Sitting of 13 December 1985

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

  Tax Cases (Appeals)
  9.34 am
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present a petition in due form addressed
  To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled.
  The humble Petition of Anthony John Miller, of 85, Alexandria Road, Sidmouth, in the County of Devon, national Chairman of the Taxation Committee of the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Limited, sheweth:
  That whereas in a letter dated 30th April 1984 to John Moore Esq. M.P. , Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Anthony John Miller stated inter alia that
  "The provision contained in the 1983 Finance Bill, relating to election for appeals to be heard by the Special Commissioners has been put forward again in substantially the same form in the 1984 Finance Bill under Schedule 22. The effect of these changes in the law is to remove from the taxpayer their absolute right to elect to bring an appeal before and to be heard by the Special Commissioners. We object most strongly to any change of this absolute right.
  Nicholas Ridley states in his letter that the intention is to remove this right only in respect of 'delay cases'. With respect, we can see nothing in the proposed legislation which will ensure that it will be applied only to 'delay cases'. The decision is left entirely to the discretion of the General Commissioners, who have to be satisfied that certain conditions are fulfilled.'
  and whereas in a letter dated 17 May 1984 to Anthony John Miller, John Moore Esq., MP, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, stated inter alia that:
  "The concern of the National Federation is Clause 122 and Schedule 23, paragraph 3. You say that the effect of this provision is to remove from the taxpayer his absolute right to elect to bring and appeal before and to be heard by the Special Commissioners…
  I fully understand your concern and would straightaway reiterate that it is the intention of the Government (and the Inland Revenue if the proposals became law) that the provision should apply only to 'delay cases' …The provision does not disturb the right of the taxpayer to be heard by the Special Commissioners. It is not concerned with cases where there is a dispute about the correctness of a return, where the right will continue to run. It does not interfere with the rights of a taxpayer who particularly does not wish to appear before the General Commissioners. It merely provides that if an appellant has not troubled to supply the Inspector with his accounts or a return in support of his appeal —in practice within about 15 months of the end of the year of assessment, as Nicholas Ridley explained to Gerald Malone —he really cannot in this day and age expect to take up the time of a specialist tribunal.
  The problem has been one of definition and we finally decided to use an existing definition in Section 45(4) Taxes Management Act 1970, that is a case where the appellant has arguments to present or evidence to adduce on the merits of the appeal. This wording was originally
  1188
  devised to define a delay case in deciding on a quorum for the present Special Commissioners' hearings. It was agreed with the professional organisations"—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is a great expert on procedural matters. I draw his attention to Standing Order No. 119, which lays down that a petition should be summarised and that only the prayer should be read out.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My understanding is, Mr. Speaker, that the petition "may" be summarised, not "must" be summarised. The House is entitled to hear the petition, more than half of which I have completed. Is that not so?
  Mr. Speaker: The Standing Order states that a Member
  "shall confine himself to a statement of the parties from whom it comes, the number of signatures attached to it, and the material allegations contained in it, and to reading the prayer of such petition."
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am presenting the material allegations to the House. They are complex and cannot be further compressed without their thrust being lost. The petition is of great importance to thousands of taxpayers who believe that they have been wrongly assessed. I certainly shall not add any comment to it.
  The letter continues:
  "It was agreed with the professional organisations when it was drafted, has stood the test of time and has been generally understood and accepted. The Inland Revenue have assured me that there would be no question but that submission of full accounts and/or a complete return would be covered by this definition.'
  And whereas in a reply to a question by Neil Hamilton MP in a debate on the Finance Bill in Standing Committee A on 21 June 1984, Mr. Ian Stewart MP Economic Secretary to the Treasury said inter alia.
  "The hon. Gentleman asked about the effect of clause 122 and the schedule on the ability of taxpayers to elect whether the case goes before the general or the special commissioners …I can confirm that paragraph 3 of Schedule 22 covers only delay cases. The general rights of appeal to either the general or the special commissioners therefore still remain. If papers and accounts relating to a case are submitted in time, which for normal purposes is a 15-month period, the taxpayer's rights are fully protected and it would not normally qualify the 'delay case."'
  and whereas in a letter dated 2 July 1984 to Robin Maxwell-Hyslop Esq. MP the Rt. Hon. Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone stated inter alia that
  "The provision is intended to restrict the right of the taxpayer"—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Once the hon. Member starts including in his summary what he has himself said we are creating an unhappy precedent.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am not quoting anything that I have said; I am quoting what the Lord Chancellor said in an official letter to a Member of Parliament. It is because the Government have not done what the Lord Chancellor undertook in an official letter that this petition has been presented to the House.
  Mr. Speaker: My point is —I think that the hon. Member would be with me on this —that we must not create precedents here. The rule is that a summary should be made.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am three quarters of the way through, you will be relieved to hear, Mr. Speaker.

  1189
  The petition refers to the Lord Chancellor's letter, which stated:
  "The provision is intended to restrict the right of the taxpayer to elect to have his case heard by the Special Commissioners instead of the General Commissioners only in cases where the taxpayer has appealed against the tax assessment but has not produced any evidence to support his appeal ('delay' cases)" —
  I am on the last page, Mr. Speaker—
  "The general right of election between the General Commissioners and the Special Commissioners remains. I understand that when the Inland Revenue consulted on this matter, the policy was generally welcomed and I have no objection to it.
  As to the way in which the provision has been drafted, the legislative language used to identify delay causes in the Finance Bill is that used in Section 45(4) of the Taxes Management Act 1970. I am informed by the Revenue that when Section 45 was drafted it was agreed with the professional organisations and it has stood the test of time."
  The petition continues:
  and whereas Clause 122 and Schedule 22, paragraph 3 of the 1984 Finance Bill was enacted as amendments to Section 31 of the Taxes Management Act 1970.
  and whereas the practical effect of the amended legislation is that H.M. Inspectors of Taxes are applying Section 31 (5B) of the Finance Act 1970 to cases which are not "delay cases" and referring them to the General Commissioners and the General Commissioners are directing in such cases that the election to appear before the Special Commissioners be disregarded, and the taxpayer is thereby being denied the general right of election between the General Commissioners and the Special Commissioners.
  Therefore your Petitioner humbly prays this honourable House to take the premises into consideration and to do therein as to this honourable House shall seem meet.
  To lie upon the Table.

Industry Year 1986
9.47 am
Mr. Roger King: I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the initiative of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce in declaring 1986 Industry Year; agrees that it is essential that society values the contribution that industry makes to the nation's well-being, and that the most talented people are again attracted to work in industry to secure its future; welcomes the support being given to the initiative by the Government, the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress, the British Institute of Management, churches, women's groups and others; and urges all companies and schools to become involved.
All round us we can see evidence of the creation of wealth —schools, hospitals, roads and everything that we hold dear to us —but I wonder how many people comprehend how these provisions are made and how the finance is arrived at.
We are a resourceful and intelligent country. In many respects, we are the invention house of the world. Long is the list of British inventions that have been developed by many other countries into commercial success. We have produced more Nobel prize winners than any other country. We excel expecially when we have our backs to the wall. Our performance 45 years ago in the second world war is evidence of that. The struggle that we had just two or three years ago in the Falklands war is ample evidence of the resourcefulness of our industrial background in providing the weapons and tools to enable our forces to do the job.
Yet, despite this resourcefulness and inventiveness, our industrial capacity as a nation seems to be inexorably in decline. Some people can easily identify many of the reasons. It is not difficult to go through the list. Poor design is held up as an example. Many of the products of British origin that we have bought in the past two years leave much to be desired. Poor quality normally goes hand-in-hand with design, because quality starts on the drawing board. If the design is not good, it is difficult to get good quality.
There is an element of poor salesmanship, a sort of take-it-or-leave-it attitude which has cost us dear in many markets throughout the world and in the United Kingdom. The factories that produced good products apparently felt that Britain and the world would beat a path to their door to buy their products. They now realize —if they are still in business —that that is not the case. Poor productivity, brought on by poor management and restricted practices by the work force, played their part in ensuring that our decline has continued for many years.
There is a light at the end of those tunnels. I shall quote Sir Adrian Cadbury, the chairman of the west midlands industry year campaign committee:
"For too long, Britain has found it more comfortable to sink in a gentlemanly fashion down the international league table than to take the actions needed to reverse the decline."
As I said, in some respects, we have been able to redress that decline. We have made great strides in improving the quality and design of our goods and our salesmanship and marketing ability. The evidence of that exists all around us. The most notable example is Jaguar Cars. It epitomised everything that was wrong with British industry until the late 1970s. When grasped by the neck by a good manager, and when the product was revitalised and the work force

1191
had received the support that it needed to produce a product of quality, that product excelled in all the markets in which it was offered.
In the early days, companies such as Jaguar Cars and many others were good. The malaise occurred in the 1950s and 1960s. The white heat of the technological revolution passed those companies by. They felt that their products could rest on the laurels that had been gained over many years. They found their capitive markets disappearing to their competitors.
Much has been gained over the past few years, but there is still something wrong with our industry. Despite the improvements in design, productivity, worker-management relations and the number of new products coming onto the market something is still causing the country problems in re-establishing its industrial might.
Other countries do not seem to have such a problem. Countries such as Japan, Germany and America, and many of our European competitors are forging ahead. They seem to have an industrial background which enables new ideas to come forward and their factories to produce goods that are wanted. That is something that we lack.
The purpose of the Industry Year 1986 campaign is to identify that factor and to take steps to eradicate it as far as possible. Other hon. Members may wish to widen the debate into industry's problems generally. I respect that wish because we are talking about industry in 1986 —next year. The campaign does not necessarily cover all Government, local government or regional policies. Many of my colleagues might wish to mention subjects which are not directly relevant to the campaign.
The Industry Year 1986 campaign is non-political. It was felt that to politicise it would lead inevitably to dissent, which would mask the message that the campaign is trying to get across.
What is the Industry Year 1986 campaign seeking to do? The opportunity for the expansion of our industrial capacity is now or never. We have a marvellous opportunity to develop our industrial capacity against a strong economic background and improvements in productivity, industrial design and standards. We need to grasp that opportunity now if we are to provide for health, welfare, education and all the resources that we shall want in the future.
The aim of the campaign is to improve the public perception of industry's importance. A lack of that has proved to be one of the most debilitating factors in our industrial progress. I shall quote from a survey conducted to discover people's conception of industry about —how they see its importance compared with other walks of life. A survey covered 3,333 students between the ages of 13 and 18. It stressed:
"Perhaps the most important single finding was that there was no significant understanding of the importance of business as the basis of wealth creation, low appreciation that it was a worthwhile career to follow either in its own right or for its wealth creation process or understanding of the benefit it brings the nation —the poor and the sick."
When considering the importance of the many professions and occupations, 84 per cent. of the 3,333 considered that doctors and nurses were the most beneficial to the nation and were the most important people. I do not argue that they are not the most important. They are vital, but what disappoints me immensely is that only 24 per cent. of those questioned thought that managers in industry were important; only 21 per cent. thought that the factory worker was important; and only
1192
7 per cent. thought that the shop worker was important. The shop worker is covered by the campaign because of the retail sector's importance to the economy's wealth-creating process.
Many young people and others do not consider that industry and the wealth-creating process are as relevant as they once were. The CBI finds that to be the case. At a recent meeting in the House, the west midlands CBI was asked to state the greatest problem that confronted it in ensuring that British industry improved its productivity. I asked, "Why is it that after 10 or 15 years of trying to improve productivity, you still suggest that your productivity is not as good as that of your competitors? Why is there a delay?" The answer was, "Because, by and large, we cannot get the right men and women into industry. We cannot get the men and women with the brains, the expertise and the desire to improve the wealth-creating process. If we could, we could make the improvements in productivity that we need. They are not interested in coming into industry." That is a problem which we must tackle urgently.
We must try to redress the balance and attract young people into industry. Industry Year 1986 has been initiated by the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts Manufactures and Commerce. It has three basic aims; first to increase awareness of the fact that industrial success is fundamental to whatever we do; secondly, to increase the links between education and industry it has set targets to be accomplished during the next 12 months or so —and thirdly, to encourage industry to play a fuller role in the community within which it operates.
The campaign has been in preparation since 13 April 1984. It is not an instant, firing-from-the-hip response. It is a carefully co-ordinated and thought-out campaign to bring home to the country the importance of Industry Year 1986. It has a complete regional network. It is probably the most ambitious campaign ever conducted to further any form of industrial initiative. It has a small central organisation. Much of the preparation of the literature and other material has already been done.
There are now regional activity groups and regional working groups which have been set up throughout the country. Many of them are interested in following a preset campaign to attract as much attention as possible. To create awareness of the fundamental contribution of industry, it is necessary to attract the help and support of the media, through the newspapers, television and radio, and to prepare video films for presentation to schools, clubs, colleges and so on. There needs to be stronger links between education and industry. That involves organisation in the schools and colleges. There needs to be action within industry itself, because much has to be done to improve relations within industry between workers and employers, so the trade unions also have to play their part.
Norman Willis, the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, has written to every general secretary of every affiliated trade union, encouraging participation in Industry Year. He has written an article for inclusion in all trade union journals. Therefore, the campaign does not cover management or industry only; it covers the trade unions. Obviously, we all have a vested interest in ensuring that industry plays a major part in the life of the nation.
I have already mentioned the CBI's awareness that too few people wish to come into industry. The problem starts from the first day that children go to school. Very little

