses in a council area near London which were originally sold for £8,000. They have just been valued at £38,000 and £54,000 respectively. What is the position when such valuations are put on houses either before Friday, when the present scheme lapses, or after Friday when the statutory scheme starts? What has been the expenditure to date?
  I understand the logic of the Government's argument in trying to match the 90 per cent. reimbursement to local authorities with the measures in the statutory scheme. The fact is that, whichever way one looks at this, local authorities now get 100 per cent. of what they spent on the refurbishment or repurchase and, after Friday, they will get 90 per cent. That is a cut. How much money has been spent by local authorities, reimbursed in full by the Government, to update the scheme for voluntary sales back to local authorities? The Under-Secretary of State should have that information available to him from the Treasury.
  What happens to someone who does not sell back and decides to take a gamble that his house will be OK? The adjoining half of the property may still be in the hands of the local authority. If only 10 per cent. of the houses have been sold, the chances are nine to one that the other half of the property is in the hands of the local authority. The owner will not be able to sell, even if he has had repairs done. The building societies will not offer a mortgage to any potential purchaser if the joint structure has not been dealt with completely. It behoves the Under-Secretary of State to give an update on the discussions about a warranty scheme that have been taking place with the National House Building Council and the Building Societies Association. As I understand it, unless all the houses in a block-whether there are two or four-are dealt with, it does not matter if one or two owner-occupied houses have been repaired. Those owner-occupied properties are unsaleable if the adjoining properties are in local authority hands and the local authority has not had the resources to carry out repairs.
  Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman said that someone might take a gamble and go for reinstatement and then discover that the property was not mortgageable. In those circumstances, the person would not have been able to get a reinstatement grant under the Act. The Act clearly states that, unless the property is mortgageable, reinstatement is not available. In those circumstances, repurchase would be the only option under the Act, so the person would not be in the position to take a gamble.
  Mr. Rooker: I do not think that it is as clear as that. If a house were mortgageable as an individual property—the valuations were correct and the cost of putting it right fell within the guidelines—there would still be a problem, if adjoining houses were owned by a local authority that, because of restrictions on its expenditure had not been able to repair its properties. Would building societies give a mortgage on that owner-occupied property? I understand that they would not do that. That is why the Government are having discussions with the building societies. Perhaps the Minister will expand on his intervention when he winds up.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the Earl of Avon, told the Institute of Housing in Birmingham last week:
  "There is still a large element of speculation in many of the statements which are made about the scale of defects … Where there are no facts, then let us see what can be done to obtain the information necessary to paint as complete and as accurate picture as possible … So far as I am aware, there is no firm evidence of the number of dwellings affected … Few authorities have this information in respect of their own stock".
  Given that the Housing Defects Act is about to come into force, I find the Ministers's comments complacent. He spoke about resources and said:
  "it is unsound to argue that repairs to defective dwellings, for example, are going to cost £X millions if the extent of the problem has not been established."
  The Minister quoted the Building Research Establishment's conclusion that it will often be 10 or 20 years or more before the processes of deterioration result in physical damage. He then argued:
  "The costs of repairs should therefore be considered in the context of general repair programmes"
  of local authorities. That is not good enough for Airey houses or for any of the houses covered by the Housing Defects Act.
  No one can contradict me when I say that extra responsibilities are being imposed on local authorities as a result of the discovery, after all these years, that several hundred thousand non-traditional dwellings may be subject to structural defects and they will all require individual inspection. That was never budgeted for by local authority housing departments. It behoves the Government to give local authorities the extra resources required to carry out their responsibilities. They should not have to take money from existing programmes for housing improvement grants, general repairs and so on.
  The required expenditure could be massive. Therefore, local authorities must be given the money to enable them to check on the scale of the problem. The Earl of Avon says that the problem must be investigated, but the Government withhold from local authorities the resources to enable them to find out the facts.
  Before we are asked to consider any orders under the Housing Defects Act, Ministers must assure us that they will give local authorities the wherewithal to carry out their new responsibilities. Without that, a fraud will be perpetrated on the people in the operation of the Housing
  886
  Defects Act. Many people think that because that legislation affects all non-traditional properties except Airey houses, action will be taken soon about their dwellings whether the occupiers are local authority tenants or owner-occupiers. That is not the case.
  Unless the Government are prepared to put resources behind their Act, it will be seen as a fraud. I do not want that to happen, because there are a lot of worried people living in non-traditional homes. They are entitled to understand and believe that, having passed the legislation, Parliament will give the local authorities the necessary resources to ensure that the legislation becomes as effective as hon. Members thought it was when it was passed by the House of Commons.
  10.55 pm
  Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): I start by declaring an interest. I am a vice-president of the Building Societies Association, and I regret the fact that the building societies movement, through the constituent societies, has placed a blanket blight on the 25,000 properties that we are discussing tonight. Undoubtedly, there are a number that are inherently defective; there are an even greater number that are sound in wind and limb.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Department of the Environment. I also pay tribute to the Government for having 'peen the first Government for a generation to acknowledge that a significant number of system-built houses that have been available to rent and to purchase since the war have defects. The Government came to the House and announced, I think in September 1982, following a campaign by my hon. Friends and by Opposition Members, that the defects existed. It is right that we should place on record our gratitude, on behalf of our constituents, for the fact that the Government have made a significant sum available to try to reinstate and rehabilitate the properties, and to reinstate and rehabilitate the quality of life of the former tenants.
  In the Radio 4 interview this morning to which my hon. Friend referred, I said that the bureaucratic left hand seemed not to know what the administrative right hand was doing. I do not apologise for that remark and I do not retract that sentiment. It is extraordinary that on the one bureaucratic hand we are dealing with the small print of circular 6/83, published on 14 February 1983, which, as my hon. Friend pointed out—he was right to correct me—said that former tenants, now owner-occupiers of the Airey houses, do not have the right to sell back. Nevertheless, paragraph 29 of that circular sets out clearly that an application to repurchase must be received by the local authority by 7 September 1985. That surely implies that the owner-occupier has a right. All he is obliged to do is to tell the local authority, in the words of paragraph 29, and his application to repurchase must have been received by the local authority by that date.
  The draft circular was sent out by the Department in September, when the majority of senior personnel in local authority housing departments throughout the country were probably on holiday, or recovering from being on holiday, and therefore were not in a position to brief the Association of District Councils, which was not fully staffed to be able to brief the constituent local housing authorities to tell their councillors and the people affected of the terms, which differ from and contradict—beneficially, I agree—those of circular 28/84.

  887
  The debate highlights the fact that the procedure, though generous in intent, is itself far from defect-free. I submit to my hon. Friend that all owner-occupiers of Airey houses should have had and still should have the right to sell their properties back to the local authorities, and that those local authorities should have a statutory duty to buy them back. Otherwise, it makes nonsense of the intent of circular 6/83.
  Is it not nonsense that two circulars should be in existence simultaneously and that one of them, if it does not contradict the other, certainly conflicts with it?
  Why is a former tenant, who has exercised his statutory right to buy, to receive only 95 per cent. of the defect-free value in compensation? Surely the whole basis of compensation enshrined in the Land Compensation Act 1973 was that anyone affected by some act for which he or she was not responsible should be placed in the same position after the event as he or she was before it. Therefore, because there is an inevitable blight on all these properties, district valuers—being the admirable human beings that they are—will subconsciously subtract perhaps 5 per cent. from the value of the property. Therefore, the owner-occupier should receive 105 per cent. of the defect-free value compensation less the 5 per cent. tolerance, to bring it back to 100 per cent.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) referred to the position of the owner-occupier who sells back to the local authority but remains in the property as a tenant. I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that, having once more become a tenant, that person will be entitled to the credit of the subsequent years occupation should he or she wish to exercise the right to buy another property from a local authority.
  My constituents, Mr. and Mrs. P. Ward of 12 Beech gardens, Lichfield, look forward to receiving my hon. Friend's unequivocal and unqualified confirmation that they will be entitled to receive compensation based on current market value, provided that they exercise—I chose my words carefully—those rights that were enshrined in principle in both the circulars but not in law before 7 September next year, and that in so doing they will not lose any of the discount that they could have lost if they were forced to tell the local authority before the close of business this Friday, 30 November, that they would otherwise have had to sell back their property.
  Provided that my hon. Friend can give that assurance, hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber will leave tonight replete and content in the knowledge that all our constituents will have enjoyed the right of compensation that they rightfully deserve.
  11.3 pm
  Mr. Robert Litherland: In debates on the Housing Defects Act 1984, both in this Chamber and in Committee, it was always accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House and other interested parties that the Government's intention to bring the Act into force as soon as possible was a welcome move. I doubt whether the Airey house owners will welcome its being brought to fruition so quickly through this variation order.
  Opposition Members have always argued that the Act has immense limitations. It is not all-embracing and does
  888
  not address itself to the real problems confronting local authorities that have major housing problems caused by system-built defective housing.
  When the Act comes into force on 1 December it will assist owner-occupiers such as owners of Airey houses who have purchased in good faith from local authorities and then found the properties to have latent defects. There is no argument about that, and I say good luck to them. After all, they bought the houses in good faith.
  Local authorities also had those houses built in good faith, mainly due to promptings from various Governments with the offers of subsidies if they built system-built, package-deal housing. That housing was seen as the panacea of all our housing ills in the 1950s, 1960s and the early 1970s. That high density living accommodation did not solve the problems that then existed and has since created other problems.
  The Act and the order do not even begin to scratch the surface of the problem. In one of its submissions to the Minister the Association of Metropolitan Authorities claimed that about £10 billion would be needed to put right the defects in post-war non-traditional housing. As we have stressed from the outset, it is not what is in the Act but what is left out. The Government's efforts may be welcome, but they are feeble in the extreme.
  Shelter has highlighted the deficiencies in the repair schemes for this type of property and the delay in bringing forward a properly accepted scheme. Indeed, Shelter doubts whether the Act can operate until suitable arrangements have been made to test and approve potential repair methods. Even if a scheme were acceptable to the National House Building Council and the Building Societies Association were devised, it would come well after 1 December, when the Act comes into force.
  As a result of that delay, Airey houses and other system-built properties will have to be repurchased. Bringing the Act into force before a suitable scheme for approving and assuring repair methods is in operation will cause many problems, not least an increase in the financial cost to local authorities. If no scheme has come to fruition and a large number of applications come forward for repurchase the financial burden will be very heavy indeed and the NHBC repair scheme could fall by the wayside. If councils have to find the capital cost of reinstatement grants without financial assistance from the Government in their housing investment programme allocations-the Chancellor's autumn statement made it clear that there would be cuts and there would be cuts and there is bound to be a further reduction in housing investment, especially in 1985–86—housing departments will be forced to pass on the burden to other areas of the housing programme.
  Under the Act, payments to owner-occupiers in respect of defective housing will become mandatory. Local authority owned defective housing may therefore suffer because concils cannot meet repair costs. The order epitomises the distinction made by the Government between owner-occupiers and council tenants. It is an unsatisfactory approach to this massive problem because it deals only with a very limited number of properties. I cannot for the life of me understand how the properties are designated. What is the difference between Airey housing or any of the other types designated and the properties on Wellington street estate in my constituency, to which I have referred many times in the House and in Committee,

  889
  which were built by Bison Northern Concrete only 12 years ago but are being knocked down by bulldozers right now. How much more defective can housing be?
  The Government are dealing with a limited number of dwellings because they are interested only in the value of property. That is why there is discrimination. The Government are obsessed with money values. Where are their social values? Where is their consideration for council tenants who have to endure the misery of poorly-constructed, condensation-ridden properties which are expensive and difficult to heat? A lady came to see me because her husband was coming out of Christie hospital dying of cancer into a fungus-ridden flat in one of these system built properties. We had to bring in direct labour to modernise the property. [interruption.] It is no laughing matter.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I did not say that it was.
  Mr. Litherland: The property had to be decorated so that a man could die with some dignity.
  The Minister knows that the problem exists. He saw a small fraction of it on his last visit to Manchester, although he will not come to visit Wellington street.
  Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend has not been asked—and the estate has been knocked down.
  Mr. Litherland: I have sent many invitations to the Minister, but he has refused to come to Wellington street or to authorise a public investigation.
  The building societies are not willing to give mortgages on such properties. The owner-occupiers who live on defective housing estates have no chance of selling their properties. I should like to quote from an article in the magazine Building of 23 November.
  "Ever since the scope of the problem became lcmown, it was seen as a potentially major setback to the Government's council house sales policy."
  That is the Government's real concern.
  "To prevent this two things were considered vital: to provide for repairs to defective units and to ensure that following the repairs the properties would be mortgageable … But the question of saleability was proving tricky, as building societies made it plain that they would not consider PRC homes—even after repairs—to be an acceptable risk for mortgage purposes unless they came with some kind of warranty."
  There is no proper repair scheme, and no warranty. The problem is immense and the Government's remedy is futile. There is a vast proportion of system-build in my constituency and every day the situation deteriorates. Manchester is only one of seven authorities that have decided to demolish Bison wall frame housing. Other systems are in the pipeline for demolition, and many other authorities with various system schemes will demolish unless extra money is forthcoming.
  The Government recognise the unfairness for the private owner. They should also recognise the unfairness to local authorities which built the houses in good faith on the recommendation of past Governments. They should recognise that the vast majority of those living in defective and potentially defective homes are tenants, and that those tenants have been overlooked by the Government.
  Local authorities such as Manchester want financial support for planned repair programmes or, where necessary, demolition. The Housing Defects Act 1984 and the variation order merely tinker with the problem. The Government are using the proverbial piece of Elastoplast when the patient is bleeding to death.
  11.13 pm
  Mr. Conal Gregory: Airey homes are one of at least 26 types of prefabricated reinforced concrete housing. At the time of construction, builders believed that reinforced concrete would last for a very long time. As we now know only too well, this is not the case. In my own division of York, there are some 199 Airey and Unity houses. There are also Orlit houses and others not under immediate consideration. Many of the houses have been well looked after and improved. Many of the couples who have come to see me in my surgery or have been in contact with me have their life savings wrapped up in those homes. Those people will listen to this debate with considerable concern.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) correctly declared his interest, but he skated over the role of the Building Societies Association, which I believe has been rather too cautious. A great deal of professional expertise could have been directed towards helping the people of York and many other areas.
  It is curious that, although there might be a mortgage on a property, when the owner wishes to move because of a job or hospital commitments, the building societies show him the door. Moreover, prospective purchasers who have had a survey done at their own expense are also shown the door. Where is the caring attitude and the professional skill there? Surely a body such as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which is often employed by building societies or other bodies, could have produced a voluntary scheme. There must be a note of disappointment about an appropriate scheme not having been developed.
  The difficulty is that owners of the homes which we are discussing are immobile. Some live in caravans in other parts of the country because they have had to leave their home, although they have a purchaser in mind. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say whether such people are likely to get professional help and whether, through discussions with the Building Societies Association, mobility will be possible.
  The order refers to a reduction from 100 per cent. to 90 per cent. in the Government's support to local authorities for the cost repurchase or grant. Why should Government support not be as generous as the 100 per cent. on the Airey scheme for grant and repurchase? Why is it not the 105 per cent. of which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) spoke? I hope that he will speak in similar terms when he is wearing his other hat in the Building Societies Association. There is a need for proper compensation. The Government first announced a scheme to help private owners of Airey houses that had been purchased from a local authority as long ago as 7 September 1982. Well over two years later, there is still anxiety. Will my hon. Friend use his good offices to publicise, through the lobby press, what a good scheme he is offering? There is much anxiety among professional housing managers about how it works and the length of time envisaged. Home owners ask us for clarification and information, which is difficult to come by unless one reads professional housing publications.
  The studies by the Building Research Establishment are professional. There should be a professional approach by those who want to help investors own their own horn. I trust that, through the publicity of this debate and otherwise, we can relieve the tension and anxiety of people who have bought these homes.
  11.18 pm
  Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) complimented the Government on two counts. I can agree with him on one—that they recognised the scale of the problem and brought forward the Housing Defects Act 1984. I cannot agree with him on the second, which is that the Government have provided the resources to deal with the problem. There is no evidence to suggest that the Government have produced extra funds nationally to assist hard-pressed local authorities. It is no use recognising the massive problems of local authorities—Leeds has the major problem—without taking account of the variation between one local authority and another.
  The order will not make much difference to the financial problems of local authorities, but what difference it makes is for the worse. It was the Government's express wish that, wherever possible, the owner should receive a repairs grant rather than have his or her home repurchased. That is a legitimate wish, but most of the people involved are far too shrewd and sensible to accede to the Government's wish because, unfortunately, the Government's wish does not help them in the long run.
  In Leeds, for example, four out of five of those who have found themselves in this position have applied to have their houses repurchased by the local authority. Only 56 repair grants have been made in Leeds. I accept that there might be a few more in the pipeline. However, no fewer than 311 properties have had to be repurchased by the local authority at a cost of about £5·25 million. That substantial capital sum is set against Leed's future housing allocation. A local authority that is facing the problem of Airey houses and other reinforced concrete houses will not be able to cope without the provision of extra finance.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said that the valuation of such houses in the London area was from £38,000 to £54,000. The average repurchase price in Leeds is slightly more than £;16,000 and the repairs to each house are costing on average £11,500. There is an obvious differential. The precedent that is being set by the treatment of Airey houses may well extend to other types of house and that factor is worrying Leeds and other authorities. They are afraid that they will be forced to repurchase the houses without the provision of extra capital. It will be impossible to find the sums involved.
  It seems that the Government's approach to repair grants encompasses three different criteria. First, the Minister mentioned the availability of a mortgage if the repairs have been carried out. The other two criteria are equally important. The first of them is that there should be an economic consideration, in other words, an owner should not be placed in financial hardship. The average sum being found by owners is about £2,500. There are many owners who would be unable to find such a sum so they would be excluded under one criterion.
  The third criterion is that of a 30-year life. Given our experience of system-built houses, we would be hard pressed to say that in all cases the houses will be satisfactory for a further 30 years. The solution that has been found by the Leeds council may well put its Airey houses in that category but the rest remain imponderables. The council's technical experts are expressing doubts about being able to find a solution for other similar types
  892
  of house. This means that fewer than 20 per cent. will be taking up the repair grant option. Virtually everyone may ask for his house to be repurchased by the local authority.
  The most bizarre factor is the right to buy, which was referred to by the hon. Members for Perry Barr and for Mid-Staffordshire. If a person asks for his house to be repurchased by the local authority and he is eligible for discount because he has lived in it for two years, the local authority cannot include the cost of the dwelling's renovation in the valuation. The occupier will be able to buy the house back from the local authority, after the authority has spent about £;11,500 to repair it at current prices, without having to pay any part of those costs. What incentive is there for anyone to apply for a repair grant when that sort of provision is available under the Act? The order is unlikely to have any real effect. Its only effect is likely to be detrimental to local authorities.
  The building societies are somewhat remiss in the extent of their caution, which extends beyond the physical problems of the dwellings. At a meeting of officials of the Leeds city council and the building societies, the building society representatives said that they would want a warranty, which in its way was understandable. They said also that it would not be sufficient for all the houses or one block to be treated. They wanted the entire neighbourhood to be treated. That way, people who examine the aesthetic appearance of the houses could say that they were mortgageable. If that is the extent of the caution, I fear that the number of people who will fulfil the criteria for repair grants will be few and far between. I suspect that the Government's desire to encourage people to seek repairs grants rather than repurchases, will not be fulfilled, even with Airey houses. It will be even less the case for other PRC houses.
  11.24 pm
  Mr. Martin Redmond: I assure the Minister that I understood every word he said until we heard the usual gobbledegook that confuses most people until they get a Philadelphian lawyer to interpret it. No matter which policies are advocated, they will not materialise unless there is cash to back them. Therefore, Airey-type house owners can only be frustrated by the Government's policies.
  I wonder whether the Minister would consult some history books to see how the prefab problem was resolved. It was a more enormous problem than this one. Yet, with the co-operation of tenants, the councils and the Government resolved it satisfactorily. Every time we consider Airey housing and improvement grants, more problems seem to have accumulated. It may be helpful if the Minister looked at history books to see how the prefab problem was resolved.
  If Airey housing were found in Conservative constituencies, the Department of the Environment might be a little more helpful in attempting to resolve the problem. I cannot understand why, when the problem is so acute, the Department of the Environment cannot provide more relief. On 1 December, when the Department of the Environment has played the publicity game, a mass of people may queue at local authorities' doors expecting grants or expecting the authorities to purchase their houses. We will again be using local authorities as whipping boys.
  In Doncaster there are many houses of the semidetached type. One was bought privately, but the others

  893
  remain in the public sector. If we resolve the problem in the private sector, how will the private owner react if the local authority cannot rectify the problem next door? Building societies will look keenly at possible damage when they give a mortgage.
  A few days ago, the National Coal Board, which owns many Airey-type houses, was in the process of selling 11 of them, when the local authority bought the remaining stock. Those 11 tenants are now in limbo because the board is still the owner of the property. Could they get a grant, or will the NCB use some of the money which we granted it last night to rectify the problem?
  The housing investment programme allocation is all-important. Without a reasonable cake, there are many problems. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has used the public sector as a whipping boy in seeking to save a few bob. Building firms in my constituency and the rest of Doncaster are interested in what is to happen to Airey houses because, as the cake diminishes, so does the number of building firms and the employment they provide in the constituency.
  If we treat Airey house owners favourably, how will other people in the public sector react? Doncaster metropolitan district council has a marvellous tenants' association that covers the whole of the borough. There are well in excess of 170 branches and they will want to have a say if money starts going to Airey houses alone. Private sector improvement grants were held up in August 1983 because the cash had run out. There are 8,000 applications for improvement grants in the pipeline at present. There is a bob or two involved there.
  The council owns 680 Airey-type houses and there are 200 in the private sector. There are also 35,000 council houses, some of which need repair. We can tinker with the cake, but unless it is increased the problem will become worse.
  I hope that the Minister will return to his Department and get a few more pounds for a worthy scheme.
  11.31 pm
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: I do not intend to delay the House for many minutes; I am essentially a populist and I realise that the Tories are somewhat tired of talking about housing, because it is not a problem that normally affects them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Ban (Mr. Rooker) said that he found the Minister's contribution somewhat difficult to understand. I disagree with my hon. Friend, because I thought that it was typical of all Conservative contributions on housing—restrictive and dogmatic. It is restrictive because it recognises a problem, as the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) said, but does little about it. The proposals do not substantially help those who bought Airey houses. The measure is restrictive in its approach to local authorities by reducing the amount of grant available from 100 to 90 per cent.
  The measure is restrictive in another respect, which has been mentioned by Conservative Members, because it introduces a time scale which will make it almost impossible for many people to exercise the right that the Government have grudgingly given them. It is ideological in another sense, and that is typical of the Tory approach. We seem to be interested in only one section—roughly
  894
  10 per cent. of the people who live in system-built houses. They are those who made the mistake of buying those houses.
  The Tory party has a great deal to answer for. The Tories come here tonight wringing their hands about the problems that those people now face, but I expect that the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) spent a good deal of time going to local authority tenants saying, "Buy your council house. It is a good buy." That was bad advice. I would not go running to him for professional advice. He does not have to declare and define his interest to me, because I have seen the type of political advice that he gives.
  Those of the hon. Member's constituents who decided to buy their council houses as a result of his political persuasion must have a great deal to regret, financially and in many other respects.
  The Government are not bothered about the 17,600 houses in Leeds that were built with steel or concrete components, or about the 5,018 timber-framed houses. The Government are reducing the amount of money available to Leeds and other authorities for public sector build. When the Minister replies, I should like to hear him say that he is concerned about the problems of the tenants living in that accommodation. We have not yet heard that from the Government.
  A few weeks ago, I went to a meeting of tenants who live in system-built housing in Leeds. The tenants told me that their winter heating bill last year—before the Chancellor of the Exchequer increased electricity charges—was £250. The Yorkshire electricity board sent along experts to find out the reason for those high bills on the Halton Moor estate in Leeds. The reason was not the failure of the electricity board, but the defective housing in which the tenants were living.
  The Government have a responsibility to those people, but at the moment the Government are running away from that responsibility. Leeds city council has judged that it will take £160 million to deal with the defective system-built housing in the city. I should like the Minister to talk not just about the small percentage of people who have bought Airey houses, but about all those—owner-occupiers and tenants—who live in defective houses. If the Government do that, we shall believe that they take the problem seriously. At the moment, they are hidebound and blinded by ideology and their restricted approach.
  11.36 pm
  Sir George Young: With the leave of the House, I shall try to deal with some of the points that have been raised. We are talking about the marrying of two schemes. Scheme one is discretionary, applies only to owners of Airey houses, and is due to run out next year. Scheme two is statutory, applies to Airey house owners and other defined house types and runs for another 10 years. We are trying to marry the two schemes, and avoid the situation described by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle), who said that the Government are in a contradictory position in having two circulars running at the same time.
  Scheme two is, by and large, a better scheme, as it is a statutory one that gives people rights, and the terms of compensation are more generous. In particular—this is in reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft)—there is the possibility of 100 per cent.

  895
  grants to owner-occupiers under the statutory scheme where there is financial hardship, which there is not under the discretionary scheme.
  The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) asked about the HIP allocations for Doncaster, and some other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) asked about the position of local authority tenants. The Government have made it clear that if local authorities will tell us what they think that their obligations are for their own stock, we shall take this into account in making HIP allocations next year.
  However, the local authority tenant is in a different position from the owner-occupier. The latter cannot move, whereas the tenant can, and the owner-occupier has lost his savings, whereas the tenant has not. Without a scheme, the resources to put a building right are not there for an owner-occupier, whereas a local authority has resources at its command. There is not a direct parallel between the position of the owner-occupier and the local authority tenant.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, West doubted whether properties would be reinstated. I have seen, in Doncaster, some Airey-type houses that have been reinstated satisfactorily. Expertise is being developed by the building industry to restore Airey-type houses and, I hope, others, to a high standard that will last for 30 years, and be mortgageable. I am not sure that that would be the position in the circumstances that the hon. Member outlined.
  I was asked why there is not a 100 per cent. contribution to the owner-occupier. It is reasonable that, when the taxpayer is bearing 90 per cent. of the cost, the owner-occupier who, before the Act, would have to bear the 100 per cent. costs himself, should be looked to for the 10 per cent. We have made provisions for that 10 per cent. to be made available by the local authority in cases of hardship. That 90 per cent. provision is a generous scheme.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire asked about the position of one of his constituents. The best advice that I can give him is to advise his constituent to keep his options open by applying before 1 December. If he does that, he will have the benefit of both the statutory and the discretionary schemes. He made the point about the right to buy, a point that was made by other hon. Members. If a property is repurchased by the local authority and the owner-occupier becomes a tenant and stays in that building, he will subsequently have the right to buy on broadly the terms outlined by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Heddle: Will my hon. Friend clarify one point so that we can have it on the record? If my constituent keeps his options open and takes the advice that has just been given from the Dispatch Box and applies to the Lichfield district council by the close of business on Friday, will my hon. Friend confirm that he will not forfeit 10-months' worth of discount by obliging the local authority to repurchase in advance of 7 September 1985, which discount, if he waited until that time, under the original circular 6/83, he would not have forfeited in any event?
  Sir George Young: I am not fully familiar with my hon. Friend's constituents, but the crucial date is the date of completion of the bargain. That would dictate the discount that would be repayable.
  My hon. Friend made a slightly Freudian slip in his remarks when he said that he felt people should still have
  896
  the right to sell back under the discretionary scheme. However, he corrected himself later and said that there is no such right under the discretionary scheme. One is dependent on the co-operation of the local authorities.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Parr (Mr. Rooker) asked for up-to-date information about the distribution of Airey houses. We are dependent on the local authorities for such information. The latest list is in the Library and I understand that that is dated November 1983. We have written to local authorities for that information and we can do no better than bring together the figures which they provide to my Department.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, West implied that reinstatement grant would be the method of assistance for Airey houses. I am not sure whether that will be the case. It depends whether a successful claim can be made under section 3(5), and whether the authority considers the repaired house to be mortgageable.
  That brings me to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) and others about the NHBC and the BSA. I understand that there is a meeting tomorrow between those two bodies. They will be discussing the possible production of a certificate which will get round the problem of mortgageability and the resaleability of a property that has been improved. I share the views expressed by several hon. Members about the desirability of a scheme on those lines.
  Mr. Gregory: In the course of clarification, may I seek my hon. Friend's assurance? Will that be for a long enough period to satisfy the building societies? At present, I understand that they are looking for one of some 30 years. The NHBC cover is normally for 10 years. Unless we can bring the two parties together my constituents and others will still be in the unfortunate position of having mortgaged their properties to building societies which are not prepared to put that money up again to prospective purchasers.
  Sir George Young: I think that I can give my hon. Friend the reassurance that he wants. If one takes the position that he has just described, and if after reinstatement his constituent were not able to sell his property with vacant posession on terms where a mortgage would be available on satisfactory terms with a lending institution to a new buyer, he would be entitled to sell the property back to the local authority. That is clearly stated in clause 3.
  There is no change in the rate of grant of 90 per cent. to the owner-occupier between the discretionary and statutory scheme. All the order does is change the contribution that the Government make to the local authority. It was 100 per cent. because the original scheme was discretionary and unless 100 per cent. reimbursement were offered by the Government there was a feeling that the local authorities would not have collaborated in a discretionary scheme.
  I was asked how much had been spent under the scheme and how many people had been assisted. We do not have exact figures on the number of people who have been assisted. The information that we have is based on claims made by authorities for Exchequer contribution. Those claims are normally made in advance. In other words, they are estimates by the authorities of the numbers likely to apply and the likely split between repairs and repurchase. The number of repairs and repurchases for which local

  897
  authorities have submitted claims to my Department is 750. I was asked how much has been paid in contributions. Our estimate is that about £4·5 million will have been paid by the end of this financial year, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with further details when I have them.
  The hon. Member for Perry Barr spoke, I think, about a tenant in an Airey house that was owned by the local authority. Of course a local authority has a statutory responsibility for maintenance and common law responsibilities in respect of the safety of property. That might be the solution for that tenant.
  I was asked about the owner's ability to meet his part of the grant. I have explained that the local authority can pay 100 per cent. under the defects legislation. It was also assumed that owners would have a choice of repurchase or grant. But a reading of the Act shows that that is not so. The onus is on reinstatement, and only if reinstatement is not practicable in the way that has been described does one turn to repurchase. As was rightly pointed out, much depends on the building society's attitude.
  The hon. Member for Leeds. Central asked whether the Government are concerned about local authority tenants. Of course we are, but the Act and the order concern owner-occupiers and it would not be right to have a long debate about local authority tenants tonight.
  I have tried to deal with the points raised. The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) extended an invitation to me to visit some property. I was not quite sure whether it had been demolished. I visit Manchester regularly. I was in Oldham last month, where a very enlightened Labour-controlled local authority sold an entire council estate to a private developer, who modernised it and was selling it on to very proud owner-occupiers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use his influence to persuade Manchester city council to apply that sort of solution to some of the local authority estates in that city.
  I hope that the House will approve the order.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 84.

  Division No. 24]

  [11.45 pm

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Ancram, Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Ashby, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Conway, Derek

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Coombs, Simon

  Batiste, Spencer

  Cope, John

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Corrie, John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dicks, Terry

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dover, Den

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Dunn, Robert

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Durant, Tony

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

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

  Fallon, Michael

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Favell, Anthony

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bright, Graham

  Franks, Cecil

  Brinton, Tim

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Burt, Alistair

  Harris, David

  Butcher, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Butterfill, John

  Heddle, John

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Carttiss, Michael

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Howard, Michael

  898

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Jessel, Toby

  Sims, Roger

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Key, Robert

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Speller, Tony

  Knox, David

  Spencer, Derek

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Lilley, Peter

  Stanley, John

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Steen, Anthony

  Lord, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  MacGregor, John

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Maclean, David John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Madel, David

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Major, John

  Sumberg, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Taylor, Rt Hon John David

  Malone, Gerald

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Maples, John

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Mather, Carol

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Merchant, Piers

  Thurnham, Peter

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Tracey, Richard

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Waddington, David

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Walden, George

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Waller, Gary

  Neale, Gerrard

  Ward, John

  Needham, Richard

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Newton, Tony

  Warren, Kenneth

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Watson, John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Watts, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Whitfield, John

  Parris, Matthew

  Whitney, Raymond

  Pollock, Alexander

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Powley, John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Wolfson, Mark

  Raffan, Keith

  Wood, Timothy

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Yeo, Tim

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Mr. Ian Lang and

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Mr. Michael Neubert.

  NOES

  Alton, David

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

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Deakins, Eric

  Barnett, Guy

  Dewar, Donald

  Barron, Kevin

  Dixon, Donald

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Dormand, Jack

  Benn, Tony

  Duffy, A. E. P.

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

  Eastham, Ken

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Blair, Anthony

  Fatchett, Derek

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

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

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Home Robertson, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Howells, Geraint

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clay, Robert

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cohen, Harry

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Conlan, Bernard

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Litherland, Robert

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Loyden, Edward

  Cowans, Harry

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McKelvey, William

  Dalyell, Tam

  McWilliam, John

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Marek, Dr John

  899

  Maxton, John

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michie, William

  Smith, C,(lsl'ton S & F'bury)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Spearing, Nigel

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Stott, Roger

  O'Neill, Martin

  Strang, Gavin

  Park, George

  Straw, Jack

  Parry, Robert

  Torney, Tom

  Patchett, Terry

  Wallace, James

  Penhaligon, David

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Pike, Peter

  Wareing, Robert

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Welsh, Michael

  Prescott, John

  Winnick, David

  Randall, Stuart

  Redmond, M.

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rogers, Allan

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Rooker, J. W.

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Grants by Local Authorities (Appropriate Percentage and Exchequer Contributions) (Repairs Grant for Airey Houses) (Variation) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 22nd October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

  Airey Houses (Grants)

    NATIONAL HERITAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Ordered,
    That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the National Heritage (Scotland) Bill it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of any provision of the said Act.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

  Okehampton Bypass
  11.58 pm
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): We now come to the Exeter-Launceston-Bodmin trunk road (compulsory purchase orders).
  Sir Peter Mills: In view of the assurances that have been given to me in writing concerning a prayer in another place, I am satisfied that it would not be appropriate for me to move this motion tonight, but I reserve my position in the future.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although I am delighted at this welcome news and would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) on making it possible, is it in order for the measure to remain on the Order Paper, occupying valuable space? As the order expires next Tuesday, will you confirm, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the Leader of the House is in the Chamber, that the order should be removed from the Order Paper?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the order will be taken from the Order Paper, in view of the comment by the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills).

  Bridge of Don Barracks, Gordon
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
  11.59 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I sought this debate after the Minister of Defence announced during the summer recess— which was not untypical of the Ministry—that it would be closing the Bridge of Don barracks in my constituency. It emerged later that that would effectively end the training of Scottish junior soldiers in Scotland—a process which has gone on since the founding of the Scottish regiments 200 years ago—and that it would be transferred to, of all places, Newcastle.
  I suggest that the training of Scottish soldiers should take place in Scotland and that the way in which the announcement was made was fairly typical of the Ministry of Defence. The decision was announced during a recess and without consultation. It was, in effect, a fait accompli.
  The number of establishments for training junior soldiers will be reduced to 12, not one of which will be in Scotland. Even on the basis of proportion of population, 10 per cent. of 12 is more than one, but we are not to have even one training establishment— even though Scotland's proportion of recruits into the Army is higher than the national average. I remind the House, though no Scot would need reminding of it, that Newcastle is not Scotland.
  I also criticise the Ministry of Defence for arguing that the case for closure of the barracks is a matter of economics, but giving no details of those economics. We have been asked to take the Ministry's word, and I am not prepared to do that. The only mention of a specific saving has been £8 million on capital costs. Compared with the defence budget, that is peanuts. Even compared with the training budget of £340 million, it is not a large sum. The Ministry has failed to make the case that that money will be saved.
  The barracks are good barracks and have been invested in continually. Indeed, about £500,000 has been invested in them in the past year. [Interruption.] If hon. Members on the Labour Front Bench find the subject amusing, they should remember the traditions of the Scottish regiments and realise that I am discussing a major development on which they should be offering me their support, as a number of their colleagues have done.
  Will the Minister give us more information about the alleged savings? Without further information, I am not prepared to accept the claim that the savings are substantial. Has the Minister taken account of other Army and Ministry of Defence changes that are likely to occur in north-east Scotland? The closure will mean that there are no barracks in north-east Scotland capable of taking a significant Army unit. How will the long-term needs of the Gordon Highlanders and the expanding TA be met?
  Aberdeen is a major centre for North sea development and exploration and is, therefore, an important area in security terms. Has the Ministry of Defence consulted the Department of Energy, which, I understand, takes a different view of the matter?
  This is not a party issue. When the closure was announced, I wrote to every hon. Member in Scotland and gained support for the retention of junior soldier training in Scotland from hon. Members of all the political parties
  902
  in Scotland, including a number of Conservative Members. A delegation visited Lord Trefgarne, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary who made the decision. That delegation included the hon. Members for Moray (Mr. Pollock) and for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) and Liberal, Conservative and Labour councillors. Unfortunately, it was an unsatisfactory meeting. It became clear that the Minister had not taken full account of the arguments and of the significance of the decision, and at one point he sought to equate our representations in a sympathetic way with some representation that he was receiving about the closing of an Army installation in Nottingham. If a Minister treats 200 years of Scottish tradition on that level, he fails to understand what the quotient of the Scottish contribution to the Army really is.
  There is, of course, a local impact, although, even though the barracks is in my constituency, this is not the major component of the argument. It is regrettable that the decision will lead to the loss of 42 civilian jobs plus the impact of the loss of the barracks on the local economy. Although we in Aberdeen may be fortunate to have oil-related employment, we are getting a little fed up with the idea that because of that other jobs can cheerfully be destroyed. We want to maintain a diversity of employment within our area and we are riot prepared to allow those jobs to be destroyed; and those civilians will not easily find alternative employment.
  The core of the argument is that the long-term tradition of the seven Scottish regiments is being undermined by the decision. They were founded in the 18th century. They were established to build on regional and national loyalties within Scotland. It might be worth reminding the House that this was after the two Jacobite risings when it was of some importance to try to channel feelings in the right direction.
  Obviously, representing a constituency with the name of Gordon, I am by definition— and the area is by definition— closely associated with the Gordon Highlanders. That is of considerable importance in recognising the role of regiments on a regional basis within Scotland. The traditions of the Scottish infantryman, the tartan, the trews or the kilt, the pipes and the drums, are an essential component of the pride of Scotland and of the backbone of the British Army. It is a worthy tradition, over 200 years old, and is not to be lightly discarded. I believe that it has been a major factor in the high level of recruitment from within Scotland. The fact that the training takes place in Scotland is also important.
  The lads and their parents identify with training in Aberdeen, the third city of Scotland. They know where they are. They know that they are "our boys" and not, as they will be in Newcastle, the "Jocks" who are being trained outside their own environment, and not really sustaining the full strength of the Scottish tradition, which should be carried on within Scotland, where it is the core of the infantry regiments.
  Mr. Alexander Pollock: In the event that the hon. Gentleman's argument fails to find favour with the Minister—although I hope that the hon. Gentleman can persuade him to have a change of heart—I wonder what thought the hon. Gentleman may have given to an alternative use for the barracks. For example, has he any information about the facilities available to the TA at