1193
contact is made with young children concerning the role of industry. Their education is strictly formalised. Although there are notable exceptions, in general the wealth creating process is not drawn to the attention of children in primary schools, or even in junior schools. We should try to create interest in that process as early as we can. I am not necessarily suggesting that children should go to factories and have jelly and ice cream at the end of the assembly line, to gain some idea of factory life, but during their junior school days children should be given the chance to visit factories and talk to people involved in the manufacturing process. The younger they are when they become involved with the enthusiasm of industry, the more likely they will be to appreciate its importance. From small acorns big oak trees grow. Although I do not suggest that every youngster visiting a factory will be caught up in the enthusiasm of industrial life, the country will be the loser if such visits do not take place.
Junior schools should play a part in creating projects linked with local places of work, including factories. They should be involved in making things, looking at them, seeing how they work and how they can be improved. Factory managers and trade unionists should help the schools with those projects.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman with great attention, but is he not founding his points on a false assumption? If his suggestion were to be adopted, is it not equally possible that the visitors would be put off? What contribution have the big public schools made to manufacturing industry as distinct from finance, the City and the law?
Mr. King: I hope that youngsters would not be put off. I am not suggesting that factories should be obliged to receive parties of school children. I hope that they would receive them with enthusiasm and instil that enthusiasm into them. It takes two to tango, and I hope that industry will show enthusiasm for its contribution to the nation, although sometimes it does not appear to show it.
I cannot answer for every public school in the land. For my sins, I went to a public school and my contribution to industry has been minuscule, but I have played a modest part. I hope that many of my colleagues and others who have been to public school are capable of making their contribution. I have no idea whether the public schools have made a contribution. In contrast with the position 50 or 60 years ago, today many quite average people go to public schools for various reasons. The hon. Member will know that many Service personnel are obliged to send their children to public schools, and they could never be described as being the monied people of the land.
We should take every possible step to acquaint junior school children of science and technology. I know that that is difficult because of their learning abilities, but in the school that my children aged 8 attend they are able and willing, together with the other children —partly as a result of television and exposure to the media —to learn a great deal more than children were able to learn a generation or so ago. I hope that basic science and engineering will, in liaison with factories and the manufacturing processes, become part of the junior school curriculum in the not-too-distant future and play a substantial part in awakening the interest of young people in our industrial life.
1194
At the level of secondary education, we must adopt a much more serious approach. I am not suggesting that the relationship of junior schools with factories should not be serious, but in secondary schools we have to make a serious approach to the task of attracting people into industry.
I have addressed many schools. On one occasion, in addressing youngsters aged 15 or so, I asked how many of them would like to start a business. In a class of just under 30, the majority put up their hands. When I asked what they thought was needed to start a business, about 95 per cent. said that money was needed. The other 5 per cent. mentioned the need to have backing. Only one youngster gave the correct answer —that for starting a business the essential requirement is an idea. Without an idea a business cannot be started.
I was worried that those youngsters, having gone through the education system, felt that the main impediment to starting a business was the lack of money. We must try to remove that mental block and show that the most important ingredient is an original idea for a new product or service. Once that idea exists, many of the other problems can be resolved.
We need to establish, within the secondary school curriculum, a proper knowledge of the role of industry. In the past few years great emphasis has been placed on home economics courses —cooking, sewing and all the things involved in maintaining a home. That is very good, but is it not time that there were business economics classes at schools, so that every child leaving school would know about business? Why should not there be an O —level in business? It is extraordinary that we put home economics before business economics, when the wealth creating process transcends everything else in importance.
Why should not we teach youngsters to understand the system involved in our stock markets, the raising of capital, and VAT returns? Why should not there be an O —level in VAT returns or in basic profit and loss accounts? We should be teaching children those subjects, with rather less emphasis placed on sewing and cooking, although they are important. I did not learn them at school and had to get married to get that sort of provision. That may sound to some like male chauvinism, but to me it sounds like common sense.
We should look closely at the curriculum of secondary schools and create a new discipline in the business element, with a business O —level course. That is of vital importance. It is also important to ensure that women are enthusiastic about industry. Because of the attitudes that have been adopted over the years, there are far too few women in industry and running industry. That is tragic. It does not happen in many other countries, particularly those of our competitors. Although there are notable examples of women getting to the top of the tree, they are few and far between. Women are often subjected to male chauvinism and to positive discouragement. That is wrong because they have much to contribute, probably more than many of the males of the species.
The director of external affairs at Austin Rover is Jean Denton. She is a lady of considerable ability and she runs the department extremely well. I am grateful that the company will play a major part in Industry Year. She is going to make a special attempt, as befits her position, to attract more women into industry. There will be a series of video demonstrations and talks at dealers' showrooms throughout the country, with special emphasis on the role

1195
that women can play in industry. That is to be applauded, and I look foward to it continuing in many other companies.
Women's institutes, of which there are vast numbers, and all sorts of female-orientated organisations also have an important part to play to discuss the role of industry, to meet people and to learn and understand the process that industry undergoes in order to create the nation's wealth. I hope that women will play a substantial part in the campaign, as should the Church.
Much criticism has been made in recent weeks about the role of the Church within our community. As I receive all the reports here and at home in my constituency and hear the problems of constituents, I often wonder about the problems of our society, such as poor housing, and the many other difficulties that confront us. We all know about that, and the Church commented on it recently in "Faith in the City". No emphasis is given to the wealth-creating process. It is almost as though wealth grows on trees and one has only to shake the trunk and the wealth will drop off. I know that the Church understands the wealth-creating process, but it should pay more attention to it. I hope that Industry Year will encourage the churches to place a greater emphasis on the wealth-creating process and acquaint their congregations with it.
One thing that we do understand is that one cannot have what one cannot pay for, and it cannot be paid for unless the money is earned. It is as simple as that. If we want to cure the problem of the inner city areas, to overcome the urban deprivation and other problems in our society, we must create the wealth to do so and the atmosphere that can bring it about.
Trade unions obviously have a strong part to play and I look forward to them being seen to play an important role in harmony with and alongside management, not in competition with it during the campaign. Many of the problems that are perceived in people's minds are due to the antagonistic attitude that has been engendered by decades during which it was management versus worker, strike and turmoil. Much of that has now been eliminated and is history. Both parties now get on exceedingly well as the problems of industry begin to be understood.
Industry itself has a demanding task. It will have to work in schools, colleges and universities to preach the gospel. Without industry taking a prominent part in preaching that gospel, much of what Industry Year seeks to provide will not come to pass. We need to have open days in factories, visiting lecturers to schools as I have already mentioned, and the creation of video films about what a business does. All those things will help to put the role of industry across to the public.
The museums also have a role to play by highlighting much of our industrial past. We have a great and glorious past. Our capacity as the first industrial nation is something to be proud of, although exploitation took place, as we all know from the history books and probably from personal experience of our families and ancestors. Nevertheless, that which we created in the 19th century and the early part of this century we can and must re-create using many of the same ideas, but harnessing many of the new ones that we have learnt to develop over the past few years.
The question that many parents may face is whether to put their daughter on the stage. However, not many people would send their daughter —or these days, their son —into industry. It has a reputation for being dull, boring,
1196
repetitive, noisy, unhappy and strike-prone, with a love-hate relationship. It is also risky because of redundancy and unemployment. One can be in one minute and redundant the next. That risk does not always face those in a profession. There have been such risks in careers in industry, but the reason why Industry Year is so apposite now is that many of the problems of redundancies and so on are past. I admit that they still occur. There is a tragedy at Castle Bromwich in Birmingham where 750 Austin Rober tool room workers are being made redundant. Such problems will continue to occur because we shall always go through periods of industrial change. There is no stopping that.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) mentioned in his intervention the problems of coming to grips with industry and its capacity, and how it is financed. Much of it is cloaked in mystery. I believe that that is wrong and that we should take whatever steps are necessary to make the financing of industry completely open and understood by all, because once it is understood it is not feared. One of the prime obstacles for young people going into industry is fear that they will not complete their career without being made redundant, the company going bust or being taken over.
I speak with some experience in industry, because in 1974 I had the privilege of starting my own business from scratch. I went into business with two colleagues and we went through all the trials and tribulations that one experiences when starting a business. We were always under-financed, struggling to make a product that had a ready acceptance in the market place and trying to balance our cash flow correctly so that we could pay suppliers as money was received from customers. It is risky to start a business, and I suppose it always will be. It would be wrong for us to make it too easy because if it is, people will go into business for the wrong reasons. The product that we made lent itself not just to the home market but to the export market. As we grew from a company of two —myself and my wife —to a work force of some 42, we were producing goods for export to Japan, America and many of the continental countries.
As I look back on the six years when I was involved in that business, I can say: never mind the trials and tribulations, never mind the bank manager ringing me up and saying, "I have a cheque for £2,000 here. Your account is already £1,000 overdrawn. What shall I do with it?" I would say "I can tell you" and usually, to help me out, the bank manager did as I suggested. One Christmas in 1976 we were so short of money that my wife and I went to the local bank and drew out the wage packet on our Access cards to pay the work force, and we had precisely £2·50 for spending over the 10-day Christmas period. Never mind about that. The memories that I have are of producing a product which we made in our factory and which was sent to Japan, America and many European countries.
It was satisfying to fill up a large container with our products. We turned the raw material of steel tube, foam, cloth and so on into a car seat. We sent it to a market that other people found hard to penetrate. The satisfaction was enormous. However, so were the dangers. We ended up by dramatically changing the company, after the vagaries of the pound-dollar relationship. The pound suddenly shot up to $2·40 and pushed us out of the American and Japanese markets. We had to make redundant nearly half our work force. It was a tragic experience, when one had

1197
been used to employing and hiring people, to have to make 20 people redundant, but that is the risk in industry. That is one of the reasons why so many people choose a much softer option by going into a profession or working for local government rather than risk the problems that might beset them in industry.
I emphasise that for the young business man starting up, the opportunities and the satisfaction of producing goods for sale at home and abroad are immense. One cannot get such satisfaction from anything else in which one indulges. It is satisfying to produce something and put one's name to it.
However, the Government have their part to play in ensuring the continuing success of the development of industry throughout 1986. Although the Industry Year 1986 campaign is for that year only, it will not accomplish everything in 365 days. It will take a good deal longer than that. It is hoped that the campaign will run on and on until at some stage in the future we have revitalised our industry, encouraged young people to go into industry and made them appreciate the role that it plays in our society. Equally, it is no good, when we have such a campaign doing everything that it can to stimulate local industry, and when the Government are playing their part, if local government does not join in as well.
Mr. John Ryman: I refer to the role of Government in promoting industry. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the Government, whom, presumably, he purports to support, are successfully ruining industry in the north-east of England by the abolition of special development area status and by the asinine introduction of disastrous regional policies?
Mr. King: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I do not think that any form of regional assistance that Governments have introduced has been any good whatsoever to British industry. All that it has done is move jobs from one part of the country to another. Other forms of assistance could have been given. The disaster overcame the west midlands area because for 25 years industry was told that it could get out of the area and scatter to the breeze, which brought the problem home to roost. I agree that successive Government policies on regional aid have been a disaster, although I am not giving the hon. Gentleman the reply that he would like.
Local government has a role to play. I look with horror and fright at this prospect in Industry Year. The City of Birmingham council is talking, albeit with a smile on its face, because nobody seriously thinks that it will come to pass, of a 60 per cent. rates increase, which will crucify industry throughout the area. Local government must play its part in reducing the burden upon industry.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman says with enthusiasm that we should watch out for the rise in rates inflicted by Labour-controlled councils. No doubt many such councils are inflicting rates that are well above what is necessary. Nevertheless, does he not concede that many of the rate rises this year will come about as a direct result of central Government policy, not local government policy? For instance, in Somerset we may have a rate rise of 25 per cent., which will do great damage to local industry, but about 22 per cent. is a direct result of the Government's policy of no increases in the budget. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that?
Mr. King: I cannot recognise the problems of Somerset because I do not know them. The hon. Gentleman commented on his part of the world, and I am restricting my comments to Birmingham, which I know. I shall be as charitable as possible because the Industry Year 1986 campaign is supposed to be a non-political event. Some aspects of Government policy have had and will have an influence on increasing the rates, but one must also look at the role that local authorities, many Labour-controlled, have taken upon themselves in the community. In Birmingham, tens of thousands —indeed millions —of pounds of ratepayers' money have been spent inadvisedly on grandiose Labour party schemes, for example neighbourhood councils, costing us about £5 million or £6 million of expenditure on leisure service arrangements and so on.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What about recreation facilities?
Mr. King: I am not against recreation, but I feel that, if people had jobs in commerce and industry, they would have their own money to provide their own recreation. It would not necessarily have to be provided by the local community. We also need a stable economy. We have more or less got that at the moment.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why, every year, does the hon. Gentleman vote for money to go to Ulster to provide the very recreation facilities that the Birmingham authority is trying to set up? He votes in the Lobby annually for moneys to go to Ulster so that a Government Department can provide those facilities. He should look at his own voting record.
Mr. King: I am not—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is true.
Mr. King: It may well be correct. I would not deny it. I give the same answer to the hon. Gentleman as I gave to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). I am addressing my remarks to Birmingham and the west midlands area, not to Northern Ireland, which is an area with a peculiar set of circumstances. It demands certain facilities and policies that would not necessarily be carried out elsewhere.
The Government must also create the right regional climate. Although I do not welcome regional assistance, I am happy to note that in the west midlands, with intermediate status, many new jobs have been provided, and many new businesses established. That is commendable, given that we have to have regional assistance.
The Government need to create the right environment and roads. Roads are the main arteries along which our goods and freight travel. It is essential that we have roads to the docks. Many of the projects that have been earmarked for development to open up the west midlands area still await final approval and construction.
In the west midlands, young people look out on a sea of industrial dereliction. Old factories and businesses have gone. That happens in industry. Nothing is for ever. One recognises the problems of industrial areas that have undergone such a decline. There is no way young people wish to take part in industry when they can see nothing around them but old factories lying obsolete, and weed-covered sites where businesses used to be. They shudder and are dismayed at that, and do not want to get involved with anything such as that. We must tackle the problem

1199
during Industry Year 1986 d subsequent years. We must improve the environment for industry. We cannot all go to green-field high-tech sites. Indeed, we do not want companies to go there.
We want them to stay in our conurbations where vast acres lie ready to be developed. The CBI in the west midlands has voiced its anxiety. It wrote to me as follows:
"I know you are aware that this is a very important subject for the region. Despite the fact that the total allocation was 13·98 million in 1984 –85, and is expected to be £12·59 million in 1985 –86, it is still the case that in the years 1974 –85 the net effect has been that reclamation progress has not kept pace with the increase in dereliction. Thus, the amount of derelict land in the region has increased by 24 per cent. between 1974 –82 to nearly 5,800 hectares. Of this total, 1,900 hectares lie in the West Midlands County (including 1,500 hectares within the Black Country Boroughs of Dudley, Walsall, Sandwell and Wolverhampton). In addition, Staffordshire has 1,500 hectares, Shropshire —1,200 hectares, Warwickshire —1,000 hectares and Hereford/Worcester —200 hectares. This is, therefore, a major and growing problem".
The Government and industry must combine to eradicate it as quickly as possible. Eyesores and dereliction will not attract young people to industry. It is essential that we grasp this nettle for several years. It is only a problem of will. Many companies would he prepared to do much of the work themselves if they could get Government assistance.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is keen on public purchasing. It amounts to £14 billion a year and I know that he is also anxious that as much as possible of it occurs in the United Kingdom. I hope that more can be done to satisfy the Government's requirements from within the United Kingdom provided that it is up to the job. If the products are no good, we have to go somewhere else, even if that means Japan or America. We must establish a more aggressive international posture to get business. We must tackle the problem of Spanish car imports, for example. That is an old chestnut but it epitomises many of our trading relationships. The Export Credits Guarantee Department could also help to get business. We know in our heart of hearts that many of our competitors are buying with under-cover assistance. That was highlighted recently by the Bosporus bridge contract, which went to Japan. Whatever country is in the business of getting business, we must be there horse trading as much as the rest of them.
The creation of new businesses has attracted much attention. Britain has been successful in the past five years —about 141,000 VAT registered businesses have been created in that time. They are using many of the facilities offered by the Government, such as the business expansion scheme, the loan guarantee scheme, the enterprise allowance scheme, the business improvement scheme and the venture capital scheme. The national insurance surcharge has been abolished and the VAT threshold has been increased to £19,500. It is well below the £50,000 that I should like, but we can always press for that improvement.
I still receive letters from constituents saying that they are interested in starting a business, that they have an idea, but that they do not know where to get financial backing. We must redouble our efforts to acquaint people of what is available to help them create new businesses. A central co-ordinating body is required in that regard. Perhaps we could rename job centres business centres. A high street shop next to building societies might be a suitable vehicle.
1200
New business is essential to the development of our economy. I wonder, however, whether too many people start up in business, unaware of the pitfalls or hoping that they will not fall into them. It is not too difficult to raise the initial finance if one has an idea. A second mortgage can be taken out or money can be borrowed by scratching around the immediate family. A sleeping partner can be brought in as a shareholder. The difficulty occurs 18 months or two years later when the business has developed but there are cash flow problems. The business requires plant and equipment more quickly than it can sustain them, so business is lost.
I wonder whether it is wise of banks to allow a loan on the strength of a second mortgage because, if a business does not succeed, people can find themselves homeless. I wonder whether a certificate of business competence should be a prime requirement of anybody setting up on his own. It could be acquired at school or college. Businesses will continue to fall into traps without it. After 12 months in business, the VAT men, the PAYE men and a host of others descend like paratroopers demanding payment and saying that the books are a mess. The result is that a good product hits the dust simply through lack of basic form filling expertise and financial experience.
Business has a role to play in improving its own image. Far too often people think of it as remote from the community and its work force. Management takes decisions well away from the site of production. I wonder whether it is time for companies to have some form of factory parliament which would enable the work force to question the management once a month. That might help to break down old barriers. Perhaps companies will consider how they relate to their work forces during industry year. That is especially important for factories which are dotted all over the country. I hope that the era of companies controlled from facilities overseas which make decisions that affect whole communities is a thing of the past. I am reminded of the tragedy of BSR in Halesowen. The company operates principally out of Hong Kong and 4,000 jobs have gone, presumably because the management does not want to modernise here and prefers to make its products in Hong Kong or Taiwan. We should discourage such remoteness.
This year is also energy efficiency year. Such industrial campaigns are good but should highlight improvements that can occur for several years. The two promotions —energy efficiency year and industry year —should compliment each other. Efficient energy management is an essential part of good industrial and commercial management. The nation's energy bill reaches some £35 billion a year. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has said, about £7 billion is wasted each year. That is an immense amount of money and we should all ensure that the nation realises the opportunities for economy. No less than £2 billion is wasted on energy by industry and commerce each year. I remember industry being able to reach normal five-day week production levels on a three-day week. I do not want to return to a three-day week, but much can be done to contain energy expenditure. We often hear industry complaining about the cost of energy, but even the most half-hearted energy conservation programme can achieve enormous savings.
During the past two years, the Secretary of State has been promoting energy efficiency with great effectiveness, and energy efficiency year will be a great step forward in

1201
that campaign. It was launched in Birmingham in November and should gain the support of businesses large and small.
There is a Queen's award for export achievements. To make our industry more efficient, we need, not a Queen's award, but perhaps a Duke of Edinburgh's award or a Prince of Wales's award for energy efficiency. That would go a long way to encouraging industry. There is nothing like putting up a flag in front of one's factory or on the masthead of one's notepaper. I hope for great changes in that direction.
Industry is about buying British. Each of us can play a part in that. If we do not buy British products, but continue to support products from foreign manufacturers, we will not create the jobs and opportunities that we need. Industry Year will depend upon our supporting British industry. I am not talking about creating new jobs. I hope that they will come as a result of improved efficiency, marketing and sales expertise. We must create public awareness of the role of industry. There are many facets to industry, from retailing to tourism to manufacturing, but I can say one thing with great conviction: without industry we shall surely perish. Industry is leisure, health, entertainment, pensions, sport, art, fashion, food, education and travel. Industry makes it all possible. Without industry, nothing is.
10.41 am
Mr. Gregor MacKenzie:
I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) on his good fortune in winning first place in the ballot. I have been trying —perhaps you have, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker —for all the years that I have been a Member of the House, except when I was a Minister, to win a place in the raffle and have not succeeded. I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the motion. I and many hon. Members wish Industry Year well.
The hon. Gentleman's speech was interesting. I hope that he will not think me churlish if I say that he lost me after the first 25 minutes, as I fear that he lost everyone else in the Chamber. However, those things happen from time to time. I accept the spirit of his motion, as do my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Opposition, the CBI and the TUC. The hon. Gentleman also said that the churches look forward to Industry Year 1986. Were I a young aspiring Conservative Member of Parliament, I would not have included the word "churches" in my motion. That is not a nice word in the Conservative party nowadays, and it might cause him a little embarrassment. Above all, I hope that the Government will accept the spirit of the motion and will do something positive to encourage industrial prosperity.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for adopting a parochial note and speaking about industry in Scotland. He spoke, properly, about the West midlands and his constituency in particular. In Scotland, industry means jobs; at present, we do not have them. Industry means apprenticeships, but we have few of those. Almost 400,000 people in Scotland are out of work. Since the figure has more than doubled during the six years of this Government, we are especially aggrieved about our industrial position. Sad to relate, the same pathetic story
1202
is true all over the United Kingdom. Industry Year 1986 will be a success only if unemployment is substantially reduced.
During the next year we should give much more thought to the place of our older and more traditional industries. In Scotland, industries such as coal, shipbuilding and steel have been almost destroyed during the past five or six years. The coal industry has lost about 10,000 jobs; shipbuilding has lost 5,000 to 6,000 jobs; and the steel industry has lost about 9,000 jobs. I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is well briefed to say later that although all those jobs have been lost in traditional industries, the Government has created many jobs in new industries in Scotland, the north and elsewhere. Although I welcome the creation of jobs in the high-tech industries, I must tell the Minister that Scotland still has 200,000 fewer jobs than it did five or six years ago and that is a scandal.
Our great anxiety in Scotland is the future of the steel industry, and especially the future of Gartcosh. Just after I became a Member of the House, at almost the same time as my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) when there was a steel debate the Opposition Benches were packed and there was squabbling over who should speak in the debate. However, in recent times, because of the almost complete destruction of the industry, there is hardly a soul here to speak in steel debates. None of us has the same constituency interest in steel as he did 22 years ago.
Gartcosh has become a symbol to the people of Scotland. We shall judge the Government's enthusiasm for industry in Scotland by their approach to this problem, and we shall be satisfied that the Government believe in a strong steel industry only when they give a positive guarantee about the future of Gartcosh and of Ravenscraig. Not only Labour Members, but people outside the House are extremely cross. This week, we had the dreadful spectacle of the Scottish Conservative Members who serve on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs wrecking any prospect of an early decision on this vital matter. They told us that they wanted yet another review because they believed that the evidence was inconclusive, Most of us believe that the evidence is conclusive, and the local people want an end to the wrangling.
The problem arose, as the Minister may be aware —if he is not, his Whips will tell him —because during the past four or five weeks there has been a power struggle for the position of chairman of the Scottish group of Members of Parliament. Why anyone would go to such trouble to become the chairman of only 13 Members is beyond my comprehension. However they have been so concerned about their own affairs that they have let this massive issue go to the wall. Therefore the steel workers at Gartcosh will face Hogmanay, the eve of Industry Year, without any guarantee about their future. It is completely uncertain: all because of the malarkey that has gone on in the Scottish Conservative group during the last few weeks. It has caused a great deal of bitterness in the steel constituencies of Scotland, particularly in Lanarkshire. We want an end to all of that and to all the tripe that we have heard from the Government Benches during the last few weeks.
Our older, traditional industries need real help and much more support. The workers in those industries —the miners, the steel workers and the shipbuilders —are beginning to laugh at the Industry Year concept. That is sad indeed. I very much hope that the Government, instead

1203
of saying that everything is a matter for the chairmen of the nationalised industries, will tell them that they do not run the country: that Parliament and Government run the country. I do not want to interfere in the day-to-day affairs of the British Steel Corporation or the National Coal Board, but Gartcosh is not a day-to-day affair. Major decisions have to be taken, in which the Government must be involved. Government Ministers cannot shuffle off their responsibilities and put them on to the shoulders of non-elected chairmen of the nationalised industries.
I want to make two points about the speech of the hon. Member for Northfield. He referred to the "Buy British" campaign, with which I have considerable sympathy, but I do not agree with those hon. Members who favour wholesale import controls. We are a great trading nation. We ought to do business with other countries. We want to encourage them to invest in this country, particularly in the high-tech industries. We shall not encourage them to do so if there are wholesale, indiscriminate import controls. However, I favour import controls when there is unfair trading or when other countries, notably Japan, export but seldom, if ever, import the goods of other countries.
As for unfair trading —I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will discuss this matter with those of his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry who are responsible for trade —one or two nations adopt very unfair trading practices. Some of them are our partners in the European Community. This country has always aided strictly by the trading rules, but that does not apply to other countries in Europe. There is legislation on the statute book to cover unfair trading, but I hope that the Under-Secretary will take back to his colleagues the message that new legislation about unfair trading ought to be put on to the statute book. Such legislation ought to be able to respond very much more quickly to unfair trading practices.
I do not have the exact Japanese export figures and I do not know what Japan imports, but one does not need to be very clever to understand that Japan exports much more than it imports. The Japanese Government have been at pains to say recently that they favour the import of goods, but we have yet to see the realisation of the Prime Minister of Japan's ambitions. No matter what he says, Japanese business men do not want goods to be imported. Japanese citizens, who show great loyalty to their own companies, do not want imports, either. The hon. Member for Northfield knows a great deal about the car industry in the Midlands. He knows that Japanese cars are imported in their thousands. Each Japanese car is imported, by definition, with five tyres. That does not help the British tyre industry. Each car is also imported with its lighting equipment. That is not good for the British electrical appliances industry.
Mr. William Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that between 1960 and 1982 the average productivity of manufacturing industry grew by over 500 per cent. in Japan, whereas in the United Kingdom it was under 80 per cent.?
Mr. MacKenzie: That reinforces my argument. The Japanese do exceedingly well out of Britain but we get absolutely nothing in return. The sooner something is done to make them understand that we are in earnest about this matter the better.
The hon. Member for Northfield referred to education and training and to the recruitment of young people into industry. The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry said in public recently that in Industry Year the face of industry must be made more acceptable. He said that an effort must be made to recruit young people from schools and colleges into industry. Sir Terence Beckett went further and suggested that it would be helpful if a member of the royal family went on to the shop floor and got his hands dirty. I am not very concerned about that, but I am concerned that colleges and schools should try much harder to encourage young people to enter industry, as indeed they do in Europe. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) knows that the Scottish tradition is that if one has a son one wants him to enter the law, medicine or the kirk. In my own family young people have mainly entered the law instead of going into industry, so my family has failed industry. But the law, medicine and the kirk are not the only places for bright young people.
The Government could encourage young people to enter commerce and industry by providing the technical colleges and polytechnics that train young people for industry with a much higher status and better resources. Furthermore, the Government should alter their recruitment policy for the Civil Service. I have never understood why it is necessary to have a first class honours degree in classics or history to become the Permanent Secretary of a major Department of State. I look forward to the day when engineers and scientists head our Departments of State. My hopes for Industry Year are that we shall encourage our older, traditional industries and that we shall also do a great deal more to build up the high-tech industries.
We should sort out our trading position by looking at the whole business of imports and exports in 1986. We should give much more respect to our engineers and scientists, but, above all, we should provide jobs for our people in Scotland and in other parts of the United Kingdom and give those people back the dignity that they have lost by being unemployed.
10.59 am
Mr. Tim Rathbone: I am pleased to speak after the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie). However, the thrust of the debate should concern not so much the help that the Government should be giving but the understanding that everybody should be building—
It being Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5 (Friday sittings).