  903
  present in the north-east, and how long its facilities may be available to it? Is that an aspect that perhaps the Ministry could explore for alternative use?
  Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Member and hope that the Minister will take account of his remarks. It is my understanding that the TA will require more facilities in Aberdeen. Indeed, the Gordon Highlanders have not yet settled on a permanent home within the city. To throw away the best Army premises within the north-east of Scotland at this stage would ultimately be a false economy which might lead to greater costs in the future. I hope that the Minister will be able to say whether these facts have been taken into account by the Ministry.
  I remind the House that some years ago the Government attempted to disband the Scottish regiments altogether. That proposal was greeted with such a storm of protest, under the memorable slogan of "Save the Argylls", that the decision was averted. I can claim some connection with it, inasmuch as it was a former Member for the area I now represent, albeit a Conservative Member, "Mad Mitch", who played the leading part in that campaign.
  Mr. Pollock: What about the role of the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger)?
  Mr. Bruce: Indeed. I do not demur from that in any way. But "Mad Mitch" was himself an Argyll. The Government, having failed at that time to destroy the Scottish regiments head on, appear now to be trying to do it by stealth. They appear to believe that they can simply transfer the training outside Scotland and that we shall accept the consequences. We will not. I have already said that the campaign to persuade the Minister to reverse his decision has all-party and non-party support. The reaction and response from the Ministry of Defence are quite unsatisfactory, and do not show that it has taken account of the position. It gives no details of the savings that will be made.
  Mr. Albert McQuarrie: The hon. Gentleman has justifiably commented on recruitment into the Scottish regiments, especially the Gordon Highlanders, who have a great tradition not only in Aberdeen but in the Highlands region. Many of those who are now serving or will serve in that regiment come from the highlands and islands of Scotland where there is no alternative employment. As with their grandfathers and fathers, they have always, by tradition, wanted to serve in a Scottish regiment. For the north-east of Scotland, especially my constituency of Banff and Buchan, the regiment means the Gordon Highlanders. The Government are taking a retrograde step in considering taking away the barracks.
  Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and agree with his comments. It is ironic that whenever there is a rationalisation Scotland appears to lose out. Whenever there is a recession, recruitment in the Army rises, especially from areas where opportunities are more limited. Yet at a time when recruitment is rising, the Government slap us in the face and take the training away from Scotland, and destroy civilian jobs.
  I regret that to date the MOD has got away with the decision because many Scots have not realised what it will
  904
  mean—the end of the training of Scottish junior soldiers in Scotland after 200 years. The explanation so far from the MOD has been inadequate and mealy-mouthed.
  The Scottish regiments have served the British Army well and, by the decision, their tradition is being swept away with the excuse of short-term economics. The Scottish people will not tolerate Scottish soldiers being trained entirely outside Scotland. They want their junior soldiers to be trained in Scotland for Scottish regiments. The decision will seriously affect morale within the Army in Scotland and will seriously affect recruitment. I do not believe that the MOD has made a case that economies will, in fact, be achieved. I urge the Minister to recognise that the Scottish people want Scottish soldiers to be trained in Scotland, not in England.
  12.12 am
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): I fully recognise the importance of the contribution of the Scottish element of the armed forces to the armed forces as a whole—the Army in particular, but also the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy. In my present responsibilities, I have seen a number of the Scottish regiments during the past year, both in the United Kingdom and when they have been stationed overseas.
  There is a total understanding of the initial point made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) about the length and depth of the tradition of service in the armed forces in all parts of Scotland. I hope to show to hon. Members that the decision that we are debating in no way reflects any wish, intention or desire by the Government to loosen the ties between the armed services and Scotland. At the same time as the Government are taking this decision, they are also taking other decisions that represent an increased commitment and an increased expansion of the activities of the armed services in Scotland.
  I well understand the concern and disappointment at the decision to close the Gordon barracks at Bridge of Don. The hon. Member for Gordon has voiced that concern again today, as have my hon. Friends the Members for Moray (Mr. Pollock) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie). They expressed their concern, too, at a meeting with my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, which was attended also by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone). My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy has also expressed to me his deep concern about this. I certainly understand the feelings that have been expressed and I should make it clear to Members on both sides of the House that the decision was not an easy one. Recognising the strong links between the barracks and the area over many years, we are very conscious of the disappointment involved.
  None the less, I hope that hon. Members will understand the pressures on the defence budget and the consequent need to ensure that we get the best possible military value for the available expenditure. Those pressures inevitably led the Government to take a hard look at the ways in which we currently do things to see whether it was possible to achieve the same end result more cost effectively.
  As part of that process, a study of the whole subject of army training was undertaken last year by General Groom. It was a very thorough and expert study. In essence, it found that our training organisation was simply too large

  905
  for either present or future needs. It showed that, although the army as a whole had steadily decreased, the training organisation had remained fairly static. In total, army training was costing more than £340 million per year and some 18 per cent. of all uniformed army personnel outside BAOR were employed in the training organisation. Those facts, to which the hon. Member for Gordon himself referred, are fundamental to an appreciation of the background to our decision.
  The army training organisation is certainly effective. I do not think that there is any doubt about that. That its training standards are among the highest in the world is amply demonstrated not just by the army's performance in the field but by the number of foreign and Commonwealth Governments who welcome the chance to send students to our training courses. Given the costs and the manpower tied up in the training sector, however, it was necessary to examine whether it could be organised more efficiently while maintaining its traditionally high standards.
  The Groom study made a number of recommendations offering opportunities for significant savings. Many of those recommendations are still being worked on. Because it offered the chance of fairly early savings and because it was comparatively self-contained, decisions on the junior training organisation were taken first and the Army Board concluded this summer that substantial savings could be achieved by concentrating junior training in fewer establishments.
  Mr. Bruce: Will the Minister nevertheless acknowledge that in future there will be no junior training at all in Scotland and that that is a major departure?
  Mr. Stanley: I shall be coming to that, although I should point out that training of junior leaders from Scotland, for example, is at present undertaken entirely outside Scotland so it is not a novel departure. Plenty of training of Scotsmen at both junior and adult level already takes place outside Scotland. However, I wish to give the House a balanced picture.
  At present there are 21 establishments providing training for juniors. We calculated that by a better organisation of our resources it would be possible to reduce that number to 13. Some of the remaining establishments could continue to provide adult training, while others could be found an alternative use. However, I am afraid that given the overcapacity for training with which we started, two establishments were found to be surplus to our needs. They were the Gordon barracks at Bridge of Don and the Prince of Wales depot at Crickhowell. Those two establishments are the smallest infantry junior depots. That does not mean that they are not efficient. Both provide excellent training, but because of their overheads neither could be cost-effective in comparison with other larger establishments.
  At present we estimate that about 3,000 juniors will be recruited into the infantry each year. They can be accommodated in just four larger establishments— Ouston, Shorncliffe, Pirbright and Flowerdown. It is never easy to take the decision to close an establishment and it is particularly difficult when, as in the case of Bridge of Don, the establishment has a long and distinguished link with the British Army. It was a hard decision to take. We weighed up very carefully the effects that it would have locally and the possible effects on morale and recruitment.
  Sir Hector Monro: My hon. Friend talks of weighing up the possibilities. Did the Government consider either bringing in the junior leaders to Aberdeen, which would have been the best option from the point of view of keeping the establishment open, or taking the junior leaders from Shorncliffe to Milton Bridge and Glencorse and the juniors from Aberdeen to Glencorse and Milton Bridge, so as to retain a further training commitment in Scotland? That option would have been secondary to Aberdeen, but it would have been far superior to the decision that has been taken.
  Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall discuss the junior leaders in a moment and take up that point then.
  Weighing the balance, we came to the conclusion that the manpower and financial case for going ahead with our plan for rationalising junior training was very strong. We estimate that under our revised plan for junior training as a whole, we shall be able to achieve civilian manpower savings of over 100 as well as providing considerable scope for releasing a significant number of servicemen from training to operational duties. Additionally, we should be able to obtain capital savings of about £8 million.
  The decision to close the Bridge of Don barracks does not imply any lack of commitment on the part of the British Army towards Scotland. Even after the closure there will be a substantial Army presence in Scotland comprising two regular infantry battalions, 25 other regular units and 33 Territorial Army units including 11 of battalion or regimental size, with an additional seven Home Service Force companies forming in January 1985 including companies at Elgin and Aberdeen. We also plan to increase the TA in Scotland in a few years' time, including the creation of an air defence regiment based at Edinburgh and an airfield damage repair squadron at Kinloss.
  There is also a substantial RAF presence, with two important stations at Kinloss and Lossiemouth, both of which receive heavy investment, and of course the Royal Marines have a large number of personnel at RM Condor, Arbroath, where it is planned that the barracks will undergo a major rebuild al a cost of £26 million.
  The junior soldiers who are now trained at Bridge of Don will in future be trained at Ouston. The time that they will spend there will be comparatively short—about six months—after which they will return to complete their training in Scotland. The Scottish junior leaders who currently undertake their training at Shorncliffe on the east coast will in future be trained nearer to Scotland at Ouston. That will reduce the distance that they will have to travel from home. I do not believe—in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro)—that it would be in any way economic to preserve the Bridge of Don barracks simply to concentrate there the training of the Scottish junior leaders. The study showed that the best way of dealing with junior leadership training was at Ouston, outside Newcastle:. At least that has the merit of bringing Scottish junior leaders substantially closer to Scotland, although I fully understand that Newcastle is not Scotland.
  Mr. McQuarrie: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Stanley: If I give way I shall not be able to deal with the important point that my hon. Friend raised in an intervention. Perhaps he would be very brief.
  Mr. McQuarrie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the majority of recruits who go to the Gordon barracks come from the Highlands? Does he further agree that the barracks could be used fully for training and that, rather than take leaders away from Aberdeen, others could go to the Gordon barracks? Since 1976, millions of pounds have been spent on the barracks and the residential quarters for the families of soldiers. That money will be wasted if the barracks are no longer used by the Army.
  Mr. Stanley: I understand that. We have done a full evaluation of existing establishments and those from which we can get the best economies of scale and lowest overheads, and I am afraid that it comes out unfavourably for the Gordon barracks and Bridge of Don. I am sorry about that.
  I should like to deal with my hon. Friend's point about alternatives. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces is to visit the region to see the barracks and have further discussions with local representatives early next month. We have looked carefully to see whether there is any alternative service use for the barracks. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray raised that issue. Although no firm alternatives have presented themselves so far, we understand that there might be interest in the barracks from the Territorial Army
  908
  in the Aberdeen area. If it makes a costed proposal, I assure the House that it will receive urgent and sympathetic consideration. However, I must be frank—it would be wrong if I led the House to place too much hope on that possibility. I understand that it is no more than a suggestion. It is attractive but as yet uncosted and not presented to us. For it to be accepted, the proposal would have to demonstrate that it had a significant military purpose and that it would achieve savings in cost and manpower equivalent to those which would be produced by the closure.
  As I said at the outset, we are faced with an urgent need to obtain the best possible value from our available resources. Nobody would be more pleased than I if it were possible to keep these barracks open on sound economic grounds, but it would not be right to suggest that they should be kept open regardless of the economic facts. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gordon for raising this issue and to my hon. Friends who have stayed late to hear the debate. I assure them that the importance of this issue in regard to how the Army achieves economies and to the local community fully justifies the debate and I assure the House that we are ready to consider urgently and sympathetically any proposals for an alternative use, provided that such alternative uses make military sense and do not dissipate the savings that we aim to achieve by closure.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Lithgow and Others
  Lithgow and Others
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Security
  Security
DEFENCE
  Nuclear Submarines (Log Books)
  Nuclear Submarines (Log Books)
  Equipment Procurement
  Equipment Procurement
  Trainer Aircraft
  Trainer Aircraft
  HMS Conqueror
  HMS Conqueror
  Commander-in-Chief Fleet
  Commander-in-Chief Fleet
  Flag Officer Submarines (War Diary)
  Flag Officer Submarines (War Diary)
  Signals Logs
  Signals Logs
  Soviet Mig 29 Fulcrum
  Soviet Mig 29 Fulcrum
  European Fighter Aircraft
  European Fighter Aircraft
  Royal Air Force (Fighter Aircraft)
  Royal Air Force (Fighter Aircraft)
  Experimental Aircraft Project
  Experimental Aircraft Project
  Jaguar Aircraft
  Jaguar Aircraft
  NATO Exercises
  NATO Exercises
  Members' Questions
  Members' Questions
  Naval Log Books
  Naval Log Books
  Collaborative Arms Projects
  Collaborative Arms Projects
  Commander Wreford-Brown
  Commander Wreford-Brown
  Type 22 Frigates
  Type 22 Frigates
  BAOR Families (Health Care)
  BAOR Families (Health Care)
  General Belgrano
  General Belgrano
  Wakefield (Rainfall)
  Wakefield (Rainfall)
  Cruise Missiles
  Cruise Missiles
  Naval Log Books
  Naval Log Books
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Metropolitan Police (Graded Response Times)
  Metropolitan Police (Graded Response Times)
  Telephone Tapping
  Telephone Tapping
  Mr. and Mrs. Saad Ali
  Mr. and Mrs. Saad Ali
  Dr. Alan Clift
  Dr. Alan Clift
  Early Retirement Board
  Early Retirement Board
  Post Mortem Tests
  Post Mortem Tests
  Public Houses (Flexible Hours)
  Public Houses (Flexible Hours)
  London Sikh Community (March and Rally)
  London Sikh Community (March and Rally)
  Police and Fire Services
  Police and Fire Services
  Winson Green Prison (Prisoners' Letters)
  Winson Green Prison (Prisoners' Letters)
  Greenham Common (Policing Costs)
  Greenham Common (Policing Costs)
ENVIRONMENT
  British Medical Association (Anti-smoking Campaign)
  British Medical Association (Anti-smoking Campaign)
  Welwyn Hatfield District Council
  Welwyn Hatfield District Council
  Mr. Alan Benjamin
  Mr. Alan Benjamin
  Democratic Unionist Party (Rally)
  Democratic Unionist Party (Rally)
  Orwell Estuary
  Orwell Estuary
  Drainage (Wakefield)
  Drainage (Wakefield)
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Local Authorities (Statements of Accounts)
  Local Authorities (Statements of Accounts)
  Maltby Common
  Maltby Common
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Dr. Alan Clift
  Dr. Alan Clift
WALES
  Hospitals (Food Poisoning)
  Hospitals (Food Poisoning)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Ethiopia
  Ethiopia
ENERGY
  Onshore Petroleum Licensing
  Onshore Petroleum Licensing
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Higher Education (Recruitment Initiative)
  Higher Education (Recruitment Initiative)
  Open University
  Open University
  School Leavers (Knowsley)
  School Leavers (Knowsley)
  School Closures (Lancashire)
  School Closures (Lancashire)
  Graduates (Science and Engineering)
  Graduates (Science and Engineering)
  "Corporal Punishment in Schools"
  "Corporal Punishment in Schools"
  Graduates (Information Technology)
  Graduates (Information Technology)
  School Meals and Milk
  School Meals and Milk
  Equality of Opportunity
  Equality of Opportunity
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Research Councils (Budgets)
  Research Councils (Budgets)
  Education Standards
  Education Standards
  Primary School, Saltley
  Primary School, Saltley
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Computers (Special Schools)
  Computers (Special Schools)
  Cocom Agreement
  Cocom Agreement
  Mauritius
  Mauritius
  Price Commission
  Price Commission
  Discriminatory Discounts
  Discriminatory Discounts
  Microprocessor Application Programme and Innovation Schemes
  Microprocessor Application Programme and Innovation Schemes
  Airwaves (Abuse)
  Airwaves (Abuse)
  Computers in Schools
  Computers in Schools
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  EC (Regional Development Fund)
  EC (Regional Development Fund)
  British Telecom
  British Telecom
PRIME MINISTER
  USA (President)
  USA (President)
  Law of the Sea Convention
  Law of the Sea Convention
  Handsworth, Birmingham
  Handsworth, Birmingham
  Government Policies
  Government Policies
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Gwynedd
  Gwynedd
EMPLOYMENT
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Pay Statements
  Pay Statements
  Unemployment Benefit Offices (North West)
  Unemployment Benefit Offices (North West)
  Regional Benefit Investigation Team (Stockport)
  Regional Benefit Investigation Team (Stockport)
  Wages Inspectorate
  Wages Inspectorate
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Service Appeal Board (Dr. Clift)
  Civil Service Appeal Board (Dr. Clift)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Taxation Statistics
  Taxation Statistics
  Personal Incomes (Statistics)
  Personal Incomes (Statistics)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Chief Electoral Officer
  Chief Electoral Officer
TRANSPORT
  Coachbuilding
  Coachbuilding
  Motor Cycles and Cars (Accident Statistics)
  Motor Cycles and Cars (Accident Statistics)
  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Anti-spray Devices)
  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Anti-spray Devices)
  A259 (Improvements)
  A259 (Improvements)
  London Commuter Services
  London Commuter Services
  Dogs
  Dogs
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk Quotas
  Milk Quotas
  Land Drainage
  Land Drainage
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Southern Lebanon
  Southern Lebanon
  Disarmament
  Disarmament
  Law of the Sea Convention
  Law of the Sea Convention
  Extradition
  Extradition
  Export Promotion (Cost)
  Export Promotion (Cost)
  United Nations
  United Nations
  Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
  Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
  Guatemala
  Guatemala
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Overseas Posts
  Overseas Posts
  VE Day Celebrations
  VE Day Celebrations
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
SCOTLAND
  Health Authorities (Food Hygiene)
  Health Authorities (Food Hygiene)
  Hospital Kitchens
  Hospital Kitchens
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Labaur Statistics
  Labaur Statistics
  Education Expenditure
  Education Expenditure
  Mental Patients (Dental Care)
  Mental Patients (Dental Care)
  Librarianship and Information Studies (Honours Degree)
  Librarianship and Information Studies (Honours Degree)
  International Youth Year
  International Youth Year
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Rayner Scrutinies (Reports)
  Rayner Scrutinies (Reports)
  School Clothing (Single Payments)
  School Clothing (Single Payments)
  Mental Health Act 1983
  Mental Health Act 1983
  Blindness Allowance
  Blindness Allowance
  Benefits (Take-up)
  Benefits (Take-up)
  Strikers (Supplementary Benefit)
  Strikers (Supplementary Benefit)
  Newcastle Computer Dispute
  Newcastle Computer Dispute
  Mentally Sick Persons
  Mentally Sick Persons
  Employers' National Insurance Contributions
  Employers' National Insurance Contributions
  Board and Lodging Allowances
  Board and Lodging Allowances
  National Health Services (Demand)
  National Health Services (Demand)
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
  Dentists (Treatment Costs)
  Dentists (Treatment Costs)
  Joint Financing (North-East)
  Joint Financing (North-East)
  Social Security Reviews
  Social Security Reviews
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Maternity Units (Rural Areas)
  Maternity Units (Rural Areas)
  Organ Donors
  Organ Donors
  South-East Thames (Regional Strategy)
  South-East Thames (Regional Strategy)
  Youth Training
  Youth Training
  Solvent Abuse
  Solvent Abuse
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Supplementary Benefits (Trade Disputes)
  Supplementary Benefits (Trade Disputes)
  Smoking
  Smoking
  Abortions
  Abortions
  NHS (General Managers)
  NHS (General Managers)
  Local Health Authorities (Membership)
  Local Health Authorities (Membership)
  Health Care Systems (Comparisons)
  Health Care Systems (Comparisons)
  Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980
  Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980
  Hospital Beds (London)
  Hospital Beds (London)
  Community Health Councils (Visits)
  Community Health Councils (Visits)
  Cot Deaths
  Cot Deaths
  Area Health Authorities (Waiting Lists)
  Area Health Authorities (Waiting Lists)
  Forest Hospital, Buckhurst Hill
  Forest Hospital, Buckhurst Hill
  NHS (Property Statistics)
  NHS (Property Statistics)
  Drugs (Expenditure)
  Drugs (Expenditure)
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Maternity Services
  Maternity Services
  Disposable Syringes
  Disposable Syringes
  St. George's Hospital, Tooting
  St. George's Hospital, Tooting
  Students (Benefits)
  Students (Benefits)
  Pensioners (Scale Margin)
  Pensioners (Scale Margin)
  Heating Allowance
  Heating Allowance
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  NHS (Griffiths Inquiry)
  NHS (Griffiths Inquiry)
  Maternity Services Advisory Committee
  Maternity Services Advisory Committee
  Distressed Neonates
  Distressed Neonates
  NHS Hospitals (Food Hygiene)
  NHS Hospitals (Food Hygiene)
  Clinical Wastes (Disposal)
  Clinical Wastes (Disposal)
  Benzodiazepines
  Benzodiazepines
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  Heating Additions
  Heating Additions
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  RHA General Managers (Appointments)
  RHA General Managers (Appointments)
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Free Prescriptions
  Free Prescriptions
  Housing Benefits Scheme
  Housing Benefits Scheme

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

Education: Awards and Grants Review
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 there is to be a review of the mandatory awards and grants system.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, mandatory award rates and conditions are reviewed annually. The first stage results of the review for 1985–86 were announced by Ministers two weeks ago.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I was asking for a major review to succeed that of the Anderson Report, which appeared 22 years ago? Does the Minister think that a major change on awards such as that announced on 12th November last should have been made before there had been a proper review and when no consultation had taken place with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, with the National Union of Students or with others involved in higher education? Is he aware that the Secretary of State has managed to alienate vice-chancellors, parents and students by his very highhanded action, as the letters in today's edition of The Times and Guardian and many other letters will have indicated?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am a little puzzled by the remarks of the noble Baroness because she said she wants a major review. Then she seemed to say that this was a major review and therefore should not have been carried out. It is not Government policy to consult in full before making financial decisions such as this. There is continuing correspondence and indeed consultation with all the bodies to which the noble Baroness referred, and this goes on the whole time.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, would the Minister agree that there have been major changes in the grants system but there has not been a major review which has promoted these changes? Would he not further agree that in view of the developments in higher education, particularly the emphasis that is being given to part-time higher education, it is really necessary for us to have a fundamental review of grants in order that aspects of part-time education are covered?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, student awards must be determined in the light of both the needs of students and the sums that taxpayers and ratepayers can reasonably be asked to contribute towards student
758
support. The two noble Baronesses have been referring to a review, but I fear that what they mean is a review only of student needs. This will not magically ease the resource constraints under which this Government are operating. Such a review would therefore be of limited value.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that the whole arrangement for mandatory grants for students is likely to have the effect of driving students into the hands of the high street banks in order to seek loans for their academic careers? Is this fair at a time of high unemployment when students have no certainty of being able to get a job when they leave higher education?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think the banks themselves go touting very much for their business, and I do not think that the blame for this can be laid entirely with the Government.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: My Lords, can the noble Earl give the House an assurance that after the changes which have been announced are made, it will still be true that the awards system in this country is more generous than that in any country in Europe and very much more generous than that in the United States of America?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, for making that very important point, which is absolutely true.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether children whose parents refuse to pay their grants for higher education will have a right of appeal? Would my noble kinsman agree that there are some parents who feel that daughters should not have higher education? Would it not be wise to have a system like the Norwegian system where students are lent a grant by the Government and then pay it back when they are earning?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I do not think young people who are refused a grant by their parents have any right to appeal except to their parents. I suggest that they appeal to them very strongly, and I hope that in support they may produce their teachers, their career officers and anyone else in evidence. I am sorry to say that this problem occurs; I think that is a fact of life. None of us can choose which parents have us, and, as they say in Yorkshire,
"There's nowt as queer as folk".
In regard to student loans, I think the Government have decided that this is not a feasible way to proceed.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, in relation to the question put to him by his noble kinswoman, the recovery rate on student grants in other countries is only something in the area of 25 per cent. and that the central government administrative costs are extremely high?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am very grateful. As I have said, for various reasons the Government are not preparing to proceed on those lines.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister not think, after his answer to his noble kinswoman, that perhaps it might be a very good idea if students were treated as adults from the age of 18 and were given a grant to cover their education? Their parents, if they were able to pay high taxes, would pay for it with high taxes. Would it not be very much better to make students totally independent?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that when those students grow up and become taxpayers they would probably not prefer that line of country. I think that on the whole parents would prefer to pay less tax generally and to pay more towards their children's education.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that the only item which no government have ever managed to tax is knowledge in the brain and that therefore parents are very well advised to invest in this valuable commodity?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords. The Government hope that the parents will meet their full responsibilities. There are ways of helping in that respect—for example, deeds of covenant—and we hope that parents will pay what they should pay towards their student offspring.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask a final question? Is a study of these new arrangements to be undertaken?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, there is a continual study of the data about the access that students have to higher education, and yes it will indeed be studied.

Lorries: Reduction of Spray
2.44 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now able to report on consultation with manufacturers with regard to regulations for fitting a standard spray suppression device to all heavy freight vehicles.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, after consulting widely with all sections of industry, laid regulations on 10th October. These are now before your Lordships' House. They make mandatory the fitting of spray-reducing equipment to heavy lorries. These regulations would come into effect progressively from 1st May 1985, starting with new trailers, followed by new motor vehicles and existing heavy trailers.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very satisfactory Answer, and I congratulate him and his department on the good progress that they have made. Has my noble friend
760
considered how to proceed from our own heavy vehicles to those of our visitors from Europe who come here in large numbers with very large vehicles and, of course, push out the same spray as we are trying to suppress as regards our own vehicles?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his kind words. At the moment visiting vehicles are exempt through the Geneva and Vienna Conventions. However, there is no European Community directive or regulation on this matter. We hope that the EEC will follow our lead and that harmonisation will be brought about based on our standard.
Lord Underbill: My Lords, in welcoming these regulations as far as they go, may I ask the Minister whether it is not a fact that a number of heavy goods vehicles and coaches have been running very successfully with these spray suppressors for some time? Is there any reason why these regulations should not have covered coaches? Is there any intention to enable them to do so?—because the spray created by coaches is just as bad as that created by heavy lorries.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, at the moment it is not proposed that the regulations should cover coaches. However, I shall certainly draw the noble Lord's remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister agree that the best way in which to accelerate European standards in this field would be to cancel any exemption that foreign visitors have in this country', so that they become subject to our own regulations?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I have said, they are exempt through the Geneva and Vienna Conventions. I am afraid that I am not aware of how we could go about cancelling either of those exemptions.

Community Programme: Participation of Women
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what effect they expect the new qualification for entry to Community programmes will have on the number of married women participating in the schemes.
The Minister Without Portfolio (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the number who will be affected by the decision to give priority to those people who meet the programme's criteria for long-term unemployment and are also benefit recipients will vary according to changing personal and family circumstances. Married women may claim benefit in their own right, and we have provided that where benefit is claimed by a head of household and includes a benefit for an unemployed spouse, that spouse will also be regarded as a benefit recipient.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, and in particular for the reference to the spouse of an unemployed person. Is the Minister aware of the very widespread disquiet that has been caused among voluntary organisations and advisory bodies based on their experience of the benefit that many married women have received in work and in training opportunities through the Community programme and the fact that they are going to be debarred from such opportunites in the future? Is the Minister aware that the Equal Opportunities Commission has said that this rule might well be unlawful, indirect marital discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act? Would it not be in the best interests of the country if Government departments and agencies were to observe such Acts of Parliament?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, to my personal knowlege the Manpower Services Commission has always accepted the rules and regulations and the very spirit of equal opportunity within the working of not only the Community programme but any programme. There is perhaps only one restriction that might possibly be said to discriminate against married women, and that is where a married woman elected to pay a reduced rate of national insurance contribution which did not entitle her to unemployment benefit. However, that would be a voluntary decision and one often taken because it was accepted that they would at that time be financially supported by their husbands while they themselves were out of work. However, I should like to assure the noble Baroness that my honourable friend the Minister of State for Employment has a meeting within the next 10 days with my noble friend the chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission, Lady Pratt, and I hope that such matters will then be resolved satisfactorily.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister the position with regard to widows who want to maintain a reasonably high standard for their children. Are they to be debarred, and are they not allowed to enter the Community programme? Secondly, despite the fact of what my noble friend the Minister has said, would he not agree that the present recommendations do discriminate against women?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is important to remember exactly what the Community programme is designed to do. It is to help the long-term unemployed—that is, those in our society who have been out of work for one year or more. Within that, of course, the Government have to decide how to allocate resources—which cover some 130,000 filled places—that will help some 200,000 people during the course of a year, within a group of some 1.2 million long-term unemployed. Within that group, at July 1984, 279,200 were women, which is 22.6 per cent. of the long-term unemployed. The latest figure we have is that 23.5 percent. of entrants over the past 12 months were women. From that I think it is safe to assume that women are getting their proper proportion within the Community programme.
The other test which the Government have had to adopt is to restrict the Community programme to those in receipt of benefit. It was considered by my
762
right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment that the benefit system is the best available objective test of need.
Baroness Serota: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can touch on the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has raised. Would a woman in receipt of a widow's pension be regarded as drawing benefit and, therefore, be eligible for the Community programme?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I think I should repeat the rules, which say that provided you are a recipient of benefit and can be categorised as long-term unemployed—that is, you have been out of work for 12 months—you are eligible to enter the scheme.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, in view of the fact that the scheme appears to have worked very well and smoothly in the past with the 12 months' qualification—that is, 12 months' unemployment out of a period of 15 months—can the noble Lord tell us why the Government have made this particular change?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, in August, before the new rule was introduced, fewer than 15 per cent. of the entrants in the previous 12 months were not in receipt of benefit themselves, but a significant proportion of these might still be eligible for the scheme under the new rule, which says that a person is eligible if his or her spouse is receiving benefit. It is merely an earnest of the Government's intention to confine the programme to those most in need; that is, to those in receipt of benefit.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, in view of the small percentage—15 per cent.—do the Government think that this change is worth all the aggravation that has been caused?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I do not think that the 20,000 or so recipients of benefit who will now be entitled to enter the programme (which was previously denied them) will find this a small change.
Baroness Serota: My Lords, I am sorry to return to this point, but I think it is an important one. I am still not clear from the noble Lord's reply whether a widow's pension is regarded as a benefit for the purposes of entry to the Community programme scheme.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, my suspicions are that it is not, but I shall be quite happy to check on this and I shall write to the noble Baroness.

Deputy High Commissioner in Bombay: Assassination
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lady Young will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the assassination of the Deputy High Commissioner in Bombay.
Friendly Societies Bill
The Bill, having been brought from the Commons on Friday last and printed pursuant to Standing Order 48, was read a first time.

Business of the House
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos set down for 12th December shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates set out in Appendix H to the Companion to the Standing Orders shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2] hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes".—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Standing Orders (Private Bills): Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved. That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders be appointed; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—

Cawley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor)

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

McNair, L.

Mancroft, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.—(Lord Aberdare.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Leave of Absence and Lords' Expenses: Select Committee
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed for the general supervision of arrangements relating to leave of absence and the reimbursement of Lords' expenses; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—

Denham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Tordoff, L.—(Lord Aberdare.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Televising the House: Select Committee Report
2.55 p.m.
Lord Aberdare Lord Aberdare rose to move, That the Report of the Select Committee on Televising the House be agreed to. [1st Report, 1983–84, H.L. 299.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the report be agreed to. On 8th December last year the House voted on a Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Soames, by 74 votes to 24:
"That this House endorses its decision of 15th June 1966 in favour of the public televising of some of its proceedings for an experimental period and instructs the Sound Broadcasting Committee to consider and report how this decision should be implemented".
This report is the result of that Motion.
Before I go into some of the details of our recommendations, I should just like to make two general points. The first is this. The committee was asked to make proposals for the implementation of the decision to experiment and we were not concerned with the desirability of televising House of Lords' proceedings. The decision to have an experiment had been taken and we were only required to suggest how it might best be put into effect.
The second point that I should like to make is that our remit was confined to proposals for an experimental period and not for the longer-term televising of proceedings in Parliament, should that ever come about. Of course we had to bear in mind the longer-term possibilities, but our main concern was with a viable experiment. We undertook our task with these two limitations in the forefront of our minds.
The first problem to confront us was, as usual, finance. We were in no doubt that no experiment would ever get off the ground if it involved much public expenditure. However, this problem was, fortunately, solved for us when the BBC and the IBA accepted that they would treat the televising of the House in this experimental period in the same way as any other outside broadcast. Whenever, therefore, they might wish to televise our proceedings, either for immediate live broadcasting or for recording, editing and subsequent transmission, they would bring their cameras and their lights into the Chamber, making use of cabling and installation arrangements which would be provided by the House.
The effect of this agreement is that public funds would bear a maximum cost of £10,000 for the whole experiment, whereas the BBC estimate that each one day they televise could cost them anything up to £20,000.
For the rest of the arrangements we relied heavily upon the well-proven example of sound broadcasting. We recommend that the selection of what is broadcast and editorial control should be left to the broadcasting authorities, as it is in the case of sound broadcasting. We recommend that the terms of the Resolution of the House of 27th July 1977, under which sound broadcasting operates, should also apply to the television experiment. We recommend that the position with regard to matters of copyright, parliamentary privilege and the law of defamation should remain the same as it is in the case of sound broadcasting.
Your Lordships will see that we recommend a six-month experiment, to start possibly next January. Obviously one of the most important factors in any decision that your Lordships make will be the physical effect on this Chamber of the presence of television cameras for those six months. We have arranged that the intended positions of the four cameras on the Floor of the House should be marked for your Lordships to see by the four lecterns in the four corners of the House. I do not think that they are intrusive and their operators would be given strict instructions to make themselves as inconspicuous as possible. On certain occasions the broadcasters might wish to make use of hand-held cameras, but in that case they would still operate from the same four positions. I should perhaps add that were it to come about that television became a permanent feature of this House then the possibility is that we should be using remote-controlled cameras slung from under the galleries, but that would be a long-term plan.
More intrusive, and most important to your Lordships' decision of course, is the lighting, which you will be now experiencing. May I say at once that the broadcasters themselves realise how sensitive a matter this is and they have indeed done their very best to limit the increased lighting required to the minimum consistent with a picture on the television screen compatible with what viewers are accustomed to expect on other occasions.
They experimented with various methods. They tried using lights outside the windows, and they tried indirect light reflected from panels, but what has emerged is, with one alteration, what you see today: these lighting panels in the windows. My Lords, since these lights have been erected, and only this morning, it has been agreed that they should be higher up. They can be raised by about four feet and they will, if your Lordships agree to an experiment, be fixed halfway up the windows and not where they are at the moment, at the bottom of the windows. This I think will assist again in reducing the glare.
These lights, I would emphasise, will only be required when television is actually in progress. At other times they can be slowly dimmed and extinguished when not required, and we have arranged in the course of this debate that they will indeed be dimmed and extinguished for quite a considerable time and brought up again at the end of the debate. How often televising will take place will of course depend on the broadcasters and their interest in the particular business that happens to be going on on any particular day. But, if I may hazard a guess purely of my own, I believe it is unlikely to happen more often than about two or three times a month once the novelty has worn off.
My Lords, I would also emphasise that the lighting arrangements you see today are only for the experimental six-month period. Should the televising of Parliament come about on a permanent basis then different considerations would apply. I have little doubt that the necessary level of lighting could be achieved by adaptation of the original Pugin design of the Chamber. This would clearly involve considerable cost to the public purse not justifiable for an experiment, which is what your committee had to consider.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the question of lighting could he say something about the level of illumination being used right now?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I thought I had made it clear that the level of illumination now is what would actually be the level of illumination whenever televising is taking place during the six-month experiment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: This is the 80 per cent.?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is referring to the fact that when we saw it this morning it was what was called 100 per cent. and it has now been reduced to 80 per cent., but it is satisfactory from the broadcasters' point of view and it is the lowest possible level of light that gives a reasonable picture.
May I draw your Lordships' attention to one or two particular points that arise in the report? First of all, there is the matter of ministerial statements made in another place and repeated here. We recommend that these should not be televised in view of understandable sensitivities in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has put down an amendment to the effect that this recommendation of ours should be negatived.
We did discuss the matter in considerable depth in the committee. We came to the conclusion that it would be undesirable to risk the goodwill of Ministers in another place by allowing their statements to be televised here when they were repeated in the course of this experiment. Of course should television of all parliamentary proceedings ever come about it would undoubtedly be the original statement, not its repetition, that would be televised. Therefore there seemed to us to be little merit in including the repetition of statements in our present experiment.
We do not think that this recommendation would be likely to lead to much difficulty. Most of the proceedings of this House used for television would in fact have been recorded, edited, and used in subsequent programmes. Live broadcasts, which are the only times when the problem could arise, would be very rare and therefore the difficulty would arise very rarely, but it might perhaps arise on the first occasion that live televising of the House was scheduled to take place. If such a broadcast should extend over a repeated ministerial statement we might hope that the Commons' Minister concerned would give his consent for it to be televised, but, if not, I am sure that the ingenuity of the broadcasters would be able to fill the gap.
Secondly, we recommend that the broadcasting authorities should have access to Select Committees during the experiment. In effect this means the European Communities Committee and its subcommittees; the Science and Technology Committee and its sub-committees; and the recently appointed Committee on Overseas Trade. It excludes the sittings of the Appeal and Appellate Committees; the sessional committees of the House such as the Offices, Procedure and Privilege Committees; Private Bill Committees; committees sitting in private, and all

767
joint committees. I do not think it is likely that the broadcasters will televise committees very often, but we saw no reason not to allow this facility, and indeed it seemed to us a valuable part of any experiment.
Thirdly, we recommend that the present Sound Broadcasting Committee be enlarged to include appropriate Front-Bench and Cross-Bench representatives, and be given the task of dealing with any administrative problems which may arise and eventually of reporting to the House on the outcome of the experiment. It might at the same time be appropriate to rename the committee and omit the word "sound".
The final point which I should like to mention is that we very much appreciated the offer of the broadcasters to provide the House with a copy tape of the material used in their programmes. This would enable Members of this House who may have missed a particular broadcast to view it on our own video recorder at a later date. In addition, to enable us to assess the editorial process, they have agreed to supply us from time to time with a tape of all the material recorded on a particular occasion as well as the extract used in programmes. Your committee recommend that the cost of clean tapes for these purposes should be borne by public funds. The maximum cost would be £750.
I end by thanking all those who have helped in compiling this report. Without the full co-operation of the BBC and the IBA the experiment would not be possible, and they have indeed been most helpful. We heard evidence from senior members of both organisations who, from the start, impressed us with their anxiety to make the experiment a success.
I should also like to thank my fellow members of the committee. We are few in number but every one has played a very full part in our discussions, and the report was unanimously agreed. Finally, all of us are very grateful to the staff of the Parliament Office and to Black Rod for their help in compiling this report. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Report of the Select Committee on Televising the House be agreed to. [1st Report, 1983–84, H.L. 299.]—(Lord Aberdare.)
3.10 p.m.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont rose to move as an amendment to the above Motion to leave out the words ("agreed to") and insert ("not implemented until such time as the House of Commons decides to hold an experiment in televising its proceedings.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this amendment, if it were carried, would be to defer any experimental televising of the proceedings of your Lordships' House until a similar experiment takes place in the other place. I want to spend a few minutes explaining why I think that is important.
In setting out this amendment to the Motion tabled by the Chairman of Committees I am concerned only with what I perceive to be the best interests of your Lordships' House. This perception springs from experience in two areas which I believe are relevant to our debate today. First, I have had the great privilege of being a Member of this House for over 20 years: half
768
of them on the Government Front Bench, half on the Opposition Front Bench and the other half—if that does not make too many!—on the Cross-Benches. Throughout those 20 years my respect and my admiration for the atmosphere, the quality of the debates and the profound constitutional significance of your Lordships' House has grown with each year that I spend here. It is especially appropriate that I should table this amendment from this part of the House because it seems to me that it is not an issue of party or ideology, nor is it a debate about open government. The proceedings of your Lordships' House are already publicly available through the Official Report, through the Press Gallery and through sound broadcasting; so no one is deprived of knowledge of what goes on in your Lordships' House because of the absence of television cameras.
This brings me to my other qualification for intervening in this affair today. Before entering your Lordships' House, and again after leaving the Government in 1970, I have for some years been professionally involved in television and sound broadcasting on both sides of the camera and the microphone as a producer, presenter and writer of television and radio programmes. Like most of your Lordships I also listen to the wireless and watch the television, albeit somewhat selectively. I suspect that to understand fully the potential (both the potential good and the potential danger) of the television medium it helps to have worked in the field professionally.
Any consideration of the kind contained in the report presented by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees must fall under three headings: the first is the principle of televising the proceedings of your Lordships' House at all; the second—and perhaps even more important—concerns the editorial and technical control of such activities, if it should be decided to embark upon them; and the third concerns the timing of any decision to do so.
Regarding the principle of televising the proceedings of your Lordships' House, I recognise at once, as the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has said, that the House, by a vote of 74 to 24, arrived at the decision a year ago to embark on an experimental period of televising its proceedings. As the noble Lord has said, the report now under consideration arises from that decision. It would be wrong to take up a great deal of the time of your Lordships' House in attempting to question that decision in principle, although I am bound to say that I, like many of my noble friends in this House, still have grave reservations about the wisdom of agreeing to that principle. This springs partly from the fact that I think it is by now well established that the television camera, unlike the microphone or any other instrument of reporting, is capable of making news as well as reporting it. Certainly it is true in my experience that no one's behaviour remains entirely unchanged when he or she knows that the camera is present and is switched on. This is not a question of conscious histrionics; it is all to do with the mystique which has grown up around the whole world of television.
This House has a very special character, leaving aside its physical character. Its atmosphere is one of self-regulation. The House conducts its affairs in a

769
manner which is partly informal and conversational and partly formal and ceremonial. This is not a place for great drama, impassioned rhetoric or high-flown oratory. Noble Lords address each other, and they do so courteously and usually with restraint. I fear that a great deal of that might change when the television lights are on and the red light on the camera is glowing.
The noble Lord the Chairman of Committees is on record as saying—although he has not said so in your Lordships' House today—that the debate which was televised in 1966 demonstrated that the presence of the cameras made absolutely no difference at all to the conduct of the House. He is on record as saying that in the report which is under discussion. I believe that it would be very unwise to draw any general conclusions from that very brief experience.
However, if your Lordships now decide to agree to the report of the Committee and to sanction an experimental period of television, about which I have the gravest reservations, then we must consider closely the next question which is that of the editorial control of the televised proceedings. Here we must turn to the report itself. In paragraph 12 of the report the Committee recommends that editorial control should be left to the broadcasters themselves, subject to the ultimate control of the House. But in making that recommendation it is significant that the Committee quoted from the report of the 1968 Committee which argued that:
"the broadcasting organisations are under specific obligations to see that what they report is accurate and free from political partiality".
I repeat the phrase, "free from political partiality" and we should note those words.
I wonder how many of your Lordships on all sides of this House can put their hands on their hearts and say with honesty that they are totally convinced that the broadcasting organisations satisfactorily discharge the obligation of political impartiality. Indeed it would be surprising to me if they were able to do so because all producers, all directors and all presenters have their own political bias and prejudices. That is bound to come through in the programmes that they produce and present. This is not a party matter. It is not a matter of bias of the Left or the Right. It is not a matter of open distortion; but as one who has worked professionally in the world of television I know only too well what can be done with what are called reaction shots or cut-aways—the moving of the camera away from the person who is speaking to the person or the people who are listening. I know what can be done in edited programmes with selective editing and selective camera work. I know what can be done with the subtle use of effects microphones to create certain comments on the proceedings which are going on.
A Member of your Lordships' House in the debate which has been taking place on this matter for some time has said something very significant. "You must either trust the television people or you must not allow them in". I shall not say here that I do not trust the television people; but I think that in deciding which side of that dichotomy we shall come down on we should look at some of their own publicly-expressed attitudes.
I should like to quote from a comment made by someone who was described as a veteran BBC
770
producer and whose remarks were reported in a national newspaper. He was dismissing the United States and Canadian systems of televising congressional proceedings with a fixed camera under parliamentary control as "mind-bendingly boring". This is a very significant comment. If the broadcasters really believe that parliamentary proceedings reported in that way are "mind-bendingly boring", I wonder what they intend to do to make them less so.
In this context, Miss Margaret Douglas, the very able chief assistant to the Director-General of the BBC, whose evidence figures very prominently in the committee's report, is reported also in the same national newspaper as saying:
"If we do a cutaway shot,"—
which is the sort of thing I was referring to a moment ago, when you switch the camera shot from the speaker to the audience—
"it will be for a genuine reason".
What genuine reason, I wonder? Will it be an Opposition spokesman yawning at a Government speech; a Member of your Lordships' House perhaps walking out of the Chamber in the middle of a debate? Will it be the empty Benches of this Chamber late at night? All these things, my Lords, can be made, without any words, into eloquent political comments.
Are we really in your Lordships' House prepared to leave that kind of decision entirely to a television producer or a television director? I can certainly think of many ways of making the House of Lords look exciting on television. I shall not perhaps rehearse them all now. My own view is that personally I would infinitely prefer to be a Member of a House that was mind-bendingly boring, if that is how it is really seen, than to be in one which is turned into an extension of political show business. In short, my Lords, if we are really to have the proceedings of your Lordships' House televised, even for an experimental period, then I am convinced that your Lordships should continue to have a substantial, indeed, a decisive, voice in the way in which the cameras are used and the way in which the proceedings are edited and transmitted.
Some kind of parliamentary television unit for this purpose would, according to the initial memorandum submitted by the BBC and set out in the committee's report,
"raise grave questions of editorial responsibility and freedom to report".
That is a fair comment by the BBC, but I am bound to say that in my view any other system would raise equally grave questions concerning the reputation and responsibilities of this House. And it is no good, in my view, simply saying that all this will become clear in the course of the experiment. I have no doubt that in the course of the six months' experiment there will be the most impeccable exercise of editorial responsibility by the broadcasting authorities. I am not entirely conviced that this would necessarily be any guarantee for a permanent arrangement.
My final point concerns the crucial question of timing. It seems to me remarkable that we should be contemplating an experimental period of television in your Lordships' House when no such step appears to be contemplated in another place. All this may seem to be very forward looking, modern minded and

771
imaginative. But it seems to me that this is one area in which your Lordships might with profit await upon the decision of another place. I can visualise all manner of problems and frictions that might arise if your Lordships' House is available to be seen on television by the general public while the proceedings of the elected House are not.
But there is something which puzzles me even more; and that is this. What would your Lordships' House gain by embarking upon this step? What is it that we are seeking? Are we seeking more publicity for your Lordships' House? If so, I very much doubt the wisdom of such a pursuit. My Lords, this is one of the most serious and influential legislative and debating chambers in the world. Once the television cameras are in place, it will not always be the thoughtful speech of someone expert in his field which will be selected for the televised extract of our proceedings; it will quite often be the speaker with an eye for a dramatic effect or of what makes news in the eyes of the television programme makers.
I appreciate the amount of work and the degree of diligence and application which has gone into the report of the committee which is the subject of the Motion tabled by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. But that report, in itself, raises all manner of problems which lead me to conclude that we should not be too anxious to rush into this experiment. According to the report, for example, on the occasions on which the House is being televised there will have to be at least four manned cameras in this Chamber—and the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has referred to the positions of those cameras. Let us remember that those will be television cameras, that they will be manned and that those who man them will have to be changed every one-and-a-half or two hours of the televised proceedings.
There will have to be at least four times as much light in this Chamber as there normally is—and, my Lords, you can see for yourselves now the effect of that. And this, I must tell your Lordships, is not the full effect, the full capacity, of these lights. They have now been placed at the position at which the televising authorities say that below this they cannot go. They also say that even with the lights at this intensity, the pictures will not be as good as they would expect.
As the committee concedes in this report, all this—the lights, the cameras—will be unacceptable as a permanent installation. I have to say, my Lords, that it seems to me equally unacceptable as an experimental installation.
Then, my Lords, finally, there is the matter of cost. The relatively low cost of this experiment would be largely met by the broadcasting authorities, but I think it logical to assume that the aim of this experimental period is to pave the way for a permanent installation. Otherwise, I see no point in it at all and we need hardly even be discussing it. A permanent installation would be much more expensive. According to the report, it would cost as much as £3.5 million to install, and I understand from the report that the broadcasting authorities will look to the Government for a substantial proportion of that sum. I have to say that I doubt very much whether any Government will be prepared
772
to provide that sum for permanent televising of the House of Lords unless there is also television in the other place.
We are contemplating a step which, even if the money is forthcoming to implement it, may have a profound and irreversible effect upon the whole nature, tone, character and appearance of the proceedings in your Lordships' House. I find this especially unpalatable in the light of the comment of one well-informed television correspondent—again, in a national newspaper—who wrote:
"No-one, including the most enthusiastic pro-TV Peers, pretends that putting the Lords on to the nation's screens can be anything but a dry run for televising the Commons".
I do not see why we in your Lordships' House should be the guinea pigs in this fashionable experiment in mass communications. Let us first of all see whether the elected Chamber will agree to an experimental period of television and, if it does, whether then it will have the success that its proponents claim for it. If it does, then I, for one, will be very happy to concede the case and go ahead with the experiment.
But in the meantime, I believe that we need time to examine much more closely such important questions as editorial control and the cost to the Exchequer, as well as the effect on the atmosphere and character of your Lordships' House—so evident today—of the experimental arrangements set out in the report. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved as an amendment to the above Motion to leave out the words ("agreed to") and insert ("not implemented until such time as the House of Commons decides to hold an experiment in televising its proceedings.")—(Lord Chalfont.)
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Listowel): The original Question was, That the report of the Select Committee on televising the House be agreed to; since when an amendment has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in the terms set out on the Order Paper. The Question I now therefore have to put is that this amendment be agreed to?
3.30 p.m.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, if I may respond at once to the substance of the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, which poses the questions (which I think are near constitutional) as to whether one House of Parliament should be televised before the other or whether one should be televised separately from the other or without the other, my answer to that immediately is, no. I think that that would be unthinkable. So in this debate I am concerned with the experiment in television in this House and I do not intend therefore to register my vote on any amendment. But at a later date, should we have to take a final decision on this matter, I should vote for the noble Lord's amendment without question.
Referring to the Motion moved by my noble friend the Chairman of Committees, who largely dealt with the mechanics of television—the light and the heat—I think I have recovered from the initial shock of the light and I shall be in a better position, as will other noble Lords, to judge that heat (which is going to be a

773
very important question) about 10 o'clock tonight. So, my Lords, I shall not deal any more with that.
With the newspapers and sound broadcasting admitted already to the Houses of Parliament, I cannot argue in principle that televison should be excluded and that this experiment should not be made. The screen is undeniably one of the main channels of communication with the public and it can certainly be argued that it would be advantageous for them to see their parliamentary institutions at work. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, asked: What is our aim if we support this experiment? It is to see whether the public of this country can be enabled to see their parliamentary institutions at work; and there could be advantage in that. I can therefore concede the case for this experiment. I recognise of course that this six months' trial run—"a dry run" I believe it is sometimes called—can be represented as the thin end of a permanent wedge. I confess that I always find the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument rather weak, and I reject it in the case of the experiment in this House, for two reasons.
Your Lordships will certainly insist that the criterion applied to any programme will be that it should accurately represent the proceedings of this House in action. My second reason for supporting this experiment is that your Lordships' judgment at the end of the day will quite clearly be as objective as it will be at any time. There will always be objectivity applied. We are not concerned here with benefit to the television companies, but we are concerned with securing a true picture of Parliament, through which people may be able better to appreciate the value of their democratic institutions. That is why I support this trial, and I am sure that your Lordships will not be "bounced" into making a decision against your better judgment and that as a result of the experiment we shall be better informed.
There are a number of important aspects to the matter, on some of which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has already touched and on which it is necessary to be clear before a final decision can be taken as to whether this House should be televised or as to whether Parliament should be televised or not. In particular, the content of the programmes and the timing given to them must be a matter for the decision of this House.
However, it is necessary to recognise now that the interests of the television companies and the interests of Members of this House are not necessarily the same. Instinctively, the television operator's eye is caught by the colourful and the dramatic, and it is not primarily the business of Parliament to provide either. Therefore I think we have to approach this matter with great care. The colour and drama are incidental to this Chamber, rather than an integral part of our proceedings.
There is one example which strikes me from another place and from which I think we might draw a lesson. The concentration of the sound broadcasts on the periods of Prime Minister's Questions I think was a mistake, for which the reputation of another place has paid a price. Any parliamentarian with experience knows that in recent years that particular period of Prime Minister's Questions has become a sort of trick exercise. It has turned into a noisy, mock-gladiatorial,
774
contest on the model of Tweedledum and Tweedledee; and it would be wrong to concentrate on the good and to ignore the bad. The impression that the House of Commons is a bear garden is of course a false impression of a hard-working place, but the broadcasting of, and the emphasis on, a particular period of Questions has not added to the prestige of Parliament, and I think that we must be aware of that.
It will be essential, too, that from the start of this trial complete control by the House of the matters selected for television must be established—the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was absolutely right to put his finger on that—and the rules must be understood, accepted and operated by the television authorities and there must be constant vigilance on the part of whatever machinery your Lordships may set up to supervise these matters. The mechanisms for decision will be of great importance, and I hope we may hear about this towards the end of the debate.
One of the problems presented by television is that when complicated and weighty affairs have to be confined to a strict timetable, the result is almost inevitably superficial. It is bound to be; and I have a good many reservations about editing. It is more difficult, I think, to edit a sound programme because the actual pace of the speaker has to be taken. One can imagine a Foreign Secretary in another place deploying a complicated argument on international policy. It would be more difficult, I think, for television to edit that satisfactorily than it is for sound.
The nearest parallels in this country for television which occur for me are the party conferences. There I think that your Lordships will probably, as I have done, mark the contrast between the satisfactory coverage during the conference hours and the superficial and exasperatingly inadequate snippets that are given when it comes to the news and at times of peak viewing. It may very well be that if this House is televised or another place is televised, we may have to think of two different programmes: one longer and one shorter.
I confess I have felt for a very long time that the only really satisfying way to televise Parliament would be to devote a whole channel to it from the start of the Session to the end. That is done, for example, in the United Nations Assembly, and people of the city of New York look in; I have done so myself quite often when I have been out there. It is—leave out the content—good and instructive viewing. If there was a chance that a channel would be devoted to the televising of Parliament, then I would cheerfully drop all this and wait for it. I hope that when my noble friend replies it may be possible perhaps to compare the cost of this experiment (which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, put at £3 million, if I remember aright) with the cost that would be involved if we were to set aside a channel for the televising of Parliament. Perhaps some of the technicalities of that would be interesting. It would avoid almost all—in fact, all—the troubles of editing and many of the other troubles, too.
Finally, we have to ask whether this trial run could possibly prejudice a decision for or against television in another place. I cannot see that it would do so. Indeed, it might assist them to decide, for we should no longer be arguing in the dark. Therefore I can vote for this

775
experiment, but I retain a completely open mind as to my final verdict should the big question of the televising of Parliament ultimately come along.

Deputy High Commissioner in Bombay: Assassination
3.41 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the murder of the Deputy High Commissioner in Bombay, which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Member for Shoreham. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the murder of our Deputy High Commissioner in Bombay. Shortly before 0800 local time, or 0230 GMT, three shots were fired at our Deputy High Commissioner in Bombay, Percy Norris, on his way to his office. He was hit in the temple and the heart, and died in hospital at about 0845 local time. I am sure that the whole House will wish to register its deepest sympathy for and condolences to Mrs. Norris and her family.
"We understand that no one has yet claimed responsibility for this cowardly and senseless murder. The House will be aware of reports that a man of European appearance was observed on the scene at the time of the killing, but I must emphasise that it is premature to speculate on who may have been responsible or what their motive may have been. The Indian police are making every effort to capture the assailant and are co-operating closely with our High Commission.
"Upon learning of the assassination the Indian Government immediately provided extra security for British diplomatic premises, including British Council offices. The Indian Prime Minister, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, has expressed his deep distress at the tragedy and his condolences to Mr. Norris's family in a message to the Prime Minister.
"Security arrangements of British officials serving overseas are a high priority and are kept under constant review in the light of the known threat. We take this matter very seriously. The House will forgive me if I cannot go into details, for obvious reasons. I can, however, say that the security of our Deputy High Commission in Bombay was inspected last year, and the recommendations have been carried out. More recently, the Indian authorities agreed to provide additional measures of their own. But I would emphasise that it is not possible for diplomats, any more than politicians, to carry out their functions properly and to be assured of absolute security at all times.
"As my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary has said, this appalling crime demonstrates once again the danger faced by members of the diplomatic service, along with others in public life, from acts of terrorism around the world, which we all strongly condemn".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating that Statement. I join with her in total condemnation of this cruel murder, and in expressing our very deep sympathy to Mrs. Norris and her family. His death is a great loss to the diplomatic service and to our country, for Mr. Percy Norris was an experienced and most able diplomat. The lack of information calls for brevity, but I hope the noble Baroness will be able to give us an assurance that, in addition to the action taken by the Indian Government itself today, steps are being taken to examine the security arrangements in all overseas missions so as to minimise the dangers, which are obviously greater today than they have been at any point in modern times. Finally, can the noble Baroness give us an assurance that in any reductions in the FCO budgets expenditure on security arrangements will be excluded?
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, we on these Benches, too, can only deplore and condemn this apparently gratuitous assassination, and extend all our sympathy to the family of the unfortunate victim. It only shows to what dangers our foreign service representatives are now exposed all over the world. We can only hope that additional precautions will be taken to ensure their safety, which I am sure the Government will undertake.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for their reception of this Statement and for their sympathies, which will be conveyed. On the first of the two points which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, raised about the security of our missions. I should like to confirm that our High Commissioner is in very close touch with the Indian authorities, who have increased security for all our missions in India. Police protection was provided by the Indian authorities for our High Commission and Deputy High Commissions before the murder. I am sure that the noble Lord, or indeed the House, would not expect me to comment further on matters of security.
On the noble Lord's second point about expenditure on security, I am glad to confirm that in fact the amount of money spent on security increases each year and that the cost of security takes up a larger proportion of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget. It is, I regret to say, a reflection on the world in which we now live that this should be the case. But I should like to assure the House that the expenditure has increased as a recognition of the importance that we attach to security. I hope that that answers the question which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, put; and, as was said in the original Statement, this is a matter to which we attach a very high priority.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Baroness for her assurance.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, when I was at the Foreign Office, Mr. Norris was an effective and very loyal member of the service, and I should like to be associated, if I may, with the messages of sympathy sent from this House to Mrs. Norris and to her family.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Home very much for his remarks, which I am sure will be greatly appreciated.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether she will convey to the diplomatic service—I am sure on behalf of the great majority of your Lordships' House—our admiration for the courage they display in carrying out their duties, knowing that they are now the prime targets for international terrorism?
Baroness Young: My Lords, again I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. What he says is, very tragically, true, and I am quite sure that it will be of comfort to know that these sympathies and thoughts are expressed on behalf of the whole House.

Televising the House: Select Committee Report
3.47 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, after that rather sad Statement, perhaps we should return to the question of televising this House. There are too few occasions in this House when we have the opportunity of thanking the Lord Chairman of Committees for initiating a debate and for taking the chair at a Select Committee, as he has on this occasion. His work, and that of his committee, have produced a report with which we may not all agree in total but which, nevertheless, provides us with all the information we require for what is, after all, just an experiment.
I think that this Chamber is at its very best when we are a large number of individuals—I was going to say a mass—rather than when speaking to a party line. On this occasion we each of us speak as individuals, and should there be a Division—and I hope that there will not—then we shall each vote as individuals, because it is a matter for individual decision. Personally, I am in general agreement with the six months' experiment which will commence early next year, although I have some doubt—and it will really depend upon how much coverage we get—whether we can have a very clear picture in the short period of six months, at least one month of which may be during a Recess, unless the six months' period continues beyond that. I doubt whether six months is a long enough period in which to give us a true picture of what is called the "drive-in occasionally" experiment.
I cannot help but feel that we are getting this experiment very much "on the cheap", for £10,000 is only part of the annual salary of one cameraman. The two broadcasting authorities, the BBC and the IBA, will be footing the bill for the experiment because they hope that we shall approve it and will continue broadcasting beyond the experimental period. We must, however, bear in mind that if we agree to continue broadcasting beyond the experimental period, with full coverage of the proceedings of the House and a console control outside operating four or more unmanned cameras which, as the Chairman of Committees told us, will be strung underneath the
778
galleries, the cost will be very considerable. Furthermore, nothing stays the same in electronics. What is modern today is almost obsolescent as soon as one starts to use it. It means that what is considered now to be the best possible equipment could have been improved by the time the full proceedings are covered at the end of the experimental period.
The report states that our Tannoy sound system is adequate for the experiment. I am not quite so sure. Last week I carried out an experiment which had nothing to do with televising the proceedings of this House but with complaints that some of the speakers from this Bench cannot be heard very clearly by anybody who stands on the other side of the Bar. I found when I stood there that voices coming from this part of the House are inclined to rise and fall. Happily, we do not all have the same voice range; it varies from the gentle whisper to that of the noble Lord who could very easily address a public meeting in the open air. Therefore the sound engineers do a very good job with the system that we already have in order to make it possible for every Member from every part of the House to be heard. However, it would be a very different matter if that system were to be used for televising the proceedings of the House. No doubt the matter has been studied and the opinion is that it will be satisfactory; but noble Lords will know that before they appear on television a sound level reading is taken of each individual voice. That check cannot be provided for every Member of your Lordships' House.
Another point which has to be borne in mind is that Members do not always speak directly into the microphone. The microphone nearest to me is directly behind my head. That is not always the case, so hearing difficulties are not always the fault of the sound engineers or the microphones. One Front Bench speaker has the habit of resting one elbow on the Dispatch Box while addressing the Bar end of the Chamber and of resting his other elbow on the Dispatch Box while addressing the Throne end of the Chamber. Think of the problems that will create for a television sound engineer who is trying to cover his speech; the sound level will come and go. I make no criticism of the noble Lord because his speeches are all well worth listening to. Therefore television sound engineers will, I fear, have to mute the voices of some speakers and amplify those of others.
I am also concerned about defamation and libel. There are occasions in this House when a member of the public is named. This does not happen very often, but when it happens what is said may be defamatory and may malign an individual outside Parliament. The noble Lord is covered by privilege. It is possible that the broadcasting authorities are also covered by a form of privilege. But what is the position of the individual who feels that he has been maligned? Because this has happened on television, will that individual be permitted to take his complaint to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission whose job it is to consider the complaint of any member of the public who believes that he has been treated unfairly?
I am also concerned about whether the final decision on editorial control should be left to the House. The Chairman of Committees made it quite clear in his speech that editorial control should be left to the broadcasting authorities. This is as it should be.

779
However, it is also said that the final decision must be left to your Lordships' House. Are we the right sort of body to decide whether Party A or Party B has been well or badly treated in a television programme? Such a question will be brought to us only when the broadcasting authorities say that a complaint which has been made is not for them but for Parliament to decide. I do not believe that a body composed mainly of active politicians, with the addition of the noble Lords and noble Baronesses who sit on the Cross-Benches, is the right kind of body to take a decision of that nature. The Broadcasting Complaints Commission, to which I have already referred, could, with a slight alteration in its terms of reference, take a case of that kind under its wing. I hope that there will not be many such cases, but they are not unknown. I am in a position to know that one political party will complain that it is not getting so good a crack of the whip as another political party.
There may be value, if we decide to go ahead with full television coverage of this House, in providing tape recordings for the benefit of our colleagues in Europe. If our Italian and French colleagues in the EEC were interested in a debate which takes place in one of our EEC Select Committees—for example, on the butter mountain or, more enjoyably, on the wine lake—they would be glad if a tape recording could be provided. I do not know whether my suggestion goes much further than many noble Lords would wish. However, I believe that my suggestion ought to be considered.
There is another reason why we should be careful about what we discard as a result of televising the proceedings of the House. After the experimental period we ought to keep tape recordings not only for archive purposes but for very many historical purposes. By that I do not mean that we should keep tape recordings for a very long time, but tape recordings could be used in order to quote the speech of a noble Lord some 20 or 25 years after it was made. I hate to use the word "obituary", but such recordings could be used in that respect also.
There are a number of other items I should like to raise but there are many noble Lords yet to speak. My noble friend Lord Diamond has an amendment down on the Order Paper and I am sure that we all look forward to hearing him. I have one question in relation to that which the noble Lord might answer. What will happen if the senior Cabinet Minister is a Member of this House? Ought we not then to have automatic television of his contribution?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked many questions, but I can answer that question straight away. There would be no bar whatever on the television authorities using a ministerial statement made in this House and not just made in another place and repeated here.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, that was the only point I wanted to make on that aspect. I do not want to go on speaking for much longer. One could continue for a long time thinking about possible problems and snags, but we are after all talking about only a six-month experiment. I hope that your Lordships' House
780
will decide to go ahead. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, I did not hear very much in his speech about the fact that this is simply an experiment—because that is all it is. Again with respect to the noble Lord, it almost sounded like a wrecking amendment to a decision as to whether or not we should allow the House to be televised at all.
I am sure that we shall have a good debate. I hope that as a result of the experiment we shall decide that it has been proved to be possible to televise this Chamber—and in the fullness of time the other Chamber, too—without so many of the problems which people feel may arise.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I hope that the defective microphones in this Chamber will allow the noble Lord who has just spoken to hear my speech as clearly as I have just heard his—with which, I may say, I almost entirely agree. I am a member of the Select Committee and must say that I was surprised when I read the amendment. The decision in favour of televising our proceedings for an experimental period was taken a full year ago by a three to one majority. If anyone believed that this House should not proceed with the experiment until the other place was ready to conduct a similar experiment, they had an ample opportunity then to express their view and put it to the vote. But to come along a year after the decision was taken to try to undo that decision—after months of effort to design and prepare the experiment and after months of effort by the Select Committee, by the Parliamentary Officers, by the broadcasters and by the technicians—seems to me to be an unwelcome and unusual procedure.
Object if you like to the findings of our report. Argue that the problems of the lighting and heat have not been completely resolved. Or say that we should impose more restraints on the broadcasters. But it is too late to argue that our experiment should be stopped in its tracks because another place has failed to take a step of this kind.
This House must always be sensitive about its limitations as a non-elected House. We must never set ourselves up as a rival to the elected Chamber. Even when we are exercising constitutionally what influence we are allowed to have over the other Chamber, we must be prudent and not push our luck too far. But we are, and must remain, masters of our own procedure. In that procedural respect, we must not be subservient to the other House.
Broadcasters may say over a cheerful drink that they regard our experiment as a challenge to the other House; that it is their sprat to catch a mackerel. But this was not in the minds of those of us who support the experiment. It is an experiment. It is a necessary experiment, though it may prove to be a failure. As the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, said, the proceedings here are quite different from those of a party conference. A party conference is all drama; it is natural television material. The proceedings of this House—particularly when in Committee on a difficult Bill—would rate pretty low on the TV scale of human interest.

781
The experiment might be a failure. It might show that there is no strong demand for the televising of Parliament. But it is an experiment which we can afford. Nobody will be able to say that what may be portrayed of this Chamber and of its Members will have a marked effect on the politics of the nation. There may be some minor risks in the experiment for the Government Front Bench—very minor—but for the rest of us, televising this House can contain no problems. We have no constituents. We have no local party committees. And we are here for life. Our interests are very different from those of a Member of another place representing a marginal constituency.
I said in the last debate that I had come to the conclusion that we do not have a right to deny the public access to this House by television. We are the custodians of this Chamber—the mere custodians. The public outside are the owners. The House of Lords has not been privatised. Not yet, and I do not believe that it ever will be—the possibility of it showing a profit would be very limited! The public pay for this House. They maintain its existence by acquiescing in its survival. At the same time, in the not very distant future the public may participate in a referendum in which they will be asked to choose between supporting or rejecting a proposal for our abolition or for our radical reform. It would be useful then if the public knew something about us.
In Britain, as in most other countries, Parliament is badly reported. Only The Times gives anything like a full report of the other place, and even then it is extremely economical in the space that it gives to this House. For most people, the only full report easily available is provided by Radio 4, which is under a legal obligation to do so. But for Radio 4, very few people would know that we still exist—unless we rashly amend some newsworthy governmental measure, and that is pretty rare.
The Radio 4 audience today is pathetically small. Radio is a minority interest. The medium of popular communication is of course television. As we saw a week or two ago, just one television programme can stir the conscience of the entire nation. Radio could not have done that, and nor could any newspaper—even using the brilliant shock issue techniques of the noble Lord, Lord Cudlipp. Not today. So, if a wider public is to be given a chance of finding out something about the everyday working of Parliament and of this House of Parliament, then television is the only possible medium that can reach that very wide public.
I hope your Lordships will say that we can go ahead with our experiment. I am sure it will have lessons for both Parliament and the nation. I am sure that Members of another place, whether they are for or against the televising of Parliament, will welcome our experiment. It will show them the possibilities, the limitations and the dangers. I believe it would be obscurantist now to turn back and say no to the experiment.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, was, it seemed to me, a little peremptory in his dismissal of the arguments contained in the amendment which the noble Lord,
782
Lord Chalfont, so eloquently moved. Parliament, of course, belongs to the people and we are all concerned to see that Parliament survives the pressures of our time. Those of us who support the amendment, as I do, are concerned particularly because we fear that the intrusion, the incursion, of television will inflict lasting and unwanted changes upon Parliament.
I do not believe that this is the occasion to repeat all the arguments which were used in the debate a year ago. I want particularly to say that my anxieties have been revived, and even enhanced, in three respects by the report of the Select Committee. First, I doubt whether our proceedings are going to be of very much lasting interest to the television medium. These words came in an answer:
"I do not believe there will be many occasions on which the House of Lords on its own will merit full-scale coverage".
That really does show the attitude of the media. Indeed, my noble friend the Chairman of Committees, in moving the main Motion today, said that once the novelty had worn off he very much doubted whether there would be more than two or three appearances a month on the part of your Lordships' House. Why, then, one is bound to ask, is there this anxiety on the part of the broadcasting authorities to knock on the door of your Lordships' House, and to do it so loudly? I cannot believe that what they really seek is admission to another place down the corridor.
There is also the question of intrusiveness. Again, I think the Select Committee report has done nothing to allay my anxieties. The presence of four cameras and their attendants, the heat and the glare of lighting four or five times what is normal in your Lordships' House, and whatever alterations to this Chamber may prove necessary in the event of something more permanent following upon the experiment, are things that, in my view, have not yet been adequately examined.
My third concern relates to editing. In the report this is stated to be a matter for the broadcasters, subject, it says, to the, "ultimate control of the House". What do those words really mean? I suggest to your Lordships that it is far easier to use such words than to invest them with any vestige of real meaning in practice. We should not ignore, in passing judgment on this question of editing, what has happened in another place, where attention has been concentrated on Prime Minister's Questions. It seems to me that those responsible have yielded to the temptation to convert public affairs, and the arena in which they are conducted, into a bullring.
As the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said in moving the amendment, and I agree with him, there is no guarantee that good conduct for the duration of the experiment will survive into any more permanent arrangement afterwards. The question was asked: How would pictures of noble Lords who had succumbed either to thoughtfulness or weariness be treated on television? The answer was very clear:
"That is a matter for the director who selects the shot."
I like the words "selects the shot" because that describes exactly what it will be.
The report has done nothing to comfort me on those points. Nor has it made clear where, in the event of the experiment being adjudged a success, the money for the next stage would come from. I hope that perhaps

783
my noble friend the Leader of the House, when he speaks, will enlighten us on that. My own fear and my own prediction is that it would be very hard indeed to extract money from the Treasury for such a cause, and the broadcasting authorities seem to be equally reluctant.
There is one point that I should like to make about membership of the Select Committee. I rather had the impression—I may be wrong—that it is made up at present by those who are keen supporters of televising your Lordships' House. I welcome, of course, because I yield to no one in my respect for those who occupy our Front Benches, the fact that the Committee is to be enlarged by some Members of the Front Bench being included in its ranks, but perhaps it might be desirable (and I am not making a personal bid here) and sensible for some of those who have doubts to be included on the Select Committee. I was disappointed that in its report the Select Committee did not, it seems to me, echo any of the anxieties that had been expressed in the debate—hence, the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, has the pain of enduring a second debate on the subject.
I have endeavoured to keep my remarks short because there are so many who wish to speak but I now come to the last, shortest and most important part of my speech. My noble friend—if I may so term him—Lord Tonypandy is happily back in his place today, but he is as yet not allowed to make public speeches. He has asked me if I will repeat to your Lordships a brief summary of his views. These are his words:
"I have given serious thought to the subject of this debate. In doing so I have drawn upon my experience in another place, particularly as Speaker. I believe that the Select Committee has not taken account of what is the real aim of the broadcasters. They see an agreement of your Lordships' House and its use in this experiment as a means of obtaining a similar decision from the other place. Sound broadcasting of proceedings there has concentrated upon the noisy and discreditable moments. The broadasters' concern is, I suppose naturally, for the content of their own programmes, not the good of Parliament, and it is for these reasons that I shall vote for the amendment tonight.'".
4.19 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I support the recommendations of the Select Committee. I listened with much interest to the eloquent speech of my noble friend Lord Chalfont. It almost convinced me. It reminds me of what the lawyers call a dilatory plea—a plea for delay, ostensibly to gain time, but in truth to try to squash it altogether. His arguments were really saying how undesirable it is that this House, or the other House, should be televised at all. He did not really deal with the question before your Lordships; namely, whether there should be an experimental period of six months. That is the real point before your Lordships.
I should like to say a word on principle, and to refer for a moment to the forum of the courts of law. We do not allow any broadcasting; we do not allow television; we do not allow photographs in the courts of law. I hope that that will ever remain so. Their task is to decide disputes between individual citizens and for the judge and the jury to hear and see the witnesses and the advocates. The public as a whole do not come into that forum. But here your Lordships' House is the great senate of the nation where debates are held of the first importance on legislation, on policy and on the social
784
conditions of our country. Those debates are not merely of individual interest. They are of public interest to the whole community, on which the whole community should be asked to form their own opinion—a public opinion which is the most emphatic force in the land.
If we debate these great issues, surely the public at large should be able to hear and to see how your Lordships conduct yourselves. At the moment they can read it all in Hansard, but I am told that the issues of Hansard go almost exclusively to the institutions and the like. I know of only one private subscriber—and he is Queen's counsel—to Hansard. Very few people at large get Hansard. Of course, there are those short snippets in the newspapers telling people what goes on.
Surely, in principle, the people of this country should be able to hear and see how your Lordships behave and the arguments that you put forward, because, if I may say so, how superior they are to those that are heard sometimes in another place. The expertise of your Lordships, the knowledge of your Lordships, and the eloquence, if I may add, of your Lordships, is such that all members of the public should be able to see how you conduct yourselves, and how well you do it.
That is a matter of principle. I would therefore be in favour of televising in principle. But then, I agree, there are the practical questions—the heat, the glare and the lighting. I expect that many of your Lordships have been in front of the television cameras, as I have. For myself, I have got quite used to it. I do not think of any other audience at all. I just think of the people before me. I am sure that your Lordships would do the same. I am sure that your Lordships would not be influenced by any thought of outside hearers. I do not regard that as any practical difficulty, so long as the heating and the glare are kept under control.
Much the more difficult question, as my noble friend Lord Chalfont says, is the selection and treatment of individual issues in your Lordships' House which are to be broadcast. Who is to do it? No politician, certainly. And no judge; I would not have a judge do it. You can only rely on the independence—by statute, those reponsible are to be independent—and impartiality of the broadcasters themselves, subject, as they would be, to control by the committee and investigation as to how they have perfomed their work.
In the face of all the difficulties I would have thought that the right thing to do was to leave it to the broadcasters themselves, trusting to their independence and impartiality. If they go over the traces, let it be brought to everyone's notice by a Motion in this House, by the committee, or by whatever means it may be. These considerations, if I may say so, are matters for experiment. The fears that have been expressed can be tested in this experimental period of six months. I would have thought that such a period was quite ample. I join with my noble friend Lord Home. On this Motion, we should accede to the report; we should permit the experimental period of six months and reserve our ultimate decision on whether televising should or should not be made permanent. I support the report.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Soames: My Lords, it has already been frequently stated in this debate, and the House has been reminded, that your Lordships voted by a majority of three to one in favour of the televising of its proceedings for an experimental period and instructed the Sound Broadcasting Committee to report not on whether, but on how, this decision should be implemented. I thank the Sound Broadcasting Committee for its most detailed report. I do not agree with everything that it contains. In the round, however, it is, I think, an excellent report which demonstrates that a lot of hard work went into it.
I would take up a point raised by my noble friend Lord Peyton, who seemed to infer that, by one means or another, the Sound Broadcasting Committee has been stacked to respond favourably. I think that I am right in saying, although it is not for me to defend it, that the Sound Broadcasting Committee existed as it is today before the debate even took place. It was there. It followed the House's instructions. And, undoubtedly, as the report says, if this Motion is agreed to, there will be the addition of whoever it is thought, through the usual channels and elsewhere, are the most appropriate people to serve on the committee.
What we are debating today, as I say, is not whether or not we agree to an experimental period. That has already been established. We are debating the report of the committee as to how such an experiment should be organised. This brings me to the amendment of the noble Lord. Lord Chalfont. The amendment does not seek to alter or amend the report, as the other amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, does and with which I must say I have a certain sympathy. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, seeks in effect to throw out the report, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said, lock, stock and barrel until the other place decides, should it ever so decide, to proceed with a television experiment.
Nearly a year has gone by since this House voted in favour of such an experiment. Much consideration has been given to the matter. So far as I know, no consideration has been given to it in the other place since the vote in your Lordships' House was taken; none at all. Indeed, I happened to read in today's Hansard that only yesterday in the other place the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the House, answering a question as to whether some experiment should not be made in televising that House, replied:
"It would be an affront to the House if I endorsed the doctrine of inevitability"—
that is, of televising that House—
"in the matter of television broadcasting. In sheer terms of practicality, I think that the House would be well advised to see what is determined in another place tomorrow".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/11/84; col. 612]
That is a reference to today. Are the Commons going to say that they will wait for the Lords? Are the Lords going to say that they will wait for the Commons? It is going to be a very jolly merry-go-round.
I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, did not, unfortunately, give your Lordships the benefit of his advice in the debate last year, the debate that ended in a decision three to one in favour of the experiment.
786
Had he been present, he would have heard that this issue of the Lords standing back to let the Commons take the lead was extremely well-aired in that debate. It was indeed probably the subject that was mentioned in more speeches than any other and there was a decisive vote in the House thereafter, unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, apparently was not able to participate in that vote. However, as I say, the question was given much consideration in that debate. It will certainly be an issue again at the end of the experiment when it is decided whether or not your Lordships' House will continue with television on a more permanent basis. Certainly that will be a major issue then. But I would respectfully point out to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that it is not an issue in the debate today.
The issue in the debate today is the report that your Lordships' House invited the Sound Broadcasting Committee to make, as to how we should proceed with the experiment. Indeed, the report's recommendations, except over the detailed point of Ministerial Statements, very properly make no mention of the other place or their agreeing to arranging to have themselves televised at all, for that was not indeed what the House commissioned the committee to do.
The other main anxiety which was referred to a great deal in last year's debate was the question of possible partiality by the broadcasting authorities. This has already been raised a couple of times in this debate. I would refer noble Lords to paragraph 12 of the report, which proposes that the same approach should be taken as is taken for other areas of the media—for the written word and for radio. Frankly, I do not see how any other solution could have been arrived at. One solution would have been that this House has a sort of broadcast committee or television committee and itself does the editing, which I do not think noble Lords, on reflection, would think a very good idea.
The other extreme is that it should be left entirely to the broadcasting authorities, with no interference at all from your Lordships' House.
The middle way, and what seems to me the right way—and I commend what has been stated in the report—is that there should be a liaison committee of Members of this House, formed between this House and the broadcasting authorities and strengthened in any way that it is thought fit so to do, which would be in constant contact with the broadcasting authorities and which would try to ensure that they keep on the road of impartiality.
As this is not a debate on the report, I must not myself fall into the error which I pointed out the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, did, of repeating why I think in principle it would be right to proceed with the experiment and why I am in favour of the televising of Parliament. All I would say is that parliamentary proceedings are about the only facet of our national life which is not televised. It is left to the written word and to radio to describe to the people the proceedings of Parliament. I must say my own view is that where the other place is concerned, it is the worst of both worlds having radio. Either you have nothing, or you have television, where at least people see what is happening, and why. Incidentally, television does not

787
always have the effect of making people more raucous; it often has a calming effect. I think there has been much evidence of this over the years. Even if you take it a lot further and think of wars, I wonder very much whether the Russians would still be in Afghanistan if on the television sets in Russia every day there were shots of the war and of people being maimed and massacred.
Surely the time has now come to make this experiment and I should think that this House is an eminently proper House for it to start in—for us to put our toe in the water, as it were. The experiment would, I think, help Parliament to consider whether or not television should be proceeded with. As to whether one House is going to do it with or without the other is surely a decision for after the experiment—not before the experiment, but after it. So personally I shall vote against the amendment, which anyway is, I think, out of place in today's debate, and I shall support the Motion itself.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Strauss: My Lords, as has been said by many-previous speakers, the question whether or not this House should be televised has been decided. It was decided by a vote this time last year. What we have to consider today is really whether the report which is before us adequately expresses the desires of this House, and whether or not the proposal in the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is a wise one.
As one who opposed the whole principle of televising Parliament, on grounds which I do not want to repeat today, I think there is a great deal to be said for waiting to see what the other House will do. For one House to be televised by itself would be ridiculous, I think, and would be making a fool of Parliament. If Parliament is to be televised it must surely cover both Houses. The question this afternoon, as I see it, is only whether it is right and proper that the first step should be taken by the publicly-elected House—the only House that has a relationship with the public—or whether it should be taken by this non-elected House. There can be no doubt that if this House takes a decision to proceed, it will have a very considerable influence on the decision of the other House. I do not think that is the right way to go about it.
If the Commons decide it is desirable to televise their proceedings, then we must automatically follow them. But what can the experiment of televising this House reveal? It will of course reveal that there is a very high standard of debate and that the Members of this House are exceedingly knowledgeable on almost all public matters, are mostly very erudite and are very eloquent. It will also reveal that the affairs of this House are, on the whole, pretty dull. I do not think it will in any way answer the question whether the public interest is served by such television. That people may enjoy the televising of it may be so. I do not accept the argument that the public have a right to see what their elected representatives are doing, any more than they have a right to go and see what is happening in the courts of law. The question is: is it desirable, in the interests of our parliamentary democratic procedures,
788
that our proceedings should be televised? I very much doubt it.
As has been said by other speakers, particularly by my old friend the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, there is a great danger in televising the proceedings of either House of Parliament. Inevitably the broadcasters will pick out, as they have in the case of the Commons, those things which are newsworthy (by which they mean sensational), those things which are colourful, and they will not give a direct and true picture of what is happening. That is impossible; and I believe that the net effect of televising will be to lower the standard of this House—or of Parliament as a whole if the other House agrees to do it—and will not raise it. It will diminish it, and for that reason I am very reluctant to support a Motion which says that we in this House should proceed now on this experiment—the experiment can reveal very little that is going to be really of much interest to the other House—and that we should proceed before the other House has considered the matter and decided what it wants to do.
Therefore I feel that the arguments that have been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and particularly by the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, are the strong ones and should be accepted; and that we should not proceed any further on our own initiative but should wait to see whether the other House, the elected House, takes such an initiative. If it does, then of course we would be bound to follow it. I hope the other House will not take that initiative—I believe it would be damaging—but, if it does, then and only then should we follow its lead.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Dacre of Glanton: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I do so basically for two reasons—first, because I do not think that this House ought to be the stalking horse, the guinea pig, the thin end of the wedge—whatever you may call it—of the other place; and, secondly and more importantly, because I think, with the noble Lord. Lord Strauss, that the whole proposal is misguided. The House of Lords should serve the public interest and not the entertainment industry.
First of all, what is the aim of this costly and inconvenient experiment? It is not to create more open government; that battle was fought and won long ago. It is simply, so far as we can see, an operation to circumvent the other place. But let us be clear. We are not the real target. We cannot compete in screenworthiness. Our grave, senatorial deliberations cannot compare with the effervescent vitality, the robust juvenile activity of the other place.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, why not?
Lord Dacre of Glanton: My Lords, it is not merely a question of dignity; I think there is an important issue in itself. The televising of our proceedings may not damage the House, it may not damage us individually, but what is its advantage? Surely the question that we ought to ask is not, "What harm can it do?" but, "What is the public utility of it?" We are here in our public capacity to serve the public, not merely to yield