Severn Bridge Tolls (Judgment)
11 am
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement. The challenge to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's decision to increase tolls on the Severn bridge succeeded in the High Court yesterday morning.
The judge held that there were procedural improprieties at the inquiry in that the inspector did not evaluate and recommend on matters germane to the decision. This was not, the judge found, cured in the decision letter. The order was therefore held null and void. No transcript of the judgment has yet been seen. When we have studied this, an appeal will be considered.
Action was taken immediately so that tolls could be charged at the old level as soon as practicable, probably some time later today. Vehicles are being allowed to cross without payment while the necessary mechanical changes to the toll booths are being prepared.
Mr. Alan Williams: I thank the Minister for that statement. I am truly sorry that it is she who is having to carry the can before the House today. Is it not unbelievable that for the third time the Secretary of State for Transport has been overruled in the courts, and this a leading member of the so-called law and order Government?
Does the hon. Lady remember that earlier this year the Court of Appeal overruled the Secretary of State and told him that he could not stop the GLC lorry ban? Does she remember that the High Court ruled that he had wrongly demanded £250 million from the GLC and said that his action was
"unlawful, irrational and procedurally improper"
I underline that last point —procedurally improper.
Now we have a third case. The High Court has again ruled that there was procedural impropriety —failure to consider wider objections. As a result of his procedural impropriety the right hon. Gentleman has illegally increased the tolls on the Severn bridge. The poor man is becoming a persistent offender. Is it not just as well that these are not criminal cases? Imagine what would happen when the judge came to sentencing and the record was read out. The judge would say, "Life without remission".
Does the hon. Lady recognise that the Secretary of State has a defence of sorts? He could plead fool not felon and we would readily recognise the validity of that claim. But it must be a matter of grave concern that the Minister who has just refused a proper inquiry into the Channel tunnel has already twice been found guilty of procedural impropriety and, according to the court, has failed to consider all factors. I advise those would-be sponsors of the fixed link proposals to take care. Imagine the hilarity when they break through on the French side only to be met by the right hon. Gentleman saying, "Excuse me, but I have news for you".
But what about those motorists who have paid an extra 30p a day —35,000 of them? The motorists have been robbed of over £10,000 a day. Who will compensate them, and how, or does the robber keep the swag? What apology does the Minister make to the people of Wales? It has been decreed that he ignored the fact that the new tolls could frustrate efforts to bring new jobs to Wales.
1206
Is it not typical of the effrontery of the Secretary of State that he is not even here to make the statement today, despite the request from the Opposition Front Bench that he make the statement yesterday and despite a request from the Opposition Front Bench for an emergency debate on the subject? He should have been here today if only to say goodbye.
Mrs. Chalker: I have a good memory of all the facts but the House will understand if I ignore some of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks which were completely irrelevant and he knows it as well as I do.
I will now try to help the right hon. Gentleman. First, the court did not find for the appellants that the Secretary of State had misdirected himself in law when making his decision. The judge said that certain objections to the order should have been subject to evaluation by the inspector and the inspector should have recommended upon them. The inspector heard and recorded the objections, but he did not recommend upon them because he had held that they were beyond the scope of the inquiry. That was the decision of the inspector alone.
Some of the right hon. Gentleman's words fall strangely when one considers the facts behind the case. In 1966 tolls started with a 12½p equivalent toll fare across the bridge. Thirteen years later, in 1979, tolls were raised to 20p. In June this year tolls were raised further. In all that time the tolls have not kept up with inflation.
I have a report from the court but I do not have a transcript. I understand that no transcript will be available for about 10 days. Any further discussion on the matter cannot really take place until we have studied that transcript.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware that, whatever may be the arguments for imposing toll charges —there are strong and varied arguments —in the particular circumstances of the Severn bridge, where the arrangements for the collection of the tolls are such as to produce a monstrous bottleneck on what is already a somewhat overcrowded crossing the events of this judicial decision now provide the Government with a pretext, for which they ought to have been looking for some time, to do away with tolls altogether since they undoubtedly considerably inhibit the economic development of Wales?
Mrs. Chalker: I well understand my hon. Friend's case, but Britain would not have had many structures on the dates when they were finalised unless it had been possible to take some measure of the cost of providing those structures from those who use them in preference to the long detours that they formerly had to make.
Mr. Michael Cocks: As a Member for Avon county I am gratified by this turn of events. The Minister says that no detail is available yet. In the event that costs are not allowed, will the Government reimburse the local authorities that have taken the action? Secondly, since the Government are hell-bent on privatisation, instead of tampering about with something like the gas industry, why not privatise the Department's legal work because it seems to be the fastest growing sector of the Government?
Mrs. Chalker: As the daughter, and sister, of lawyers, I do not think that I should comment on the right hon. Gentleman's last remark. I might be held to be prejudicing

1207
the situation in some way. I realise that Avon was one of five county councils, together with Gwent, Mid-Glamorgan, West Glamorgan and Dyfed, which were the challengers of the Secretary of State's decision. I am not in a position to tell him about any reimbursement but I can assure him that I shall write to him when the judgment has been studied.
Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it comes ill from Labour Members to criticise the Government in relation to the matter that has been referred to the High Court when they, when in Government, were responsible for some of the classic cases —for example, the Tameside case, the Laker Airways case and the Congreve television licence case. These things do happen from time to time and it comes ill from Labour Members to take such cheap points.
Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is much more expert in legal matters than I am. I well remember cases going against Governments of all hues over the years. That is one of the parts of our legal system which are safeguards in many ways. I have tried to confine myself to the issue before me and I hope that my hon. Friend will, therefore, understand if I do not comment further on his very fair comments about the Opposition's initial response.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Donald Stewart. This is a statement about the Severn bridge.
Mr. Donald Stewart: I take your point, Mr. Speaker, but I wish to support the general point sensibly made by the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) about bridge tolls generally. Is the Minister aware of the situation on the Scottish bridges where the—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is what I feared.
Mr. Roger King: As the toll on the Severn bridge 19 years ago was 12½p, and the Secretary of State is seeking to raise it to 50p, is not that a very low increase, bearing in mind the substantial benefits that the bridge affords the local community and those who use it?
Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. Friend would not have gone ahead with the order, which he did before there was any question of a legal challenge from the five county councils, unless he had thought the increase to be reasonable. Nevertheless, until the equipment is changed we are returning to a free passage and then to 1979 levels until a decision is made, following receipt of the transcript, on what should be done.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Why is the Secretary of State for Transport not here to make the statement? Has he not carefully avoided one of the judge's comments? The judge said:
"The points would and should have assisted the Secretary of State in the exercise of his discretion and power."
Has not the Secretary of State overstepped his discretion and his power, and is not this the third time in a year in which he has done that?
Is not this the 15th time that the Government have been hauled before the courts in the past two years? They have spent more time being arraigned by the courts than the Lord Chancellor has spent in the courts upholding the law. Does the Minister not realise that in many people's view those facts demonstrate a strange and worrying hypocrisy from the Government who dare to lecture us about values
1208
and upholding the law? When will the Government begin to adopt some decent standards in the governing of this country?
Mrs. Chalker: The Government will never cease trying to adopt the highest standards. There are, nevertheless, in the judgment on any matters of this nature myriad factors to be taken into consideration. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to make cheap political points about a situation that is far more complex than probably even he can understand. I was informed at ten minutes to 10 this morning of this matter. That was the notice that I had. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was not in the office at that time —he is elsewhere, on a visit —it would have been impossible for him to return. That is why I was asked to make the statement in his stead. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the statement would not have been in any other form, even if my right hon. Friend had made it.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Now that the courts have decided that the 150 per cent. increase put on by the Government in June is null and void, will the real objectors to the toll increases be heard by the Department of Transport? Those objectors are the people involved in commerce and those commuting out of unemployment-ridden south Wales to get jobs in south-west England. Will they be heard and will the Government stop these ridiculous increases and help the people who need to use the bridge?
Mrs. Chalker: I said in answer to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) that the inspector who conducted the inquiry heard and recorded the objections. He did not recommend upon them because he held that they were beyond the scope of the inquiry that he was nominated to conduct by the Lord Chancellor. I realise well and truly how difficult it has been for many people in south Wales and many other areas of the country who need to travel long distances and to be absent from their families to find work. However, this country has long needed that flexibility of movement. The fact that they are on the other side of a waterway is one fact—
Mr. Barron: An increase of 150 per cent.
Mrs. Chalker: The increase has to be judged over 19 years and not, as the hon. Gentleman likes to do, over a single year or so.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: As the Secretary of State has yet again ignored all the evidence given to him from the area about the direct barrier to the creation of employment that an increase in the tolls would present, how many times must he be brought before the courts before he has the decenty to resign? How long do we have to wait before he understands that he must take account of the interests of the people of this country and not behave in this arrogant manner?
Mrs. Chalker: I assure the hon. Lady that my right hon. Friend is very fully aware of, and sympathetic to, the interests of the people of this country, but it never does to allow one's heart to rule one's head and it is high time that the hon. Lady learnt that valuable lesson. I make no further comment about that.
My right hon. Friend, in reaching his decision, followed the recommendations of the inspector, which were clear: the tolls should be raised.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Did my hon. Friend have any indication from the Opposition that a private notice question was to be asked on this subject—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a private notice question; it is a statement.
Mr. Rathbone: That is the point of my question. It is only because of the willingness of the Minister that we are having the statement. The criticisms of the Opposition are ill-founded, because they had no keenness to find out the truth in the first place.
Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House informs me that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said in the House yesterday that he intended to ask for a statement. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman, but I have not yet had time to read yesterday's Hansard. I would have been better prepared if I had realised the import of what he had said.
It is always difficult when something happens on a Thursday and the House sits at 9·30 on a Friday and a statement has to be made at 11 o'clock. It is difficult to have as much information as I should genuinely like to give the House. However, as the transcript is not yet available, I have no means of informing the House further in the way that hon. Members would obviously like.
Mr. John Ryman: May I ask the Minister calmly to give us a few more necessary facts? Although no transcript is available, a detailed note must have been taken by counsel representing the Secretary of State in court and by the instructing solicitor. Presumably the hon. Lady has that note and can refer to it. If she does not have it, she should have it.
What is the position about costs? In more than 15 cases since the Government were elected in 1983 the courts have ruled that there have been serious errors of law and that orders made by Ministers pursuant to legislation were rendered null and void because of illegalities. Orders for costs must have been made against the Secretary of State on those occasions, which means that the taxpayer is having to fund the litigation resulting from the incompetence and negligence of Ministers.
Thirdly——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Briefly, please.
Mr. Ryman: What do the Government intend to do as a result of this disgraceful act of negligence? Is it intended that the inspector should conduct another inquiry? That would normally be the procedure. The inspector having been found by the courts to be in error in law, do the Government intend to set up another inquiry, with a more competent inspector, to go through the evidence again?
Mrs. Chalker: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman as much as possible. A full note was taken by counsel in court yesterday, but it is not yet available in type and has not yet arrived in my office. As soon as we receive it, we shall read it with care. I make the statement the day after the court case in response to a request. I shall make the information available as soon as possible, but I cannot do the impossible, hard as I might try.
Costs will be awarded to the applicants. That was stated yesterday. The funding of other cases falls outside the terms of this statement, but obviously we shall be looking into the matter with care. Nobody likes the situation and no one is prepared, where it is avoidable, to let it happen again. I say that to the House with all sincerity. Judgments which might not be totally clear will have to be taken on board and we might, indeed, have to look at what should be said in the law.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) said about jobs in south Wales and the west country Thirdly—which will be affected by the monstrous increases in tolls since June Thirdly —will the Secretary of State take on board this important issue, notwithstanding the inspector's report?
The Secretary of State has absented himself this morning. What engagements can be more important than making such an announcement to the House? Does the hon. Lady enjoy being a surrogate for someone who is involved in illegalities? Will she call upon her right hon. Friend to do the decent thing and to come to the House with a resignation statement?
Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman's last comments carried him in an unwise direction. I am no one's surrogate. I am the Minister of State at the Department of Transport. The Secretary of State had an important engagement. He would not have known about a possible statement until he was many miles from London. It was physically impossible for him to be here at 11 o'clock this morning.
Of course we understand the importance of the issue and we understand the problems for people who travel daily over any estuarial crossing. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that moving from a 12½p toll in 1966, to a 20p toll in 1979, and to a 50p toll in 1985 is way below the inflation level over the last 19 years.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: This is private Member's motions day. Mr. Rathbone.

Macaulay Institute
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. I bought a copy of The Scotsman this morning and received a telephone call from the Press and Journal in Aberdeen and was thereby advised of the publication described by the Scottish Office as
"a White Paper with green edges"
It proposes the closure of the Macaulay institute in Aberdeen, which employs 238 people, and its transfer to Dundee and Edinburgh.
Immediately I read about it, I phoned the Minister's office to seek a copy of the Green Paper. I was advised that it was not available in the House of Commons but that it was possibly available in Edinburgh. The person to whom I spoke said that he would do his best to find a copy somewhere in London.
Is it not disgraceful that devastating decisions affecting hon. Members' constituents should be announced to the press in Edinburgh when no copies of the relevant document are available to hon. Members to enable them to make effective representations? Will you, Mr. Speaker ask the Government to treat the House with respect and allow Members of Parliament to do their job with proper information?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows my views. I think that if documents of this kind are available to the press they should be available to hon. Members. However, that is not a matter for me. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's comments will have been heard by Ministers on the Front Bench.
Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you find out on how many other occasions Green Papers have been issued without any copies being available to hon. Members?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Industry Year 1986
Question again proposed.
Mr. Rathbone: I pick up the thread of this excellent debate on Industry Year 1986, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King). I congratulate him on taking the initiative. The importance of the debate is not marred by the attendance. I welcome the Minister to the Front Bench. He has done much for industry, particularly for design in industry, as we were able to mark dramatically in our debate on 21 October.
Industry Year 1986 was initiated by the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, an entirely independent body which, from its 18th century beginnings, has provided a link between the applied arts and industry; between academia and the practical. The society was the organiser of the great Victorian exhibition of 1851. Industry Year 1986 is a logical progression. I declare a proud interest as a longtime fellow of the society and as a current member of its council.
As a preamble to other thoughts, I congratulate the society on its initiative. But the society is only as good as the people who belong to it. I congratulate first the President of the society and the patron of Industry Year 1986, His Royal Highness Prince Philip. The director of the society has been in charge of the engine room. I refer to Sir Geoffrey Chandler—an enthusiastic engineer. He would not have been able to achieve all that he has achieved without those who are working with him —he would be the first to admit it — including those generously seconded from industry and finance during the planning period this year.
I want also to mention Sir Peter Masefield, chairman of the special Industry Year Committee and the chairmen of the activity working groups who have done so much work. I mention particularly Mr. Ken Fraser of Unilever, chairman of the publicity working group; the Reverend Canon Dr. George Tolley of the Manpower Services Commission, chairman of the education working group; Mr. Martin Moss of the National Trust, chairman of the design working group, Mr. Michael Robbins of the Museum of London, chairman of the museums working group; Baroness Platt of Writtle of the Equal Opportunities Commission, chairman of the women's working group who was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield in the preamble to his speech about the importance of women in industry. I also wish to mention the Bishop, the Right Reverend Dr. Edward Wickham, chairman of the churches working group. I must also mention the chairman and members of the 13 regional working groups and the innumerable county committees.
As with all organisations, nothing would happen without the permanent staff. I lift my hat to the secretary of the society, Mr. Christopher Lucas, and his hard working staff.
Industry Year has its genesis in the many years of seminal consultations held under Kenneth Adams' guiding hand at St. George's House, Windsor, the conference centre associated with the Dean and Chapter of St. George's Chapel Windsor. So the seeds that will blossom in Industry Year 1986 will have been sown in ecclesiastical ground, although hopefully rather less contentious ground than that tilled so thoroughly by hon. Members earlier this week. It was certainly at the St. George's house