789
to pressure from outside on the grounds that we see no particular disadvantage in it.
This raises in my mind an important distinction. We are told that television is a means of education, of instruction, of communication which is important in public life. I agree entirely that television has that function, but it is a limited function. It does not apply equally in all directions. Television, as a means of education or instruction, is a means of bringing in the imagination to the aid of understanding. It introduces a new sense: one sees as well as hears, and this can be of very great importance. I agree entirely that there have been many occasions on which television has been an added means of instruction. We can think of the recent scenes of the miners' strike. The word "intimidation", in dealing with trades unions, has often been used in our discussions, but it was an abstract word; it had no real, visible impact until we saw on the television screen what it really meant. Equally, there is the famine in Ethiopia. Many other episodes are brought home to us in a vivid and useful way by television.
The same is true of great public spectacles, but these depend for their effect on action. Deliberation is quite different. If people appear on the screen merely discussing and debating, then imagination does not come in to help thought or understanding. What happens is that a superficial impact is made by the appearance, whereas the words and the thought behind that appearance make no impact at all and are easily forgotten. Anyone who has appeared on television knows how often one will meet in the street or in a train someone who will say, "Oh, I saw you on television last night". One will ask, "Did you agree with me?" He will say, "Oh, I can't remember everything that you said". That is not recalled.
Therefore when we appear—if we appear—on the screen, what will last will not be the nature of our deliberations, in which consists the value of this House; it will be merely a visual impression, perhaps transitory, or, if retained, then retained because of some extraordinary episode. Therefore I think that television presentations—the audio-visual aids, as they are called in the trade—are a two-pronged weapon. In some areas they are positively helpful; in others they positively hinder understanding. They replace rational thought with fleeting pictures, and it is the pictures only that remain. It is the difference between reading serious matters in a paper like The Times or a paper like the Sun, which is all pictures. Radio is not liable to this charge. There we hear the argument; the argument is all that is presented to us and it remains in our mind.
I maintain that our function is not to be a continuing spectacle but to be a reflective debating and revising Chamber of the Legislature. And that function, I believe, should not be trivialised. Trivialisation kills. When we watch the news on television, very often we see things which are important and are vividly brought home to us. But we see also a great deal of trivia introduced as unnecessary illustration, merely distracting us from a piece of news which would come to us with far more impact if we did not have these trivialities. I do not wish to see the serious debates of this House trivialised. The only answer to trivialisation
790
is on the same trivial level, and therefore it seems to me that the correct attitude to adopt towards it is to ignore it; and it is easier to ignore it if we do not allow it to happen.
4.49 p.m.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, before I plunge in medias res into this interesting and absorbing topic, I owe the House an explanation and an apology. After I had put down my name to seek to speak, and after I had given some preliminary consideration to the matter. I was afflicted with laryngitis and thought that when the day of the debate arrived I might well be that pathetic paradox, the voiceless politician. I am aware that there may be those of your Lordships—I hope very few—who think that that may have been a consummation devoutly to be wished, but I am sure I can count on the kindness of their hearts to keep that matter to themselves. But if I am husky and more difficult to follow than usual. I apologise to the House.
I should like, respectfully, to tender my congratulations to the members of the Select Committee on the report that we are debating today. In their clear and comprehensive report they have, with commendable industry and clarity, set out both the issues of principle and the technical considerations governing the mechanics of televising the proceedings of the House, with the appropriate safeguards required. In so doing they have earned, and should receive, the gratitude of the House and, I would hope, of the public outside.
I am glad to say that I agree with the substance of the report as summarised in paragraph 48. I welcome an experimental period of televising our proceedings in the form described, and hope that it may turn out to be permanent. However, that is not a view which has been arrived at lightly. This question occupied my attention during many of the parliaments which I served in another place, and I have not found it an easy one. Nevertheless—and this brings me to the amendment—I think it may be easier to resolve the matter in the context of the proceedings of this House than in the context of the proceedings of the other place, because the style and tone of our proceedings lend themselves better, perhaps, to television presentation.
Of course it is not all one way. There are matters in which the advantage lies with the other place, and I shall come to them in a moment. However, let me first refer to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, which would reverse the order of priority and put the ball in the Commons' court. It is, if I may so describe it, a sort of "After you, Claude" amendment to which, of course, the other place might fittingly make the traditional response, "No, after you, Cecil", and that would be a recipe for permanent inaction—a relegation of this matter to the Greek kalends. Whether or not that is what the noble Lord wants, I do not know. However, he will recall—and if he does not do so the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, will remind him—the ancient legal maxim that people are presumed to intend the natural consequences of their acts.
I do not think that the evidence supports the proposition that television should start in the Commons, as the amendment suggests. I am sorry to differ from the noble Lord, for whom I have the

791
greatest respect, but if there is one matter in which I could conceivably, with the faintest scintilla of plausibility, claim an advantage over the noble Lord, it is that I do have experience of both Houses, and that must be relevant in any judgment as to where it is appropriate to start this experiment.
Of course, there can be no certainty in this matter—a not unusual circumstance in this unpredictable and uncertain world. One must try and make the best judgment on the evidence, and on that, conscious as always of the possibility of error, I believe that the natural order is for the House of Lords to proceed first. It follows, therefore, that in my view this amendment, which would reverse that order, should be rejected.
On the broad question of the propriety of televising the proceedings of Parliament. I think that most parliamentarians, in whichever House they serve, are subject to a conflict of sentiment—a type of conflict between heart and head. In our hearts we want, of course, to maintain the intimacy of parliamentary proceedings to which we are accustomed; to maintain the special character of our proceedings, which has survived the admission of the press and an element of sound broadcasting. On the other hand, we accept the right of the public to have as close, as vivid and as true a view as possible of proceedings which, after all, are being carried out in their name and on their behalf; and we recognise the value of television in bringing Parliament and people closer together, thereby giving strength and stability to our parliamentary institutions.
As in so many things, it is a question of where the balance of advantage lies. Whatever may be the differences in the mechanics, the admission of cameras and their techniques rests on the same principle as the admission of the press. Indeed, in 1771 Parliament rejected the admission of the press on very much the same grounds as many people now put forward to resist the intrusion of television. Of course, Parliament lost something by the admission of the press and the acceptance of first-hand reporting. No doubt the speeches written for the record by Dr. Johnson read better than the originals could possibly have done. But what they gained in literary merit they lost in authenticity and true presentation. After all, Dr. Johnson is on record as saying that he was careful to see that "the Whig dogs" did not have the better of it. In the end, as your Lordships know, Parliament reversed this rejection and substituted the principle of direct reporting—warts and all—for the more elegant period of Johnsoniana.
The admission of television reporting today is only an extension of that principle to a newer medium—an extension to which there can hardly be an objection in logic, assuming that suitable safeguards can be provided against the disruption and debasement of the proceedings of Parliament, as appears to be the case. In principle and in logic, therefore, the admission of television in the circumstances of today is right, and what is introduced as experiment should, one hopes, gain permanence.
There is, however, one further sobering thought. The possibility of impermanence, of a negative result to the experiment, tends to be viewed—at any rate by
792
parliamentarians—as a matter exclusively for the decision of Parliament. If Parliament does not like it, they feel that that is the end of the matter. But is it really as simple as that; or is there another side to the question? Will Parliament—or in this case your Lordships' House—not have to justify the experiment, to see that the interest created by such programmes among the viewing public justifies the media in continuing the experiment in perpetuity? I think that it must be so. After all, there will be no statutory duty, no express obligation on them to continue. The media must do what the public want and provide the programmes that please them.
It follows, therefore—does it not?—that if the experiment is to succeed and become permanent, with the advantage of bringing Parliament and people closer together, the House should play its part in making its proceedings attractive and easily intelligible. I would not want to be misunderstood. I would certainly not for a moment advocate the cheapening of parliamentary proceedings. The House neither is, nor should be, a place of entertainment. Its primary function is as a workshop for the fashioning and improvement of legislation and as a forum of discussion on matters affecting the public weal. It will be for television to present the essential business of Parliament truthfully and attractively, so as to hold the interest of the viewer.
I said earlier that in many respects the proceedings in this House would televise better than those in another place—it is more orderly, more balanced, quieter and more dignified in tone. But it is not all one way. This House suffers perhaps some disadvantages in the context of presentation. A large, and not least useful, part of our proceedings is concerned with the minutiae of Committee stage amendments. In another place this is relegated to the seemly obscurity of committee rooms upstairs. If I may dare say so, Question Time here lacks the crispness, spontaneity and variety of Question Time in another place. Again, there are no short Adjournment Debates, there are no what used to be called Standing Order No. 9 debates on matters of urgent public importance. That is all good material for television.
Then there is the manner and mode of exposition. This is a delicate matter, but some of your Lordships may have noticed, after his much acclaimed maiden speech, the observation of my noble friend Lord Stockton, in an article published in the Daily Telegraph on his impressions after revisiting Parliament for the first time for 20 years. Therefore if that judgment is right it may be that the presentation of our proceedings might not be an instant and spectacular success on the television screen. In a few minutes the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, may give the House his expert opinion on that point. It may be that a more spontaneous and more rhetorical mode of exposition could benefit our proceedings and television presentation alike.
Your Lordships may have noticed a very interesting article which was published in the Daily Telegraph the other day which was written by Godfrey Barker, its talented sketch writer, which concluded with these words:
"This means that Ministers in the Lords, unlike in the Commons, have to win the argument to win the vote. It is this that makes the Lords at present so exciting and so unpredictable to watch".

793
Could he not logically and fittingly have added:
"and therefore a natural for television, with all the ingredients for success"?
Against this background it may well be that hopes will be realised and the outcome will match the opportunity. In that event, it will bring not only enjoyment to the viewer—and that, after all, is not a negligible consideration in itself—but a greater understanding of our proceedings by the citizen and a keener intrerest in public affairs, thereby strengthening the democratic institutions which we are here to serve.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to ask him why he is so anxious to stifle the voice of this House. I should like to know why people who speak as he does want to stifle the voice of this house.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Baroness must have followed my discourse with rather less than her usual close attention and understanding. The last thing I want to do is to stifle the voice of this House. On the contrary, I want to ensure that the voice of this House is communicated to the citizen at large for the greater good of Parliament and public alike.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, principally for the reasons so well developed by him and so powerfully reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Strauss, on the Labour Benches. I also support the amendment because in my view the televising of Parliament is undesirable in itself.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, why?
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I shall explain why if the noble Baroness will listen to my speech. Not only is the televising of Parliament undesirable in itself, but this view has, I believe, gained much ground in your Lordships' House since the decision of a year ago which, after all, was taken by a comparatively few number of noble Lords—under 100 participating in that vote.
As I see it, there are powerful reasons behind the hostility to the view that our proceeding should now be televised—some general and some particular. The first is the feeling that debates in Parliament should be conducted in accordance with reason rather than emotion. Of course, this is not always possible; but anything which might encourage emotion rather than reason is surely undesirable. There is little doubt that television—whatever its great, and, on the whole, beneficent influence in many other fields—results, as often as not, and more particularly in politics, in the triumph of what is called "gut reaction" over reasonable argument. We just have to look at the recent presidential election in the United States to convince ourselves of that.
I was aware of this phenomenon as early as 1950 when television was still in its infancy. Your Lordships may perhaps recall that, slightly to my own alarm, for several months in that year I was what is called "a television personality". I am persuaded that this was
794
not so much due to the arguments which I deployed against Jakov Alessandrovich Malik, my opponent in the Security Council of the United Nations at the time of the Korean War—though I like to think that the arguments were sensible enough—as to the effect which for some reason or other I had on the mass audience. Considerable subsequent experience of television only confirms me in my view that it is not so much what you say in that medium that counts; it is, above all, the impression that you create.
Applying the principle to the possibility of this House being televised, what might we reasonably conclude? Members of this House, who would I think be pleased if they featured on television—and who would not?—might well be less disposed to make some clearly reasoned speech which was difficult to summarise and which contained no very quotable nuggets, than to think up a few powerful slogans which, suitably delivered by a noble Lord of attractive or dominating appearance, might will appear in the summary of the debate prepared by experts who, after all, would be solely concerned with producing what is called "good television".
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment. Will he explain to what he attributes his great success on television? Was it to his emotional effect, his personality or his arguments?
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I have said that it is not so much what you say on television that counts; it is the impression that you create, which is a very different matter.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, that is not necessarily so.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, that is my view. The noble Baroness may dispute it. That is my point of view—it is not so much what you say but the impression you create. Equally, any rather unfortunate incident, such as a verbal slip, or an unfortunate joke, might well also be played up.
As opposed to such possibilities as these, is it not clear that the existing system of broadcasting our proceedings, inadequate though it may be, is greatly preferable? In that daily summary of proceedings in Parliament—I think it is called "Today in Parliament"—anyone interested in our debates has to listen to what was actually said without being distracted by the appearance of the noble Lord who said it. Incidentally, this summary is usually very good in producing a sort of synthetical account of the proceedings, much better than that usually appearing in the so-called "serious" press which, if indeed there is any mention of it at all—and there rarely is—usually consists of one sentence taken out of context in the remarks of any noble Lord other than those of the Government spokesman and possibly the Peer who winds up.
In other words, radio appeals to the mass audience in a rational way, and that is why the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House of Lords has contributed so greatly to our reputation in the country and has given us such an advantage over the broadcasting of

795
the proceedings of another place. Heaven knows what would be the effect if the public actually saw what often happens there! No doubt it is this apprehension which results in an obvious reluctance to face the television cameras. You may say, does not this show that since we at least would not be exposed to the same danger, we can safely go ahead? But though the danger would certainly be less here than it would be down the corridor, it by no means follows, for the reasons I have given, that it would not exist. Of course I would not want to exaggerate it.
Those who say that it may not matter very much if we go ahead because the public, after a time, will be bored stiff by our proceedings may have a point. However, if they should be right, it would mean that we should for some reason have lost the influence that at present we undoubtedly exert—and that would surely be a great pity. What we want to do is to make the best impression possible, and here I am certain that television would do us little good.
I have dealt with the general argument in favour of rejecting the proposed experiment. I now turn to the particular ones. They seem to be twofold. In the first place it is quite clear from the report that control—and it would seem complete control—over what is actually televised will rest with a very small group of so-called "editors" from the BBC and ITA who will have complete authority to select such passages from our debates as they may wish to put over for presentation to the general public.
Baroness Gaitskell: It is not true.
Lord Gladwyn: Yes, it is true; that is probably for about an hour a day. In other words, authority for such selection, which will no doubt affect the reputation of the House of Lords, would be entrusted to a few journalists whose impartiality and judgment may be impeccable but, again, may not. In any case, the public will not actually see what happens in the House of Lords. They will see only what the journalists see, which is a very different thing.
It is true that this House will "retain ultimate control" (I think the phrase is), but how could such control in practice be exercised? The committee was no doubt right to turn down the idea that selection of material for broadcasting should be left to a broadcasting unit employed by the House itself; so the "ultimate control" would in practice be a decision, in the event of serious objection, to cancel the whole system and simply stop televising the House.
That brings me to the second particular argument. The proposal now before us is, of course, for a provisional period only—we all know that—and naturally during that period the television editors will lean over backwards so as to produce, so far as is possible, a resumé of our proceedings which will no doubt give rise to only a minimum of criticism. But once installed here for good it is surely probable, to say the least, that they will be more and more likely to select passages which are, as the saying goes, "good television", and it would then be almost impossible for the House to exercise its final authority which, as I say, could only be to put a stop to such broadcasting altogether. If it did, it would be accused of being
796
terrified of the effect which the revelation of what actually went on during its debates was having on public opinion generally. Once you have the cameras in this Chamber, in other words, they are here for good.
There is one final and, to many people, conclusive argument in favour of televising the House which, at the risk of being unpopular, I would classify as dangerous. It is said that we should do nothing to interrupt the steady march of progress. Parliament in the past, so the argument runs—and, indeed, it has been developed by the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne—has always been initially opposed to any proposal for publicity. We know that for a long time there was no record of its proceedings. Then the public were admitted only after delay. Then journalists were reluctantly given a free hand. Finally, the proceedings were allowed to be broadcast on radio.
Television is now, therefore, according to this argument, simply the latest logical step to be taken, unless we are, ineffectively, to resist an apparently unavoidable historical tendency. That is the argument. And in a little while we shall no doubt be confronted, for similar reasons, with demands for the televising of all Government committees, and no doubt the Cabinet itself.
A noble Lord: Hear, hear!
Lord Gladwyn: Well, my Lords, I well remember one of J. M. Barrie's most successful plays called, What Every Woman Knows. I do not know whether your Lordships have ever seen it. It is a good play. In it an up-and-coming young politician is at a loss to know how best to counter the argument of his opponents that he is a reactionary trying to resist what would now be called "the wave of the future", but was then known as "the flowing tide". He composes a rather pedestrian speech in his defence which is tactfully altered by his splendid wife, who inserts the sensible and vote-catching peroration,
"So vote for us, and dam the flowing tide!"
I shall, consequently, vote for Lord Chalfont's amendment, and, if that fails, I shall vote against the acceptance of the report.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I would not seek to follow the arguments of the noble Lord who has just sat down, but I should like to pick up one or two points raised earlier in the debate. I am surprised to find myself in this position, and I think that this is the only subject on which I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I feel his anxiety—and I think it is a general anxiety—about who is to guard the guardian, who is to control the editorial balance and impartiality. However, by and large. I go along with the arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Soames, and in the interests of brevity I shall not repeat them.
Another point I should like to make to my noble friends is that these lights, which are currently giving 300 lumens at the Dispatch Box, are necessary for the present generation, or present make, of cameras. But so fast is the technological progress in the sensitivity of the cameras that each generation every three or five

797
years is immeasurably more sensitive than its predecessor. If this experiment is successful and we make televising a permanent feature, the cameras are likely to be much more sensitive and we shall not have to endure such a bright light.
I have to say, too, that I have never found a television lighting engineer who did not like piling on light just for the fun of it, because he gets the depth of focus and the clean picture. We saw it, of course, at the Royal opening of this Session. There was immense light, and of course the pictures were beautiful. But for everyday events we can work with a good deal lower light, and the new cameras will help us in that respect.
It was 50 years ago, as a young graduate at HMV, that I was one of the three engineers who were designing the first television receiving sets. I have taken a close interest in this subject ever since, and I was glad to serve on the broadcasting committee. I must confess that in 1935 I did not realise just what a dominant force television would become and how completely it would sweep the other media—particularly the newspapers—off the face of everyone's mind. It is true to say today—and this is apposite to Parliament—that out of sight is out of mind. I do not think we should neglect the opportunity of carrying out this trial, and personally I hope that it will be successful and that we shall go on from there.
I want to deal with three arguments which have arisen. The first is, no television of the Lords independent of the Commons. The second is that television would lower Parliament's standing. The third is that this is not the time for an experiment. This is the point of view put forward by Lord Chalfont's amendment. Let us consider the first argument: that televising the Lords is impossible without the Commons. In the 20 years I served in the Commons there were many debates in which views were rather narrowly divided and went across party, just as is the case with this debate. I remember on one occasion an issue was lost by one vote, and it was said that Dick Crossman had changed his mind during the course of the debate and that he swung the issue by going the other way.
I think that the Lords have always led in their desire to allow television, and it is worth considering why. I think it is because we are a more broadly-based House, with expertise over a wide spectrum; and we are proud of that. We believe that much of our work is both undramatic and possibly unappreciated, and that television would do us no harm; and we take pride in that our degree of tolerance here is high. Our experience is considerable, and our statesmanship unmatched in another place. So most of us feel—I know that there is a strong minority that does not—that by and large this is the ideal place to start the experiment and we should let it quietly go ahead.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend saying that he thinks we can get away with it and that the other place could not? Is that the burden of his argument?
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, if my noble friend will bear with me I will deal with the other arguments as I go along.
Surely the Commons will watch these results; and unless we experiment neither Parliament nor the
798
broadcasting authorities nor, above all, the people who should really be the judges, and the electorate, will have the possibility of making a reasoned judgment after the trial. I cannot understand, unless the noble Lord is trying to destroy the experiment and vote television out of Parliament for ever and aye, why this should be opposed.
The broadcasting authorities themselves will be exploring the type of programme which appeals to the public, whether they can do a daily edited service or whether there would be a longer summary at the end of a week. On all these things they have to gain experience. We and the public have to be the ultimate judges.
Lastly I put the view that the Lords were the first to allow the spoken word to be taken down verbatim. We did this in 1831. We were way ahead of the Commons then. There is nothing wrong in being ahead of the Commons when we see things perhaps more clearly than they do.
I now deal with my second point, the lowering of the standing of Parliament. I do not believe that television will lower the standards of behaviour. I believe that it will actually improve the manners and the standards of Parliament in general. I suspect that anonymous bad behaviour and shouting which cannot be identified is less injurious to the person than if he is seen to be behaving as Parliamentarians should not behave. I have great faith in the electorate, that when they see their representative, or some Peer they know, behaving in a manner which they think is wrong, they will not hesitate to write a letter to say so. I believe for all sorts of reasons that television will improve the manners and behaviour in Parliament if it is thought that they do not match the standards of the day.
We started the first public television service in the world in 1936 and we are now behind the rest of the democratic world in providing programmes of Parliament. Most Western European Parliaments have been televising for decades: West Germany for 31 years, the Netherlands for 29 years, Sweden for 27 years and the United States and Canada for many decades. Australia is also likely to go ahead. Among all the countries every one which has started television has never shut it off. They may have changed the format or changed what the public want to see. That is correct and the way that expertise evolves, but once they have tried it it has been so popular in the countries that it has been continued. I cannot see why we should be alone, particularly having been the pioneers, and turn our back on even a trial. It is said that we make the scientific discoveries but never push them through to production and utilisation. Here we have a chance and I hope tonight we shall not make yet another mistake and close the door to a trial.
In all these countries where parliament is televised brief extracts are included in general and regional news reports. Britain is alone up to the present in not allowing it.
The third argument is that this is not the time for a trial. I believe that it is exactly the time for a trial. We currently have four television channels and we are promised that in the next decade we may have twenty. It might be argued that we could put it off until there are so many channels that one could be devoted

799
entirely to parliamentary proceedings. But that is a long time in the future. In the meantime, it seems so illogical to me that we see on television every cultural activity known to man, every sporting activity, every sort of recreation, many religious activities of different denominations, activities showing us nature—and how successful those programmes are!—but the one thing in a democracy that we have not allowed the electorate to see is Parliament and the work it does.
I think it is a shame in many ways that we did not have this trial starting a few weeks earlier. What wonderful material it would have been, not only for ourselves but for our children and our grandchildren, if video recordings had been made of Manny Shinwell and Harold Macmillan; and, if I may say so, even today would have made very good television if many of these speeches had been recorded, particularly that made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning.
As the mother of Parliaments we should no longer deny the right of the electorate to see Parliament. Let us surely dally no longer. We have put it off and put it off again. We tried a closed circuit experiment in 1968. It taught us something. We have put it off already for too long. Surely we should remember what Lord Randolph Churchill said just 100 years ago—because these are the people who will be the judge—"Trust the people". I stand on that.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, I am strongly opposed to televising proceedings in your Lordships' House, even on an experimental basis. My main reason, I confess, is a negative one. There really have not been, for me at any rate, any convincing arguments mustered in favour of doing so. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, finished his very good speech (with every word of which I disagreed) by saying. "Trust the people". Which people, and to do what? He and I hunted in couples in the past, as we often have done on other matters, because we were anxious to end the BBC's television monopoly. We worked very closely with an old friend of many of us, the late Lord Selwyn-Lloyd. That was the slogan we used then, "Trust the people"; but what we meant then was "Trust the people to switch off", which is a very different thing. I do not know anybody who has been more highly critical of the lack of objectivity on the part of the media as between the political parties and the two Houses than he has and yet he now seems to have complete trust in the cameramen who may come into this Chamber.
Lord Soames: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will forgive me for one minute. Which debate is he referring to when he says that he has not heard one argument in favour of the experiment? Is it this debate or is it that of 8th December last year? If it is this debate, this is not what this debate is about.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, I shall be coming to that. The answer to the question is that I am talking about the debate on 8th December, which I am very sorry to say I did not attend but every word of which I have read and re-read, and I am saying that I did not find the arguments convincing. I did not say that there were no arguments in favour—there were plenty—but that I did not find them convincing.
800
We have been told—my noble friend Lord Soames, a former greatly admired Leader of the House, was one of those who told us—that it would be quite improper for us to reverse a decision which was made in the last Session. It was made by a vote of three to one. That is perfectly true, it was 74 to 24; but that was only roughly half the number of your Lordships who normally vote in a division on a topic of any real importance, so it was not a particularly good feeling of opinion.
I cannot see why it would be wrong for us in another Session to have second thoughts. There has been no suggestion that this House would fulfil its role more effectively under the eye of television. No one has actually argued that. So far as the lights are concerned—which have hardly been mentioned—I find them ugly, dazzling, hot and aesthetically totally unacceptable. Furthermore, there is certainly no evidence of public demand. Our proceedings are hardly news. We rarely rate much mention in the serious press (and still less in the popular press) even when debating, and perhaps successfully amending, important legislation.
A comparison between the reporting of proceedings in another place and in your Lordships' House tells its own story. I have been doing a little mathematics. Excluding parliamentary sketches, feature articles and judicial reports, I reckon that The Times and the Daily Telegraph normally devote eight times as many column inches to proceedings in another place as they do to us. That tells its own story. The programme "Yesterday in Parliament", the reports of which the broadcasting committee considered very carefully, in 25 minutes every morning on radio covers the parliamentary proceedings. We are told that 900,000 people regularly listen to the programme. Their reports on our debates—and here I include our Select Committees—rarely rate more than two to three minutes for us and often only 60 seconds, and sometimes important debates are totally ignored. I am not criticising the media in saying this because their job is to satisfy public opinion and to titivate it. But to redress the balance as between ourselves and the other place in the newspapers or on television we would have to carry out all sorts of monkey tricks—and none of us is going to do that—or we should have to ask my noble friend Lord Stockton to make a speech every week.
So I say again that we are not news. I never see a lobby correspondent in the Peers Lobby. Our public gallery is nearly always less than half full and sometimes almost empty even for an important debate like this. We are not news surely because as a non-elected Upper House we have strictly limited powers and we use them with scrupulous care, and we observe constitutional niceties to the best of our ability. We shall stay not being news. Although many Peers—perhaps a majority of Peers—favour reform of your Lordships' House, this is not going to happen in the foreseeable future, I am sorry to say, because with reform marches more power. Then we would be news.
Do not misunderstand me, my Lords. In spite of what I have said, I doubt whether the standing of this House, quaint as we are in some ways, has been higher or its influence greater during my lifetime. In fact, I go so far as to say that I do not think there is another

801
country in the world with a second Chamber which matches us for a sense of responsibility and expertise.
I want to make only two further brief points, as all my better points have been taken already. My noble friend the Leader of the House, whom I am very pleased to see in his place, said on 8th December last, at column 1192:
"Undoubtedly, any decision to televise your Lordships' House would put pressure on another place to follow suit. It is, I believe, important, that we should not act in a way which would make it difficult for those in another place to take their own decisions, in their own time".
But, surely, my Lords, if we were to decide today to reaffirm what we decided in the last Session, even for an experimental period, that is precisely what we would be doing—acting as a sort of constitutional guinea pig and bringing pressure to bear on another place. Quite honestly, I thought that that seemed to be confirmed by something that my noble friend Lord Soames quoted in favour of his arguments against televising the Chamber, though I thought it was one of mine, when he said that yesterday the Leader of the House in another place, Mr. John Biffen, in reply to a supplementary question, said that another place ought to await the decision in your Lordships' House before deciding what they themselves will do. So we are positively pre-empting their decision, we are bringing pressure to bear on them—which, with respect, is the very thing which my noble friend the Leader of the House advised us that we should not do.
For my part, I favour each Chamber doing its own thing. I see it as one of the great strengths of our constitution that each of us has differing roles and functions and quite different lifestyles. I cannot see television being a necessary, or even desirable, part of our lifestyle, and for myself I hope that it will not become part of another place's lifestyle, either.
As for the chance remark of my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing that the cameras coming in here would improve our manners and our behaviour, I was surprised to hear him say that. I thought that our behaviour was very good and that our manners were very good; though he may of course have been thinking of another place, which is surely the object of the exercise.
One last point, my Lords. What other countries decide to do now or in the future about televising their parliamentary proceedings has really nothing to do with us, any more than what another place decides should influence our decision. But we can learn from mistakes that other countries have made or the way in which they do these things. I thought that the broadcasting committee's drawing our attention to the fact that in the Canadian Parliament they allow only the photography of the head and shoulders of a Member was interesting. I was surprised that they did not make a similar recommendation to us. In Congress, just before the last presidential election, when some Republican congressmen were making election speeches for their constituents in Minnesota, or Arkansas, or wherever, Mr. Speaker "Tip" O'Neill ordered the cameras—he had that power, which is something which the Lord Chancellor would not have here. I am quite sure—to pan along the open benches and not to focus on the speaker. That is something which would not happen here of course, but perhaps
802
it could happen somewhere else. The Senate, I think wisely, have decided not to have television.
Nobody has yet mentioned that the GLC had it not very long ago. It was a disaster. They do not have it any more, unless Mr. Livingstone intends to re-introduce it. And, in lighter vein, when I was in Australia six or eight years ago, I actually was told that that very week a Member of Parliament who lived in Perth and who had lost his false teeth, took advantage of the cameras to ask his dentist to send him a new set. That camera was certainly useful to him.
I should like to sum up. I do not believe that a good case has been made out for televising our proceedings. We are not news, so my Lords, why waste time and money? We should not be the thin end of the wedge for another place, and what other countries do is their business alone. I was brought up, as were we all, with the saying: "Children should be seen and not heard". We are grown up now. What I am arguing is that we should be heard and not seen. Therefore, I would regard the introduction of television as wholly irrelevant and an irresponsible waste of the taxpayers' money. I strenously oppose the Motion and will vote for the amendment.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Hill of Luton: My Lords, it is 18 years since this House passed a Resolution in favour of an inquiry as to whether television should be used here. It is a year since the noble Lord, Lord Soames, introduced his Motion with the result that his inquiry by a Select Committee was set up. In my view, it has done a remarkably thorough and efficient job. As I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, moving his amendment, as he went on it became perfectly obvious what was his view. He does not want the televising of Parliament at any time, or at any cost. That was his view; and I suppose it is fair to say that he does not want the inquiry, lest it be a success.
My view is that I want the inquiry to be a success. I want it to be a success because I think that the public is entitled to know what goes on in Parliament, whether it be favourable or unfavourable; it is entitled to know. The other place delays a decision, and after some recent events there I should not be surprised if they delayed a decision for an experiment.
I want the experiment to succeed for that reason, and for another. It is in my mind; so let me mention it. The future of this House, its role, its structure and its composition before long, I suspect, will be a lively issue of public debate. Here and there have been signs of it, and sooner or later it will come up. I hope that by then the televising of Parliament will have begun, so that people will be the better informed before reaching that decision.
But as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, went on, it was perfectly clear that he was not so much concerned with the simultaneity between ourselves and the other place in starting this; he does not want it at any price. It was a general assault on the use of television. I, for my part, want it for the reason that I have given that surely, having set up this Select Committee which has reported so fully (and, I think, so fairly), the one thing that matters is that there should be an experiment and that the decision be reached after that experiment as to

803
whether television should be a regular feature of this House. Does that not make sense? We have had one experiment; but that was in closed-circuit television. This full use of television on the lines of the committee's report will enable us to reach a decision as to whether it is appropriate for the future.
It would be absurd for us, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is really suggesting, that we should not have the inquiry because he fears it might result in a report favourable to television; I do not know, for my part, the case for the inquiry on the lines that the Select Committee recommends overwhelms all others. Let us all reserve our judgment until we have knowledge of what it means, whether we are in favour or against. But do not let us pre-judge the issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, did today, knowing it would be wrong, knowing it would be unfair and knowing it would be useless. Let us have the experiment first and keep our minds open until the fruits of that experiment are clear.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I did not expect to be following the big guns, as I find myself doing. On one thing I absolutely agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Hill; that was when he said that the public have the right to know what goes on in Parliament. That is the object of the exercise, is it not? Indeed, that is the object of the exercise that I have been sympathetic towards for many years, starting with the debate on a Motion introduced by my noble friend Lord Alport in 1965. Over and over again during the years we have tried to improve the information which brings about the object of the exercise, which is to bring Parliament to the people. At the back of my mind I have a recollection of one speaker—and I have been unable to trace the speech in Hansard—who said that,
"some day the House of Lords will be well and truly televised".
The operational and important word there is "truly".
We owe a great debt of gratitude to this committee for their skill—and they are skilled people—and for their labour (hours of it) in producing this report, which is an important contribution to our considerations which are to end with the object to which the noble Lord, Lord Hill, referred.
In the debate on the 8th December 1983, which has been referred to, I made a reference in my speech to the doubts that I had in mind; inter alia, that the broadcasting authorities are to be the ultimate judges of what in fact is broadcast. At that juncture my noble friend Lord Soames interrupted me to say that the hope was that this committee, whose report we are considering, would consider these points in their discussions.
This in fact they did; but, with due respect, I feel that for all their expertise the committee could not see the wood for the trees. I say that; and it is for this reason that I support the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont's amendment. It is a long time since the view was expressed that it would be wise to let the House of Commons take action before we do, and this process—the process which is behind the amendment—will provide an opportunity to examine the problem in depth. One noble Lord said that the
804
object of this amendment surely is simply to delay matters. I do not think that is the case at all.
I think that the committee in one respect make a mistake on page viii, paragraph 12. They refer to the existing use of sound radio in reporting Parliament:
"This is the system under which Sound Broadcasting has successfully operated".
I do not think it has successfully operated. The fact is that the sound broadcasting today of Parliament is less than it was previously. The importance of "Today in Parliament" is minimal in the evenings because of the low number of listeners. The BBC are perfectly legally correct in saying that by reporting in "Today in Parliament" they comply with the obligations laid upon them by Clause 13(2) of their licence and agreement, and they are entitled (as I consider it) virtually to censor the reporting of Parliament by cutting down their contribution to "Yesterday in Parliament". This is what worries me.
My noble friend's amendment would give time for further thought. I strongly feel that we must not accept that the broadcasting authorities shall be the final judges of what is broadcast, and I do not know how it is going to be corrected. That is the problem, and this delay might provide a way of finding out how it could be done. It might even mean an amendment to Clause 13(2). I think it is, of their licence and agreement. The present sound broadcasting, in my view, has not been successfully operated.
If one turns to the summary of recommendations (Paragraph 48)—and again this is a point to which one noble Lord has drawn attention—one sees that in subparagraph (ii) it is stated;
"Matters of selection and editorial control should be left to the Broadcasting Authorities themselves, subject to the ultimate control of the House".
I forget which noble Lord it was, but one speaker said that that was all very well, but he wondered how it was going to be done. I believe for this reason that a good deal more thought should be given to the whole thing before an experiment is undertaken in either House. After all, where a middle course is open would it be wise to have closed circuit televising? And in terms of bringing the public to Parliament and vice versa, putting up a screen in the Great Hall and showing the crowds who wait in the street what really is going on before they go into the Galleries would be one way of approaching the matter.
Another middle course is this. Speaking as a Scotsman. I feel that we are much neglected in the North by being kept away from Parliament by the fact that "Yesterday in Parliament" is almost invariably extremely metropolitan. I would not agree with one noble Lord who said that radio was not of any great importance. It is of very great importance. I do not know how many of your Lordships listen to the broadcasts from Bush House; they are much better than the broadcasts from Portland Place. I am sure that considerations which might follow from the adoption of this amendment could enable more importance to be placed on the soundness of the radio contribution.
That is my contribution to the debate. I should like to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, not for fear of anything, except a feeling that

805
this is a matter to be thought out before we land either House with an experiment of this nature.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will accept my apologies for missing the earlier speeches. I have been working in court, but I shall of course read Hansard tomorrow. However, having spoken on 8th December, I was anxious to make a very brief contribution tonight.
Having heard what the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, had to say, I agree with him wholeheartedly. I agree with him when he says that the Select Committee has done a fine job and I agree with him when he says that the public is entitled to know. There are three views on this subject—go ahead with the experiment as proposed by the Motion; postpone the experiment as proposed by the amendment; and total opposition at any cost to the concept of televising our proceedings. This amendment, which will attract the votes of noble Lords in total opposition to the concept, conflicts with the free vote in a House of about 100 of three to one in favour of the experiment. As to the trappings of delay which clothe this amendment, one may well ask whether another place would be disposed to conduct its own experiment in the wake of those recent grave disorders as reported in Hansard, and so encourage further disorder by affording this potent public platform—
Lord Annan: My Lords, will the noble Lord permit an intervention? Does he not think it is also possible that the exposure of such disorders on television would lead to their being stopped, because they would be found by the public to be so unpopular?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I accept the view of the noble Lord. I was expressing the view in relation to whether the other place would be likely to conduct an experiment as proposed by the amendment. It would be quite wrong and improper for me to express any further view on that. It is of course a matter for another place. But my view, for what it is worth, is that it is unlikely in the wake of the recent grave disorders that the other place would be disposed to afford this potent public platform and so perhaps encourage further disorder. I am not disagreeing with the noble Lord and it is purely an expression of my personal view.
If what I have said is right in this sense, the amendment must be seen, in effect, as a wrecking amendment, if not by design as was half-suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton. No constitutional questions arise and, as regards our relationships with another place, paragraph 24 and recommendation 48(v) of the report appear to cover the problems which could arise on ministerial statements. So far as I am aware, no other serious problems arise.
If the question is whether the fears of those who oppose this amendment are real or chimerical, no answer can be given to this question as yet. This lies within the realms of pure speculation; hence the case for the experiment as proposed by the Motion. But as it is the affirmed policy of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition to abolish your Lordships' House, is it not of some import that the electorate should learn to
806
know just a little more about the institution which they are being invited to abolish? Is this an argument which could conceivably interest my noble friend Lord Chelwood? In this context, it is I think fair to say that no political party has so far canvassed the abolition of another place.
It was inevitable that your Lordships should have no hand in the editing; this would have been impracticable. This was discussed at considerable length on 8th December and paragraph 12 of the report reflects this. Of course, I understand the fears expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on this score. But I hold to the view—and I think it is not a naive stance—that a limited experimental period means exactly what it says and if it comes unstuck for some reason, if it displeases your Lordships for some reason, then that experiment shall surely end.
There are, I concede, reservations. There always are in the case of an innovation. Paragraph 40 of the report leaves wide open the sort of pictures to be taken. Paragraph 31 of the report assumes that live television will be "rare after the initial week or so", without stating the grounds for such assumption. Also it is perhaps of importance that through this window to the world abuses of our procedure should not be seen as if they were commonplace.
Perhaps in this regard—I say this with due humility as a relatively recent newcomer to your Lordships' House, but I say it nonetheless—the dressing-up of speeches in the form of supplementaries at Question Time could warrant consideration of the Procedure Committee and of your Lordships' House before the experiment were to be introduced. I make that observation totally devoid of any personal or political content whatsoever. I make it because this could, perhaps, safeguard and secure the traditional bonds of self-regulation. Of course, in these days one dare not speak of divine intervention, either in the affairs of the Church or in the affairs of the state—such strange things seem to happen. However, but for the lay intervention of my noble friend the Leader of the House and of other noble Lords, and in particular the recent intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, our system of self-regulation could have been near to breaking point.
In conclusion, reservations notwithstanding, I support the Motion. Refusal to countenance an experiment in what, sooner or later, we shall all have to acknowledge as inevitable is but an ostrich act for which the amendment provides a most convenient sandpit.
6 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I should like to join those noble Lords who have congratulated the Select Committee on their report. It has provided us with excellent material and has filled in some of the details we needed before we could discuss the matter any further. My views differ from those of some noble Lords who have already spoken, but I respect the views of all who have so far taken part in the debate.
I wish to make my point of view quite clear at the beginning of my speech. According to the Standing

807
Orders of another place, if there is a Motion to agree a report, my understanding is that I am entitled to debate the Motion and the subject of the report. Therefore, I disagree almost completely with the noble Lord, Lord Soames. I am sorry that he is not in his place, because I would not want it to be thought that I was disagreeing with him behind his back. However, the noble Lord was over-vehement in his attack upon the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who moved the amendment. He inferred that we ought not to discuss it because the House has agreed to the experiment and we ought to get on with it. I understand the impatience of those who want the experiment to take place as soon as possible, but I disagree with those who say that we should not debate the report. We are entitled to do so. As a result, I hope that we shall reach a solution.
The noble Lord said that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who moved the amendment was not present on the previous occasion. This was out of character with the standards which I have come to expect during the past 12 months. His criticism could reasonably be levelled at at least another 200 Members of this House. If the average attendance at an important debate is 300, more than 200 other Members are equally to be criticised. They are to be found on all sides of the House. Therefore, the tenor of the noble Lord's speech was not quite in keeping with the standards I have come to expect in your Lordships' House.
When the noble Lord, Lord Soames, addressed those remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who moved the amendment, I was reminded of the speech made last night by the Prime Minister. She referred to small minorities who wait until the majority have gone and then push in an amendment and get it carried with a minimum number of people present. I do not wish to be unnecessarily unkind, but with a total vote of less than 100 we are entitled to feel strongly about that kind of criticism. I was here and took part in the vote. I did not speak but I voted, as I voted at every stage in the debate, against the introduction of television cameras.
I want to vote against the report and I shall direct my remarks at it. We ought not to allow ourselves to be misled into thinking that we are discussing an experiment. Almost all of those who are in favour of the experiment are in favour of televising the House. We are not voting about an experiment but about whether or not the proceedings of the House should be televised.
The other point which I wish to make strongly is linked to my experience in the other place. I do not believe that this House is entitled to put the kind of pressure which it appears to be putting upon the elected assembly of another place. I agree wholeheartedly with the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, on behalf of the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy. He said that we ought not to put the kind of pressure that we are apparently putting on another place by televising in advance the proceedings of this House. In order to justify that view, I shall quote from paragraph 11 which states clearly:
"the BBC admitted that it could not 'justify televising the House of Lords alone on a frequent and regular basis'.".
If the BBC cannot televise the other place they are
808
unable to justify televising the proceedings of this House alone. So much for democracy! If the BBC cannot have it all, they cannot justify televising this House alone. I believe that I am entitled to discuss paragraph 11 of the report, although some noble Lords believe that I ought not to do so. That sentence sets a more appropriate tone for this debate: whether we should be exerting that kind of pressure upon the other place. I do not believe that we should.
I shall not rehearse the problems which affect the other place but which do not affect your Lordships' House. As the elected assembly, the other place would be entitled to point that out and to take exception to anything we did which pre-empted their opportunity to discuss the crucial issue of whether or not we should televise our proceedings.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that he quoted a sentence which reads:
"the BBC admitted that it could not 'justify televising the House of Lords alone on a frequent and regular basis' "?
That is the qualification.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, that is exactly how I read it, although I did not snap out the words with the same emphasis as the noble Lord put upon them. But the meaning is the same. The BBC could not justify televising the proceedings only of this House. They say in paragraph 11 that they need to televise the other place, too. We ought not to be in any doubt about that.
Before we agree to the experiment I believe, as stated in paragraph 48 of the report, the summary of recommendations, that we have yet to discuss the possible effects on this Chamber. I have listened to thousands of debates and have heard many speeches made by great parliamentarians. All of them have in common their love of Parliament and what it stands for. They fear that television may damage Parliament's image and support. We ought to listen to those who have a great deal more experience than have I. Throughout the years they have passed useful advice to me about the effect of televising Parliament.
I shall quote briefly from the 1966 debate, which is mentioned in paragraph 1 of the report. Therefore, I can justify, if necessary, why I refer to it. The then Member of Parliament for Saint Marylebone was Quintin Hogg. He is one of our most illustrious parliamentarians and is now Lord Chancellor. He is exceedingly wise, and in that debate he said:
"Of course, the experiment will have a certain limited value".
He voted against the experiment in 1966.
"it will tell us whether the lights are correct"—
if the lights had been left on for the duration of the debate, I venture to suggest that we should have voted long ago to end the experiment. Because of the bright lights I was beginning to fry after the first half hour and had a headache. He said:
"it will tell us whether the lights are correct, and whether a programme can be properly balanced. But it will not tell us the one thing that those of us who are afraid of the experiment want to know. It will not tell us what the ultimate effects upon the nature of our Assembly will be, because this, of its nature, will never show within five or eight weeks. Moreover, it will never show until there has worked through this whole Assembly the effect of the television programmes, viewed cumulatively, upon the public, and the effect of that public reaction upon Members, probably over years".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/11/66: col. 1663].

809
Very wise sentiments; that one could not judge the experiment after six months because of the important ingredient—which has never been discussed—of the possible effects on the public.
That brings me to the other point. I have been fairly active over the past few years in and around London and other places, but I have never received any demand, nor am I aware of any public demand, for the televising of the House of Lords. There would probably be a greater demand for its abolition if a poll was taken. But there has never been a great demand for the televising of this House.
With all due respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, there is more demand for the televising of the Law Courts than there is for the televising of the House of Lords. There is a great deal more public feeling about what goes on in the courts of law than there is about what goes on in this Chamber. It is no argument when one appears to be saying that we think the public need the televising of this House and so we are going to give it to them, but that when it comes to the Law Courts, we do not think they should see what happens there—even though they want to do so. That is not a logical stance to take. I have those reservations about the experiment.
If we still have any doubts, we could consider the sound broadcasting of another place. This matter has been mentioned ad nauseam. We know the damage sound broadcasting has done—not just because of the behaviour in another place (although I believe that has been exacerbated by the intrusion of the medium into that Chamber) but also because of the significant choice of material. It appears that the choice of material is that which appears to do the most damage; the extract that contains the most rowdiness or the most emotion, and which therefore makes for good broadcasts. In this instance, it will be a case of what makes for good television. It will need to incorporate that element because, whether we like it or not, the medium is not interested in the issues or in what is being discussed—but in what makes for good television. The broadcaster is likely to ask himself, "Will it enhance my career? Will I be thought of as a better interviewer if I influence my subject to make a certain kind of statement? What question should I ask to make him say something outrageous?"
I comment from personal experience. Once, when I was a Member of another place and a Whip there, there was an important television programme containing a discussion on the Royal Family. It was one of those numerous occasions when there is an argument about the Royal Family. The programme was short of people and I received a telephone call in my capacity as a London Whip—as someone who would know which politicians were in London. I was asked, "Can you find somebody to appear on this programme?" I began to reel off a whole list of names, but was then asked, "But which of them would be prepared to say something outrageous about the Monarchy?". I put the phone down. I was absolutely horrified, but it taught me the lesson that what broadcasters need are people to say things which are outrageous, because that is what makes for good television.
We may believe that broadcasters are impartial. I have never believed them to be impartial. If I ever had any doubts, the past few months have dispelled them
810
and have proved to me that there is no impartiality in some of the reporting I have seen on television. I do not believe that we ought to import that situation into this House, and without any control on what is being broadcast.
I will comment also on the question of the pan shots. It is said that the cameras will focus only on the speakers. It might just be, unfortunately, that in panning to or focusing on a speaker, the cameras also focus on all kinds of other things which might not be to the liking of the public—who are not enamoured of this place already. Some of the things which you and I take for granted might not be understood by the general public. I looked around this Chamber this afternoon and noticed that a number of noble Lords were weary of the proceedings and were showing their weariness. A television camera would have exposed that quite ruthlessly. We have to be very careful about who controls any experiment and about what is shown.
We have to be careful also about the tailoring and the timing of broadcasts. We know from the New Zealand experiment the dangers there are. I believe it was the Speaker of the New Zealand Parliament who said that Ministers like best to speak at tea-time. They become friendly with the Whips so that they can get the right slot for the best coverage on television. The reporters were of course only too pleased with that situation. We have to be very careful before going into this experiment.
We know from the televising of party conferences how important also is the question of timing. We know about the number of references back which are made in the first morning of a conference when it is under the full glare of the television cameras—just before the election of the executive body or whatever. We can see this at all party conferences. The debates always falter once the television lights have been switched off. When they come on again, the demonstrations begin, and so on.
As to the question of practicalities, I have already mentioned lighting. The other aspect which must be considered concerns all the equipment which will have to be stored and kept—probably in huge vans. One has only to observe the televising of any event to see how many huge broadcasting vans are sited in the car park or in the roads nearby, with cables leading in all directions. How long will that last? Where will those vans be situated? Where is the space? There is no space to park now, without making room for huge television vans and all that goes with them. We must examine that aspect also.
Finally, there is the cost. I would like to return at some later stage and dispute the figure of £10,000 that has been mentioned. I do not believe it either, and I do not believe that anybody else does. That £ 10,000 will grow and grow, as all other estimates do. The figure is always very low when we are trying to sell, but once we have made the sale the figure creeps up. I do not believe we can afford such an experiment. In these times of stringency, we certainly cannot afford the cost of experimenting with something that nobody wants. Certainly I do not want it, and I shall oppose it.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I suggest that the chairman and members of your Lordships' Select Committee

811
deserve our thanks for a thoroughly sound report. It is mercifully short and contains beautifully modulated arguments, which are so clearly and eloquently expressed that I found even I could understand it. I further suggest that the section of the report dealing with the evidence contained models of the interrogatory art. The questioning—more particularly by my noble friend the Chairman of Committees was—if I may so, short, designed to obtain information rather than state a view and incisively relevant. I congratulate and thank the committee—not least the clerk to the committee—and all who served it. I have always welcomed experiments, for without experiment how can we learn? Even this afternoon, by experiment we learnt something that has always concerned me—namely, that this Chamber, generally speaking, needs more light than we enjoy now. I had no idea until this afternoon what an astonishingly good-looking band of men and women sit opposite me.
All worthwhile points have been made so well by those who have spoken before that I have only one further submission to make. I have the misfortune and indeed the effrontery to disagree with a noble friend with whom I so often agree and whom I enthusiastically admire. I refer of course to my noble friend who is to follow me in this debate—Lord Harmar-Nicholls. May I ask him to consider that one of the reasons why those who respond negatively with such emotion to any suggestion that the proceedings of Parliament should be televised can be found deep in human nature? That reason is simply this: many have no objection whatever to the sound to their own voices, but they have a deep-rooted aversion to looking in a mirror. I most enthusiastically support the Motion.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I have to respond to the compliment paid by my noble friend, although we are on opposite sides of the fence on this occasion. When this subject was again put on the Order Paper the thought crossed my mind, almost instinctively, that this was a case of, "Physician, heal thyself, where we can, as a second Chamber, carry out for ourselves what is our real function in terms of Parliament as a whole. Our only power—and we use it, I think, effectively and with good value to the nation—is to give to another place time for second thoughts. It is a great power, and one hopes that when one gives that extra time it is usefully used.
Here we have a chance to give ourselves second thoughts. A decision was made 12 months ago, and much play has been made of the result. Much play was made by my noble friend Lord Soames and by the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton. They were both adamant in saying that the decision had been made, we should keep to it and get on—no second thoughts! All I ask noble Lords to remember is that as far as my noble friend Lord Soames and the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, are concerned, you are dealing with two of the most astute and shrewd parliamentarians we have ever had. Of course they want to use all their influence and general power here to try and keep to the decision that they think is right, but which many of us think is not so right.
812
There really ought to be second thoughts because, however much they go on quoting the three to one majority when the decision was made 12 months ago, the fact is that the figures were 70 to 24. Are we suggesting that we should leave to 70 Members of the whole of our House a decision which may well interfere with the general presentation and the working of our parliamentary system? That is the effect it could have. I believe that if ever there was a subject which justified second thoughts in the light of that, this particular subject is it.
The other reaction I had to my noble friend Lord Soames—and I do admire him so much; he is a good friend—is that he gave the impression that the other place had not expressed any views on this. He said it in the form that the other place has not said anything over the last 12 months—or something to that effect—but he said it in a way which gave the impression that it had not expressed its views.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend did not hear my noble friend Lord Soames in fact quote a remark made yesterday by the Leader of the House. Mr. John Biffen. He quoted from Hansard, so perhaps my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls was not in his place.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I was listening intently because it is a vital matter. It is perhaps the last chance that we have. It is vital that we should listen to what it is all about. Of course my noble friend quoted the Leader of the House in the other place. In addition, however, when my noble friend reads Hansard tomorrow he will find that my noble friend Lord Soames referred to the fact that the other place had not given any recent decision on the matter. We should keep in mind, in terms of what the views of the other place are, that in 1966 it turned down the idea of televising Parliament. In 1972——
A noble Lord: By one vote, my Lords.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the interjection is that they turned it down by one vote. It was a case of 131 votes, which in terms of actual figures is twice the 70 which has been quoted as regards the power we ought to exercise here. So the other place turned it down in 1966, and it turned it down in 1972. In 1975 it turned down television and suggested sound broadcasting as an experiment. The general impression left upon both Houses then was that broadcasting would be looked upon as an experiment to form a judgment as to whether this outside media ought actually to come into the Chamber of either House.
That is the experiment I have in mind, and which has been commented upon by several noble Lords. Can any noble Lord who has any contact with Parliament as a Member of either House truly say that the intrusion of sound broadcasting has raised the status of Parliament or of the Members of Parliament? Perhaps noble Lords have not had constituents whom they have had to meet, as some of us did when representing constituencies in another place. I have not yet met anyone outside Parliament who feels that the status and the standing of Parliament has not gone

813
down since we had sound broadcasting of both Houses. What I do know, however—whether or not it has to do with that, it has happened during the same period and it is too much of a coincidence to rule out—is that the status of Members of Parliament in their constituencies generally is nothing like as high as it was before broadcasting started.
I believe it is vital that we should not risk doing anything which is likely to interfere with the status, the standing and the general acceptance of Members of Parliament. At the end of the day, Members of Parliament pass legislation, and none of the legislation for which we are responsible is very pleasant. It is usually putting up people's taxes, or taking away some extra little freedom, or nannying people in some way. So it is vital that the people who have to tolerate the pain which flows from that should have it in their minds that the people with the power to bring in these edicts are perhaps a bit special and are not as ordinary as we would seem if it happens to be at the awkward times that the cameras are brought in. I believe that the intrusion of sound, and even more so the intrusion of the cameras, would undermine the acceptance by the electors of this country of the edicts which of necessity have to come from Parliament.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. Is my noble friend suggesting that it is somehow wrong or bad that constituents should have the opportunity of getting to know their Member of Parliament better?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I think it is vital that constituents should know their Member of Parliament and should turn up to their meetings to cross-examine them to find out all there is to know about them, but to do so through their own eyes and to make their own decisions on what they see and hear, not what some editor with a camera chooses to let them see or some sound broadcaster chooses to let them hear. That is the vital difference. I am of the opinion—not that it would be done deliberately—that the distortion and the twisting that would inevitably come would have the effect of giving constituents a wrong view of what their Members of Parliament are really like.
I was very impressed, as we always are, with the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. He speaks with authority, foresight and a power that is impressive. There are not many Lord Dennings about. I was very interested that he showed very clearly that his heart, his soul and his spirit were those of a lawyer. His pet is law, and how good he is at it! He said there should be no cameras in court. He said that they cannot have what they do interfered with by a wrong impression being given by a camera or a sound broadcaster as to how they arrive at a decision.
Sitting just behind the noble Lord, Lord Denning, there is another great character with great experience—the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy. Just like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, when he was summing up in his great days, where he would fairly present the evidence, if I was summing up the contributions of the two noble Lords I would say that if one is going to arrive at a verdict on anything to do with law listen to what the expert witness, the noble
814
and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said: but if we are to make a decision on what is likely to flow from Parliament being televised, and the dangers and problems that could come from that, then we should pay attention to what the Speaker of the House of Commons for many years said. They are the two experts. I hope that, when we are forming our view on what is likely to happen, in weighing the views of those two great witnesses we will take into account the particular spheres in which they are the experts.
I am not terribly concerned about the effect that it will have on the House of Lords. I am not terribly concerned about the effect that it will have on the House of Commons. I am vitally concerned and disturbed at the effect that it could well have on the parliamentary system. It is vital we should not do anything that will undermine the appeal, the status and the general impression of our being in a position to produce legislation that affects people. Sound broadcasting has done that. We have had evidence of it in another place in the past week. I believe that television could multiply the impact on the general public and the working of Parliament by 10 times.
One of my earliest experiences in politics—I hate to think of the number of years that have elapsed since then—was to propose a vote of thanks to Stanley Baldwin in the Albert Hall in 1934. Fifty years is a long enough period to be able to form a judgment. I recall a sentence that he used. It bit deep at the time. I have remembered it, and I quote it often. He said that there had been a watchword running round the world since the First World War. The watchword was, "We have to make the world safe for democracy". Mr. Baldwin said that he would give his audience a much truer watchword than that. It was, "We have to make democracy safe for the world". If there was truth in his anticipation then, it has been proved now, 50 years later, beyond any doubt. We must not lightly do anything that will interfere with the status of Parliament.
My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing quoted the example of what various other countries have done. Many other countries have got rid of the monarchy. Are we to follow that? Many other countries have turned themselves into a republic. Are we to follow that? Many other countries have cut out the second chamber. Are we to follow that? If ever there was an issue on which we are able to make up our own minds without having to be a copycat, it is on the issue before us. We are the oldest of all of them, next to the Isle of Man. We have some experience. It is awful to sound pompous but if one is giving evidence one must. I fought something like 18 elections, both parliamentary and local government. I do not think that many people have fought more. I have won some and lost some. It is absolutely vital that we should not allow an impression of ourselves as legislators which will undermine the confidence of the people who have to accept what we bring in. And we are very ordinary.
I cannot accept the reaction of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, on another issue. The noble and learned Lord says that he finds the fact that the cameras are on him makes no difference. Again, on that he may be the exception. I do not believe that anyone is natural when they know that they are having their photograph taken whether by the cameras or by

815
a Brownie. It does make a difference. Our strength is our objectivity. Our strength is our naturalness. It is not necessarily the people who sound good and who are able to present their argument well that matters.
I suppose that the outstanding parliamentarian in the 25 years that I served in the House of Commons was without doubt Mr. Aneurin Bevan. I remember having a conversation with him one day about this. When he was bad, he was awfully bad. When he was good—as three times out of five he was—he was the outstanding man. I recall saying that one member of our party was making a rather hesitant and not very impressive speech in terms of presentation. I asked for his reaction. His reply was very enlightening and in keeping with the man. He said "I am not interested in how they say it; it is what they say that I pay attention to." And that applies here. It is what we say that really matters. If attention is diverted from the meat of what we want to say by the distraction of camera or even of sound, I believe that, as a consequence, the people will not be as well informed as they are at the moment.
In the last debate, there was reference to Hansard amid comments that television should not be allowed in Parliament. My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing argued that because it is new and we are the inventors, we should have it in Parliament. It was argued that there might never have been Hansard. No one wants a secret society. Of course not. But there is all the difference in the world between having in Hansard what you have really said giving all the facts and setting out your evidence, and having this pictorial presentation which does not matter.
We talk about not wanting Hansard to stop. Where does this stop? Anyone who has served in Parliament knows that the Chamber is not Parliament, whether it is this Chamber or that of the other place. That is not Parliament. Parliament is what happens in committee rooms, in discussions that take place in the corridors and the contacts that you make outside. Are the cameras to be taken there? As the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said, where will it stop? Are the cameras to be taken into the Cabinet Room or meetings of departmental committees? If we allow this toe in the door, I foresee the issue going to lengths which people in the future will be sorry about. That is why we should consider it very carefully. This is not a wrecking amendment. It is an amendment that gives us a chance, in the shape of second thoughts, to reflect that the 74–24 vote, judged by experience since that time, may not have been the right one.
The move, if it is to happen—and it well might, who knows?—should not come from this House. It should come from the other place if it is to come from anywhere. The other place has the ultimate responsibility. If it interferes with what I call the parliamentary system, then the electors can get at those in the other place to deal with the matter. It is not for us to do that. If ever it is to be done, both Houses should agree. If it is to be decided by one House, it is not this House that should take that decision. And no one admires or recognises the quality and the value of the contribution of this House, more than I do. These are our second thoughts. I believe that we should end the decision that seemed to be made 12 months ago.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am sure that many of your Lordships will be indebted, as I am, to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, for at least two reasons. First, the noble Lord made clear—the same remarks go for every speaker who has opposed the Motion—that he wants reconsideration of the resolution which this House agreed in December last year. The noble Lord says that these are second thoughts and that he wants to go back on the resolution. So does the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, for making it clear that a vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is a vote against the resolution.
I do not want to use words like "wrecking amendment" because it carries overtones that are unwelcome in this House. But the effect is simply that at the end of the day we cannot go to the next stage as envisaged by the resolution. We cannot say how the televising of the House shall be done because that has been denied to us. We are therefore left with a resolution of last December that we should have an experiment; but we have no idea, should the amendment be accepted, of how that experiment is to be carried out. I say simply that it is the kind of amendment that is equivalent to a vote against. Of course, anyone is entitled to vote against. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, thinks that all your Lordships should vote against because he has a number of hesitations.
The second reason why I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is that I, too, have a number of hesitations—deep hesitations which have affected me over very many years, both in the other place and here, when this matter has been discussed. I do not know for certain what is going to happen. I do know, however, that I am grateful to the House of Lords for being the kind of body that says, "We are not going to close our minds to a very important issue without having an experiment". I am grateful to the House of Lords for that. It is only after the experiment has been conducted that I shall have the facts: not arguments about whether the lighting will do this or that, but the facts as to what the lighting has done, and what the editing has been. All these various issues will be known to me then. I like to vote on a difficult issue by having first researched or got hold of the facts in some way or other, and here is an opportunity to get at the facts. That is why I am grateful to this House for having decided that the facts should be ascertained. Then everybody will be absolutely free—absolutely free—to decide in six months' time what they want to do in the light of the facts.
It is because of that that I want to say how grateful I am to the committee for having considered everything, for having reported fully, for having given careful consideration and for having made a number of recommendations—10 in all. I want to say to the committee that I am in favour of nine of them. I do not want to delay the House by giving the reason, but that is why we are here. We are here to consider this report, which was requested in order to know, not whether there should be an experiment but how the experiment should be implemented. In that sense I express my deep gratitude to the committee for nine of the 10

817
recommendations. I hope the committee will feel that that is not ungenerous, and that it is not bad going.
I want to spend the rest of this short speech—as short as I can make it—explaining why I think the committee were perhaps in error in the recommendation about which I am not happy; namely, Recommendation No. (v) that:
"The repetition in the House of Lords of ministerial statements made in the House of Commons and the subsequent exchanges should not be televised during the experiment, except with the consent of the Minister concerned".
Normally we have a high regard for our committees and the work done on them, and I hesitate to take a different view even on only one out of 10 of the recommendations. However, I am much encouraged by the fact, first, that the committee themselves said that they reached this conclusion with reluctance; and, secondly, that they quoted what our Leader, the Leader of the House, had said—namely, that he was making his statement to please colleagues in another place. He did not put it quite as positively as that, but those are the words he referred to. So it is quite clear that the Leader of the House and the members of the committee which has examined this matter are not deeply married to this recommendation.
I want now to suggest to your Lordships reasons why, alone out of 10, this one recommendation should not be supported. The obvious first reason is the one referred to in the committee's report itself—censorship. Censorship is undesirable. It is something we all wish to avoid if we can; and censorship by an interested third party is the worst kind of censorship of all—and the interested party is, of course, a Minister of another place.
I think there are several more reasons. It represents an interference in the affairs of your Lordships' House by a decision of a Commons Minister. If I may say so, that is an undesirable precedent. It also means that you may have quite a junior Minister in another place, who has the responsibility of making the Statement, in effect denying the right of one of four Cabinet Ministers in your Lordships' House to be heard, and, even more so, of preventing response to the Statement being heard or seen on television—that kind of censorship. It can have that effect if the Minister in the other place so wishes. Suppose it is a Statement about foreign policy and it is repeated here, and suppose the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, ex-Prime Minister, decides to get up and make a comment. It means that some Minister in the other place has denied the right to televise what an ex-Prime Minister of the standing of the noble Lord, Lord Home, wants to say on a foreign affairs matter. So I think that perhaps on consideration the members of the committee, who have done an excellent job, will agree that there is some difficulty about that particular conclusion.
They talk about sensitivities in another place. Of course there are sensitivities in another place; but we have heard time and time again from Members of your Lordships' House who have been in another place and have spoken out of that knowledge and experience, making it absolutely clear that the sensitivities relate to broadcasting at all in principle and to televising in principle, and not to televising a particular part of our proceedings.
818
Of course I realise that such a piece of censorship would not be very effective. It would not be effective because certainly there is not a Minister or an ex-Minister in your Lordships' House who will not have had the same experience as I of preparing a Statement as a Minister and, before speaking, or before the event, issuing it to the press. Then, when you come to make the speech or make the Statement you decide, either inadvertently (it could be quite inadvertently) or for some reason or other, to leave out three words. There is no better way of publicising those three words. Every parliamentary correspondent is on to you and wants to know why you left out those three words. It could be for the simplest and most unimportant reason.
So I think that if it is known that the broadcasting authorities are going to be debarred from reproducing at the time, from televising, something that is being repeated here, they will take special steps to look into it and give it more publicity, as they so easily can; it is available to the press, it is available to the Galleries, it is available to sound broadcasting and all over the place. So I do not think it is going to be very effective. To have a very unpleasant situation of a Minister in another place exercising a measure of censorship over our own affairs, I think, is not worth that one.
But of course the main argument is that we are conducting an experiment. At the end of the six months we shall want to know what to do from there on. One of the things we shall want to know is: if we have television, shall we or shall we not exclude the repetition of Statements made in another place and the comments made on them? Of course, the other way round does not apply; the committee have made that absolutely clear. The committee have also made it clear that even this recommendation is only for the experimental period, and that they hold an open mind as to what shall be done at the end of the experimental period.
I am saying to your Lordships that I am one of those who are deeply troubled. I want to know which way to vote when the time comes. I want to have the facts. One of the facts I want to know is what happens when such a Statement is repeated here and is followed by questions and comments, and those are televised, either at the time or on an edited programme? I do not see why I should be denied the right to know what has been the effect of the televising of those items. So I leave it at that. I think the position is quite clear. I am most anxious to find out the facts. I am most anxious that at the end of the day, when the experiment has been made, it should help me—it should help all of us—to come to as objective a conclusion as we can.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will forgive me if I do not follow him in discussing his amendment, if only because I have not yet had time to make up my mind on the pros and cons of his amendment. I warmly support my noble friend Lord Chalfont in his amendment because, like the noble Lord, Lord Strauss, and others, I believe that the introduction of television would be a disaster for this House—perhaps not in the very short term but certainly in the longer term—for reasons which in a moment I shall explain.

819
The argument advanced this afternoon that this House has already taken its decision should cut little ice with your Lordships. Surely every institution, like every individual, should have the right to change its mind, should have a right to look at the thing for a second time, as the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, suggested, particularly when one remembers that fewer than 100 noble Lords took part in the Division last December.
My first ground of objection to the experiment is that the medium is likely to obscure rather than enhance the message; I think the noble Lord, Lord Dacre, and the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, pointed this out very well. On radio, the arguments come through clearly, unencumbered by visual distractions. On television, the viewers' attention is likely to be diverted from the arguments to observation of personal idiosyncrasies which have nothing to do with the arguments: for example, is the speaker wearing a bow tie?; if so, is that bow tie covered with soup stains or congealed particles of scrambled egg?; or has the speaker got a mole on his or her left cheek?; and so on and so forth.
Of course the direct control by Parliament of the extent to which its deliberations are televised raises the question of unilateral selection, with all that that continue for ever, given that so much of our work is mundane, repetitive or highly technical. In support of this, may I cite the television critic of the Observer last Sunday? Writing about a series that has rightly received a great deal of critical acclaim—it concerns a number of young people whose progress from the age of 7 to 28 has been followed—he says:
"how could they"——
that is to say, Granada—
"avoid, willy-nilly, picking seven-year-olds who were good on television: relaxed, articulate, engaging—'characters,' in other words?"
He goes on to suggest that had they picked children who were charmless, fidgety and inarticulate the ratings would have plunged; and no producer likes to see his ratings fall.
This brings me to the question of the dignity of the House. About five years ago I brought two young people here for the afternoon. The boy was in his early 'teens and his sister was a few years older. They came from a mixed background—a cosmopolitan and much travelled background—and were highly intelligent young people. They were most unusually rewarding guests who took a keen and perceptive interest in our proceedings. But there were two things that shocked them. The first was seeing certain people sprawled on the Front Bench, with their legs propped up, and the second was seeing a number of Peers asleep, or apparently asleep, with one or two of them snoring quite audibly. Here I might interject that when noble Lords bend to listen to the amplifiers built into the back of our Benches it may look to the untutored eye as if people are asleep when in fact they are not.
At first I was taken aback by the strength, by the vehemence, of their reaction, but in retrospect it seemed not unnatural. After all, we are steeped in the atmosphere of this House, but my two young guests had not been here long enough to absorb that
820
atmosphere. If it had been their third visit (shall we say?) things might have been different. The television camera is extremely good at capturing pageantry, but the clinical gaze of that camera is not good at capturing atmosphere, certainly not the totality of that atmosphere.
Let us remember, too, that the television generation, to whom I think few of us actually belong, not only in this country but throughout most of Europe, have been brought up to expect to see on their screens individuals—whether they be newscasters, actors in television commercials, actors in TV drama, participants in TV quizzes or those taking part in variety performances—who are alert and vigorous and whose teeth are beautifully capped, and so on. Most people who appear habitually on television are, at least to some extent, actors.
This brings us to the delicate question of age. As my noble friend Lord Tweeddale observed in so many words when we debated this matter in December last year, not many of your Lordships are in the first flush of youth. This fact cannot be gleaned from a sound broadcast alone. It is often said—with what accuracy I do not know—that in China, in Africa and in Latin countries old age is revered. I do not know about that, but it is certainly not revered in this country or, to be more specific, it is certainly not revered in British popular culture, of which television culture is a part. Here the late middle-aged and elderly may be treated with a certain degree of affection, it is true, but it is a mocking, condescending and pitying sort of affection.
This treatment extends even to those who one might describe as licensed "Grand Old Men" like the late Sir John Betjeman, Mr. Malcolm Muggeridge, and so on. It certainly embraces those of lesser eminence. One has only to think of "Dad's Army", "Last of the Summer Wine", "Steptoe", and so on, to see what I mean. In British popular culture the over-sixties are categorised generally as "pensioners", and in British folklore pensioners are deemed to be hardly capable of ordering their own lives let alone ordering the lives of anybody else.
The sad news from Bombay that we heard earlier this afternoon brings me to another point. Is there not perhaps a security aspect to this matter? The faces of Ministers of the Crown are generally well known to members of the public; it could not be and should not be otherwise. But at least Ministers have a certain degree of police protection. Back-Benchers do not. Will Back-Benchers in either House be quite so ready in future to get up and condemn, in forceful and passionate terms, the PLO, the IRA, the Baader Meinhof Gang, Colonel Gaddafi's hit-men and, nearer home, Welsh Nationalist extremists or the Animal Liberation Front, if they know that their faces are appearing for the first time on 10 million television screens, in front of some of which will be the activists of these organisations, ready to observe and, if possible, memorise—or, better still, to record on video tape—their faces with a view to possible future reprisals?
Let me conclude with a quotation from another television critic in last Sunday's papers—this time from the Sunday Telegraph rather than the Observer. He writes:
"Television favours the articulate, the quick, the glib. It hasn't

821
much use for the tongue-tied. It is turning us . . . into a nation of performers. And with a performance, something private and rare in every human being is at risk".
6.59 p.m.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, I should like to echo the sentiments expressed by other noble Lords in commending the Sound Broadcasting Committee for its thorough and meticulous examination of this question. I do not propose to detain your Lordships very long, but I should like to deal briefly with the matter of editorial control, which I think is of considerable importance.
In its inquiry the committee has considered two options relative to the control of the production and the transmission of the proceedings of the House. Under the first option, programming and production—in whatever form they may take—would be handled by a broadcasting unit employed by the House. Under the second option, the broadcasting authorities would select and control the material to be transmitted on what is referred to as a "drive-in" basis. The committee has recommended the second of these alternatives.
One has to accept that to set up a special parliamentary broadcasting unit with all the expense and effort that would be involved, for a six months' trial period, could hardly be justified. On the other hand, if it is eventually decided that televised proceedings will continue on a permanent basis, then I urge your Lordships to consider seriously the establishment of such a unit under the direct control of the House and to ensure, above all, that the so-called "drive-in" arrangement proposed for the trial period does not become entrenched as an irrevocable precedent.
There are at least two compelling reasons for that approach. First, to my mind it is difficult to understand how the House can retain over the longer term ultimate control over the broadcasting of its proceedings, as has been stipulated in the committee's report, if the raw material is selected by, and presumably becomes the property of, the broadcasting companies. In the second place, the possible extension of televising the proceedings of another place poses additional considerations. The case for a parliamentary broadcasting unit if both Houses of Parliament became involved, would then become practicable—indeed, in my view justifiable. Furthermore, the format of presentation and its impact on the constituencies and regions represented by elected Members of Parliament would become significant factors which I submit should rightly come under specific parliamentary control.
Of course the direct control by Parliament of the extent to which its deliberations are televised raises the question of unilateral selection, with all that that implies in respect to the freedom of the media's access to all of the proceedings. But I believe that the degree of parliamentary control envisaged need not create any danger of abridgment or curtailment of broadcasting rights or freedoms provided that an agreed code of procedure was established at the outset.
Whereas I understand the intention of the amendment moved in such characteristically articulate terms by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, I
822
cannot support it because I believe that, if the various options are kept open as I have suggested, this House should proceed with the experiment—and I emphasise the word "experiment" as others have done—if only to obtain valuable technical experience and perhaps more important, the degree of public acceptance that the project might receive. In the last analysis, it seems fundamental to me that any enhanced exposure of the proceedings of Parliament to the public view, provided it is handled in an appropriate manner, must be a worthwhile endeavour.
7.5 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as we have heard this afternoon, most people hold fairly strong views on whether or not they want your Lordships' proceedings televised. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for having put down his amendment with which I agree. I enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, with every word of which I think I agree. He pointed out a lot of very significant pitfalls into which we may find ourselves falling. I wonder whether we have not slightly pre-empted the real point: that is, if the televising of the proceedings is a success, then it is reasonable to assume that we would then wish it to be permanent. If it be that we do not wish it to be permanent, then there is no point in having an experiment. Therefore, the real question is that we agree to the expenditure of £3.5 million on permanent televising of the proceedings, provided that proves to be a success, and the experiment which we are considering now is the one which should lead to that conclusion.
I am bound to say that I have never been very much in favour of the broadcasting of the proceedings. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls said that it has not done Parliament any good. I would modify that view slightly and say that it has enhanced the role of your Lordships' Houses but I do not think that it has done the other place any good. However, there is a very significant difference between broadcasting and televising. With broadcasting we do not know which excerpts of the proceedings will be used. But with television we know, for the lights go on and at that moment Parliament is being used by television and it is being used for television; and in my view that is the wrong way round.
When the lights go on people become alert, and when the lights are switched off the sense of drama and excitement goes, as we have seen today. I gained the impression when the noble Baroness, Lady Young, came to make her Statement that the drama and the excitement had gone, and one's attention was possibly less concentrated than it was previously. That is totally wrong and totally erroneous. However, it is not for nothing that the theatre uses lights to stress points either by switching them up or by lowering them. To pretend that we can come and take part in a debate and see the lights go on and, at another time, see them dim down without being affected in some way or another, is to mislead ourselves.
There are obviously drawbacks to televising the proceedings. There is the possibility—and let nobody discount it—of people playing to the gallery or of people being apprehensive when the red light is on, or of the television cameras panning in on some

823
somnambulant noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that his friends were concerned when they saw people with their feet on the Table. I had the same experience when some Italians came and watched the proceedings of your Lordships' House. They were horrified afterwards and said, "Who are those people with their feet lying on the front table? Are they Communists?" I had to inform them, "No, they are not. They are Conservative Ministers of the Crown". People do not quite understand.
I once had the temerity to coin a law which modesty allowed me to call "Ferrers Law", which says that everything has the reverse effect of that intended. My fear is that if we televise these proceedings for all the good reasons which we have heard, we will in fact get the reverse effect and it will not do Parliament the good that it is anticipated that it should do. I think that we shall find ourselves in great danger if we walk out of step with another place. I remember that about four years ago there was great consternation as to what the role of Members of the European Parliament should be. I remember it being discussed by your Lordships' committees. The questions were asked: Where should they be allowed access? Should they be allowed in the Chamber? Should they be allowed on the Steps? Should they be allowed in the Dining Room? Should they be allowed in the Library? I remember my noble friend Lord Nugent making the uncharacteristically restrictive suggestion that they should be allowed in the Library, but that they must not sit down! The general tenor was that we should not move out of line with another place.
Yet here we would be inviting millions of people throughout this country and throughout the world to see what goes on in the House of Lords, with nothing to be seen from the House of Commons. I believe that that would put the most intolerable and unacceptable pressure on another place. We know what comprises this House—the people, the atmosphere and so forth. But what does a television camera see?—a small square of a person's head and shoulders. When the experiment was carried out in 1968 we had the cameras in the Chamber and we could go out to the Moses Room and see what was happening on the television screen. There was one noble Lord who was always scintillating in your Lordships' House—the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. When he spoke in the Chamber I could listen to him with fascination. But when one went and watched him on the screen in the Moses Room, quite frankly, uncharacteristically, he was boring. It was most astonishing, because one could return to the Chamber and he would be the scintillating person we have always known him to be.
Conversely, there was one noble Lord—and prudence dictates that I should not mention his name, especially as he is not with us any more—who could lay claim (and for this there are several contestants) to being one of the most boring speakers in your Lordships' House. When one heard him in the Chamber he reflected those qualities, and yet when one watched him on the television in the Moses Room one found him captivating.
The conclusion that I drew was that that which you see on the television is not the same as that which you see in real life. It really was most off-putting. I do not
824
think it is reasonable to argue that to televise the proceedings is inevitable, so one might just as well accept it; it is rather like saying that death is inevitable, so one might as well commit suicide straightaway. I hope that your Lordships will agree with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and if the noble Lord wishes to divide the House, I shall go along with him.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Pender: My Lords, by this stage of the evening almost all points have been covered. I shall be very brief. I speak as one who has spent some years observing your Lordships in this Chamber. The argument for televising your Lordships' proceedings is powerful. The transmission of Front Bench Statements and discourses from distinguished noble Lords cannot but enhance the respect for your Lordships' House throughout the country, unfolding to the nation the reasoned debating skills that epitomise this House.
Would there have been televised proceedings, experimentally for video purposes, for that tour de force from the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, on 13th November. All your Lordships who were fortunate enough to be in the Chamber will not forget that day. That address would certainly have become compulsory viewing for all aspiring politicians.
Due to the initiative of my noble friend Lord Soames, this House is leading the way in debate as to the merit of exposure to television. I consider that we should contemplate the consequences should the House of Commons follow suit in permitting televised proceedings. What if the people of this country had witnessed that chilling scene in another place last Wednesday, 21 st November? A circus act is too polite a description. Would that behaviour create respect or ridicule? In any strata of society—and the Houses of Parliament are no exception—there is always a human element that exists to promote extremism or self-exploitation. I fear that such a group might find ways "to hog the cameras" at the expense of others. The Sound Broadcasting Committee would clearly have thought through their method of achieving fair distribution of reporting, but there is always the nagging feeling that sensationalism, however mild, might prevail over mundane matters that carry less general interest. I oppose this Motion.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, like others before me, I should like to commence by congratulating the Select Committee not only on the quality of its report, but on the pre-emptiveness of its questions and on its many reassuring answers which it obtained from witnesses.
The Motion commends to us an experiment and its mechanics, while the amendment enables us to go back once again over the underlying principle—the broad issue of televising the proceedings of your Lordships' House. I found that it is not easy to judge the influence of television. I set out to try to discover how people gather information in this country—which sources they use. There are no readily available figures, except perhaps those produced by the advertising industry, who point out that 63 per cent. of all money spent on advertising in this country is devoted to

825
televison, which implies that those who are paid to make judgments on the value and the importance of the media believe that television is the dominant medium.
If this is so, I do not think that we can afford to ignore it any longer. I am not saying that we should set out to sell ourselves, but I believe that, if we take the opportunity which this experiment offers us, we can use it to explain what we are about and what we do in order to counteract the very considerable ignorance which I find exists not only among friends, but also among casual acquaintances, the people who walk up to you in the street, to whom reference was made earlier today. There is a very great degree of ignorance about what we do.
It has been suggested to me that collectively we reached the final judgment in the case of Bromley v. GLC because that is the way in which the media project it: "A judgment in the Lords found so and so". We know that it is our Appellate Committee which reached that decision, but the great mass of the people do not know that. I think that many of them see us as bewigged and becoronetted, quietly going about our business, sometimes dozing away. I believe that we must grab the opportunity tonight to seek to counteract those images. My own favourite image is of the Swedish foreign-based correspondent who described the MCC's headquarters as your Lordships' private cricket club.
We must grasp the opportunity that is before us. I can appreciate that there will be problems not least in the lighting, which—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morris—enhanced the view that I, (whose eyesight is not as good as I would wish) have of the House but which I think would have driven me to distraction by now, four and a half hours later. Perhaps during the course of the experiment the lighting can be varied a little and different methods can be tried to see which method, while satisfying the requirements of the television cameramen, makes life most equable and bearable for those of us here.
I should also hope that, as lighting techniques improve, there will be a matching improvement in camera techniques and that, at the end of the day, should our experiment lead to a decision for more prolonged televising of your Lordships' House, lighting will certainly be very much improved. Of course, I appreciate that the lighting we have today is partly governed by economic considerations, underlying the fact that we are talking about an experiment.
I was much struck by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing's, use of the word "trial", instead of "experiment", which I and most of us have been using. I hope that we shall have our trial for six months. Then let us reach our final judgment.
I find this preferable to seeking to preserve the "mystique"—and I pick the word out of Lord Chalfont's speech in moving his amendment. I do not feel that your Lordships' proceedings should be the subject of mystique any longer. I was reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, of Bernard Shaw's description of the art of the executioner as a highly skilled mystery, and I should like to finish by suggesting that your Lordships' proceedings are highly skilled but should no longer remain mysterious.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I was greatly interested in everything that he had to say regarding the proposal that we should televise the House. I voted against televising your Lordships' House in our debate on 8th December 1983. I did not feel then that the time was right for televising our activities, and this amendment at least gives us the opportunity for a breathing space by proposing that we should not be televised until at least the Commons have considered the matter. I therefore support the amendment. I greatly fear that once television is installed in your Lordships' House, no matter what may happen in consideration of this in the future, it will be extremely difficult to remove the installation once it has been established or once it is agreed that it should be.
My comments concerned with the consideration of editing our programmes will be somewhat critical of the BBC's proposals and of the situation today, but whatever I may say about that I want to express my appreciation of the great contribution which the BBC has made, and continues to make, in our overseas broadcasts. In the extremities of war, I and others in a gaol far removed from this country were able to receive the transmissions of the BBC through secret installations of wireless receivers. In those days, which in a way were easier than the present, they maintained high standards of excellence with regard to the principles of our freedom. It was this information conveyed to us through illegal receivers which enabled many men to survive through the privations of torture and starvation when otherwise they would have died. That is a tribute I want to pay to the BBC.
However, I feel there are other things today which are distinctly different from considerations of a former time. I am sure it is universally agreed that the media today are more powerful in the formation of public opinion through the televised picture than they have ever been. It is in their power to influence public opinion, which can extend to attitudes which are good or acceptable, or harmful. As matters stand at present, your Lordships would have no say or control over the media in their presentation of any edited televised broadcast of your Lordships' proceedings. That means the cutting of the tape and the editing of your Lordships' proceedings. This presentation will enter the homes of millions of our people, and it must influence the attitudes they take towards certain issues.
If the BBC are to remain the sole judges, it is difficult to believe that the presenter of a televised programme will not, even if he tries not to do so, express a political view of his own. That is perfectly natural. This view might be the opposite of what we intend in making our speeches in the House of Lords, when Members speak with tremendous expertise and depth of knowledge on important issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, in his speech for the experiment of televising your Lordships' House, indicated that we had no right to deprive the public of seeing the televising of our proceedings. I cannot believe that when these programmes are broadcast comment of some sort will not emanate from the presenter of the programme, which we shall have no power on earth to influence, or interfere with, or alter.