1213
conferences that tackling the problems of an industrial country with an anti-industrial culture were discussed and developed, which then led to the thrust of Industry Year 1986.
The aims of Industry Year 1986 are crucial to everyone in this country. First and foremost, it is to create an awareness and acceptance of the fact that our whole quality of life and standard of living are directly related to our industrial success. Thereafter, its aim is to build, through industry, an increase in the links that exist, both before and after going into industry, between people in industry and education.
We must not only expand those links this year but continue to seek opportunities to do so in future. In doing that, industry must learn to express itself better—to itself, to everyone in it and to those on the periphery who depend upon it. British industry has adapted to change and to high technology to a much greater degree than we often admit, but it certainly has not explained how it has done so; it certainly has not shown itself to be proud of its achievements in that area; it certainly has not sung its own praises.
As part of Industry Year 1986, I hope that industry will put to rights those characteristics of reticence and hiding of its candle under a bushel. If it does not, that will breed ignorance, and ignorance breeds misunderstanding and mistrust. Industry must shoulder the task of explaining itself in order to gain the rightful respect of others. Only in that way will it attract the people that it needs to meet the exciting opportunities that will be offered both now and in the future.
One of the greater misunderstandings and concerns is about profit—or, as it is sometimes 'miscalled, surplus. That is a misnomer because it suggests that profit comes by chance rather than by plan, and that when it does come there is no real need for it because it is surplus to requirements. That is certainly not the case.
The term "profits" and what they contribute must be better understood. It is only when making a profit that we can ensure the future commercial viability of the industry or company concerned. But that is not the end of the equation. It is only by taxation of that profit that we can fund our Health Service, our welfare programmes, our education institutions and our community services such as fire police and ambulance. When we think of profit, we must eschew the questioning of the need for profit, however much the debate may continue, as to how the taxes on that profit may be distributed. The need for profit must first be established and accepted by everyone.
The task of producing that profit —of contributing energy and thought to the manufacture of goods and the contribution of services to create that profit —is just as important as the task of using those profits, or the taxes on them, for the good of people in our country and elsewhere. We need to place a special emphasis on the vocation to earn those profits, the vocation to manufacture, and the vocation to invent, to construct and to sell. Without success in those areas, there will be no wherewithal to help those who, for whatever reason, cannot help themselves, and for whom we gather so many of our taxes.
As we encourage, once again, that vocation, so I believe that Governments must seek out economic and fiscal policies that can be consistently pursued over long
1214
periods —not simply through the period of one Government. Sir Geoffrey Chandler, the director of Industry Year 1986, commented on the discontinuities of Government policy during the past quarter of a century. He said:
"These discontinuities included the experiment with national planning in the mid 1960s; the move towards disengagement in 1970; its reversal in 1972; attempts to introduce a more central role for Government in industrial performance in the mid 1970s; its abandonment and replacement by the industrial strategy; and a renewed focus on disengagement from 1979."
That is something that all Conservative Members will have welcomed.
That is a worrying description of our country, and compares tragically with the consistent and determined policies of our major competitors in the United States, Japan and Germany —and even in France, Italy and the Low Countries, despite their national difficulties.
There are those who believe that better continuity will be achieved only when we have a more directly proportionate system of elections. I certainly count myself among them. I believe that there has never been a better moment to establish such continuity by greater proportionality than now, following as it does a healthy period of good, radical Conservative government as a starting block to establish continuity for the future.
But continuity would be encouraged also by a greater meeting of minds and mixing of thoughts—
Mr. William Cash: Does my hon. Friend accept that the position in Israel, Italy or the Weimar republic during the 1930s, shows that proportional representation cannot really be regarded as a reasonable prescription for industrial success or prosperity?
Mr. Rathbone: My hon. Friend will not be surprised by my negative response to his question. I know that he pursued that matter with the Prime Minister during Question Time yesterday. I believe that then, as now, he showed a misunderstanding of an immensely complicated question. However, I shall not be tempted down that line now but perhaps leave it to another day.
Continuity would also be encouraged by a greater meeting of minds and mixing of thought between industry and Government and education and industry. That is almost certainly the most important on-going activity of Industry Year 1986, and should be its most active and creative legacy. Much has been done between Government and industry and Parliament and industry through the well-established scheme of attachment, from which many hon. Members have benefited. But I wonder whether more could be done to arrange an even more widespread exchange between the Civil Service and industry. Too often such exchanges appear to concentrate on attachments between Whitehall and the City and vice versa. The changes that I am advocating should stretch far wider.
In the other place, recently, it was reported that there is a total of 300 secondments in and out of the Civil Service at present. But of those, only 80 are in the Department of Trade and Industry. Surely there should be more, both proportionately and in absolute numbers. In France and the United States there certainly appears to be greater liaison and exchange between Government and business in the development of individual's career patterns and while those careers develop. I believe that 1986 will be an especially appropriate year for a Government initiative to expand activity on that front.

1215
Training within industry is crucial if we are to attract better people, develop them, encourage them and make them more capable of making major contributions to whatever they set their hands to. The Government have made some strides in that direction. I compliment the youth training scheme, especially in its newly extended version. However, unlike Germany, we have still to realise how training can make a more positive contribution to individual and industrial success. That was measured and found to be the case by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research not very long ago.
Mr. Ryman: The hon. Gentleman said somewhat complacently that the Government are helping to provide training. Does he consider the closure of skillcentres throughout the country to be consistent with a Government policy of encouraging training?
Mr. Rathbone: The hon. Gentleman falls into the trap of thinking that, because something exists and appears to be good, it should continue for ever. One of the exciting characteristics of the Government's attitude and actions regarding the YTS and other Government-sponsored schemes is that they have been developed as they have proceeded so that they keep pace with the growing and changing demands of industry and of the young people who are to be attracted into them. Let us not fall into the trap of feeling that everything that exists should be set in concrete for all time. That is a trap into which we have fallen too often in the past.
Great steps must be made in improving our training. That was borne out by an excellent leader that appeared in the Financial Times only the other day. It referred to the latest study on attitudes towards training, which was undertaken by Coopers and Lybrand. The leader told a depressing story. It stated that the report
"tells a story which is only surprising because it is worse than had been thought. It is not the case that employers and managers recognise their relative disadvantage in training compared with competitive countries and are trying to put it right; instead, they are unaware it exists, are indifferent to training at senior levels and see the training budget as one of the first on which the axe should fall in hard times."
That is at least partly the position because training in other countries is not left to the inclination of individual firms. Instead, it is established as a requirement under law.
In West Germany, chambers of commerce with statutory powers administer a training scheme in which only those companies with meisters, or foremen, who are trained to teach their skills as well as practise them, are permitted to take on young workers. In both the United States and Japan, the standard of students entering companies or courses for vocational training is generally much higher, and the skill training is much better.
In France, a levy of 0·5 per cent. on turnover is made to finance training, and the technical schools produce generally good quality candidates. The only scheme like that that we have had in recent years has been represented by the training boards, which were allowed to be phased away a few years ago. I have no voice in support of the so-called industrial training boards. They were used only too often as a budgetary head under which costs could be picked up from some other source for things that were to go on anyway, such as sales conferences and the like. The amount of training done within them was minuscule and I am glad that they have gone. As we are in the process of getting rid of the boards, let us have a Government initiative in their place.
1216
People want to be trained. If one mark is needed of that, it is the success of training courses within the open university, where it is the inclination of the individual that is being tapped. The enthusiasm of the individual is being met and the Government have something there on which to build. For the moment, the carrot is not enough for employers and I fear that there must be some stick. Too often employers blame skill shortages on others. They blame the education system or the Government when the problem stems largely from their own indifference to training and, more importantly, from their failure to make best use of existing staff. The leader that appeared in the Financial Times should be taken to heart by the. Government and by every hon. Member.
Industry Year 1986 is more than a propaganda activity for one year. If it is to be successful, it must be the job of a decade. This year must be a lever for changing attitudes, and the lever must be applied for years to come. We all have a part to play in building the momentum for change. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield said, local government and national Government, members of Parliament, other elected representatives, companies and those who work in them, trade unionists, church leaders, community leaders, educationists and, last but by no means least, parents must all be involved.
In my home county of Sussex, the Sussex Federation of Industries has already set up 19 geographic working groups, including special activities at Sussex university, which is celebrating its first jubilee. It happens to be the first jubilee of any of the newer red-brick universities. It is marking its first jubilee by a massive extension of its science park and of its co-operative activities with local, national and international industry.
The university has set up special activities in Brighton technical college. It is establishing a special Gatwick working group, which is organising exhibitions, school visits and the like at London's second major port. There are already 28 special twinning arrangements between schools and companies. There are special activities for business women, and it is crucial that women in business are specially involved and featured during Industry Year 1986. Local members of the Institute of Personnel managers are carrying the message of Industry Year to encourage all those in the companies for which its members work and, we hope, the families of the employees. They are highlighting the true message of the importance of Industry Year.
The task before us is to build understanding and appreciation of industry, and it is one in which everyone has an interest. No one can opt out because our quality of life and standard of living depend on our joint national success in bringing about more positive attitudes. Industry Year 1986 will have provided a bridge. Thoughts and ideas must continue to cross that bridge for years to come. That cannot be too strongly accented now, even before Industry Year 1986 has started. It should be exciting. It certainly is crucial.
11.48 am
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I enjoyed listening to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone). I welcome the inclusion in his speech of comments on proportional representation —that desperately needed reform —and its impact on industry. He was right to say that the rather crabbed intervention by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) sprang from ignorance of a complex issue.

1217
That was regrettable. The hon. Member for Lewes might have said also that it sprang from a depressing selectivity in the instances that the hon. Member for Stafford brought to light. The hon. Member for Stafford carefully omitted mentioning the case of West Germany, Norway or Denmark —indeed, every other Western European nation, save Italy, now running a fairer election system and having a better record of industrial growth and prosperity than Britain. This year, even Italy, which was denigrated by the hon. Member for Stafford, has a higher standard of living than that enjoyed by Britain.
The social institutions, political system and above all, industrial scene in Britain are more significantly divided within themselves than in any other western European industrial nation. Britain is tribalised and at war with itself. Extremism runs rampant through the country, in councils, society and industry. Proportional representation, which would not by itself create perfection out of chaos, would nevertheless help to bring about some moderation and stability, which would be welcome.
Mr. Cash: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to desist from his exaggerated claims for proportional representation and to bear in mind that political judgments and economic solutions lead to improvements in industrial success. I welcome this debate for that reason. It provides an opportunity for these questions to be considered sensibly.
The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) showed the most extraordinary nerve in giving an address in Staffordshire where my constituency lies, on the anniversary of the Tamworth manifesto in which he invoked the statement by Lord Randolph Churchill —yet another Conservative —"Trust the people", in aid of his argument in favour of proportional representation.
Mr. Ashdown: I have no doubt— —
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to intrude on the debate. At the conclusion of the statement by the Minister of State, Department of Transport, on the Severn bridge, the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) raised a point of order about an article in The Scotsman entitled
"Two farm institutes to close".
The article referred to
"a White Paper with green edges"
which was published yesterday by the Scottish Office. The hon. Member for Gordon told Mr. Speaker that the "White Paper with green edges" was not readily available in the Vote Office. I subscribe to that view. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that no copy was available in the Palace of Westminster for hon. Members to look at.
I have just obtained a copy from the Library. I understand from the librarians that a copy of the "Strategy for Agricultural Research and Development" was placed in the Library yesterday. If the hon. Member for Gordon had made suitable inquiries to obtain the document he would not have been in a position to criticise the Government for something that I had rightly presented to hon. Members.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie).
Mr. Ashdown: I return to the intervention of the hon. Member for Stafford. I think that you would call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I went too far down his line of argument. I have read the speech that my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) made in the hon. Gentleman's area. No doubt it hurt, and so it should have. After all, the Conservatives to whom my right hon. Friend referred in those days were pursuing precisely the approach that I suggest British industry needs —a one-nation policy, which pulls the nation into a unified structure rather than divides it. My right hon. Friend is right.
I return to the subject in hand. The Industry Year publicity pamphlet aims to increase the understanding of the role of industry and its service to the community. No doubt, we all welcome this, because, as the promotional literature points out, in many ways Britain has an anti-industrial culture. Many of the creative minds who could have a vital part to play in our future industrial prosperity choose not to do so in an industrial context, in the belief that industry is somehow dirty.
The search for pure knowledge is often over-valued compared with the search for ways of applying that knowledge. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) said, we are good at inventing but not at applying the inventions to manufacturing. Even the idea that the professions —medicine, law and the like —have a respectability denied to industry relates to a wrong but deep-seated view of the position of industry. The conventions of the House seem somehow to reinforce and include those factors. Queen's counsel are learned, and military gentlemen are gallant. Engineers are plain honourable and business men are honourable but sometimes not even that. That attitude must change. If Industry Year facilitates that change it is to be welcomed. No one can doubt that something must be done for British industry. It is clearly now close to crisis point. A glance at the trade figures makes that clear.
In another place Lord Aldington said:
"the balance of trade in manufactured goods has changed from a surplus of between £1½ billion and £6 billion in each of the years 1963 to 1982, to a deficit in 1983 reaching nearly £4 billion in 1984. There is no sign of a significant improvement in 1985 —despite the splendid export achievements. If one analyses the classes of industry"— [Official Report, House of Lords, 3 December 1985; Vol. 468, c. 1192.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member quoting from the House of Lords Hansard for the last Session.
Mr. Ashdown: I believe that I am quoting from this Session, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is out of order. He cannot do that.
Mr. Ashdown: I apologise to the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I have stepped out of order. The drift of what I was saying is clear enough. It is reinforced, as we are aware, by the latest report produced by the other place.
Across Britain, the industrial base has been devastated since the Government came to power. Industrial output is now 20 per cent. below that of 1979. We have become a net importer of manufactured goods for the first time since the industrial revolution. Whole sectors of our industry have been destroyed. I do not blame the Government for all that. The world position has not been moving to our advantage. However, the Government have stood idly by,