827
Of course, I see the difficulties. If we interfere some will cry that this is censorship. I would submit that we are not interfering. We are concerned about our own House and the situation in this country.
We are a tolerant nation, which is one of our strengths. Today it is far from easy to govern: it is very difficult. It was easier in the days of Lord Reith. It was easier to govern in those days when the principles which supported our freedoms were accepted and supported and barely, if ever, questioned or challenged. Today most principles are under challenge.
If I say that it is one of the charters of the BBC to educate and inform—and I believe that these are the circumstances—can it be denied that in the presentation of some programmes which go out from the media there has been what could be described as a questioning of the will of Parliament to govern or, perhaps more accurately, a debasing of respect for the views of an individual who might hold high office? I suggest that when this happens and it is broadcast by television it must debase the respect for office, and eventually succeed in making any leadership in this country more difficult.
Today there is a challenge to authority. There are those who consider themselves above the law. Is it wise to leave in the hands of others an interpretation of our affairs and what we do in your Lordships' House in the proceedings which come before us? I am not implying any unworthy motives in any of the opinions expressed in this matter, but we have to be careful in the present situation.
In conclusion, I would say that I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and I shall support him in the Lobby if we go to a Division. I do not agree that we should televise our proceedings before the House of Commons comes to its own decision in the matter. Last, but not least, I cannot agree that in these circumstances it is desirable to leave the interpretation of our affairs in other hands.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I have read the First Report of the Select Committee with great interest and would respectfully congratulate them on what they have produced. Noble Lords have touched on various aspects of the report, but, with permission, I should like to take up what I consider one of the most pertinent points that has been made this afternoon. That is not so much the inconvenience, disruption, discomfort that may be involved in televising your Lordships' House, but rather the point of it. What good is it going to do? What is going to be gained? That, if I may say so, is the point I should like to take up because it is the pertinent question.
It goes without saying that in a democracy it is essential that the structure of government should be one that is broadly acceptable to all sections of the community—not necessarily the party in power at the time, but the structure of government. This is something that I can say with some feeling because it is an aspiration towards which we have been struggling in Northern Ireland for the last 11½ years: to find a structure of government that would be broadly
828
acceptable to all sections of society. In passing I would say that my party, the Alliance Party, will keep on trying to find such a structure, difficult though it is and even more difficult as it is since recent events.
While I am no historian, it is true to say that a number of democracies have fallen because they had not enjoyed that confidence and identification on the part of the majority of the electorate. Sometimes it has been through corruption, sometimes through incompetence, but sometimes also through remoteness because the public did not know what their elected representatives were doing and how they were being represented. Therefore I suggest that it is essential that the electorate should have that confidence and that they should know what is going on.
A credibility gap can be a dangerous thing. It would not be over-optimistic to say that your Lordships' House is having a greater impact on the public now than it did some time ago, but that is perhaps no cause for complacency because, I regret to say, in the eyes of many of the general public your Lordships' House is irrelevant. Not only the general public, but even provincial journalists think that we come here day after day and sit in our robes with our coronets on our heads and talk about irrelevancies—amazing though it may seem.
Even I can remember the days when in the press parliamentary reporting was very much more comprehensive that it is today. The press does as good a job as it could reasonably be expected to do, certainly the serious press, but the serious press enjoys only a limited cirulation. To come to the notice of the general public we have to be one of two things in this House: either one has to be on the Front Bench, or otherwise one has to be outrageous—preferably both; otherwise we quietly pass unnoticed.
More recently we have had the benefit of radio reporting, in the form of "Yesterday in Parliament," which is helpful; but radio can sometimes give the wrong impression. I speak as an ancient past governor of the BBC. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Hill, and I arrived in Broadcasting House on the same day in September 1977. I was privileged to serve under his chairmanship for five years and it was one of the most interesting and educative episodes in my life. He gave the impresssion, sometimes correct, that he was not stifling any expression of opinion on the part of governors; yet at the same time he conducted the business with great expedition. At the same time he was bulldozing away in the background to make sure that what he wanted to happen was going to happen and we only realised if afterwards. It was indeed an educative experience.
At that time we used to deliberate on the different ways in which the media of radio and television could most effectively be used. Mind you, our deliberations had no measurable effect on the board of management who had already made up their minds what they intended to do. It is an interesting point that radio can be more effective in some aspects, and television in others.
I would suggest that radio can give a false impression when recording parliamentary proceedings. Perhaps one of the reasons why Prime Minister's Question

829
Time in another place sounds on radio like a children's party that has got out of hand is that there is a microphone in front of every honourable Member, so that even a sotto voce observation is picked up and identified; whereas when sitting in the Public Gallery one hears just a general ambiance of cocktail party noise accompanying every speech.
Indeed, I have reflected that if the proceedings of the Northern Ireland Assembly were broadcast on radio, a very false impression would be given. When that stentorian voice of the reverend and honourable Member for North Antrim were heard, apparently uttering an insult, that would sound rude, but on television when the viewer saw that large, laughing face with the twinkling eyes he would realise that it was not rude; it was merely good humoured banter, which it so often is. Therefore I am suggesting that television is the best medium for conveying parliamentary proceedings.
Caveats have been mentioned, and quite rightly so. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, drew our attention to the fact that those of us who, like myself, from time to time close our eyes for a short period and allow our bodies to slump forwards or sideways—all the better to concentrate on the erudition of what is being said—might give a false impression. The viewer might think that we had fallen asleep. Indeed, I was accused of such a discourtesy in the Northern Ireland Assembly a couple of weeks ago. But I regained my composure quickly enough to be able to assure the honourable Member who was speaking that I would be the last to attribute to him the title of "Mogadon", which title I understand has been earned by a right honourable Member in another place.
Television can have its disadvantages, as well as its advantages. But I visualise that on balance it would be advantageous. I am sorry for harping on the Northern Ireland Assembly, but I am the only Member of your Lordships' House who can report directly on it. The press, who I think do a good job on the whole, can, even so, give a false impression. For instance, there might be a report:
"A furious row blew up in the Assembly yesterday afternoon"—
but what the press do not say is that that so-called "furious row" was accompanied by hoots of laughter and a lot of good crack afterwards about the entertainment value which had arisen therefrom.
That would seem to be a digression. The point I am trying to make is that television can more accurately convey the mood of the House than can radio or the printed word. I would therefore respectfully oppose the amendment. I support the Motion because given careful editing, which I am confident the broadcasters are capable of, it would be an eye-opener to the general public to see the erudition and the dignity of the debates in your Lordships' House. It so happens, illogical though it may be, that we can draw on an enormously broad spectrum of expertise. Was it not the late Lord Arran who suddenly turned out to be the world's expert on badgers when that subject came up for debate? In the unlikely event of the topic of organ design coming up for debate there is the noble Lord, Lord Somers. He could tell us about the optimum wind pressures for chorus reeds or the composition of mixtures.
830
We have at our command in this House people who could tell us about anything. In that respect, coupled with the fact that I, (I think) am the only Member of your Lordship's House who has constituents to look at—and I do not mind about them; they can like it or lump it, whatever I say—we can say what we like. In that connection, I may say that constituents have said to me, "I don't agree with you, but I respect you because you say what you believe, rather than what you think people want to hear". This is the strength of your Lordships' House and it is a strength of which, in my view, the general public is broadly unaware. For that reason, and for the reason so eloquently and succinctly put by the noble Lord, Lord Hill—that the future of this House is bound to be under review from time to time, as it has been in the past—I entirely support the Motion and respectfully oppose the amendment.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in congratulating the Select Committee on their report. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for the concise and understandable manner in which he presented that report. There was one remark that he made that struck me particularly. It was that the House of Lords will be treated by the BBC as an outside broadcast. That speaks volumes, does it not? The House of Lords will be treated by the BBC as an outside broadcast—on a par with the Saturday morning dog show, for example. That is the measure of how the BBC sees this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Soames, seemed to indicate and believe that we should not discuss the principles of the televising of the House of Lords during this debate. He seemed to imagine that because those principles were discussed last December that was the end of the matter. But the noble Lord should know that it is not the end of the matter until something has in fact been implemented. It is open for debate right until that moment, and it is perfectly in order for all noble Lords to discuss the principles if they so wish. Also, the noble Lord had overlooked the fact that there is an amendment down which relates to the position of the House of Commons in this matter, and the principles which apply to them; and that amendment and this debate enjoy equal status with the original Motion. Therefore, it is perfectly in order (as it has been perfectly in order) for noble Lords to discuss the principles.
I have to say that, for myself, I am opposed in principle to the televising of the proceedings of Parliament, but in the light of the amendment I have the opportunity to vote for it because the amendment eliminates one major objection to allowing the experiment in the House of Lords alone. Not only will there be overt pressure, which has already been mentioned by many noble Lords, on the Commons as a result of an experiment in the televising of the proceedings of this House, but there will be other, covert, subtle pressure as well, particularly from the broadcasters and the media types who roam the Commons in the guise of Members of Parliament.
My noble friend Lord Ardwick said that we had a duty to allow the public into our proceedings. I wonder

831
exactly what the public demand is. We are always hearing a great deal from supporters of the televising of the proceedings of Parliament about this demand from the public to be let into our deliberations. Open the doors and let the public in through the television cameras to see how we work!—that is how the argument goes. But in 13 years of membership of another place I did not have one letter from my constituents or from anyone else demanding that we should televise the proceedings of Parliament. That is the answer to those who say that there is this great public demand. I certainly never found that demand, and I feel quite sure that that goes for other Members of your Lordshsips' House who served in the Commons.
But, in any event, it sounds a plausible argument. It may have had some merit if it were true that we were proposing to allow the general public into our debates: but it is not true. The general public will be allowed to see only so much of our proceedings as the programme editors see fit. And what they allow the public to see is likely to be what is good for television, and not what is good for Parliament.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I never had a single letter asking that billiards or snooker should be shown on television. Yet when a trial took place and it was shown, it was so successful that one now sees it all the time. Perhaps, if a trial of televising our proceedings was allowed to take place, the public would equally like it and welcome it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, that may well be. Indeed, I have to say that if I were proved wrong in my view on this matter I should not be at all unhappy. If, indeed, the televising of Parliament enhanced its reputation, then I would be the first to be pleased. But, unfortunately, at this particular time I take the view that it would do exactly the reverse.
The public is most unlikely to see the sterling work that Parliament does in legislation and in keeping a check on Government. That would be much too boring for television producers, who, after all, are much more concerned with entertaining their audience than with informing them. Furthermore, Parliament is a place for debate, where people talk to each other, where they argue on the small as well as the large issues of the day. That really is what Parliament is about. It is not really necessary for people to see what we look like, or how we comport ourselves, in order to hear and understand the arguments; and it is the arguments in this place which are important, and not what we look like. Indeed, the very sight of us may very well distract the viewer and divert his mind from the debate and the arguments that are being presented.
A noble Lord: Speak for yourself.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes, my Lords, I will gladly speak for myself. I feel quite sure, as I was going to say, that people, when they see my face, may very well be distracted from what I say—and I happen to think that what I say is far more beautiful than my face! I was going on to say that when I was a Member
832
of another place I quite often appeared on regional television media. People used to stop me in the streets and say, "Hello, Mr. Stoddart: I saw you on television last night". I would say, "What was I talking about?", and they would say, "We don't know what you were talking about, but we did see you". Sometimes, some of the kindly ones would add, "You looked very nice", but all too often they would say that I had looked very tired—which, as noble Lords will know, is a euphemism for looking absolutely awful. On the other hand, people who had read the report of a speech I had made would be far more likely to know what I had said—a case of the pen being mightier than the picture!
It really must be understood that what television producers are after is spectacle and excitement, not the everyday routine of parliamentary business. For that reason, certainly in the House of Commons, the politics of the gutter and the street corner will take precedence over ordered debate, and the politics of the kindergarten will be allowed to triumph over rational argument. We saw that only last week in the House of Commons, and that is something which I hope noble Lords will reflect upon.
The extrovert will be favoured above the hardworking and the serious; the ham actor will come into his own, at the expense of those who believe that politics is about the real world and not the sham world of the stage. A further point that must be understood is that situations will be contrived simply to suit the television cameras. Those with any experience of the Commons know perfectly well that "spontaneous spectaculars" are seldom really spontaneous; they are almost always contrived. That is why the press is always at hand when they occur. I see the noble Lord nodding: he knows as well as I do just exactly what goes on. The scope for such spectaculars will be much wider with the advent of the television cameras.
Your Lordships may very well feel that my attack on the general principle of televising Parliament is not relevant since the Motion before us is about an experiment involving only this House. I hope I have explained why I think the attack is relevant, but nevertheless I will say a few words about the proposed experiment itself.
One really has to ask: is it necessary and what purpose will it achieve? We already know that it is technically possible to televise this House. We also know that if the televising of proceedings became a permanent feature the inconvenience to your Lordships would be less than that during the experiment, due to the use of the most up-to-date cameras needing less light. What is more, the cameras would be remote-controlled, thus eliminating the presence of an operator in close proximity to the Chamber. So we know already that it is technically possible. We do not need an experiment to show us that. An experiment is not necessary on technical grounds, and indeed it could prove to be misleading.
Secondly, the experiment will be worthless in terms of coverage. Since the broadcasters will have no access to the Commons, the House of Lords will enjoy a monopoly of coverage, and so there will be no test of coverage as between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Thus, there is no experiment and no real test in that respect of coverage.

833
Thirdly, there will be no real test of the quality of coverage or of the real attitude of the broadcasters, since they will be clearly on their best behaviour during the experiment, and that behaviour cannot be guaranteed once access to both Houses is gained on a permanent basis. We just do not know: the six months' trial period in any walk of life is the period when one is always on one's best behaviour.
Fourthly, there will be no real test of public opinion, since the public will see only one House—the less important in terms of real political power. We really do have to understand that. They will see only one House in operation. Seeing the Commons in action is bound to provoke a quite different reaction from seeing our own House alone at work. Therefore, in fact, the experiment, in my view, for the reasons I have adduced and others which there is no time to go into, will prove worthless.
In conclusion, I can well understand—indeed, several speakers have mentioned this point—that some noble Lords may feel that televising this House may enhance its reputation. That may turn out to be the case, but equally the reverse may prove to be the case—in which circumstances the hands of those who would abolish it tomorrow would be greatly strengthened. For all those reasons, I shall support the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, tonight; and if that is defeated—which I sincerely hope it will not be—then I hope to have the opportunity to vote against the Select Committee's report.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, as we approach the closing stages of this passionate and closely-fought debate, with many able speeches having been delivered on both sides, it is becoming difficult to develop new arguments. I start from the standpoint that I believe it to be wrong and illogical to keep the principal medium of the age, which is television, out of the heart and centre of our democratic life, which is Parliament. I believe it is all the less sensible at a time when we see increasing attempts to stage decisive political events outside, rather than inside, Parliament. Parliament is under assault from without and from within, and I submit that the public needs to be fully enrolled to assist in the process of restoring Parliament's traditional authority.
Of course, those in another place must and will decide for themselves whether to admit television to their proceedings. They may or they may not do so. They have certainly come very close to it, as we have heard, in the past. They might or they might not be encouraged towards such a decision as a result of a decision on our part this evening to go ahead with an experiment here, or by what they saw if such an experiment were to take place.
One thing I am quite sure of is that we have an absolute right to follow an independent course in this matter. We do not sink or swim together. We in this House could be abolished or radically reformed without one iota of the other place's procedures or situation being changed at all; and given the separate and uncertain destiny of this House and given also the value which I believe the majority of noble Lords place on a second Chamber as such, and also on the not
834
inconsiderable merits of this House as it functions today, then surely the safest course is for us to take the earliest possible opportunity to present our case to the general public—that is to say, to open our procedures to television.
If the public likes the sight of us as much as it appears to like the sound of us, then our position is greatly secured. If there are some things which the public dislikes, no doubt either we shall accommodate ourselves to the public's sensitivities or, if that is thought undesirable or impracticable, no doubt the public will learn to accept what it first thought to be blemishes as being perhaps necessary after all. If the public is thoroughly unimpressed by what it finds, then I do not believe that anything more has been lost than would be lost anyway.
However, if having taken the decision to televise our proceedings for an experimental period, as we did in 1983, having instructed the Select Committee to produce a report on how best that decision could be carried out and after they had consulted with the television authorities—if, after travelling this distance, we were now to retreat from that decision at the last moment, all because it appeared at the last moment the reaction of another place might be, and that is what it would look like because of the terms of Lord it would look like because of the terms of Lord Chalfont's amendment, than I think we would be giving a very foolish and pusillanimous impression to the general public. In addition, we shall have shown bad faith to the television authorities who I do not doubt would have already incurred considerable expenditure as a result of having taken us at our word as of 8th December 1983.
On the recommendations themselves, I agree with the Committee's recommendation that coverage should be on a "drive-in" basis; that is to say, that the television companies may come and go as they please. There is no point in this House trying to determine how many viewers should see which parts of our proceedings, at what time and for how long. It must be up to the television programmers to match supply and demand. In this respect, arrangements for television would differ from those that now apply under sound broadcasting, where the BBC has an obligation under its Licence and Agreement of 1981 to present a daily acount of the proceedings of both Houses.
Another difference from present practice that would develop is one which clearly concerns many noble Lords. Under sound broadcasting, a noble Lord knows that he is safe from media exposure as long as he keeps his mouth shut. But with television he knows that he may be on view, even in close-up, in a million homes the moment he enters the Chamber, provided that it is brightly lit; and in this case the lights will—perhaps fortunately—act as a warning.
Here I must say that I think the committee might have gone into matters a little more deeply. It is ambiguous to say, as they do in paragraph 40, that cameras will "concentrate" on the Peer who is speaking. It allows for the possibility that the camera may do nothing else, without requiring that. It would also have been instructive to know from the parliamentary authorities of other European countries what their experience was so far as restrictions on the use of cameras were concerned. The committee was

835
informed how in the United States the Senate's first unhappy experiences with television proceedings from the floor of the Senate, in which senators felt that they and their house were being brought into disrepute, have resulted in the proceedings on the floor of the Senate, though not of course in the committees, still not being televised to this day. I should not like to see that happen here.
On the other hand, the television authorities here will undoubtedly wish the experiment to be a success, because only in this way can they be sure of being able to continue to televise here, and more importantly because success here might persuade another place to the same decision—and certainly failure here could turn the other place against it. So I am sure that television producers will be anxious to avoid any offence to Members of either House by the manner in which they transmit our proceedings.
Therefore it should be quite possible for the Select Committee to set ground rules, as it appears from paragraph 25 that they intend to do, and I am sure that the television authorities can be expected to be responsive to representations made to them by the committee on behalf of the House as a whole during the course of the experiment. "Ah", says the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, "of course they will behave impeccably during the experiment, but what will we be able to do after the experiment to control the way in which they behave?" The answer is, by whatever ground rules we set and by whatever means we establish thereafter to control them.
Surely the point is that we are actually fortunate to be able now to start an experiment in such a favourable climate because this will give the Select Committee time to acquire the experience and the knowledge of how to establish the control which we will require for the longer term, while the television producers will, to some extent, be doing the Select Committee's job for them, because of their anxiety for the experiment to be a success. The danger, surely, would have been of having great harm done before this House had yet learned properly what to establish as a framework of control within which the television companies were expected to operate.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, warned us about political partiality, but I see no reason to fear political partiality in this case. Early in 1983, the Select Committee consulted counsel on the question as to whether the BBC were still upholding the terms of the Licence and Agreement of 1981 with regard to the sound broadcasting of proceedings from this House. One of the obligations under them was political impartiality and counsel reported:
"I have been unable to detect any lack of impartiality in either the selection of recorded extracts from speeches or the content of the linking material. Nor, as I understand it, has there ever been any suggestion of a failure by the BBC in this respect.".
What can be required of the BBC in sound broadcasting can surely be required of both television authorities when it comes to televising.
I should like to mention another danger for us if we postpone the decision to have the experiment now. I have no doubt that if this experiment proceeds there will be very great public interest, and a number of noble Lords have recognised this. I agree with the
836
examples which several noble Lords have given of some of the attractions which unfortunately have just been missed, and of others which will no doubt come during the period of the experiment, if we are to have the experiment. I would add only that one of these will probably be the local government Bill, which will come to this House with a great deal of public interest attaching to it and very largely undebated in another place. For the experimental period we will be, one might say, the only legislative show in town.
But if we were to postpone going ahead until the Commons decided, in say, two or three years' time to do the same, then we shall not only have lost our leverage with the television authorities, we shall not only have missed the opportunity of experimenting when the television authorities were at their most amenable to anything we required, but public interest will then be almost exclusively concentrated on the other place; so much so that I can easily imagine us back in the situation which we were in early in 1983, when the Select Committee found itself, as a result of protests made in this House by several noble Lords, having to demand explanations from the BBC as to why they were cutting down on the amount of time allotted to the House of Lords in "Yesterday in Parliament".
If this House wishes to maximise its influence on the way in which the televising of Parliament is first undertaken, and the impact of this House on its first appearance before the public as a whole—and we all know how decisive first impressions can be—then this House should surely reject the amendment of the noble Lord. Lord Chalfont.
As regards the argument that a tendency to play to the television audience will be encouraged, I do not expect that we shall have to endure anything much worse than what we sometimes have to put up with already. In so far as it is feared that television will encourage rowdyism—and several noble Lords have referred to this—I think that behaviour of that kind will incur public hostility and criticism which will attach to the perpetrators of that sort of behaviour and what they represent; so in the long run it is likely to be discouraged rather than encouraged by television.
As regards the argument that for us to proceed with our experiment would impose intolerable pressure on another place, I would only say that I have seen no sign of any broad awareness of this danger in the other place. There has been no great outcry, no protest that we were about to indulge in lèse majesté of some sort or another. Rather there seems to be a quite calm and proper interest in what might be the consequences of this debate and of any experiment which we undertook.
I should like to sum up by saying that I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and those other noble Lords who have opposed the Motion on other grounds, have made their case or have deployed sufficient objections to warrant this House going back on its decision of 8th December 1983 to allow the televising of the proceedings of this House for an experimental period; I think that the Select Committee's proposals form a perfectly suitable basis for such an experiment; and I welcome the fact that this House has an opportunity to show that it wishes to live not in the past but in the modern age by doing

837
what practically every other legislative chamber has been doing for decades: enabling the public at large to watch, and hence to partake in, proceedings which are, after all, supposed to be performed for its own benefit.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, this has been a debate of very great distinction and interest, with noble Lords from all sides of the House and from all sections of public and professional life taking part and making remarkable contributions. I am sure that all noble Lords will remember this debate and the atmosphere of uncertainty as to what will happen when the vote takes place. Curiously enough, the sense of a great debate and of an occasion which all of us have today will never, so far as I can see, be communicated to the public at large if the sort of "drive-in" television which is envisaged by the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting is introduced for an experimental period. For example, the initial memorandum submitted by the BBC to the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting states explicitly:
"it is the BBC view that only very occasionally would there be a House of Lords debate of such general public interest as to merit live broadcasting time".
That is not, noble Lords may think, a very winning way of putting it, but it is a candid reminder that what we must expect from the proposed introduction of television is a series of snippets rather than an attempt to communicate the sense of what this House is like during the discussion of an important issue.
Unlike my noble friend Lord Soames, but like my noble friend Lord Chelwood and the noble Lords, Lord Gladwyn, Lord Stallard and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I believe that it is possible during the course of our discussion of the report of the Select Committee to consider the desirability of television. Even if those noble Lords are wrong in their interpretation and my noble friend Lord Soames is right, when considering what "drive-in" television would mean it is possible to raise questions about its desirability.
I support—nothing I have heard during the course of the evening causes me not to do so—the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. First, it is desirable to give us more time to consider the many major problems and matters which have been raised with great eloquence, wit and ardour during the course of the debate. Secondly, I support the amendment because I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, who said candidly that on a matter of this importance the elected House should lead. The danger of getting out of step with another place was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Ferrier. We are all aware of the importance of that point.
It is appropriate to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, since, as my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil, quoted the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, the real intention of the broadcasters is to obtain a similar decision in another place. It may be thought by some—representations have been made to me that this is likely to happen—that if your Lordships' House supports the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and rejects in effect or absolutely the report of the Select Committee, we should look foolish. I do not believe that we should worry about looking foolish. Furthermore, I do not
838
believe it to be foolish to reconsider a matter of this importance. There is still time. A debate in this House is not a cavalry charge. If you embark upon an ill-advised charge there comes no doubt a certain moment when it is most inappropriate to hold back, even if suddenly you realise that something is wrong. But this is not, as I say, a cavalry charge.
Many noble Lords will remember the maxim of Emerson that,
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".
Emerson added that a sound man should speak what he thinks today in words like cannonballs. It will also be represented by some noble Lords that as this issue has been discussed since 1966 it is very procrastinatory of us to reconsider the matter in the way that we are doing. I do not believe that 18 years is a very long time in the history of your Lordships' House. During the past 18 years much has changed. The membership of both Houses has been transformed.
We know a great deal more about that torrid, global and most disagreeable love affair which has been taking place since the middle 1960s between politicians and the Press and even more between politicians and television. That is particularly true in the United States where we recall that it often looks as though senior statesmen, politicians and presidential candidates are afraid of the media. That might almost suggest to your Lordships that we should do all that we can to prevent television companies from having one more morsel of power than they have at present, since we do not wish the politics of Britain to go down the American road.
Those of us who support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, form a very diverse group. Some of us are particularly oppressed by the threat of the lights. It seemed to most of us that the lights in this Chamber had, as it might be said, all the sensitivity of an articulated lorry glaring at a pedestrian on a motorway. I was impressed by the comment of my noble friend Lord Ferrier about the level of light going up and down at critical moments and affecting the course of the discussion. Other noble Lords can be expected to be concerned about the amount of heat generated by the lights. It has been difficult for us to judge that matter today. However, if we look at paragraph 162 of the Select Committee's report it is evident that when the lights are on most of us can expect the amount of heat to be increased. According to the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, it will be increased by something like the heat of 20 large electric fires.
Other noble Lords are perturbed by what might seem to be minor questions relating to the threatened alteration, in the long-term, to this Chamber. For example, if television should become a permanent feature Mr. Ward of ITN has his eye on our chandeliers. Most of us are also not quite clear, and probably would like more information, about exactly why the Select Committee found it difficult and expensive to consider the organisation of parliamentary control over the leasing of televised material, which the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy, believed to be desirable, should television become a permanent feature.
Obviously, some of those who support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, are

839
hostile to television as such. I have had it represented by one Member of this House that he regards television as some kind of terrible fungus which eats into all institutions and is likely to bring ruin upon them all. I would not go so far as to say that, but it is worth recording that, in the past, television has damaged worthwhile institutions or undertakings. The extinction for example, of the public meeting is one thing that comes immediately to mind. Many of us may think that our political lives would be better if we had more public meetings of the old kind.
All these views can be counted upon to inform those who will support the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in his amendment. I believe that, as Peers, all of us wish to be certain that the introduction of this experiment will enhance and not damage the quality of this House.
I myself would probably have been a little more sympathetic to the Select Committee's report had the committee met head-on or in detail some of the major points raised in the debate last year and other objections. The first of these (which has been mentioned so often before in this debate) is the obvious fact that television companies—understandably, because they wish to have high ratings—find it difficult often to distinguish between entertainment and information. Indeed, my noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees almost conceded this point when in paragraph 81 of the report he mentioned the fact that he thought the experiment in this country and in this House would be more entertaining than the television as broadcast by the Canadians.
The second point which surely should have been discussed in a document of this importance is that television would obviously put at risk the tone of our discussions. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, pointed out that television is not real life. He gave a graphic example of how the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, appeared when speaking brilliantly in this House, and how comparatively ordinary he seemed making his speech when viewed on the television in the Moses Room.
My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls recalled Aneurin Bevan. Plainly, Mr. Bevan—like, I would suggest, Sir Winston Churchill—was one of those statesmen unable successfully to make the leap from the age of the public meeting to the age of television. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, spoke of the special ceremonial and conversational qualities which characterise the debates of this House. It is obvious that these, too, would be at risk. These were all points made in the debate last December and which surely should have been faced in one way or another in the report of the Select Committee.
One point which has not been made, and which I would ask the select Committee to consider in future, is the evident fact that there could be an effect on decisions not made; that is to say, if the first day of a debate were to be broadcast on television and that was shown in a way that affected the judgment of noble Lords on the second day, when the voting actually took place.
I should like to make one or two suggestions which I hope will be borne in mind. If, as I think, by
840
mischance, the experiment goes ahead, my noble friend Lord Peyton suggested that the Select Committee might be expanded in a way different from that envisaged by my noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees. Surely my noble friend Lord Peyton is right in suggesting that some noble Lords who are sceptical about benefits of television might be represented. After all, we represent a substantial body of opinion; quite how large a body of opinion remains to be seen.
Secondly, surely it is desirable to make it explicit that the cameramen and the other members of the team of 12 persons who the BBC or independent television will make available for the servicing of television should be under the direction of Black Rod in every sense.
Next, there is an allusion in paragraph 47 of the report to the television companies' interest in illustrating the act of voting. Surely this must be a mistake. Equally, the question of copyright is not satisfactorily covered. It cannot be right that vidio tapes of noble Lords making speeches can be used or even sold throughout the world for the benefit of the television companies concerned—and perhaps even without consultation with the noble Lord who made the speech.
In conclusion, I hope very much that your Lordships will support the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in his amendment. When your Lordships vote I trust you will recall that this is an institution which has certainly gained in stature over the past 10 years or so, despite everything—despite the fact that its power is relatively modest, and despite the unique characteristic of having a hereditary element and having no elected element at all. I hope that when your Lordships vote you will also ponder the question of whether the authority of this House, or of any other House, can be enhanced by the snippets which look like being the only things the public will see of our affairs. I hope your Lordships will recall, too, that most of us feel that our expertise, prudence, wisdom—call it what you like—does not really need, in our minds, much visual illustration.
Your Lordships will recall that in Congreve's The Way of the World Millamant agrees at a certain point that she might be prepared to "dwindle into a wife". I hope noble Lords will do all they can to prevent this House from dwindling into a chat show.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may ask him one question? I believe I am right in saying that it was he who told me that if noble Lords wanted to know what the lighting looked like and felt like, they had only to ask for it to be switched on. As the lights have not been on after dark, is it possible that they could be switched on now, so that we may see them and feel them?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: They are about to be switched on, my Lords.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, I do not think that that question should be addressed to me, though I may possibly pass on that request to my noble friend.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, the hour is late and I shall try to be brief; I sense that noble Lords are anxious to take a decision on these important matters as soon as possible. I have always believed in the wisdom of conducting the experiment proposed. If I had any doubts at all, they would have been swept away by this debate. The whole purpose of the experiment is to find the answers to questions, some of which would, in my opinion, be unanswerable without an experiment. Many of those questions have been raised in interesting speeches made by noble Lords throughout the course of this debate.
Questions have been raised about the manner in which the selection of material is to be made and about the extent to which the programmes ultimately to be presented will be unbiased, entirely dispassionate and properly balanced. There have been questions about the popularity of any programmes which ultimately arise from the experiment and about the effect upon us in this House. All those are questions which can be answered only when we have had an experiment. There have been many remarks about the lighting. Perhaps I may come to that point in a moment.
First, let me come rapidly to the amendment which is before us at the moment, and in particular that aspect of the amendment which really implies that we should not act in this very important matter before another place does so. I have been much impressed by the fact that every single noble Lord who has spoken in favour of that amendment—and we have heard some excellent speeches in favour of it—has, on his own admission, said that he was opposed to the principle of televising the proceedings of Parliament. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that he would be very glad to be proved wrong. How is he going to be proved wrong if we do not have an experiment? Noble Lords were opposed to television for a variety of different reasons. My noble friend Lord Gladwyn appeared to have developed a mistrust of television for a very curious reason.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if we had an experiment and if it is going to prove me right or wrong, it will have to be a real experiment by televising both Houses. That is the only real way we can prove it one way or the other.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his clarification of that point. Nevertheless, I still say that if these noble Lords are to be proved wrong we shall need an experiment to do the proving.
My noble friend Lord Gladwyn appeared to have developed an antipathy to television for a very curious reason. He told us that for reasons which he found it difficult to understand he had become extremely popular on television back in 1950. I assure my noble friend that that is no good reason for mistrusting television or for feeling that somehow it conveys a distorted picture of the reality. I ask my noble friend to think again on that particular point.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, it was not because I was currently popular and succeeded on television that I
842
came to the conclusion that it was, politically speaking, potentially a dangerous medium. It is very likely that one can give the wrong impression on television simply because one's personality is such that the public do not understand what one says.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I think that has perhaps clarified the position of my noble friend.
Let me now come to this important point of whether or not we should take any steps in this matter before another place. I think that the point was made very strongly by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that we should not get out of step with the other place. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in moving his amendment in a very creditable way in a speech which admirably expressed his point of view, and that of other noble Lords, said, if I remember correctly, that no such steps were presently contemplated in another place. It seems to me that the Members in the other place have been contemplating these steps almost continuously since, I think, 1960 or even 1950. The trouble is that they have never actually taken any steps. All they have done is contemplate.
I remind the noble Lord that it is not many months since a vote in another place supported the principle of televising their proceedings by a very narrow majority. It was quite recent. When noble Lords say that the other place is not contemplating such a step, I have to say that many Members in another place are very much hoping that we shall have this experiment so that they can learn from it and decide what steps it might or might not be sensible to take themselves. I take the view, and I think others share it, that if there is to be an experiment, surely it is better that the experiment should take place in your Lordships' House. It can be done here in a way in which it could not happen, perhaps immediately, in another place. We can pioneer new ground in a way which the other place cannot do. I think we can perhaps establish information which will be very valuable to Members in another place in ultimately coming to their own decision. So I do not see it as your Lordships' blazing a trail and getting in before the other place. What we are doing is necessary preliminary pioneering work before another place finally takes a decision. They may learn from our experiment. That is what the experiment is for. It is to learn how it will work, whether it will work, and whether we like it.
There seems to be an assumption that if we once have an experiment we shall have automatically decided to continue. I do not for one moment take that view. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who said that we were somehow committed to spending about £3½ million—I think that was the figure he mentioned—as the cost of some future exercise if we continue permanently. I certainly do not accept any £3½ million. I do not accept anything. I honestly feel that if the experiment is a success and if the broadcasting authorities decide that they wish to continue after the experiment (and let us remember that there is not the smallest point in televising this place if no one is going to watch it) they must be prepared to bear a substantial part of the cost of continuing. But the decision will be in the hands of your Lordships as to whether or not we continue. No one should assume that because we decide to go ahead

843
with the experiment it necessarily means we do not need an experiment because we are going to decide to have it permanently in any case. That would surely be a contradiction of terms.
I come now briefly to a specific point which has been made regarding the lighting. I do not regard the lighting as I see it at the moment as wholly satisfactory. For one thing, it came on rather suddenly and it went off rather suddenly. That was a point which we explored on the Select Committee with the broadcasting authorities when we questioned them. It was made utterly clear that any change in the lighting would be gradual, that the increase in the lighting would be over a period of perhaps 10 minutes or more and that when the lighting was reduced it would be equally slow. Clearly, it would be disastrous if when one noble Lord rose to speak the lights suddenly went on and perhaps even more disastrous if another noble Lord rose and the lights suddenly went off. I certainly feel that that is something which should be avoided, and it is something which the Select Committee has already insisted must be avoided.
In addition, it is right to say that, because your Lordships' Select Committee has made it clear to the broadcasting authorities in the course of its meetings with them that we would not want an intrusive degree of lighting, and they must therefore experiment to try to get a degree of lighting which is as low as possible, consistent with a good enough standard of picture, that, in part, has resulted in a gradual reduction in the total amount of lighting which the broadcasters feel they require. If as a result of this debate the broadcasters decide that it would be advisable in the interests of the success of the experiment to reduce the lighting still further or perhaps to have the lighting less obstrusive,! have no doubt that that can be done in the course of the experiment. I repeat, it is an experiment to find the answers to some of these questions. If, at the end of it, noble Lords feel that the lighting necessary for the televising of our proceedings is intolerable then the proper course is to say, "Right, we are not going to have it unless it can be done in another way". That is what the House should do and that, in part, is why we are having the experiment.
Why are we doing this at all? That question has been asked by many noble Lords. What is the point of televising the proceedings of Parliament? I honestly believe that the answer to that was clearly given in what I thought was an excellent speech made in the latter part of the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Reay. He underlined what I think is undoubtedly true—that nowadays television is the general public's principal source of information: information about the world in which they live; information about sport; information about the weather; information about politics. It is no longer the press, it is no longer radio to a substantial extent; it is television. I do not believe that your Lordships' House can afford to turn its back permanently on the principal source of information for the public.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, a very long time ago early in the debate, asked this question: what are we seeking? Are we seeking publicity? Those of us in favour of the experiment hope that the experiment will be a success. That does not mean that we have pre-
844
empted the final decision. But what are those who hope the experiment will be a success seeking? We are seeking an improvement in the information about Parliament which is disseminated to the public which depends upon Parliament. Surely, that is something that should be supported.
The motive, at any rate, is commendable. Whether we are doing it the right way, whether the end result is satisfactory and whether televison, in the manner in which it is done, gives a satisfactory picture of our House, or of Parliament at all, we shall have to wait and see. If it does not, then, of course, we shall have to take the necessary action, but I tend to believe that it will. I tend to believe that most of the objections to television that have been raised—they have been raised on many occasions, not just today but also last December and at many other times—are the same objections as those that were raised when it was first suggested that the press should be allowed into Parliament. I believe that most of those fears will be proved groundless. But we cannot prove them groundless unless we have the experiment.
On the narrow point of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Diamond, my noble friend made an interesting speech with which I have a great deal of sympathy. The point that he particularly raised was that if we persist with the recommendation which says that Statements that are merely repeated in your Lordships' House, and the ensuing discussion, should not be televised without the consent of the Minister making the Statement in another place, then this would perhaps give a junior Minister the right to deny the opportunity of televising a certain subject in this House. I wonder. Would a junior Minister refuse to give permission? I really think that it is unlikely that Ministers would refuse to give permission. I think, however, that they should be allowed that right in case there happened to be a reason. I can imagine, perhaps, that if the Prime Minister was making a very important Statement she might prefer that the Statement should actually be seen to be made by her rather than by the noble Viscount, who might repeat it in your Lordships' House. I am not saying that the noble Viscount would not do it very well; I am sure that he would. But the argument there is that, in the end, if Ministers prefer it the other way Ministers must do what they can to encourage the other place to have television themselves. That is something which the other place can decide after we have had this experiment.
If we go ahead and have this experiment, we shall be doing a service, not just for the nation as a whole in increasing public information about the way in which your Lordships' House functions. We shall also be doing a service for the other place. We shall be showing the extent to which it is possible to televise the proceedings of Parliament in an acceptable manner and the extent to which the televising obtrudes upon the work of noble Lords serving in this House. It will, I think, be a service to the other place as well as to our House to have the experiment.
The prestige of your Lordships' House has been growing steadily over recent years, for very good reasons. Your Lordships are gradually acquiring a reputation for enlightenment, perhaps for independence and perhaps for an ability to look at change