1219
hands in pockets, waiting for that to happen. They seem somehow to believe that it does not matter —Britain no longer depends on manufacturing industry because we have a service industry on which we can now count. It is true that we have a service industry, but the service industry depends in large part on a decent and healthy manufacturing industry. The Government seem conveniently to ignore that fact.
The Government say that we no longer need to be a manufacturing nation because we have the bonanza of North sea oil. That oil will not run out overnight, but the surplus that it gives us will begin to vanish in two or three years' time.
The Government seem to believe that the curious magic of monetary policy means that a new set of manufacturing industries and new prosperity will automatically take the place of our present manufacturing industry without assistance or encouragement. That view was substantially undermined by the House of Lords Select Committee report. The view is not shared by any of our industrial competitors. There is an alchemist, touchstone, belief that all things will come right in the end if we keep our hand off the tiller.
We are now running a massive annual deficit in the new technologies, the area that the Government say is strategically important for the future. All that is done to produce a lower inflation rate. I congratulate the Government on their achievement. It needed to be done and industry has no doubt benefited from it. However, industry is now paying a higher real interest rate than ever before because of the difference between interest rates and the inflation level. That may well be more crippling than higher inflation.
Prices have increased by 75 per cent. since the Conservatives came to power. However, that is still a good record. We still have one of the highest inflation rates of any west European country but the Government's achievement is still significant. If we study the matter a little more closely, we discover that the richer in our society have benefited while the poorer have paid a much higher price. I reminded the House that inflation has increased by 75 per cent. since the Government came to power, but if we consider some of the essential goods that represent such a high element of the expenditure of those on fixed or low incomes we find that inflation has been much higher.
Electricity prices have increased by a quarter more than the average rate of inflation. Water prices have increased by a third more than the average rate of inflation. Gas charges have increased by twice the average rate of inflation. Domestic rates have increased by two and a half times the average rate of inflation. Prescription charges have increased by 10 times the average rate of inflation. Once again, the poor have had to bear the burden and pay the cost, even of that achievement. It is an achievement in a way, because it may have helped industry, wherever the burden is placed.
In evaluating Industry Year, the essential question is how it will help to reverse the worrying decline to which I have referred. The size and importance of the task that we face must mean that Industry Year should be subjected to a little constructive criticism rather than being the subject of vacuous praise. Industry Year is not, as is sometimes claimed by some of the phraseology in the document, the solution to the problem, although it is part of the solution and an important ingredient.
1220
I welcome the fact that Industry Year is looking at the identification of current good practice and how to put it into an attractive and available format. British Industry has many great individual achievements to its credit, and almost all our firms must have lessons to learn in terms of design, marketing, management skills and so on.
In more general terms, I welcome the fact that Industry Year recognises the non-cost factors, such as design reliability, and that they greatly improve competitiveness. In the past we have sometimes fallen down in that area. I hope that Industry Year will encourage us not to do so in the future.
I support the idea of making industry more valued in our culture. However, I must enter a strong note of dissent from some of the ideas set out in the promotional literature, which claims that we are
"an industrial nation with an anti-industrial culture".
That is partly true, so far as it goes.
The promotional literature then goes on to say that this and only this differentiates us from our industrial competitors. That is nothing short of rubbish. It is not only that which differentiates us from our competitors. What is more, it is damaging rubbish, which serves only to prop up the current deadening air of complacency emanating at times from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury, with their view that the Government's "hands off' approach is proving effective and that all we need to do is to bring about a change in industrial or cultural feelings. That concept is totally wrong, and I criticise the promotional literature in that respect.
In the longer term, perhaps the greatest single failure is the failure of investment. It is not only a failure of adequate investment but a failure in the direction of investment. Keith Smith, writing in his book "The British Industrial Crisis", identifies that clearly in saying that our research and development in particular go mainly to three key areas —aircraft, defence projects and nuclear reactors. They account for 55 per cent. of our total Research and Development expenditure. That needs to be corrected.
I recognise that investment has increased, and I congratulate the Government on that achievement. There has been a turn-round in investment in Britain. It is now beginning to climb, but all too late. I do not blame the Government for the long-term decline of investment in British industry, because it goes back many years, but it has taken six years to turn it round. Our investment is disastrously below that of our competitors —a third less than West Germany, half that of the United States and a quarter of that in Japan.
It is not a question of culture but of industrial policy. We need a framework that encourages people to invest, not in the hamburger-style economy that high interests rates create, and not in something that requires a small outlay today for a return in a year or 18 months. Real industrial investment in Britain depends on creating a framework that will encourage people to invest in projects that may not see a return for five, 10 or 15 years. That is what our competitors are doing. There is no impetus to see that in Britain yet.
Our successful competitors have been investing in civil electronics and chemicals, which are growing areas in world trade, while we have been pursuing a variety of essentially blind alleys. Industry Year, based as it is en a consensus between Government, the TUC and the CBI,

1221
may not be able to tackle deep structural problems such as that but there can be no doubt that they need to be tackled if we are to succeed.
Our more successful competitors have had actual Government strategies. There is the well-know example of MITI in Japan. The Germans have not shown our bizarre repulsion for the idea of an industrial policy. If we are to succeed we must learn some of the lessons of success. If the Government have a medium-term financial strategy to govern the nation's economy, why will they not have a medium-term investment strategy? I do not mean an overall planning and detailed agreement of the sort that the Labour party would seek to foist upon us, and has foisted upon us in the past, but a set of outline targets, a framework within which the people who invest in Britain and take the key decisions that ensure our nation's prosperity can work effectively. We should consider raising the profile of the various National Economic Development Council groups, as between them they have a crucial expertise in all the various sectors of British industry.
We need a much more vigorous regional policy. At present, it is sadly starved of funds. I accept the comments of the hon. Member for Northfield that regional policy, as it was structured in the past, is not necessarily the most beneficial way of using the available money. That does not mean that we should let the baby out with the bathwater. The faults in regional policy could be changed. We could have a different style of policy that did not simply shunt jobs from one area of Britain to another, and allowed a decent system of consultation and local decision-making about how to encourage industry in our more depressed areas. The effectiveness of that can be clearly seen by the Scottish experience, but it demands a greater financial commitment than the Government have been willing to show and a new set of ideas.
We could usefully look for ways of complementing a sensible national industrial strategy with local initiative. That has much more far-reaching implications than is sometimes realised. We need a macro-economic framework, but we also need policies that encourage the micro-economy to create jobs. The Government have done a lot in that area, but much more can and should be done. The implications of a decent, lower level micro-economic strategy for investment would be very considerable for the financial sector, which needs to get involved and take decisions at a much more local level.
Another factor that has contributed to our decline and which industry attacks only tangentially is the structure of our industrial relations. In Japan and Germany industry is much more of a partnership than in Britain. However, there are encouraging signs that people are at last learning their lessons in Britain. Nevertheless, the institutionalised conflict that besets certain areas of British industry must be broken down through industrial democracy, allowing for a free flow of information through firms and a real role for all employees in decision taking. We should allow profit-sharing schemes through co-operatives and other ways, which would break down the current pattern of ownership.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Good Labour policy.
Mr. Ashdown: I hear the hon. Gentleman saying "Good Labour policy", but it is significant and interesting
1222
that when the Labour party sought to bring that into effect they did it through the discreditable and discredited Bullock report. That provided more power, not for workers but exclusively for the trade union movement, thereby excluding a vast number of workers who create the real profit and prosperity of our nation. That cramped and narrow view still persists because, as we all know, the paymasters of the Labour party are the trade unions and it is they who dominate Labour party policy.
I should like to see the Co-operative Development Agency given a much broader role, including a remit to promote industrial democracy on a broad base and given the funds to match the importance of its job.
Those ideas and policies may not lend themselves to years of implementation, but they would play a vital part in the regeneration of British industry. We must not pretend that the problems will dissolve if we suddenly begin to value industry more highly. They will not. A much more important, successful and committed Government policy is needed to do so.
I was delighted to see that the Industry Year campaign has a women's working group. I read the section of the booklet setting out the group's role with interest and rising enthusiasm. It said:
"Women now form 40 per cent. of the workforce and over 50 per cent. of the population".
I expected the booklet to go on to talk of the valuable role that women should have in future, and outline a new strategy for involving more women in industry, particularly in top management. Not a bit of it. According to the literature, women's prime function in industry is this:
"as mothers they have a particularly influential role in the decisions their children make about their careers."
For that reason
"a full and active involvement of women in all aspects of Industry Year is essential."
That is different from the point made by the hon. Member for Northfield, with which I agree, about the essential role of women and their growing capacity to influence industry. Britain underuses the talents of its women. The approach in the booklet is hardly the way to reverse that trend. I hope that the Industry Year steering committee will look at that section again.
I should like to give a concrete example of the effect of the lack of a Government industrial policy. It is in my constituency, where last week 750 jobs were lost at the major employer, Westland Aircraft. It is a great firm, which has helped Britain in the past. It was praised to the sky when it contributed to the Falklands campaign. When the Government had a crisis, Westland came to their aid.
In certain areas, the Government have assisted Westland, and in some ways significantly. The Department of Trade and Industry has invested a large sum of money in developing the new W30 aircraft. That is an example of a policy that now seems to be vanishing. The aircraft has been sucessfully developed as a result of the Department's intervention. I am grateful and commend it for that. It is a prototype aircraft, which has had some problems, as any prototype will. From that has developed the new aircraft, the W30 1300, a truly magnificent aircraft specifically designed to meet the needs set out by the Ministry of Defence in air staff target 404. It did so better than any of the foreign competitors at one third of the operating cost. It is a great aircraft, in which there is

1223
considerable foreign interest. If only the Government would put their imprimatur upon the aircraft, I have no doubt that many could be sold up and down Britain.
However, when Westland won the competition hands down, the Government simply moved the goalposts and changed the rules. We have allowed that great aircraft to be rubbished by others. Mr. Bristow is happy to rubbish it. There is no word from the Government about how good and useful it was.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, although the W30 is a good aircraft, it did not win the competition for military procurement, and that air staff target 404 was a preliminary stage before the services made up their mind about which helicopter they required? There was no question of the helicopter winning a competition and then being turned down by the Government. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that?
Mr. Ashdown: I accept that in the narrow way in which the hon. Gentleman puts it. The Government put in a sum of £50 million to Westland Aircraft through the Department of Trade and Industry to encourage the aircraft's development. They drew up a target to meet the Army's known requirements. Firms were then asked to put in submissions to meet the target. A British firm applied and met the target fully at one third of the cost. I think that it is fair to say that, in broad terms, a British firm headed the competition with the best aircraft, but the Government allowed it no longer to be required. What sort of policy is that? That would not happen in France. The French would say, "A French firm has got it and will get the orders. It might not be what the services want because they have changed their mind, but they will still get it because it will help our industry and exports." We are not always right to allow service offices to dictate terms down to the last nut and bolt, as they will always want more.
The W30/300 meets the original service requirement in full and at a lower cost than any of its comprtitors. If there had been any co-ordination between Government Departments, the aircraft would have been sold, created prosperity and provided British forces with the aircraft they need. It would have strengthened Britain and provided jobs in my constituency and in that of the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). Such lack of co-ordination would not have occurred in our competitors' nations.
Industry Year is a welcome event and I hope that it will succeed in reminding people that we enjoy our prosperity largely because of industry. It cannot make up for a lack of Government industrial policy, but it could complement such a policy. Industry has made a positive contribution to Britian and to Industry Year and I am sure that the whole House wishes it well.
We face bigger problems than the excellent document to which I have referred considers. The price of failure for British industry is severe. The signs are that British industry is failing, not because of lack of commitment or because people are not working but because the Government have no structured industrial policy. We need such a policy if this dangerous decline is to be reversed and if Britain is to become a great industrial nation again, rather than one which is in danger of becoming an industrial has-been.
12.17 pm
Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I must compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) for generating such interest in this subject, which he tackled with great erudition and ability.
I was somewhat alarmed by the speech of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), however. It seemed that he would give his right arm to be ambidextrous in his criticism of the Government. He was clearly wrong. Industry Year requires the multi-dextrous support of all parties. I am pleased that other hon. Members have approached the subject in that way, and not taken the petty party political line of the hon. Member for Yeovil.
Hutchinson's dictionary defines industry as,
"diligence or the habitual employment in useful work; branch of trade or manufacture."
We must not fall into the trap of directing all our comments to heavy industry, necessary though it may be. Nor must we succumb to the arguments that any new service industry must erode the basis of heavy manufacturing. That is not true. In that regard, I commend the Government report entitled, "Pleasure, Leisure and Jobs", which details in full the merits of the leisure and tourist industries. Regrettably, that is the only sector in which jobs have been created during the past few years. It is estimated that about 50,000 jobs a year have been created in those industries, although many of us believe that the true figure is about 100,000. Those jobs were created not to frustrate heavy manufacturing industry but to complement it, because the one cannot exist without the other. During the serious industrial decline in Birmingham, and especially in my constituency of Yardley, there was no competition to replace those industries. We are fortunate that we have been able to focus some of our attention on the development of leisure and tourism, in my case industrial tourism.
I am proud to chair the Conservative party tourism committee and the all-party recreation and leisure industry committee, and I wish to draw the House's attention to the many merits of those industries. For more than 40 years, since the time of the Board of Trade and Hugh Dalton, heavy manufacturing industry has been seduced —the word was used earlier in another sense —away from the west midlands and Birmingham by the positive creation of subsidies in almost every other part of the country. That has weakened the west midlands, which my old school song used to call "the iron heart of England." That heart beats feebly by comparison with its earlier strength.
Mr. Ashdown: Sing it.
Mr. Bevan: For the benefit of the hon. Member for Yeovil, I do so at an appropriate time. He should realise that, although the song talks about the iron heart of England beneath its sombre robe, that sombre robe has been dispelled. An area of beauty and industry has been created by the emphasis that the Government rightly place on the creation of new industries.
In praise of the lyricism of that song, I should say that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Yeovil tried to claim, the auguries have never coincided as much as they do now. British productivity is high and is increasing. The leisure sector is creating jobs, although every other sector is losing them. Interest rates are coming down for the sixth month in succession and the balance of trade figures are

1225
in the black. If I may be political for a moment, I praise the Government for having created this favourable climate.
I want to draw an analogy with Halley's comet, which unfortunately has not been seen by very many British people. I do not wish to draw too strict an analogy because a comet has to return to earth; it shoots up and it comes down. We are witnessing a convergence of factors, all of which are right. We hope that the ascending level trail across the sky will continue. I am certain that it will.
The Government have provided help for the west midlands. They have helped to restore the balance in Birmingham by the creation of intermediate status for the city, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield referred. This means that the problems connected with our industrial heritage are being dealt with. We are refurbishing the land and resuscitating our old, out-of-date factories.
One periodical states that in my constituency Land Rover has put up for sale two factories, on a total area of 11 acres. Land Rover produces an excellent article and employs many people. It has decided, quite wisely, to rationalise its manufacture and to site it in a new factory: the old Rover works in Lode Lane, Solihull, which is adjacent to my constituency. Nobody criticises the company for leaving those two factories and centralising its operations on one site. However, the old factories will have to be refurbished.
This is when new industries can exist alongside the old. If we refurbish old factories and landscape in those areas where factories are no longer required, we shall encourage industry to return to the area. It will be possible to attract industry back to the area of desolation between Birmingham and Wolverhampton when it has again been made presentable and environmentally acceptable. We shall encourage that to happen if we concentrate upon land reclamation and the service sector and leisure and tourism.
The tourist industry now has a turnover of more than £10 billion a year. It is creating jobs and, as I have said, it is worth some £700 million a year, to the west midlands alone. It is employing more and more people.
I must bring to the attention of the House the great success of the national exhibition centre near Birmingham. Many people are employed there. We hope that the inland free port which we were able to secure for Birmingham will be successful, and there is the contribution of the international station and the international airport with its new terminal to the leisure and tourist scene. Those facilities are attracting more and more people to, and employing more people in my constituency and they bring many advantages.
In November, unemployment in the United Kingdom fell to 13·3 per cent. That is high enough, but we must give credit for the fall. We must note, too, a fall of 1,264 in the number of school leavers out of work in my area. In the Birmingham travel-to-work area unemployment is now 16·3 per cent. Again, that is high enough; only a sliver —·2 per cent. —less than that in the west midlands county area. However, we were pleased to see a reduction in the unemployment figure of 6,877 in October and 3,967 in November. In Acocks Green ward, one of the three wards in Yardley, there is an unemployment rate of 20·4
1226
per cent. In Yardley ward, it is 17·9 per cent. But in Sheldon, the third of my wards, I am delighted to see that unemployment is down to 12·8 per cent.
Why is that? Those three areas are cheek by jowl, yet the unemployment of one is over 5 per cent. less than another and nearly 8 per cent. less than the third. The reason is the development of tourist amenities and the leisure industry which have resulted in a greater take-up in employment, full and part-time. That is a welcome and excellent take-up.
I hope that, in the fullness of time, we shall be able to build upon that in Industry Year 1986 and to do what other enlightened countries do —create industrial and tourist "trails" so that our industrial visitors and tourists are able to go round and see the facilities that exist in industry and in the area generally. Those are the first attractions shown to me and my colleagues when we go on parliamentary delegations overseas. Because of the Government's policy we are now able to look at those matters.
I hope that in Industry Year we shall be able to concentrate on the creation of the Birmingham convention centre in the middle of the town which will add to the urban regeneration that is going on and create in some 50 acres a great new complex to complement the heavy industrial activities of my city.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The public sector?
Mr. Bevan: It will not come entirely from the public sector. Hyatt International will build a new 500-bed hotel in the centre. That will be private money. Perhaps the regeneration will be marshalled and triggered by actions in the public sector and perhaps that sector will contribute to the land assembly, but the money will come from both the public and the private sectors.
I recommend hon. Members to read a book produced by Glynwed International, whose headquarters are in New Coventry road, Sheldon, Yardley. The company produced the book, "The Phoenix Partnership —an Urban Regeneration for the Twenty-First Century" after sending a representative to America to study examples of land refurbishment in the United States. The book suggests that refurbishment can be carried out with a revolving fund. Money lent to viable projects would be recycled; it would replace grants and enable the same finance to be reused time and again. Locally based loans would attract further commercial and industrial development and the ripples of economic revival would spread throughout the community.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: When the old buck that the hon. Gentleman is giving us —I agree with much of it —is reported in his local newspapers, will it dawn on the reporters that there is a clear distinction between the hon. Gentleman's speech and that of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King)? The hon. Member for Northfield was opposing public sector investment in recreation and leisure facilities. The hon. Gentleman is proposing it. There is a clear division. Is that division being debated as openly in Birmingham as it is in the House?
Mr. Bevan: My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield was careful to define his parameters. He suggested that the application of public funds should be limited and not limitless. I regret what I suspect was the innuendo in the intervention of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).

1227
We have to consider how funds should be limited and in what proportion the public and the private sectors should make their contributions. The lesson to be learned in Industry Year is that only private money can tackle regeneration and the clearance of derelict areas that have been abandoned because of the industrial scars of the past. After regeneration by local communities, institutions and banks, all involved in local schemes, areas that had nil or negative values have produced land of substantial value.
We are looking for progress in various sectors in 1986. We note that the youth training schemes have been successful. Not only are the training schemes being extended from one to two years, but 75 per cent. of the youngsters who have taken part in the schemes are finding permanent jobs. This is not a cosmetic subscription to industry. Tourism and leisure are not candyfloss industries. They are integral, producing real and lasting jobs. Industry in all its aspects is one and indivisible and all its components have a contribution to make.
12.40 pm
Mr. Alan Williams: I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King). With his luck in the ballot, he should enter the Irish sweepstake. This is the second time that I have had the opportunity to take part in a debate, thanks to his good offices.
We all congratulate Geoffrey Chandler and his colleagues who are so dedicated to Industry Year 1986. But it is sad that a country responsible for half the major inventions and half the major scientific breakthroughs in the post-war period has to overcome difficulties caused by lack of motivation and understanding amongst youngsters of what industry is about and how important it is.
Geoffrey Chandler and his colleagues have been somewhat sabotaged by the circumstances. The level of unemployment among the young makes motivation difficult. The Government have destroyed hope for most young people.
In one of the publications connected with Industry Year the team asks "What is Industry?" I understand the need to ask, particularly in parts of the country. After all, the north-west has lost 250,000 jobs under this Government, Yorkshire and Humberside has lost 160,000, Scotland 150,000, the north 100,000 and Wales 80,000. What is industry? Youngsters would like to know.
Youngsters hear about the newfangled technology. They would like to know where it is because not much of it is going their way in the regions. Nearly all of it is concentrated in the south of England. Only the screwdriver operations —the unskilled assembly work —goes to the regions. All the up-market, high-tec work goes elsewhere, mainly to the already prosperous south.
The document says that industry is fundamental to almost everything that we do. Hon. Members on all sides will approve that sentiment. But it is a little difficult to reconcile that with the Government's six-month moratorium on all financial aid for high-tec industry. It is difficult to reconcile that with the abolition of capital allowances, cuts in regional development grants and penal interest and exchange rates; it is difficult to reconcile that with the Government cuts that have forced the university grants committee to stop the intake of electrical engineers. Yes, industry is fundamental to almost everything that we do, but Ministers seem to be hard to convince of that.
On the abolition of capital allowances the CBI says:
1228
"The new system will tend to penalise firms who have heavy investment programmes in hand, undertaken to meet increasing competitive pressures and those using short-life, high technology assets. In addition, it makes no allowance for inflation."
It continues:
"A resolution … at the National Conference which described this new system as a disincentive to investment, was overwhelmingly passed."
Yet the Government are paying lipservice to the idea that industry is fundamental to everything that we do.
The Minister and I recently took part in a question and answer session on electronics, against the background of the abolition of capital allowances, cuts in regional development grants and high interest rates. The Government have been told by the electronics components industry that it needs to invest £400 million for the remainder of this decade, which is three times as much as it has been investing. Yet the allowances have been removed.
It is small wonder that the deficit on electronics trade was £2·3 billion last year, and is prophesied by Cambridge econometrics to rise to £8 billion by 1993. Yet that is the industry of the future —we just do not seem to be in it. The Government are doing everything to ensure that we never get into it.
Let us consider state programmes for microelectronics from January 1982 to the end of 1984. Starting from an almost equal position, we increased our aid by 50 per cent. —ignoring the six months moratorium when there was nothing at all —while West Germany increased its aid by 120 per cent. and France by 900 per cent. Those countries did that from the same base of aid to an industry that is so essential to our survival over the whole spectrum of industry, manufacturing and services during the next couple of decades.
The document produced in support of Industry Year 1986, called "Education and Industry" states
"Yet in Britain we hold industrial activity in low social esteem and the causes of our relative industrial decline are deeply embedded in our cultural attitudes.
The aim of Industry Year 1986 is to encourage a better understanding of industry, its essential role".
My advice to Geoffrey Chandler and his team is that they had better look to the top rather than the bottom. As the Chancellor said last year
"I am at a loss to understand the selective importance attached by …many Opposition Members …to the manufacturing sector." —[Official Report, 9 February 1984; Vol. 53 c. 1009.]
There is a good job to be done there. I hope that Geoffrey Chandler is sending the Chancellor that document and making sure that he reads it.
When we were taking regional legislation through Committee, the then Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry, who has now moved to the Department of Defence, said that the trouble with the Opposition was that they were dewy-eyed about manufacturing. He is another person who might be interested to receive that document. I do not suppose that he will ever get around to reading it, but I shall gladly send it to him because it is an important document
Mr. Rathbone: The right hon. Gentleman's quotation was completely out of context. The Chancellor was referring to the comparison between manufacturing contribution to exports and that of oil and invisibles. That is in no way denigrating what manufacturing is about. The Chancellor was talking purely about the proportion of the contribution to exports.

1229
No Government have attached greater importance to the resurgence of industry, and the adoption by industry of high technology in new forms than this Government.
Mr. Williams: If the Government have given such priority to that, it is an incredible failure for them. We have had the first deficit on manufacturing trade since the time of Napoleon. A £2 billion surplus in 1979 was turned into a £4 billion deficit last year. Jobs as well as trade have been lost. According to the Department of Employment, even by early 1984, for every 100 jobs in manufacturing when the Government came to office, we had lost 23. The Germans and the French did not do as badly as that although they had to exist in the same world. They lost 10 each. The Swedes lost eight and the Japanese were employing three more.
If we are witnessing the Government's resurgence, I must tell the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) that he will be in for some mild disappointment when he examines some of the weaker parts of the Government's programme. If a resurgence is taking place, one would expect to see the results in manufacturing investment.
During the debate on the Gracious Speech, the Prime Minister boasted of a recovery in manufacturing investment. We were told that it was wonderful and that investment had increased by 14 per cent. over last year. That was great. At least there had been an improvement on last year. The right hon. Lady forgot to say that even on the best figures, manufacturing investment is still 21 per cent. below that of 1979. It does not equal any one year from 1974 to 1979 when the Labour Government were in office. The best year, about which the Prime Minister was boasting, is so pathetic that it equals only the level of manufacturing investment that was being achieved in Britain a quarter of a century ago. If only the Government had sustained the level of manufacturing investment at the level that they inherited in 1979, there would be an additional £10,000 million invested in manufacturing.
I hope that the Government and Conservative Members will not tell me that we are seeing success and a Conservative-led resurgence. I know that all things are relative and that by the standards of other parts of the Government's overall performance manufacturing investment might be seen as a success, but I cannot believe that anyone with any objective perspective would be eager to boast about it.
Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that he is talking about something which has developed over a long period, in respect of which the Labour party, when in Government, bears considerable responsibility? Will he accept also that the object of Industry Year 1986 is to try to change attitudes and to rectify the position in which, for example, the Japanese managed to increase their productivity by 500 per cent. while we increased ours by only 80 per cent. or thereabouts? Is he aware that a severe responsibility falls upon the Labour party for the manner in which it has exaggerated opportunities for employees to obtain higher wages, which by any reasonable standard —the right hon. Gentleman must accept this —do not bear comparison with what is acceptable in other countries?
Mr. Williams: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has a genuine belief in what he is saying, but he is ignoring
1230
all the facts. We are in our sixth year of "successful revolution". I refer to the Conservative Government's revolution. All the terrible features of the previous Labour Administration have been left behind, such as high manufacturing investment. After six years of "glorious Conservative success", the level of manufacturing output is lower than it was in 1979. Indeed, it is lower than it was when the power stations were closed during the three-day week. That is another measure of Conservative "success" on the industrial front.
It was the well-known Socialist chairman of ICI who told the Select Committee in another place that 30 per cent. of ICI's British customers have disappeared since the Government came to office. There are other examples. A document has been produced for Industry Year on further and higher education. It tells us that we must examine the systems of learning that are used in colleges to ascertain how they can be improved to meet the needs of industry. We all agree that training skills are important, but this Government got rid of the training boards. The percentage of qualified workers in our work force is half that in the United States, Germany and Japan. British firms are spending half what the French spend on training and one sixth of what the Japanese spend. The Government have cut centralised spending on proper industrial training, and industry has done nothing to make it good.
Do not take my word for this —let us take another well-known Trotskyite document. On 24 January, The Engineer stated:
"Britain has three million people out of work and skill shortages in virtually every industry using new technologies. So what are we doing about it? The answer in practical terms is that we're not doing a lot."
That statement may be an aberration. One might say that that is just what the engineers say. But the CBI says:
"Three out of five employers are having difficulty in filling jobs requiring skill, qualifications or experience."
Why get rid of the training boards? Why make cuts?
Let us consider the Government's higher educational performance in relation to the needs of industry. One document asks how can further and higher education and industry work together. The answer is with increasing difficulty, because 4,800 fewer students have been admitted to the universities despite the fact that there are more than 7,000 more students with the qualifications needed to enter them. Much of the talent that we say we desperately need to motivate and direct to the national advantage is denied its place in the universities. Just to ensure that we cannot remedy the position too quickly, there have been staff cuts of 4,000 in the universities.
Unbelievably, when one considers the future role of electronics for the whole spectrum of industry and its abysmal performance under this Government, the high-tech universities were hardest hit by the Government's cuts. The EDC has prophesied a shortage of 30,000 information technology staff.
No doubt the Under-Secretary of State will say, "We have put an extra £40 million —belatedly —into the science and engineering side of our universities." That is not really "extra" —the Government have merely taken the money from all the other university departments. In the new era of high-technology industry which involves a dynamic change in technological content and, therefore, in the nature of jobs, we shall need a large number of highly qualified generalists with the ability to move, adapt and adjust; but instead the Government have cut 4,000 university places and are keeping out people of ability.