845
occasionally without resentment and without fear. If, having gone thus far, we suddenly turn round and say "No", that could do something to reverse the present upward trend in our prestige. I hope, theefore, that we do not take that decision.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, may I first, as other noble Lords have done, thank the members of the Select Committee for their work and for the very comprehensive report that they have presented to your Lordships. In winding up for the Opposition I am faced with a certain difficulty. Our debate today is on the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting, and not on the principle as to whether or not it is right to televise the proceedings of your Lordships' House. Your Lordships' House, on 8th December last, took the decision in principle in favour of the televising of some of its proceedings for an experimental period. The debate today is on whether or not the proposed arrangements for televising the proceedings of your Lordships' House are satisfactory.
Several noble Lords have questioned this proposition during the course of the debate today. In my view, your Lordships would be quite in order to reject the report of the Select Committee on the basis that the proposed arrangements are unsatisfactory. But it would not be right to reject the report of the Select Committee on the basis that your Lordships do not like the idea of the House being televised for an experimental period. That decision has already been made.
The most contentious aspect of the report is certainly the question of the level of illumination for the experiment. This, I think, inevitably, must be a matter for individual Peers to decide. But it must be said that without an experiment we are not likely ever to be able to move to an acceptable and more permanent situation in which, at the cost of £3 million, light sensitive cameras are installed requiring a lower level of illumination. The question of how the televising might be edited has come in for a considerable amount of criticism, particularly and graphically from the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, when he moved his amendment. He was suggesting that this needed to be thought about further. I am sure that he is right: it does need to be thought about further, but that thought will be best given after the experiment.
During the experiment, guidelines can be built and worked up between the Sound Broadcasting Committee and the broadcasting companies. I am certain that during the intervening period the companies will act responsibly. The other proposals of the Select Committee have met with fairly general acceptance except that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, felt that the weight of the committee was stacked against those who are against any form of television. But, of course, as has already been said, the membership of the committee was determined before this matter ever came forward for debate last December.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, wants to leave out the paragraph about the non-repetition of ministerial Statements. I agree to a great extent with what the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, said in our debate last
846
December. If a ministerial Statement were made in another place and repeated in this House, it might be felt inappropriate if only the repetition of the Statement could be televised. This particular problem could be overcome simply by prohibiting the televising of ministerial Statements originally made in another place.
As has been said, the question of whether or not we should go forward with the experiment is not a party matter. It is a matter for each individual Peer to decide in the light of the debate that we have had this afternoon. I, for my part, will certainly not record it as a Government defeat if the Motion, in its unamended form, is defeated today, or, indeed, if one or other of the amendments is carried. It is a matter for individual Peers to decide what is in the best interests of the House as a whole, on a free vote. I hope that the noble Viscount the Leader will be able to scotch a rumour that because people in high places in another place are said to disapprove of a potential Lords decision to go ahead, Government supporters are being rallied to support the amendment.
It has been questioned whether we are right to lead the way in this experiment. In my view, as I have said, that decision has already been taken. We are certainly not the primary Chamber in our Legislature. In this respect, there may be some advantages in the experiment taking place in this House as opposed to the experiment taking place in another place. If the experiment is not a success, that will be the end of the matter, probably not only for us but for Parliament as a whole. If the experiment took place down the corridor, I hazard a guess that it would be impossible ever to get the cameras out. That would certainly not be the case with an experiment in our House.
The present sound broadcasting of Parliament succeeds, so far as it goes, because there are regular slots in the evening and on the following morning when the proceedings are broadcast. Televising Parliament could eventually work in the same way, but televising Parliament without such slot being available will inevitably mean that only items of sufficient news value for inclusion in the news programme will be shown. Such items, so far as we are concerned, are likely to be very exceptional, although I must confess that since we have returned for the Summer Recess, as the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, pointed out, there have been certainly at least two occasions on which I am sure the companies would have wished to included a news item in their programmes.
So the experiment will not really show us how the televising of Parliament is likely to be seen on the television screen. That will only come when there is a decision of both Houses of Parliament to televise their proceedings and when time is made available by the television companies for the showing of the proceedings. But the experiment will give the television companies the benefit of the experience of televising Parliament, something which they are anxious to have and indeed something which they are anxious to finance very largely themselves.
As the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, has said, the experiment will enable both the television companies and this House to decide if it is something which they want to make permanent. Without the availability of

847
the money from the budgets of the television companies it would not be possible for the experiment to go ahead. In that sense it must be said that the House is reliant upon the resources of the television companies for the experiment.
Another consideration for your Lordships is the nature of the decision on 8th December last. The television companies undoubtedly saw it as a decision to go ahead with an experiment, provided that they could come up with a scheme acceptable to your Lordships. They have entered into negotiations in good faith. For us now to say we do not want an experiment whatever its nature would be an act of bad faith—a point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Reay.
Despite what my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon has said, I believe that we are committed to an experiment of an acceptable kind. If your Lordships believe that these lights are intolerable, I do not think they are up to the fullest level of illumination at the present time—I am now assured by the Chairman of Committees, which reassurance I unreservedly accept, that the lights are at their highest intensity at the present time, whereas earlier in the day they were only up to 80 per cent.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I am sorry. They are up to the intensity that is required for televising the House. They can be turned up higher but they are at the agreed level which the broadcasters are prepared to accept for their picture and which we think is tolerable for the House.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is it not on the record that my noble friend the Chairman of Committees said that this is the lowest intensity that can be accepted, so the lighting cannot go lower, and it could, in order to get a clearer picture, go higher? That is all I wanted to confirm.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, discussions went on because the level of the lighting earlier on today was what was called 100 per cent. Members of your Committee who came in here found it very oppressive. We talked to the broadcasters and they have now reduced it to 80 per cent. They have agreed that this is good enough for them, and I hope that your Lordships will feel it is not to bad for you. The only fact of the matter is that these lights will be raised by about four feet should an experiment be conducted.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord—and I am sure the House will thank him—for that clear exposition on the question of the level of the lighting at the present time. However, as I was saying, it is for noble Lords to decide whether or not they find acceptable the level of lighting which we now see exhibited. If they find that these lights are intolerable, then no doubt they will vote against the experiment. But if they find that they are tolerable and a way to the ultimate televising of Parliament as a whole, they will vote for the report.
In conclusion, I should like to say that on balance I personally—and in a sense one can only have a personal view on this, and not an official view—will
848
vote for the experiment to go ahead, despite the many drawbacks about which various noble Lords have spoken and the various drawbacks I feel myself. I think—and this is a point underlined by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley—that every noble Lord should be quite clear that this in no way should lead anybody to suppose that such a decision would inevitably lead to the permanent televising of Parliament. That decision is a decision for this House, to be arrived at afresh, without any commitment of any sort, after the completion of the experiment. On that basis, as I have said, I shall personally vote for the experiment.
8.57 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I think it would be agreed by all the noble Lords who have attended this debate that we have had a very important debate with many speeches of considerable quality from both points of view. Of course, if I found some of them more acceptable than others that is only because of my own very well-known views on the subject. I have never yet learned to admire a speech which was against my views more than I admired one which was in favour of them, and I do not think that many of your Lordships have, either. So to that extent I would say we have had a very important debate on what is, after all, a very important subject for this House.
Perhaps I should start by paying tribute to the Sound Broadcasting Committee and to the Chairman of Committees, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for the thorough and careful way in which they have carried out the instruction given to them by the House on 8th December last year. We have to remember that they, in what they were doing, were carrying out an instruction given to them by the House. That was their remit, and that they have done. I think it is much to their credit that noble Lords on both sides of the argument have paid considerable tribute to what they did and to the way they have put forward their report. I do not think they could have a better recommendation than that.
I shall divide my speech into three parts. First, I shall make some points purely in my capacity as Leader of your Lordships' House and, indeed, as a member of the Government. Then I shall refer to some of the points made by noble Lords in the debate. Perhaps in my comments I shall be excused if, as I fear, my well-known views shine through from time to time. Thirdly, I shall make a very brief reference indeed to reasons why I have been a very long-standing and unshakeable supporter of the televising of both Houses of Parliament. I cannot help that. I always have, and I have voted for it whenever I have had the chance. For many of the noble Lords who today do not wish to embark on the experiment it is because they are at heart passionately opposed to the whole principle of televising Parliament, which I fully understand from their point of view. I think they must at the same time understand that if I want to see the televising of both Houses of Parliament then I am likely to go forward with any particular plan which might further that end—just like them, but the other way round.
I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, that there is no question of my colleagues in another place seeking to put any particular influence on noble Lords on the Government side of this House.

849
I told my Cabinet colleagues about the debate. I told them of the points that I am just going to make to your Lordships which would particularly affect the Government if we were to go ahead with the experiment when another place was not doing it. I thought it very important I should do that. They know my views. I did not bother to rehearse them, and they did not ask me to do so. I can only speak for myself—though I think I can speak for my noble friend the Chief Whip as well—but if anyone has been doing any organising (and I understand a certain amount of lobbying has been going on) it certainly has not been done by either my noble friend or myself. We have been scrupulously careful not to do so in any possible way. All my noble friends on the Front Bench know perfectly well that I told them it was an entirely free vote, and I did not even say, "It is absolutely free but I hope to goodness you will vote for it." I simply said it was an entirely free vote—and you cannot be fairer than that.
The points that I wish to make which concern the Government if we were to go ahead with the experiment are I think important and I hope the House would wish me to stress them. The first one, of course, is the question of costs. As the committee's report says, the costs of the experiment are considerable—in some cases some £20,000 per day—and this is so clearly of any long-term procedure. For the period of these experiments, as the report makes clear, these costs would be met by the broadcasters and the cost to public funds would be less than £10,000 in respect of cabling and electrical installations. Noble Lords will not be surprised to know that, in view of some of my other activities inside the Government, I have made it clear that that £10,000 is already being carried on the Estimates of the PSA and therefore of the Department of the Environment. I also informed my cabinet colleagues that that was the position, and they did not demur. I do not say they particularly agreed—they were not asked to—but they did not demur.
I come to the future, which is very important; I must stress this very plainly and very carefully. It comes particularly in answer to my noble friend Lord Ferrers. If the experiment, at the end, is judged to be a success and if there are then to be negotiations about the future costs and how they will be met, there can be no question of any commitment by the Government to the financing of the televising of proceedings in your Lordships' House in the longer term. There can be no commitment, and I must make that abundantly and absolutely clear, as the House would expect me to do. That means that the experiment is genuinely an experiment and there is absolutely no commitment beyond it.
In the same context, my noble friend Lord Home asked what it might cost in the longer term to have a television channel for Parliament alone. That of course would depend very much on what happened about cable television because there are no channels available at the moment, and on the new Cable Authority. I am told that the capital costs would be estimated—this was at very short notice because I only asked for the answer after my noble friend had spoken—at some £3½ millon. If it was to be a single channel the staff costs for whoever ran it would be very
850
heavy indeed. Whether it was the broadcasting authority or whether it was financed in any other way, these costs would be extremely heavy.
The second point that I have to make concerns the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and in particular his amendment. I must ask him not to press his amendment because, if the experiment goes forward, frankly it would place me in a very difficult position. I shall explain to him why. During the debate last December I asked that this should be done, and I have consistently felt that it must be right. I shall tell the noble Lord and the House why I believe this to be so. It would be extremely difficult for a Secretary of State seeking to put forward his own policy on a very important matter, and putting it forward in another place, not televised, to have one of his other Ministers being televised making the same Statement in your Lordships' House. That would put the department concerned, and certainly the Secretary of State, in a very difficult position.
I have to say beyond that—and I would answer the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, quite plainly and clearly—that I would have absolutly no desire to be televised repeating a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister; nor, I must tell you, would I consider going to ask her for permission to do so. And, for the very best of all possible reasons, I do not think that she would be right to concede it to me; and I am quite certain she would not. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that in these circumstances it would be very difficult for the Government.
I think it was the noble Lord himself who talked about a junior Minister stopping it. If there was a case where it was felt reasonable, and the Secretary of State felt it was reasonable, or if this House particularly wanted it, I would be perfectly prepared—and in accordance with the report could certainly do so—to seek the agreement of the Secretary of State concerned that this would be done. If approaches were made to me I should be very pleased, without any commitment, to seek to do that. I might easily receive a very dusty answer from some of them but I could certainly seek to try, if that was felt to be right. But to actually have it possible for it to happen, without this particular point in the report, would be, I must tell the House, very difficult indeed so far as the House is concerned. Those are the two main points that I have to make as Leader of your Lordships' House.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, will the noble Viscount give way for a moment? I am most grateful for his answer and most grateful to him for the consideration that he has given. Will he make it clear that what he has been saying refers exclusively to the experimental period alone?
Viscount Whitelaw: Yes, my Lords. Indeed, I could go further and say that everything I am saying refers to the experimental period alone because I would have no authority to do otherwise; and, if I did, this House would be rightly extremely suspicious of what I was up to. I do not wish it to do that in any way because I am not actually up to anything except to advocate the chance of an experiment; that is all that it would be.
I turn to a few of the remarks made by noble Lords

851
during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, with his great experience of this House, felt that it would damage the informality of the House. He is worried about the bias of producers and editorial control. I have to say, speaking quite personally, that in the longer term I would certainly be worried about that. But in regard to the experiment, it is for us to judge. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, said: it is for us to judge in the experiment, if it goes forward, whether we are satisfied and how we should best deal with the editorial control problem.
I think that the noble Lord is perfectly right. After all, I have had some experience of this matter. I was the Opposition Chief Whip in another place for six years and dealt with all broadcasting complaints. I was Leader of the House in another place. I was Home Secretary and dealt with broadcasting as well. I have had a long history with broadcasting—some people think far too long—but the fact is that I know something about it. Having said that, I am as anxious as is the noble Lord, and I very much accept what he said. I think I have answered his questions about finance as well; but, again, he is clearly against the idea in principle, and with his experience and the way he put his case I must accept that it is extremely powerful.
My noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel is in favour of the experiment. He does not believe that an experiment and a "dry run", as he described it, is the thin end of a permanent wedge. And as he also said, he is not very impressed with the thin ends of permanent wedges; nor indeed am I. If I were, I should be very quickly converted, as I always am, by my noble friend. My noble friend and other noble Lords also referred to the party conferences. If anything can be said about them, I believe that people sleep on the platform at party conferences rather less than they used to do. I do not know about the conferences of other parties, but I do know about my own party. There are great efforts to make sure that those people who go to sleep after lunch are not allowed to sit in prominent places on the platform; and on the whole it is very wise. So far nobody has actually told me to keep off the platform, but I am beginning to think that at some time they will do so, and so I shall have to look out.
The noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, said that six months was not long enough for the experiment. I do not think that the committee and the broadcasting authorities would be prepared to consider an experiment for longer—at least certainly not at this stage—particularly from the cost point of view and the other problems involved.
Lord Raglan: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Viscount, as Leader of the House, a question. The committee consider that a six-month period should give the broadcasting authorities adequate opportunity. If before the six months has run, the House feels that the experiment has gone on for long enough, is there some provision by which it could express a view on the matter?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I have no doubt that your Lordships could express an opinion on the matter, but I have to say that, in this debate, as I
852
understand it—and if I am wrong the Chairman of Committees will correct me when he speaks—we are committing ourselves to supporting the report of the sound broadcasting committee. That report recommends a six-months' experiment and therefore I understand that we would be voting for a six-months' experiment, as recommended by the report, and I think that that would be correct. If there were great feeling afterwards then no doubt all these things can always be considered. However, that is what we are voting for tonight. Even if it were passed I think that those who oppose it would be very clear that that was all that they, having expressed their opposition, were committed to if it were to go through.
I know that my noble friend Lord Peyton used to be in favour of televising another place because he was with me at one time on this issue. He is now against it and I quite appreciate some of his feelings. He feels that there is no guarantee, after the experiment, of good behaviour by the broadcasting authorities. Indeed, he is perfectly correct in that, but we have to judge whether we think that during the experiment the behaviour was right and we have to safeguard the fact that there might be a change in mood after the experiment. But if I may say so to my noble friend, we cannot judge any of that until we have had the experiment.
Like the rest of the House, I was very impressed by his reference to, and his repetition of the views of, the noble Viscount. Lord Tonypandy, who I am sure the whole House is so delighted to see back here. He, of course, speaks with such experience and as such a star of sound broadcasting in another place. With all respect to the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, he was so good at it, and he is so good at television, that I am rather surprised that he is against doing it here. I was also very surprised by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, because I remember seeing him in the days when, as he said, he became a television personality. He always looked as if he thoroughly enjoyed it, and I believe that he did so. Therefore, I am rather surprised that he now shrinks from the enjoyment which he once had in the past. However, that is his affair.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who I am always delighted to find on my side—I fear greatly any Division when he is not, so when he is I feel a little heartened—said he felt that the public at large had a right to hear and see how we conduct ourselves. I am bound to say with all humility that that is very much the feeling that I have permanently had.
We are greatly indebted to my noble friend Lord Soames for bringing this whole matter before the House. Whether or not we decide to go forward, I am sure it is very important that the House should have had the opportunity to discuss the matter, and my noble friend Lord Soames has certainly done much to give that to us. My noble friend said that we could decide after the experiment, and I do not doubt that is the answer for all of us.
The noble Lord, Lord Strauss, opposes the principle. He wants to wait and see what the other House will do. One is bound to say—and here my own views do come slightly into the matter—that if we wait for the other House and they wait for us, I think that everybody will wait for ever. That, of course, is what some noble Lords want. If you want it that way, good

853
and well, but if you do not, you get a little hopeful that somebody will eventually jump into the pond. The noble Lord, Lord Dacre, said that it would be costly and inconvenient. He does not like the idea of visual impression. Obviously I respect his views, but I do not agree with them.
My noble friend Lord Broxbourne said that he was in favour, and he believed that it was right to discover the views of the public. Of course, that is exactly what we shall seek to do during the experiment. My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing spoke of the example of other countries. He has been a long-standing supporter of the principle and, as someone with great knowledge of television, he gave the reasons very plainly.
My noble friend Lord Chelwood was against it. He fears the lighting and the heat. I am bound to say that I have made one discovery about the lights which is rather fun—I can read my notes without my glasses; I cannot read them without the lights. So they have their uses. I shall put my glasses back on again to ensure certainty.
The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, wants the experiment to succeed and takes the same view as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that the public are entitled to know. After all, the noble Lord's knowledge of the BBC is very important, and he speaks with great authority. I have referred to my noble friend Lord Ferrers, who is against it and who raised the question of costs. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Hill, and also agrees about the point as regards ministerial Statements, to which I have already referred.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said that he could not justify the televising of the House of Lords alone, and he returned to the problem of sleeping. Sleeping does create a problem. One does have an option; namely, to sleep and be televised sleeping, or not to sleep. On the whole, if I happened to fall asleep and was televised sleeping, I would not greatly mind, provided it did not happen too often. My noble friend Lord Morris favours the experiment and thinks that the lighting makes many of us look better. Some of us may be past hope and therefore even the lighting will not help, but I am grateful for his views.
My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has been a long-standing opponent. He believes that sound broadcasting has lowered the standing of the Commons. I would argue about sound broadcasting lowering the standing of either the Commons or this House. There have been certain aspects of sound broadcasting which have lowered the standing of the Commons, but if, as I was there until a short time ago, I was entitled to make an observation, it would be that probably the reason Prime Minister's Questions have gone so badly is not the fault of the broadcasters but the fault of another place over the way they have decided to handle themselves during Prime Minister's Questions. The sound broadcasts are a perfectly true reflection of what they are up to and, having answered Prime Minister's Questions in the last Parliament (which is perhaps something that most noble Lords have not done), I know a little of what I am talking about. I am afraid that I felt then, and I feel now, that another place has a good deal to answer for.
854
I have referred to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that we are an ageing House and that there is not much respect for age. Perhaps he is right. Nevertheless, I do not believe that we are always all that ageing. I know that some noble Lords are very far from ageing. Therefore, I think that we can present a fairly reasonable image. I do not quite go along with the noble Lord. My noble friend Lord Pender was against the principle and felt that it would not be right, as indeed was my noble friend Lord Ferrier, though he was more doubtful about it and will probably be very interested to see what happens in the experiment.
My noble friend Lord Gridley is worried about editorial control and I think I have made it clear to him that I am, too. The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, told us that much that happens in the Northern Ireland Assembly would be much better if people knew what went on instead of what appeared to go on when described in the press. I hope that he is right; it is a long time since I was there, and so I do not know. However, as a governor of the BBC he supports the principle, which is very important.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, said that to refer to them as outside broadcasts was an insult. It is really a technical term which was used in the technical sense that broadcasters use it and was not meant as any form of insult. As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, the noble Lord, Lord Reay, made a very considerable speech and I think that the House should be very grateful to him for his remarks. Equally, as one would expect, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, made a very important speech. He felt that the sense of occasion might be lost if the television experiment goes forward. Clearly, it must be accepted that that is a risk. It might heighten the sense of occasion, but I do not know. I can quite understand the argument that he put forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, deplored the effect of the three to one decision taken a year ago being brought up again, and equally felt that radio audiences were small and that television is the only possible way of reaching a wider public. He has great experience of communicating with the public, and therefore when he said something with which I agreed I was all the better pleased.
On that note I think I should conclude with my own comments, which are quite simply that I have believed for a long time in televising both Houses of Parliament on the simple principle, first, that I believe that the public have a right to hear and see what happens in their Parliament. Once subjected to television, on the whole most sports and most other pastimes have gained in popularity and gained in interest from doing it. I therefore take the simple view that Parliament, as the nation's Parliament, should be on view to the public, if they wish it. I believe that is why I have always wanted to see Parliament televised, and I still do today.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I do not think your Lordships would wish me to make another long, winding-up speech after the brilliant speech we have just heard from the Leader of the House. I have felt a

855
little remote during this debate because most of it has taken place on the principle of televising the House and not in fact on the nuts and bolts that your committee were responsible for. At any rate, may I, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, thank all of your Lordships who have paid tribute to the report. Those who were most kind in their opening remarks usually turned out to be those most firmly opposed to televising at all.
There were one or two remarks made about the report itself which I should just touch upon. The noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, spoke about the problems of defamation of character. We took the view that what had happened in sound broadcasting was perfectly satisfactory. Your Lordships in fact enjoy absolute privilege and the broadcasters qualified privilege. It depends on the fairness of their reports. There has been no problem with sound broadcasting. So far as the Broadcasting Complaints Commission are concerned, under their terms of reference at the moment they would not be appropriate to deal with matters of that sort. It would require legislation to change their terms of reference. I hope that the enlarged committee, which is one of the recommendations of our report, would be able to deal with problems of that sort.
Many of your Lordships have been critical about the proposals for editorial control. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House spoke on that subject. We thought it would be very expensive and very difficult to set up a special unit for a six-month experiment. We preferred to go along with the precedent set in the case of sound broadcasting to leave it to the broadcasters for the experiment and see how it worked.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, were critical of the constitution of the committee. But as the noble Lord, Lord Soames, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, explained, we were in existence previously, and I do not think that the fact that I dare say most of us were in favour of broadcasting really affected the issue when it came to the report because the report was entirely concerned with the nuts and bolts, or the lights and cameras of this experiment and not with the fundamental principle as to whether we should be televised at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said that he agreed with our report except for the one recommendation of the repetition of ministerial Statements in this House. The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, has dealt with that point. The last speaker on the list, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, was the only one to whom I really had to listen a great deal, because he was critical of various apects of our report. May I say to him that we shall certainly look most carefully at the points he made if your Lordships vote for the experiment. I found that he was quoting sometimes from the evidence in the report, rather than the report itself, which gave me some difficulty in following him. I can assure him that there is no recommendation in the report for televising your Lordships while voting. The control over any tapes in the hands of the broadcasters is explained in paragraph 18 of our
856
report. But I should like to go much more carefully into what the noble Lord said about our actual recommendations.
Finally, I understand that some of your Lordships are confused on one matter to do with the lighting. The lighting will be under the control of the committee which will be running this experiment. I assure your Lordships that this is the level of lighting that would obtain. The only difference is that the lights will be raised to the centre of the windows and therefore, hopefully, will be less obtrusive and they will not come on and go off with individual speakers. They will be on while the cameras are in the House and televising. If the cameras cease televising, then they will be faded out gradually as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, asked. I hope that will reassure your Lordships.
Finally, I do not think it would be appropriate for me as Chairman of Committees to vote on the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I am quite prepared to defend my committee's report, but on this matter of his amendment I shall abstain.
9.26 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to add a few remarks to what has been an absorbing and informative debate. I shall be very brief as I think that this debate has displayed all the qualities of your Lordships' House—indeed all those qualities which some of us fear might be damaged if the Motion tonight is carried.
The motive for my tabling of this amendment has received a certain amount of attention. The amendment has been described as a wrecking amendment, a dilatory amendment, and various other disobliging remarks of this kind. I beg the House to contemplate the possibility that it means precisely what it says. What I am aiming to do, to be perfectly accurate—and I hope that noble Lords will consult the Official Report—is not to question the principle of broadcasting this or any other House of Parliament. If noble Lords will consult the Official Report tomorrow they will see that that is precisely what I said.
What I am addressing myself to is the essence of the matter which was described by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby; whether this is a satisfactory form of experiment. I do not believe that it is. I think doubts have been expressed on all sides of the House about editorial control, about the lights, about the obtrusiveness of the equipment, and the wisdom of going ahead before another place has made a decision. I must confess that it is about this experiment not about the principles that I have the gravest doubts. It appears that this experiment will not have the same lights as a permanent installation might have, will not have the same cameras as a permanent installation, will not have the same coverage on television as a permanent system might have. There is no guarantee of finance for a permanent system, even if this experiment succeeds, and we may, according to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, even have a different form of editorial control. It seems to me, therefore, that this experiment bears little relationship to anything that might come afterwards. And to

857
answer the noble Lord's point exactly. I believe that it is not a satisfactory form of experiment. Doubts have been expressed from all sides.
However, it is late. Now I merely want to express my appreciation once again to the committee for its excellent work—I have no adverse comment to make on that—and to the broadcasting authorities for their co-operation. However, I remain unconvinced. Had a great weight of opinion been voiced in this House today in favour of the Motion and against the amendment I would, of course, have withdrawn it. But of the 32 Members of your Lordships' House who spoke before the Front Bench speakers, if I might be allowed to include the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, 16 spoke for the amendment and 16 spoke against. I believe, therefore, that it would be discourteous to those who spoke in favour of my amendment not to press it to a test of the opinion of the House. I must therefore press my amendment to a Division.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alport): My Lords, the original Question was, That the report of the Select Committee on televising the House be agreed to; since when an amendment has been moved by the noble Lord. Lord Chalfont, in the terms set out on the Order Paper.
9.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 113.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Jeger, B.

Allerton, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Attlee, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Bauer, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Beswick, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Caithness, E.

McFadzean of Kelvinside, L.

Chalfont, L. [Teller.]

Margadale, L.

Chelwood, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Coleraine, L.

Cork and Orerry, E.

Melville, V.

Craigavon, V.

Molson, L.

Craigton, L.

Monson, L.

Cross, V.

Moyne, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Davidson, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pender, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Energlyn, L.

Raglan, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Renton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Simon, V.

Ferrier, L.

Stallard, L.

Fortescue, E.

Stamp, L.

Galpern, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Strauss, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gridley, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L. [Teller.]

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Hatherton, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Henley, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Whaddon, L.

858

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Aldington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Alport, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Ardwick, L. [Teller.]

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Aylestone, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Banks, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Barnett, L.

McNair, L.

Belstead, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Birk, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mayhew, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Morris, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mottistone, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Mountevans, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mulley, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Munster, E.

Cathcart, E.

Nicol, B.

Chitnis, L.

Northfield, L.

Cledwvn of Penrhos, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Orr-Ewing, L. [Teller.]

Cranbrook. E.

Phillips, B.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Denham, L.

Polwarth, L.

Denning, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Diamond, L.

Rea, L.

Dunleath, L.

Reay, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Reigate, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rochdale, V.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Rodney, L.

Fitt, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Fulton, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Gainford, L.

Shackleton, L.

Glanusk, L.

Sharpies, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Grey, E.

Soames, L.

Hacking, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strafford, E.

Harvington, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Swansea, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Swinton, E.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Templeman, L.

Jacques, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Tranmire, L.

Kagan, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kennet, L.

Underhill, L.

Keyes, L.

Wade, L.

Kilmany, L.

Walston, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham L.

Lawrence, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Windlesham, L.

Long, V.

Winstanley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.39 p.m.
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond had given notice of his intention to move as an amendment to the Motion at end to insert "subject to the exclusion of Recommendation (v) in paragraph 48 at page xix (The repetition in the House of Lords of ministerial statements made in the House of Commons and the subsequent exchanges should not be televised during the experiment, except with the consent of the Minister concerned) (paragraphs 23 and 24)".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for having dealt with my points so candidly and fully, and for

859
having promised to try to meet the points made so far as he reasonably can. Therefore, I would not wish to move my amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That the original Motion be agreed to?
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government (Supplementary Grants for Transport Purposes Specified Descriptions) Order 1984
9.41 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the Local Government (Supplementary Grants for Transport Purposes Specified Descriptions) Order 1984, which was laid before your Lordships' House on 22 nd October, be approved.
It is a joint order by the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Wales. There is only one change proposed for Wales—the removal of car-parking from eligibility for TSG. I shall, therefore, mainly concentrate on the effects for England. I should perhaps add that the legislation which we are discussing applies only in England and Wales, and that nothing in what I am about to say has any relevance in Scotland, where my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland operates different arrangements under Scottish legislation.
This order will make the legislative changes necessary to confine transport supplementary grant in England to capital expenditure on roads. The Secretary of State announced the proposals last month, and copies of the relevant papers were placed in the Library. TSG was introduced under the Local Government Act 1974, and was first paid in 1975–76. Until then, there were specific grants for transport, with all the problems they bring with them. TSG is a block grant.
The overall aim of the TSG system was to encourage county councils and the Greater London Council to follow transport policies suited to their areas, and to support them in meeting costs which were unduly high in relation to their populations. More particularly, TSG was meant to enable central Government to help them finance large local capital transport schemes and to provide support for public transport at a time when there were no adequate means of bringing expenditure on public transport subsidies within the rate support grant system. Thus, to date, TSG has covered support for general transport expenditure, both current and capital, on roads and public transport. The grant has been paid at a percentage rate (55 per cent. in the current year) on all accepted expenditure above a specified per capita threshold.
It has become increasingly clear over recent years, however, that the present system could not cope with the excessive subsidising of public transport in which some authorities indulged. At the same time, the system has not been able to encourage the necessary investment in major roads. Let me give your Lordships some examples. In 1983–84 the six metropolitan county councils spent £91·5 million (54 per cent.) more on public transport revenue support than had been accepted by the department in the TSG settlement. In the same year, outside London, 28 per cent. of the expenditure accepted by the Secretary of State was meant for capital, but less than 10 per cent. of the grant was spent on capital. This tendency has been increasing. In 1980–81 councils
862
devoted some 63 per cent. of transport supplementary grant to the support of revenue expenditure. In 1984–85 they budget to use almost 72 per cent. on revenue, while 25 councils budget to use all their grant to this end.
As for road construction, in 1981–82 the local authorities fell short of the Government's plans by almost £32 million (9 per cent.) and in 1982–83 by £11 million (2·6 per cent.). The effects have been seen more particularly on schemes meeting the main objectives set out in the White Paper Policy for Roads in England: 1983—the primary route network, bypasses and urban roads. These objectives recognise the clear fact that TSG, which represents extra support from the general taxpayer, should be devoted to projects which benefit a wider community and not only those who live in a particular local authority area.
The present TSG system has also been increasingly criticised outside the Government, including criticism from among the recipient authorities. First, this has been because of the unbalanced results it gives. The threshold mechanism was designed to give the system a bias towards authorities with high expenditure, but it has been achieving this only at the expense of others. The degree of bias has become unacceptable over the years. In 1984–85 the GLC's grant was 32 per cent. of their accepted expenditure, the metropolitan county councils 22 per cent, and the shire county councils only 15 per cent. With 38 per cent. of the country's population, London and the metropolitan county councils received 62 per cent. of the grant available. Secondly, the threshold system is far from easy to understand and its effects tend to be highly unpredictable from one year to the next.
Moreover, TSG did not fit in with the developing system of expenditure targets and rate support grant penalties. The setting up of London Regional Transport earlier this year meant that it would not be possible to make a sensible settlement for London under the present system. We decided that changes, indicated for a couple of years, needed to be made for 1985–86.
The Secretary of State signalled his intentions formally to the local authority associations in May this year. In July he consulted them in writing on a capital-only TSG, limited to expenditure on highways and traffic regulation, with grant payable at a flat rate of about 50 per cent. He further proposed that in accepting expenditure for grant he would consider to what extent the roads and routes affected were of more than local significance. He would also take into account the extent to which people living or working in the authority's area would be relieved of the effects of heavy through traffic. He also said that in accepting authorities' capital programmes for grant he would specify the schemes in these programmes. Provided that they were started in the year under review and progress maintained, he would continue to support them with TSG in their future years.
Current expenditure on roads and public transport would continue to be supported through rate support grant block grant. New formulae for grant related expenditure for public transport revenue support and

863
for road maintenance would be devised with the local authority associations. The proposals would not result in changes in the resources available to local authorities, nor in any reduction in the total amount of Exchequer grant available to them.
Investment in facilities for local public transport—such as bus stations, bus depots and rail electrification schemes—would no longer be eligible for transport supplementary grant. But he would pay specific grants under Section 56 of the Transport Act 1968 towards large, worthwhile projects to provide new facilities.
As part of the consultation the Secretary of State and the Minister of State met elected members of local authority associations to discuss the proposals. Meetings were also held at official level on the financial and other details and implications. After considering the written reactions of the associations and the results of these meetings the Secretary of State decided to seek the approval of Parliament to the necessary legislative changes.
Turning now to the order itself, the legislative changes sought in it will enable the Secretaries of State to operate the transport supplementary grant system in England and Wales in the ways I have described. Article 4 confines transport supplementary grant to expenditure in England in connection with highways and the regulation of traffic. Article 5 effectively excludes parking from eligibility in Wales. Article 6 provides for the consequential amendment of Section 6 of the 1974 Act. It describes highways and the regulation of traffic as the transport matters qualifying for grant in England and public transport, highways and the regulation of traffic in Wales. It also changes the method of apportioning the grant in England from the threshold system.
The systems of distributing grant in England and Wales are thus different. This is envisaged in Section 51(1) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, where it is provided that the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Wales may exercise the powers to make supplementary grants for transport purposes separately and differently in the two countries. By the Local Government (Supplementary Grants for Transport Purposes Specified Descriptions) (Wales) Order 1981, debated in your Lordships' House on 3rd December 1981, the threshold system for Wales was ended and the eligibility for grant was restricted to capital expenditure only.
For England the criterion of more than local significance and the consideration to be given to such areas as the primary route network, urban roads and by-passes, together with the other aspects I have covered, can be effected within a discretion already available to the Secretary of State. The acceptance of expenditure for transport supplementary grant has always been a matter for his discretion. It is customary for him to indicate in annual circulars how he intends to use it in relation to the transport programmes of local authorities. These aspects do not, however, form part of the order.
864
This is a very complicated subject and I have tried to take your Lordships through it as clearly and as logically as I could. I have deliberately taken time to give your Lordships the background and rationale of the changes sought; I hope that this has been helpful. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 22nd October be approved. [38th Report from the Joint Committee (1983–84).]—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
9.50 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, this is a very important order and it will have far-reaching effects on public passenger transport—particularly in the large conurbations. It ought to be clearly understood at the start that, for many years, the marginal rate of grant above the threshold was 70 per cent. But since this Government came into office in 1979, it has fallen steadily and is now only 55 per cent. The Secretary of State has already announced that for 1985–86 it will drop to 50 per cent. For the year 1984–85, the total transport supplementary grant pool fell from £450 million the previous year to £400 million; a drop in that one year of 11 per cent.
The noble Lord has explained from the Government's standpoint the rationale behind accepting in the 1974 Act the transport supplementary grant procedure. But it went beyond what the noble Lord has said. First, it replaced a number of separate, specific grants which were made before TSG. The intention was to allow the planning of highway construction and transport infrastructure to proceed along with a properly-integrated passenger transport network—both bus and rail. We have heard no reference to linking with integrated passenger transport network. That is why I stated in a recent debate that the proposals to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties, the Buses White Paper, and now these changes to the transport supplementary grant are all interlinked. They will all tend to destroy an integrated approach to passenger transport.
TSG compensates for the needs for transportation which are not met by the per capita distribution of the block grant. It also reflects the wide variety of the nature and scale of transport problems in different local areas. But it allows for decisions to be taken locally on the basis of priorities. As the Minister has said, the Government's justification is that local authorities have been underspending on roads. Here I must quote the figures mentioned in respect of the 1982–83 allowance for capital road projects.
It was stated that £469 million was allocated but that the authorities spent only £301 million. But the House of Commons Select Committee on Transport published only in May this year a report which blew that claim sky high. The figures showed that actual expenditure was much higher than that quoted. In fact, local authorities have spent £442 million—not much short of the figure allowed of £469 million. That is only a 6 per cent. underspend and we are delighted that the Government have agreed that underspending on trunk roads would be allowed to be carried over—up to 5 per cent. That means a difference of

865
only 1 per cent. Yet on that basis the Government have introduced this order.
One should examine what the Select Committee in another place had to say in paragraph 21 of their report:
"Whilst we are pleased to note that underspending in 1982–83 was in fact far less than had been feared, we are surprised by the inaccuracy of the Department's estimates and the apparently long delay before a complete picture of the pattern of local authorities' capital expenditure could be obtained."
It goes on to suggest that we might find similar discrepancies in the later figures for 1983–84.
The Government argue that the change is to concentrate TSG on highways capital expenditure. It is very difficult to reconcile that with actions taken in recent years on the levels of expenditure accepted for TSG. If the Government had wished to encourage the level of capital expenditure on transport, this could have been done by increasing the proportion of capital expenditure accepted by the Secretary of State for TSG and, what is more important, increasing the amount of TSG assumed notionally to be capital.
But what did the Government do? In 1982–83, of the £519 million capital expenditure accepted for grant, only 30 per cent. of the actual grant was assumed notionally to be capital. In 1983–84 this fell to 25·5 per cent. of£619 million, and in 1984–1985 it further declined to 21·5 per cent. of £647 million. What this means is that while capital accepted for TSG increased, the actual level of grant assumed to be paid on capital fell. I shall be pleased if the Government can explain the reasoning behind that.
There had been, as the noble Lord said, murmurings about possible changes in TSG during 1983. As noble Lords appreciate, I am the president of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. I have been at meetings when these matters have been discussed and I can assure your Lordships that the consultations have not been on the basis that one would imagine to have been the case listening to the Minister. The chairman of the AMA Transportation and Planning Committee wrote to the Secretary of State on 21st December, 1983, expressing very grave concern at the reduction in TSG settlement for 1984–85 and seeking a reassurance that the transport policies and programme system with TSG would be continued. The Secretary of State replied—and I will now quote in full the detailed reply:
"Thank you for your letter of 21st December about TSG. I have noted the points you make".
That is the reply to the important authority of the AMA Transportation and Planning Committee chairman. So that was that.
It is appropriate to refer to another extract from the Commons Select Committee's report. I quote from paragraph 40:
"The Department has stated that it is currently reviewing the future of the TSG and that it will consult the local authority associations on the issue. We believe that very careful consideration needs to be given to possible reforms to the TSG system and that all interested parties should be consulted before any changes are introduced".
But what happened? During our debate on the relationship between central Government and local government on 14th November, I referred to the statutory requirement that the Secretary of State and the Minister of Transport should consult the local
866
authority associations on the question of rate support grant, which, of course, involves transport supplementary grant. In a letter from the department to the associations dated 22nd December, the lack of selective consultation on the previous year's rate support grant was recognised. I complained during that debate that there had not been any proper consultation with the associations about these intended changes. Despite what the Ministers have said subsequently in the other place and what the Minister said tonight, I stand by that complaint.
On 9th July the Secretary of State stated in reply to a Question in the other place that he was consulting the local authority associations regarding the future of the transport supplementary grant. What he did was to arrange for the department to send to the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the GLC a draft circular setting out the proposals. In fact, that was sent three days before he made his reply in the other place. It was sent out on 6th July, but comments were requested by 8th August on purely a draft circular.
The next step was a meeting on 30th July between the Secretary of State, the Minister of State and department officials and representatives of the various local authority associations concerned. That was not consultation on the principles of the changes proposed for TSG. It was consultation on how to see that the working of the changes proceeded as the Government wished. It was not consultation on the principle. In fact, complaints were voiced about the changes, but the Minister of State emphasised emphatically that there could be no delay and that there was urgent need for action.
One important point arises from the change to capital only TSG. It is that there must be some adjustment in the rate support grant; otherwise local authorities will lose heavily on the change. Representatives of the various associations stressed that exemplifications of GRE formula to deal with this were most important and must be agreed before any decisions on the change could be taken. The Conservative controlled London Boroughs Association—I emphasise that—said at this meeting that it was difficult to proceed without exemplifications and that there must be agreement on the GRE formula before the proposals for the changes to TSG went forward. We have the order today when there has been no satisfactory acceptable formula for the change to enable GRE to cope with the position that arises now that some of these matters have to go into the rate support grant.
The day following the meeting on 30th July the chairman of the AMA Public Passenger Transport Committee wrote to the Minister of State, criticising the inadequate consideration that had been given and strongly seeking an undertaking that a further meeting with representatives of the associations would be held so that they could look at the possibility of satisfactory GREs to deal with the position of revenue support and maintenance. A month after that we had a reply from the Minister of State rejecting this request but stating, as the noble Lord has said, that there would be discussions with officials. But the Minister of State, Mrs. Chalker, included in a letter some very important words, which I shall quote:

867
"But there is a limit to the usefulness of exemplifications which are necessarily based on hypothetical input".
I hope that this will be considered when local government is studying generally the whole question of GRE procedure for all other services. The AMA sub-committee, chairman wrote again on 26th September, repeating that he thought it was understood at the meeting on 30th July that there would be another meeting at member level before decisions were reached. That letter was sent on 26th September. The Minister of State replied on 7th November, pointing out that the Secretary of State had already announced on 16th October his decision to seek parliamentary approval for the introduction of the roads capital-only TSG.
I have gone into this at some length because it is a sorry story of what is claimed by Government to be consultation with the local authority associations. It is no surprise that relationships between central and local government are as bad as they are. The facts that I have given can be backed up by correspondence, letters and documents which I possess. Yet ministers state repeatedly that the local authority associations were consulted and that their comments were carefully considered. The very first words of the circular that went out to the bodies concerned on 22nd October are:
"Following recent consultations with the appropriate local authority associations".
I must claim, and I must be emphatic in saying, that that is a complete travesty of what took place on this very important order.
Another important matter is expenditure on road maintenance. When the Commons Select Committee looked at this they had in mind the point that the previous Commons Transport Committee had made very unfavourable comments arising from the national roads maintenance condition survey. In fact, they had suggested that expenditure on road maintenance had been consistently above the level provided in the Government's expenditure plans over the last few years. On road maintenance for 1983–84, the expenditure is estimated at £902 million, compared with the White Paper provision of £831 million. In other words, the local authorities were spending more on road maintenance than the Government thought they should.
The Select Committee, in paragraph 27, state:
"The fact that this has occurred at a time when local expenditure generally has been severely constrained is an indication of the strength of feeling of the local authorities about the need for more resources for road maintenance."
But road maintenance will no longer be covered by TSG. Road maintenance will have to be covered under the rate support block grant.
What else did the Select Committee say on that? I am sorry to be so long, but these issues are very important. The Select Committee, in paragraph 38 says:
"However, we would not wish to endorse such a change until we are satisfied that adequate provision could be made through the Rate Support Grant for the support of current transport expenditures, particularly road maintenance and public transport revenue support… We believe it is essential that any changes to the TSG should be dependent upon satisfactory solutions in the areas of both road maintenance and public transport revenue support".
868
There have not been any satisfactory agreed formulae for GREA, for road maintenance or for revenue support; yet the Government are bringing forward this order tonight as a matter of urgency.
I must also ask: what is to be the position regarding Section 20 grants to British Rail? These are payable by the passenger transport executives in the metropolitan counties to subsidise non-profitable services of British Rail. Without TSG these services are at risk. These grants are at risk, and that means, therefore, that the services are at risk. These are local rail services. It must be emphasised that, combined with the proposals for abolition, this throws into the melting pot the whole question of strategic planning in those particular areas. Section 20 grants will have to be in the queue with other priorities. This was made absolutely clear by the Minister of State in her speech in the other place when she introduced a transport supplementary grant there. Passenger transport executives have expressed their considerable concern about the future. British Rail have said that the loss of the Section 20 grants will present a serious problem to them because some £78 million would be involved if they were lost.
The noble Lord the Minister referred to the position nationally. I should like to quote what the Minister of State actually said in Hansard, columns 637–8 in the debate on the TSG order in the other place:
"The extra support from the taxpayer nationally represented by TSG should be used to benefit the population at large who produce the money and not only those who live in a single local authority's area".
Then she referred to what the noble Lord the Minister has said tonight: the intention of the Government to see that transport revenue grants are cut drastically.
In my opinion, these statements show a misguided view. The first argument could be used against every single item covered by the rate support grant, because they deal with services in a locality. The second argument ignores the fact that most transport undertakings run by local authorities go beyond the particular local authority area: they provide services for neighbouring areas which do not have transport undertakings of their own. The same can be said of the National Bus Company networks. If the level of support is not maintained, all these services will be in jeopardy—and we had this out in our discussions on the White Paper Buses.
The change in the order ignores the fact that the TSG system, allied to the structure for transport policies and programmes reports, ignores the whole development that was intended towards an integrated transport policy, and the Government fail to recognise that transport needs are part of a national economic policy and are not purely local considerations, as the Government regard them. Local transport, if we accept the Government's view, is now to be considered as being outside the concern of central Government. We cannot possibly accept that, and that is what I believe is behind the three-pronged attack by abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties, the Buses White Paper, and this order changing the basis of TSG.
It will tend to take away from the local authorities their decisions on priorities. It will be a major attack on public transport planning, and the impact on local transport investment will become very severe. It is a

869
retrograde step. I am sorry that, because of our convention, we do not vote against orders, but I felt it necessary to express the Opposition's complete feeling that this is a wrong order, that it should not be introduced, and that it will have a bad effect upon public transport throughout the country.
10.11 p.m.
Lord TordofT: My Lords, it is interesting (is it not?) that, having had a full House for most of the day, when we come to a matter which is going to affect the lives of most people in this country the Chamber is reduced to the usual collection of people, either those who are waiting for the next debate or the three or four people who normally take part in debates on transport. It is not my intention to delay your Lordships' House very long tonight because the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has spelt out in considerable detail the objections that there are to what the Government are trying to do under this order. I merely want to emphasise what he has said on the Section 20 provisions.
I agree with virtually everything he said on the whole spectrum of the effects of this order, but I think that the Section 20 provisions are really very worrying indeed. He mentioned that the British Rail Board receives a figure of some £78 million per annum in support under Section 20. If I may say so, I think that that includes Scotland as well, and therefore the figure is slightly inflated. In regard to England and Wales it should probably be nearer £50 million rather than £78 million; I say that with respect to him. Strathclyde takes in quite a large slice of that £78 million.
The country is faced with a situation where, as he rightly says, with the various prongs of the attack the Government are making on local government and on transport there is a possibility that the British Rail Board in particular is going to find itself totally unable to support services which are seen as a social necessity by commuters, by people living in the major conurbations of this country; that is because the priorities which are placed on local government simply do not allow them to take from their rate support grant, unless some clear indication is given by the Government—there has been no indication in another place that this is likely to happen—that they in fact intend to make available to local government sufficient money to pay for the Section 20 provisions. That is what we are waiting to hear tonight from the Government.
There was nothing from Mrs. Chalker in another place that indicated that she was prepared to give any guarantee from the Department of the Environment that they would insist on the block grants being sufficient to support these Section 20 provisions. I have a terrible feeling that, because of the needs which are placed on local government by Bills which are passed through into Acts by Parliament, and which call upon local government to provide services in all sorts of directions, frankly, with the best will in the world, local government is not going to be able to support the British Rail Board in many of these genuinely socially needful rail services.
It is, of course, a terrible temptation to local government to use the extra block grant money to
870
boost services that they would like to see in the social services and which they have a statutory obligation to provide. I dare say that the next debate will in fact go into that area.
However, this really is a very serious matter when taken in conjunction with the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the GLC. These types of services—as we have said so often in the past in debates this year and last year—are necessary to provide some type of integrated transport service. Your Lordships will be bored with hearing me say that the Government are trying to disintegrate our transport services in the metropolitan counties and in the Greater London Council. But every indication that we have proves me right. Every indication proves that they are failing to support, for instance, the Tyne and Wear integrated transport system and the integrated transport systems that many other major conurbations should like to include in the infrastructure of their areas. Frankly, I do not believe that, once this TSG is removed, local authorities will be able to provide the type of money to enable integrated rail/bus services to exist in our major conurbations in the future. That is the only major point that I want to make tonight. However, it is important and it is symptomatic of the Government's attitude to the whole of public transport.
There is no doubt in my view that the Government are totally obsessed by the road lobby and that they are not very interested in public transport in general. I fear that tonight's minor skirmish is as good an indicator as any of the Government's attitude to the provision of public transport. At the end of the day we shall find ourselves with our great conurbations clogged with motor cars and with public transport being run down. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said over a much broader scale, the Government's attitude is revealed in the resolution before your Lordships tonight.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord TordofT, has remarked, not only have the captains and kings departed, but the lights seems to be getting dimmer as well! The order before us this evening specifies the Government's intentions to see funds earmarked for capital expenditure on roads, thus seeking to prevent local authorities from bidding for funds under the heading, "Capital expenditure on roads"; having their bids granted, and then using these funds for revenue account subsidy of what was described by the Minister in another place as extravagant public transport subsidies.
This superficially seems like another example of central government interference in local affairs. But things are not always what they seem. We are discussing central funds and I accept that these central funds should be subject to central control. The Government have argued before that subsidy should not equal over supply of transport services, and I accept that premise. But I am concerned that the Government's first priority—and I refer to the Minister of State speaking to this order in another place—is to focus grants more closely on roads capital expenditure.

871
Earlier in the same context the honourable lady expressed the Government's intention that TSG should be used to smooth out uneven expenditure on road building. My concern is that by seeking to achieve this aim in terms of road building, the Government are discriminating against capital intensive and long lead-time rail-based projects.
Your Lordships will be aware of my commitment to public transport based on rail, but integrating the other modes. I am worried—and I have in mind the local government Bill which will come before your Lordships' House later in the Session—that the successor bodies to PTEs will go for the road capital expenditure bird in the hand as opposed to the longer term rail-related options to be found in the bush. Strategically they will look for very localised road-related options which are covered by this order, rather than the longer-term options with slower pay-backs that integrate public transport—a topic which has been raised by both the other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. They will thus be penalising the non-car owning public, the transport user, while favouring the motorist. In a manner of speaking, they will be giving to those who have and taking away from those who have not. It can be argued—indeed, it has been argued—that Section 56 of the Transport Act 1968 will plug the gap, which worries me. I believe that the local authorities will put Section 56 projects at the bottom of their list of priorities. On capital and on revenue account there will be less expenditure, poorer service and discrimination against those for whom I unofficially speak—the non-vehicular Peers or the non-motorists. We shall suffer, but I think it has been made clear from this side of the House this evening that we shall not suffer in silence.
There are two points of detail on which I would welcome the Minister's illumination. The order encourages expenditure on roads in Wales. For the motorist it makes getting to his destination that much easier. But it specifically excludes investment in parking. This seems to me to be a typical example of the Government riddling around in terms of transport policy, and I should appreciate an explanation of the apparent contradiction.
Secondly, I ask the noble Lord whether similar legislation is proposed in terms of Scotland and in particular in terms of Strathclyde Regional Council, which has already been mentioned. After all, it is the local authority making most use, in financial terms, of Section 20. In his opening remarks the noble Lord the Minister pointed out that the TSG is not applicable to Scotland; but I wonder whether Scottish Office policy will be as road-related as the England-Wales order under discussion.
10.22 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall try to answer as many points as I can which have been raised during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, queried the reduction in the percentages of TSG from 70 per cent. in 1983–84 to 55 percent, in 1984–85, and now to 50 per cent. In fact, the present TSG system was on all accepted expenditure above a per capita
872
threshold. Although 55 per cent. may have seemed generous and 70 per cent. even more so, the overall rate of grant was only 21 per cent., varying, according to the operation of the threshold, from 33 per cent. for the GLC, to 2·4 per cent. for Oxfordshire. The threshold system was unpredictable and hard to understand. On the contrary, the proposed 50 per cent. flat rate is straightforward and certain. It is also a much higher overall rate of grant.
Both the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, mentioned the end of comprehensive transport planning. We believe that local transport planning is for local authorities. The changes will not prevent them taking a comprehensive look at local transport, and the councils do not need Government grants to encourage them to plan sensibly. Sensible transport planning does not have to be bought at the expense of the ratepayer and taxpayer. It is about finding cost-effective ways of meeting demand, avoiding duplication and getting value for money. The TSG changes will help because they will remove the distortion in the old system.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, before the noble Lord continues, may I ask this question? Does he not understand that we are saying that the long-term planning aspect of integration will go out of the window with this change? Perhaps this is a point that we did not make clearly enough. Can he accept that, under the new scheme, under the block grant scheme, local authorities cannot see far enough ahead without some guarantee of support to put in the sort of integrated transport system which exists at the moment in Tyne and Wear?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord says; but we believe that they should be able to do so under the block grant. All they are doing is getting the money from a different source.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but may I ask whether he is saying that, allowing for inflation, without any doubt there will be no less money under the rate support grant and TSG than there is now for TSG only? Is he saying that as a definite promise?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot make a definite promise. All I can say is that under the present plans overall the amount of money will remain the same. Obviously I cannot at the moment give any assurance for the future. I do not think the noble Lord would expect me to be able to do so at this stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, accused us of rushing these changes through. He explained to us the consultation process that had taken place, and I cannot disagree with the timetable he gave. We accept that the need to make the change for 1985–86 resulted in a tight timetable. Consultation in earnest began on 6th July, but local authority associations have been aware of likely changes for some time. Capital only TSG, as was mentioned, has been in the air for some two years, and my right honourable friend outlined the proposals, as we said, on 17th May this year.
We believe that there is an urgent need to ensure that sufficient grant is used to support local roads

873
construction, to remove the anomalies, and to meet the criticisms. Furthermore, with the setting up of the LRT, the GLC would have got only about £20 million of grant to support nearly £200 million of highway expenditure. Therefore it was essential that we moved forward and made the changes as quickly as possible, particularly under the criticism of the threshold mechanism which I have already mentioned.
On the question of local authority capital spending, we have figures which we believe to be true, and on the transport side the provisional 1983–84 figures indicate an underspend, but we believe that the final figures due soon may show even a small overspend. On the question of road maintenance suffering, we do not believe that this will happen; far from it. Provision continues to be steadily increased in real terms, and rate support grant will reflect this in full.
On the question of revenue support for rail services, which both the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, mentioned, the responsibility for deciding the level of provision of local rail services rests with the British Railways Board and county councils. Transport supplementary grant will not in future be paid and authorities will receive block grant instead. There is already a separate GRE indicator for revenue subsidies for local rail services in passenger transport executive areas. Councils will be able to decide whether to maintain support for local rail services within all the resources available to them. I hope they will be looking for better value for money from the services they support, just as we are from the railways nationally.
On the question of support for public transport, the Government see no justification for continued taxpayer support for excessive fare subsidies. They may provide social benefits, but they merely underwrite inefficiencies. Decisions on revenue support properly belong with local authorities and they are best placed to judge what should be their share of the available resources. By ending TSG for public transport we are simply putting revenue support on the same basis as other services in the competition for scarce local resources.
Like other local expenditure, resources for public transport revenue support will have a grant-related expenditure total. This will be allocated to authorities by a new formula. Some promising formulae have been discussed with the local authority associations and we shall select the most suitable. We cannot expect the metropolitan county councils to like them, as they may show up their overspending, but the formulae will be revealed in the December RSG announcement.
To the extent that TSG is less, RSG will be increased. The difference will be that the extra block grant will be subject to the reduced grant rates and hold-back penalties where authorities spend well over their grant-related expenditure assessments or targets.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the Minister give way? This is the point I was trying to make. The effect of what is happening now is that because of the penalties which are being imposed on local authorities from other directions the Section 20 support will be nonexistent from local authorities. What steps do the
874
Minister's department intend to take when British Rail have to pull out from important commuter services, from local regional services, which they provide at the moment? At that stage will they be prepared to come back to support those services, or will they simply say, "It is none of our problem"? In other words, are we not playing pass the parcel from one Ministry to another?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I have said, we believe that they should have to find the money from their block grant. I cannot give any assurance about what we might or might not do if the case which the noble Lord mentioned arose. We hope that they will find the money from their block grant.
The question of abolition was raised. I should like to make it quite clear that the proposals for changes to TSG are neither the consequence of abolition, nor are they intended to anticipate abolition. They would have been necessary in any case. They do not affect the structure or organisation of local government.
In seeking to reduce extravagant public transport subsidies the proposed changes are, it is true, against the practice which is prevalent in the metropolitan areas. Over the four years 1981–82 to 1983–84 the six English metropolitan county councils between them spent £290 million, that is 66 per cent. more on subsidies than that accepted for TSG.
We stand accused of trying merely to make another move to curb local authority spending. This is not so. We are trying to remove the distortions in the current system using grant to provide the taxpayers' share of the lumpy costs of roads with more than local benefits. The overall level is a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has his own mechanisms for controlling expenditure. The total amount of TSG—£ 160 million is proposed for 1985–86—will be less than before, but the RSG block grant will be larger than it otherwise would have been. Overall local authorities will be as well off in future years under the new system as under the present one. I am probably repeating myself when I make that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, asked why parking should be different in England and Wales. We can see no justification for special taxpayers grants towards the provision of parking places. Charges can be made for parking and these should surely be sufficient to cover the capital costs of the car parks. I remind the noble Lord that financing costs will be covered by the normal GRE for financing capital expenditure. If parking is to be subsidised this must be a local decision and locally financed. I would also point out that in the proposals for Wales my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales proposes to pay TSG only on expenditure on projects costing over £5 million. I wonder whether many parking arrangements would cost as much as that.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, also mentioned the difference between Scotland and England and Wales. As I made quite clear at the beginning, Scotland is not covered by this measure. Legislation under discussion does not apply there.The arrangements are similar in many respects to those now proposed for England. Local road maintenance and public transport revenue support are taken into

875
account in rate support grant paid under powers in the Local Government (Scotland) Acts 1966 and 1975, as amended by the Local Government Planning (Scotland) Act 1982. I hope that that reply covers the point that the noble Lord made.
I have listened carefully to the points raised by all noble Lords. I hope that I have answered them all. I doubt very much whether my answers have satisfied everybody. In essence this is a straightforward, almost technical, measure which is needed to give some point to what has become an increasingly anomalous grant system.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Contributions, Re-rating) (No. 2) Order 1984
10.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Social Security (Contributions Re-rating) (No. 2) Order 1984 be agreed to. With the leave of the House, I should like at the same time to speak to the draft Social Security (Treasury Supplement to Contributions) (No. 2) Order 1984, both of which were laid before this House on 13th November.
With your Lordships' permission, I will also refer to the Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1984 which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made on 8th November, These regulations, which set Class 1 earnings limits, are not part of the Motion before us because they are subject only to the negative resolution procedure. However, the Class 1 earnings limits are inseparable from the matters under discussion and all three instruments deal with the amount of contributions to be paid next year.
Your Lordships will know that that the Social Security Act 1975 requires my right honourable friend to carry out a review each year of the general level of earnings. At the same time, he reviews the state of the National Insurance Fund, as he is empowered to do by the same Act. The purpose of this exercise in good housekeeping is to make sure that the money coming into the fund is sufficient to pay for benefits, while maintaining an appropriate level of balance to guard against unexpected adverse contingencies. The report of the Government Actuary on the effect of the proposed changes was laid before this House by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on 13th November, as required by the Act.
Currently the National Insurance Fund is in surplus. This is because earnings have been higher than were estimated at the last re-rating and because there has been a welcome increase in the number of people in work. Earlier forecasts of the increase in jobs took a cautious view but the latest evidence shows an accelerating and encouraging rise in the numbers in employment. The Government have had to decide the
876
best way of apportioning the surplus. In managing the National Insurance Fund we try to achieve a broad balance between expenditure and income. How the income should be split between contributions and general taxation is a question which has to be considered in the wider context of the burden of taxation generally. Claims to benefit from unemployed people over the last year have been met, not so much by unemployment benefit payable from the National Insurance Fund, but rather by supplementary benefit which is payable from the Consolidated Fund. In view of the increasing costs of social security which are being met by the taxpayer, we felt it right to propose a reduction in the Treasury supplement from 11 per cent. to 9 per cent. of gross contributions; that is, before contracted-out reductions and recoveries of statutory sick pay.
The Government Actuary's report shows the estimated effect of this and the other changes detailed in the orders. The Government Actuary estimates that the balance in the fund at the end of 1984–5 will be £5,265 million and that this figure will increase to £6,099 million by the end of 1985–6. These balances are expected to represent 25·2 per cent. of benefit expenditure in 1984–5 and 27·5 per cent. in 1985–6—both well above the minimum level of one sixth, or 16·6 per cent., recommended by the Government Actuary. It is necessary to maintain a balance of this size for working purposes. It represents about 13 weeks of benefit payments. It is needed as a reserve against any unexpected increases in benefit expenditure or falls in contribution income and as an operation margin to fund the payment of benefits by the Post Office on time. The minimum recommended working balance for the fund is nine weeks benefit expenditure.
The reduction in the Treasury supplement will mean that the national insurance contributor will bear a slightly increased proportion of the cost of contributory benefits. However, despite this reduction, the proportion of benefit expenditure met by general taxation is estimated to be 48½ per cent. in 1985–86, compared with 40 per cent. in 1976–77 under the last Labour Government. The tendency in recent years with regard to total social security benefit expenditure has been for the balance to move from the contributor towards the taxpayer. This reduction will reverse the trend.
I am pleased to be able to tell your Lordships that for the second year in succession there is to be no change in the rate of Class 1 national insurance contributions. This is in keeping with the Government's determination to keep the tax and contributions burden to as low a level as possible.
This will also be the first year in which employers will receive the full benefit of the abolition of the national insurance surcharge. The surcharge, introduced by the last Labour Government, acted as a disincentive to employers who might otherwise have sought to create jobs. The surcharge is now abolished and the Government are proud of their achievement in doing this.
Although the Class 1 rate remains the same, there is change to the lower and upper earnings limits for employees' and employers' contributions, and I will

877
explain the reasons for this. The Social Security Pensions Act 1975 requires the lower earnings limit to be equal to, or not more than 49p below, the basic rate of retirement pension, and the upper limit to be between 6·5 and 7·5 times that rate. A pension rate of £35·80 next year therefore points unavoidably to a lower earnings limit of £35·50, if we are to follow the usual practice of dealing in multiples of 50p. The upper earnings limit permits a little more discretion: it would be possible to extend it to £268·50. However, we have chosen a figure of £265 because this represents a six per cent. increase on the current limit of £250 and is broadly the same as the general increase in the level of earnings. This is equivalent to 7·4 times the basic pension rate and towards the top of the permitted range I mentioned earlier of 6·5 to 7·5 times.
Of course, most people have earnings between the lower and upper earnings limits and so will be virtually unaffected by these changes. Their contributions will rise only in so far as their earnings rise. The contributions of employees with weekly earnings of over £250 per week will increase by up to £1·35 per week—up to £1 05 per week in the case of contracted-out employees. Similarly, employers will have to pay increased contributions for employees on high earnings; the maximum increase will be £1·57 per week—£1·01 for contracted-out employees.
However, employers will benefit from the proposal of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to relieve employers of the cost of the secondary contributions they make on payments under the Statutory Sick Pay Scheme. This will be introduced prior to the introduction of the extended scheme, and it will result in a saving to them of up to £40 million a year on their payments for spells of sickness up to eight weeks and will mean that they will not bear the cost of contributions on the payments which they will make from the ninth week onwards as from 6th April 1986.
I now turn to the self-employed. Your Lordships will be aware that self-employed people pay their contributions in two parts: the flat rate Class 2 contribution and the profits-related Class 4 contribution. As it is not proposed to increase the Class 1 rate, it follows that no increase is needed in the Class 4 rate which is derived from it. The profits limits for Class 4 contributions rise automatically each year, like the earnings limits for Class 1 contributions. The figures proposed for next year are £4,150 and £13,780, the latter figure being 52 times the upper earnings limit.
The formula for determining the Class 2 rate gives a figure of £505 a week. However, for the last few years we have set the rate at a figure 20p below that given by the formula, and not only do we intend to continue the practice next year but to increase the abatement to 30p, as a modest incentive to small businessmen. This gives a weekly rate of contribution of £4·75—an increase of only 15p a week. The effect of these changes is that for self-employed people who only pay Class 2 contributions there will be an annual increase of £7·80, but for those with profits between £4,150 and £13,000 there will be a reduction of £4·80 a year assuming the same level of profits as in 1984–85. Like employees who earn more, those self-employed who make higher profits will pay more, too. For those with
878
profits of, or above, £13,780, the new upper profits limit, the increase will be £44·34 a year.
The small earnings exception from Class 2 liability also rises automatically—in this case from £1,850 to £1,925 a year. The proposed voluntary Class 3 rate is, as usual, l0p below the Class 2 rate, giving a figure of £4·65 a week from next April.
I have described in some detail the changes that we are proposing and, with your Lordships' permission, I will summarise them briefly. For the second consecutive year it is not proposed to increase the Class 1 or Class 4 contribution rates, and the various proposals made affecting employers will mean that the total burden on employers in 1985–86 is expected to be significantly less in real terms than in the current year, 1984– 85, despite a rising labour force. I believe that this will be as welcome to the majority of Members of your Lordships' House as it is to employers and employees.
Throughout the exercise we have sought to maintain a fair balance between all the contributors to the fund, while at the same time structuring things in such a way that employers can see that we are genuinely seeking to reduce the burdens on them and to create a climate in which entrepreneurial activity can flourish. Inevitably, a debate on contributions re-rating centres mainly around matters of concern to employers and employees, but we have sought in this re-rating exercise to propose measures conducive to encouraging growth in jobs—something to which this Government attach the highest importance.
These two orders and one set of regulations are the result of the annual exercise in care and maintenance which is essential if the national insurance contributory system is to be kept up to date, with sufficient money available to pay for benefits. I am satisfied that both criteria are met and it is on this basis that I commend the orders to your Lordships. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th November be approved.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
10.46 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord the Minister, who has set out this very complicated situation as clearly as possible. I want to ask him only a few questions. I understand that under Section 1 (5) of the 1975 Act there has to be a Treasury supplement that is agreed. The noble Lord the Minister has told us that the contribution of 11 per cent. has been reduced to 9 per cent., and I have to ask him: why? Is this reduction in order to balance the books, and is he balancing the books?—because there are many old people, especially old people over 75 years of age, who are to lose their heating allowances. How many reductions is he making in housing benefits in order that he can make this reduction from 11 per cent. to 9 per cent? How many strikers' families are going to be worse off, so that he can reduce the contribution from 11 per cent. to 9 per cent? I hope he will tell the House how he can explain the invention of a 53-week calendar year. This 53-week invention saves £35 million a year, and this really cannot be acknowledged to be for social security purposes.

879
On the other question of the Class 4 benefits, which comes under Sections 9(2) and 10(1), there is a change from £3,950 to £4,150. Is that in line with inflation? There is now an upper class which has changed for contributions from £13,000 to £13,780. Should this not go higher? Surely, people who are earning £13,780 should be able to pay a greater contribution to national insurance. Why not? The best source of more income is to increase the insurance contributions of people who are better off. Already they are the main beneficiaries of reduced tax. I understand that between 1979 and 1982 the most wealthy 25 per cent. of the adult population increased its share of marketable wealth from 77 per cent. to 81 per cent. Why do the Government not increase the national insurance contribution to this higher level and make matters easier for the poorer people in our society?
I do not intend to go into a great deal of detail, but these are a few thoughts which I wish to leave with the Minister. There are difficulties about raising the amount of social insurance income that is needed. This income should be raised by increasing the amount of insurance paid by those who are better off. I have already told the Minister that I do not intend to put before him tonight many of the problems, because I hope that the House will be provided with another opportunity to deal with all the problems relating to social security. Nevertheless, I hope that he will be able to provide us tonight with answers to the problems I have mentioned.
10.50 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord the Minister for his very clear exposition of the content of these two orders. We learn from the Government Actuary's report which accompanies them that the surplus in the National Insurance Fund, estimated for the current year, is reduced by £271 million to £661 million. That is quite a reduction, although the surplus remains considerable.
The Government Actuary gives two reasons for this; first, that he has been instructed to assume a higher level of unemployment. Does the noble Lord feel that that level is high enough, at 3 million, particularly when one considers that every additional 100,000 of unemployed knocks £190 million off the surplus? In these estimates it seems that we are always lagging behind reality. Does not the Minister feel that that applies in this case, too?
The second reason given by the Government Actuary for the decline in the estimate of surplus is the extra cost of administration. Is this due entirely to the industrial action which has been taken within the department? Can the Minister indicate the current situation regarding that action?
The top limit for Class 1 contributions has been raised, as the Minister said, from £13,000 per annum to £13,780 per annum. Therefore those earning £13,780 per annum and above, not contracted out, will pay an extra £70·20 per annum. This additional tax will hit hardest those earning precisely £13,780.
880
The more you earn above that figure, the lower is the percentage of your earnings which national insurance contributions take. That underlines the point which was made by the noble Baroness.
There is greater uncertainty in the figures this year. The Government Actuary's report says on page 5, at paragraph 9:
"The estimates for the amounts of statutory sick pay to be recovered by employers from contributions are based of necessity on the sickness experience of the National Insurance Fund prior to its introduction. The first data relating to statutory sick pay is expected early next year, but until it becomes available there remains a special degree of uncertainty in the estimates".
In these circumstances, is it not surprising that the Government have already introduced a Bill to extend the term of statutory sick pay from eight weeks to 28 weeks? Would it not have been wiser to get first the information on how the present arrangement is working? Will not the uncertainty underlying the Government Actuary's figures be much increased by the introduction of this Bill at this stage?
The Treasury supplement, as the noble Lord said, is to be reduced further—to 9 per cent. from 11 per cent. I regret that, under this Government, the Treasury supplement has been reduced from 18 per cent. of contributions to 9 per cent. In fact, it has been halved. If the Treasury supplement had been maintained at 18 per cent. and at the present level of contributions, then in 1985–86 the National Insurance Fund would be better off by £2,295 million—or 10 per cent. more. This could have been used to improve benefits or to introduce new benefits—or contributions could have been reduced. After all, employees' contributions have been raised from 6·5 per cent. to 9 per cent. since 1979.
The Government's argument which the noble Lord put for a reduction in the Treasury supplement and for an increase in contributions is that non-contributory benefits not financed by the fund have increased in scope and cost. That means in effect—not technically, but in effect—that contributors are made to pay for non-contributors whose benefits are paid from a different fund. That is not the insurance principle as we have always understood it.
I should like to ask whether it is the Government's intention to phase out the Treasury supplement altogether. Once they have done that, perhaps they would be prepared to privatise the fund. If they were to hand over the fund to, say, the Prudential and to enforce contributions to be made to them on the same basis as now, then £23 billion would disappear from public expenditure although the situation would remain exactly the same—which perhaps suggests some absurdity in our methods of calculating social security accounting.
Then there are the problems of finding the funds to supplement the retirement pensions of those who have little or no earnings-related pension—and of course there is the problem of meeting the cost of the state pension scheme in the second and third decades of the next century. I have raised these problems before and I have suggested a solution. I cannot say that I had a very satisfactory reply on any occasion, but I shall not elaborate on those problems again tonight. I am sure that the noble Lord will remind me once again of the special reviews which are being conducted by his

881
department. We await with great interest the outcome of those reviews, and we hope the result will be comprehensive proposals for the integration and reform of the income tax and social security systems.
10.58 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I too should briefly like to thank the noble Lord for explaining these orders with his usual lucidity. I must first take him to task on the question of unemployment. My noble friend Lord Banks referred to this and suggested that it would have been prudent in the actuary's report to allow for more than the 3 million unemployed for whom allowance has been made both in the years 1984–85 and 1985–86. The noble Lord talked about the encouraging rise in the number employed but took no account of the fact that the number of those seeking employment is rising even faster, that ought to be put on the record.
I have one suggestion to make to the noble Lord. I do not expect an answer from him this evening but I hope that the Government will consider this point. One notices from Table 1 on page 4 of the Government Actuary's report that there is an element of 0·75 per cent. in the primary contribution rate for the National Health Service. In previous years and on other occasions, I believe it has been suggested that there should also be an equivalent or comparable allocation for the personal social services.
The noble Lord, in his capacity, is well aware of the transfer of many responsibilities from the National Health Service to the personal social services, and I wonder whether this suggestion is not worth considering again; for example, if the National Health Service element was raised to 1 per cent., and one-quarter of that was allowed for contributions to personal social services. This is a very real point, with the increasing pressure through the demographic trend on personal social services. I do not expect the Minister to respond to that tonight, but I shall be raising it again on other occasions. I am simply putting down a marker for that thought.
The final point I want to put to the noble Lord, which in a sense is parallel to that made by the noble Lord. Lord Banks, relates to statutory sick pay. One notices from Appendix 3 that the amount of sickness benefit paid out in 1984–85 is estimated at £274 million, and in 1985–86 at £286 million, as opposed to the corresponding figures for statutory sick pay of £602 million and £639 million respectively. Is it the intention of the Government to eliminate sickness benefit altogether? What savings do the Government envisage from this? What will be the effect on those who would previously have received sickness benefit and will now receive statutory sick pay, not just for the eight weeks which is the present rule but for the 28 weeks referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, under the extended scheme, as I think it is called, which will come to us shortly in the social security Bill? I know that that is something we shall be discussing on a later occasion. Can the noble Lord give me an indication of what the effect will in fact be on those who would have received sickness benefit but who will now, from the eighth to the 28th week, actually be receiving statutory pay?
11.3 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there are a number of questions to be answered which were raised by those who have spoken, and perhaps I may deal with them in turn. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, was concerned particularly with the Treasury supplement Perhaps I can elucidate a little on this. In managing the National Insurance Fund, which is not like a normal insurance fund as she and I might understand an insurance fund to be, we try to achieve a broad balance between expenditure and income. How the income should be split between contributions and general taxation is a matter to be looked at in the wider context of the burden of taxation generally. In view of the other increasing costs of social security which are being met by the taxpayer, we felt it right to make an adjustment.
The noble Baroness referred to housing benefit, heating additions and benefits for strikers' families, but those are all supplementary benefit matters and are nothing to do with national insurance. I am sure the noble Baroness is aware of that. The taxpayer is already meeting the cost of the items I have just mentioned—housing benefit, heating additions and benefits to strikers' families—and so it is fair that the Treasury supplement to the fund should be reduced.
The noble Baroness took me to task about the fact that we appear to have a 53-week year. The difficulty arises from the fact that a year is not exactly divisible into 52 weeks. If we were to stick to what the noble Baroness would like, we would eventually have the up-rating creeping forward from November, when it should take place, right through to October. Added to the complexity that a year is not exactly divisible into 52 weeks, this year, 1984, is a leap year with 52 weeks and two days. I should not like to baffle either the noble Baroness or myself with science at this time of night, but this is a fact of life and we had to legislate in 1980 to avoid what is known in the trade as "creep". In future we would normally expect the up-rating to take place in the last full week of November, whether this results in a 52-week or 53-week interval.
The noble Baroness asked further about the upper earnings limit. She thought that there should perhaps be a greater charge on those near the top of the upper earnings limit. In my earlier remarks I described how there were limits on this, and that at 7·4 per cent. we are very close to the top, anyway. The noble Baroness seemed to indicate that perhaps the upper earnings limit should be abolished and that the scheme would therefore become less regressive. The fact is that the upper earnings limit provides a ceiling, not only for contributions but also for earnings-related pensions and the guaranteed minimum pensions provided by contracted-out occupational pension schemes. This link is an essential feature of the contributory principle. Removing the ceiling, if we were to go that far, would be prohibitively expensive and would involve contracted-out employers in much greater guaranteed minimum pension commitments to their employees than they had bargained for in reaching the decision to contract out of the state scheme. To remove the limit for contributions only would mean breaking the present link between contributions and benefits and would be a major departure from the pension arrangements agreed in 1975.

883
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked me a number of questions. With his great expertise as an actuary, I find that I might have to study very carefully some of the remarks that he made and respond in writing, as I nearly always seem to do. The noble Lord asked particularly about extending the employers' liability for statutory sick pay to 28 weeks. There are three main reasons: first, the further reduction in the overlap of provision of income to employees during short-term sickness; secondly, a further reduction in anomalies arising because a sickness benefit is not taxable although it is generally accepted that it should be; and further savings in public expenditure plus a saving in DHSS staff. There is also the reason that employers have shown that they can operate SSP successfully. It is sensible now to extend their responsibility so that SSP is payable for the whole period of short-term sickness rather than as at present for just a part of it.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I did not ask the reason for proposing the extension from eight weeks to 28 weeks. I asked why the proposal was put forward now when the actuary's report says that full information as to the effect on the fund of the eight weeks' provision is not yet known and will not be known until early next year.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, perhaps in a minute I can respond more fully to that question. I am sorry if I got the noble Lord wrong. He also asked why the Treasury supplement has been reduced over the years to only half of what it was in 1979. The contribution by the taxpayer, of which the Treasury supplement forms part, towards total social security expenditure has increased over the years. Although the supplement of the National Insurance Fund has lessened, the proportion of social security expenditure that is paid directly from the Consolidated Fund has grown. This elaborates upon the answer that I gave to the noble Baroness. Lady Jeger, just now.
It is misleading to think of the Treasury supplement as some kind of extra source of income totally separate from contributors as employees and employers. The number of contributors who are also taxpayers has been increasing over the years. The majority of people who pay contributions pay tax. To make the National Insurance Fund more dependent on direct revenue income would not necessarily relieve the burden on the contributor. There is in the end, as I am sure the noble Lord will realise, only one source of finance for public expenditure, and that is the tax and contributions people pay on their earnings.
The noble Lord asked, I think, what would be the effect on the national insurance contributions if the Treasury supplement was abolished. Indeed, he went so far as to ask whether or not there was any intention to abolish it. Perhaps I may say there that Beveridge did in fact recommend, I understand, phasing out the Treasury supplement over 40 years, but there is no clear Government intention to do so. I think that answers that particular point.
With regard to the effect if the supplement were abolished, to maintain the current balance in the fund for 1985–86 contributors would have to find some additional £2·3 billion revenue, compared with their
884
present contributions which bring in an estimated £20·7 billion. That is after deducting recovery by employers of statutory sick pay. To produce that level of additional revenue it would be necessary to raise the rate of Class 1 contributions by about 1·7 per cent. of earnings. This would mean raising the contribution rates for either the employee or the employer, or both. There would be commensurate changes for the self-employed and voluntary contributions as well.
So far as the assumptions on unemployment are concerned, which both the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, raised, last year the Government Actuary's Department overestimated; hence the surplus in the fund. Assumptions are of course always liable to be inaccurate, although the best efforts are made to get them right. However, 3 million unemployed was the Treasury figure given to the Government Actuary's Department.
The noble Lord asked about the strike at Newcastle and asked whether the administrative costs were those related to the strike. If the noble Lord refers to Paragraph 9 of the Government Actuary's report, he will see there the statement that the administrative costs include an allowance for the effects of industrial action within the DHSS. It does not cover the whole lot, as I think he thought it might. With regard to the latest position on the strike, I have not got the latest facts today on this particular issue. It is a matter which certainly we in the department all deplore. We are doing our very best to bring it to a speedy conclusion. I have not any up-to-date, immediate information to give to the noble Lord, but I shall certainly write to him to let him know.
Reverting to the last question that the noble Lord raised, about the eight weeks climbing to 28 weeks for statutory sick pay, I understand from the National Audit Office and others that it has worked well so far. It was always intended to extend it if it was a success, and that it has been. Uncertainties about the estimates on statutory sick pay do not I think in any way affect the principle of extending it. The CBI has given its blessing, as well as the National Audit Office, and so I do not think that the concern which the noble Lord expresses is valid. It has, in the view of many employers, been a success. But I note the remarks the noble Lord makes. I shall study them and perhaps I can respond to him again after reading the Official Report.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked me a number of questions. One of the questions that he raised which relates to the question that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked, was whether the jump from eight to 28 weeks was too great for employers to cope with. That seemed to be the drift behind the question. I may have misunderstood.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I did not ask the noble Lord that; and he has said that apparently the CBI are not too worried about that. What I asked him was about the effect on the employee who would be moved off sickness benefit on to statutory sick pay for that period of from eight to 28 weeks.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I note the noble Lord's comment. I am sorry if I misunderstood him on that point. I do not have an immediate answer to that

885
question, but I hope to get it in due course. The noble Lord was kind enough to say that he did not expect me necessarily to answer these points now. I should like to study carefully the remarks he made and write to him.
As the noble Baroness was kind enough to say, these are complicated orders. I fear they are even more complicated at this time of night. I shall, of course, study very carefully the remarks that have been made by all those who have taken part in this short debate, and I shall write to try to clarify any particular points that I do not think I have clarified adequately now. I hope that noble Lords will feel satisfied that at least we have had a chance to debate them. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Treasury Supplement to Contributions) (No. 2) Order 1984
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th November be approved.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Greater London Council (Money) (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at a quarter past eleven o'clock.

  IRANIAN NATIONALS: DEPORTATION FROM U.K.
  IRANIAN NATIONALS: DEPORTATION FROM U.K.
  MENTALLY ILL PRISONERS: ACCOMMODATION
  MENTALLY ILL PRISONERS: ACCOMMODATION
  JOY-RIDING IN NORTHERN IRELAND: CASUALTIES
  JOY-RIDING IN NORTHERN IRELAND: CASUALTIES
  CEGB PLUTONIUM
  CEGB PLUTONIUM
  NATO's ROLE
  NATO's ROLE
  INDUSTRY: EUROPEAN AID
  INDUSTRY: EUROPEAN AID
  "RADIO PIRATES"
  "RADIO PIRATES"
  BLIND PERSONS: ALLOWANCES
  BLIND PERSONS: ALLOWANCES
  RESERVOIRS AND PLEASURE BOATING
  RESERVOIRS AND PLEASURE BOATING
  CHEMICAL WEAPONS PRODUCTION
  CHEMICAL WEAPONS PRODUCTION
  PENSIONS AND TAX CONCESSIONS
  PENSIONS AND TAX CONCESSIONS
  PESTICIDES: STATISTICS
  PESTICIDES: STATISTICS
  PESTICIDE SPRAY EQUIPMENT
  PESTICIDE SPRAY EQUIPMENT
  "HOME DEFENCE AND THE FARMER"
  "HOME DEFENCE AND THE FARMER"
  MILK PRODUCTION QUOTAS
  MILK PRODUCTION QUOTAS