1231
The background to Industry Year 1986 could hardly be less propitious. Nevertheless, I wish the promoters of the campaign well. What they say is amazingly reflective of and complementary to our "Jobs in Industry" campaign. We recognise, as they do, that the young must be motivated, that they must have the opportunities to be trained and educated and that they must feel that they have an opprotunity to get a job when their training and education has finished. Instead, the Government have seen £40 billion of income flow into the Treasury from the North sea and have wasted it all —£12 billion a year —in paying for the extra unemployment that they have created. They have allowed a further £50 billion to go overseas as a result of their exchange controls.
The trust and pension funds had £4 billion invested overseas when the Conservatives came to Government. There is now over £21 billion invested overseas. The Government have decimated industry and destroyed the regions. They have hardly any credentials which would enable them to sponsor Industry Year unless it is to be a commemorative year.
12.59 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): I know that some hon. Members still hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before the debate closes. I shall try to confine my remarks to the points that have been mentioned and to give some idea of the Government's position on the issues raised by the campaign of the Royal Society fir the Encouragement of Arts Manufactures and Commerce and to set in context some of the wider problems that have been mentioned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) is to be congratulated yet again on securing a debate on an important subject on a Friday morning. It is a mark of the interest that the House shows in the subject that we have a higher than average attendance for a Friday. The observations made by hon. Members have been of a high quality.
One of the phenomena that I think we unite in identifying, although we may not agree about the solution, is that in 1964 the United Kingdom had about 14 per cent. of the world share of exports of manufacturing and services. By 1979 that share had decreased to about 8 per cent. The CBI, which has already been quoted today, has advised us that each 1 per cent. of the loss of the share of world trade represents 250,000 jobs. Between those years, Britain exported 1·5 million jobs.
Today is not the day to argue about the responsibility of various Governments for that loss. It is, however, highly relevant to the debate. Our objective, like that of the royal society, is to examine which trends were malignant during that period and deterred us from becoming job creators, and which trends we can reverse.
Some key subsystems in the industrial strategy have been correctly mentioned. They include design, quality and productivity. I should like to deal first with my hon. Friend's reference to Sir Adrian Cadbury's paper in which he said that we have been sinking down the international league table.
The royal society and hon. Members have come to the same conclusion, which is that there seems to be a cultural, antipathy of some strength within the United Kingdom
1232
against industry and manufacturing. That is important, because if there is such a cultural antipathy it is one that is not shared by some of our competitors.
A form of economic, industrial and commercial warfare has been raging in the international markets since 1945, and is increasing in intensity. Bearing that in mind, the United Kingdom may have been sending its brightest and best people into any occupation other than commerce and industry —in other words, into the second-tier occupations, which are distant from the front-line trenches of the manufacturing sector. If we have been doing that, and to employ one of the mixed metaphors that sometimes bedevil our debates, I say that, in fighting an economic war, it would appear that as a nation we decided not to enrich the quality of the general staff, the junior officers and the NCOs but, instead, to create the most articulate and able corps of war correspondents that any nation has ever had. We became brilliantly equipped to comment on the problems that were bedevilling us but forgot that the army wished to have the very best recruits in fighting that battle.
I shall not go into the reasons why youngsters at school have made the choices that have caused the problem, but in politics, in industry and in the trade unions we must all do what we can to persuade the 14-year-olds —not the fifth-formers or sixth-formers —in our secondary system that the subject choices they make at that age will determine whether they can go into management in commerce and industry. It may well be that those careers in commerce and industry will become more attractive as the century progresses and as Britain re-enters the international race for market share.
Mr. Mark Wolfson: I agree with my hon. Friend that the important factor is to enlighten 14-yearolds as to the importance of subject choice, but I suggest to him that it is not that that will determine whether they can go into industry, but whether industry will be successful. In other words, the problem is not one of gaining entry; it is getting entry of the right, properly qualified, people. Would my hon. Friend agree?
Mr. Butcher: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson). Industry and commerce are asking for an increase in the critical mass, male and female, of youngsters who are trainable and who have the appropriate skills, bedrock subjects and abilities to take advantage of companies' management training courses and requirements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield used a very apt phrase when he said that he feared that home economics was put before business economics in some of our schools. It was a pungent and concise way of stating the scale of the problem.
I ask hon. Members in all parts of the House to conduct an experiment when they next visit the schools in their constituency. I invite them to ask for a show of hands on two questions. The first is whether the pupils can define what is meant by profit. Some might have difficulty in defining "profit" in the strict meaning of the word. Some might even think that it was vaguely unpleasant. The second question is whether any of the sixth formers have seen a balance sheet and know what it is. I suspect that the feedback would be very interesting. That is why I am delighted to endorse one of the major objectives of

1233
Industry Year 1986, which is to have much stronger contacts between schools and local commerce and industry.
Several hon. Members have mentioned the need to get more women into industry. The Government gave strong backing to the campaign to get women into science and engineering. The Government have identified themselves with the campaign of the Institute of Directors to pair sixth form schoolgirls with top female managers in commerce and industry, so that the girls can report back to their schools what they have learnt, and perhaps be able to say that commerce and industry is a much more interesting, stimulating and challenging field than they may have assumed hitherto.
My hon. Friend said that many people felt that industry, in the eyes of school leavers and university students, was often seen as dull, boring, repetitive and unhappy. I do not accept that that has always been the case, but we have to reverse that impression, however wide it may be. I also believe that the picture is changing very rapidly.
A rebirth of engineering is taking place. It is not about oily rags, dirt and noise. The engineering industry is transforming itself. We have had this debate before. The so-called sunset industries are now becoming sunshine industries. They are getting into higher added value, into manufacturing systems engineering, and into multidisciplinary approaches, with the fusing together of mechanical, electrical and electronic engineering. The "mechatronics" engineer has arrived. Industry is cleaner, and industrial relations are improving dramatically. Industry is no longer the constant supplier of problems and fodder for our industrial correspondents. I met an industrial correspondent the other day who said that it was a long time since he had had a drink with his colleagues in a certain pub round the corner from the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service because it is not like it was in the 1970s. They are no longer permanently camped outside, reporting current disputes and the lunacy involved in them. That pub may have lost some turnover but I am glad that he told me the story because it means that sanity is returning.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) gave a considered speech early in the debate and said that success will be judged on whether unemployment has been substantially reduced. I understand why he makes that observation, particularly as a Scottish Member. I understand why he wishes to see industry make its contribution to the employment stakes. I put this thought to him. In the House we have discussed jobs and job creation programmes on many occasions. Will he not join me in agreeing that the job creation programme, which is the most important programme of all, is defined as jobs created by reversing the erosion in our share of world trade in manufactured goods and services?
I sometimes wonder, when the Government go on, as they rightly do, about productivity, efficiency and markets, whether we should not enjoy a little more support from the Opposition, fixated as they are and we are by the need to create more jobs. It is the job creation programme to which we should be giving the highest priority. I agree with the right hon. Member for Rutherglen when he said that he did not agree with wholesale import controls. He will know that once retaliation and tit-for-tat measures
1234
start in selective import controls, in what the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) used to call "managed trade", it is difficult to define and control where that retaliatory campaign could end. It may be that as a nation that exports 30 per cent. of what it makes we would find ourselves hurt far more than some of those that we were retaliating against. It is the old parable of the first shot at Sarajevo. One never knows at which point such activity could get entirely out of hand. Therefore, as a nation we must resist, wherever possible, any pressures to move towards import controls here or in other nations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) ably congratulated the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts Manufactures and Commerce on bringing forward the programme at this time with these objectives. His Royal Highness Prince Philip and Sir Geoffrey Chandler were far-sighted in mapping out the chain of events some time ago. My hon. Friend also mentioned the impact of the anti-industrial culture and said that industry has to express itself better and adapt itself to new requirements. If the debates on industry and commerce have become stereotyped, it may be because the industrialists themselves have not taken time to put their heads above the parapet and address the wider constituency of the nation at large. I fully understand why they have to be concerned with their three-month profit and loss account and balance sheet and running their companies. However, many of our industrialists are a little shy of appearing on the media and reticent about expressing the values of the industrial and commercial lifestyle, to such an extent that it is often parodied, in my view inaccurately, in some of the news we see or read in the media today. Industry and commerce is very little like the stories we see on "Dallas" or our domestic soap operas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield was entirely correct about the way to get over the cultural problem, between the sectors and pillars of society. He said that we should have more secondment between industry and commerce and Whitehall, and in particular we should consider secondment into the Department of Trade and Industry. I agree, and I assure my hon. Friend that we keep that under constant review, particularly in my Department.
Training has to be —there can be no other way —the responsibility of the companies themselves. We have heard much about Japan recently. If one talks to a Japanese industrialist about the national training facilities and programmes, and asks how his company is participating, he looks at one with incredulity. He says, "This is just an integral part of my constant management effort within my own company. I do not need other people to come along and provide me with trained people. I need people who are trainable, whose skills can be enhanced by the training programmes that we have in-house." The Japanese have that obsession and fixation with their training culture.
I shall not refer to the Government's skill shortage exercise, but suffice it to say that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) was not entirely correct when he implied that the additional £43 million had been found from other accounts. Contributions have been made from other Government Departments, but it is additional resource going into those engineering and technology programme courses. They were identified by the industrialists on my skill shortage committee. They got together with the higher education sector and helped to identify precisely where the money should go in the areas of greatest shortage. In my view, the new partnership that

1235
has emerged will be seen as a seminal event, setting a precedent for the links between higher education and the private sector.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), in his customary style, generally laid about him ambidextrously, as we were reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan). I have to take him up on this, desperate though we all are to try to keep party politics out of the debate as much as possible. I have to take him to task on his assertion that the Government have stood idly by. That is not so. Neither is it the case that Government spokesmen have said that services can be depended upon to sustain our standards of living.
It is a great shame that somehow in the House we are stuck on a set of tramlines, with a service sector and a manufacturing sector on separate lines, almost in competition with each other. They are complementary. If we are considering the propensity for wealth creation, when we note that 80 per cent. of manufacturing output is internationally tradable, whereas 14 per cent. of service sector activities is, we see that manufacturing gives us a good return for our manpower and investment in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Ashdown: The Minister has, more significantly than any other Minister, made precisely those points. He is well known for having made the point about the connection between the service sector and manufacturing industry. However, does he agree that other Ministers in his Department and the Prime Minister herself have somehow given the impression that the service industry will take up the slack where manufacturing industry is in decline? That is an unfortunate impression, which the hon. Gentleman has taken pains to correct.
Mr. Butcher: I do not accept that. Others have taken that impression because it may suit their purpose. I was at a meeting of the national assembly of the Engineering Council, when the Prime Minister was particularly supportive of engineering and the manufacturing sector. Because we in the Conservative party dwell on complementarity and integration of the various sectors, some of the comments made have been taken —perhaps deliberately —out of context, for constituency or other political reasons. There is a massive contradiction at the heart of alliance policy and I am surprised that nobody in the media has twigged to it. I watched the hon. Member for Yeovil and his colleagues carefully at their conference. They talked about the head and heart policies of the alliance. The alliance says that, with its heart, it wants to spend on various social programmes and that, with its head, it wants to protect the interests of commerce and industry, an independent deterrent and so on. I wonder whether the cost of the heart policies will make life exceedingly difficult for commerce and industry. I challenge the hon. Gentleman —I shall give way to him now —to tell me how much his heart policies will cost, how he will fund them and how he will protect interest rates from the effects of that expenditure.
Mr. Ashdown: I am especially grateful to the Minister for giving way as he related his comments to the effect on industry. I remind him that the detailed proposals in our alternative budget costed social policies and chimed in almost precisely with the CBI's proposals in terms of the extra expenditure needed and how it should be spent. I have letters from the CBI, of which I shall send copies to
1236
the Minister if he would like, which show that the alliance's proposals coincide with those required by British industry.
Mr. Butcher: I hope that the House will note carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said. I did not hear him say how he would protect interest rates from the implications of increased expenditure. He will know that, year after year, the CBI puts the level of interest rates at the top of its list of factors that determine business confidence. No doubt we shall return to that debate at another time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Yardley talked of the various sectors of industry complementing each other. He also talked with affection about employers in his area. He is some ways a fortunate Member of Parliament as he has in his area an international airport, a freeport, the Land Rover company and the national exhibition centre. As an ex-Birmingham councillor, I congratulate him and his ex-colleagues in Birmingham on continuing that tradition of looking to the future and bringing forward the imaginative proposal for a convention centre, which will create hundreds of jobs.
Mr. Bevan: My hon. Friend has mentioned job creation and the convention centre. Birmingham has more miles of canal than Venice, some adjoining the conference centre. If the canals were developed as part of a job creation scheme, they would provide an excitng scheme for 1986, and I would appreciate comment.
Mr. Butcher: I have spent some time on those canals and I can vouch for the fact that they are a major asset to the city. With appropriate programmes, they could be a strong attraction for the many tourists who now visit Birmingham.
The right hon. Member for Swansea, West mentioned the moratorium on support for innovation programmes. As £138 million was allocated to innovation programmes in 1979, would he please note that some £380 million has been allocated in 1985–86, including an element of the Alvey money? The moratorium took place against a total spend of £230 million because awareness of the options and support for innovation arrived like an express train in that financial year. In previous years, there had been slight underspends against lower allocations. The allocation was higher when awareness was roused. The year's spend was consumed almost entirely in the first six months.
Mr. Williams: I am grateful to the Minister for that information. However, does he accept that that happened as a result of the Chancellor's proposals and that industry was rushing to get through its investment proposals before the capital allowances were abolished?
Mr. Butcher: Several factors were involved, but the major factor, which outweighs that one, was that, at that precise time, most companies were cranking up their investment programmes, having come to the judgment that, for them, the recession had ended. Therefore, it was in their interests, if they wished, to help to discount that growing investment programme, sometimes at taxpayers' expense, through the support for innovation programme. It was a sign of a general, healthy increase in the rate of investment.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West will use another debate to explain why he said that industry, especially the high-tech industries, wanted generalists with flexibility. That was an interesting phrase.

1237
However, the position is far more complex than that. Key and specific skills have been identified as being required, but more general skills are also required.
Mr. Williams: This is a problem more of articulation than anything else. I was talking about the high-tech era and the work force that we shall need in the future. The essence of my point was that both were needed.
Mr. Butcher: Perhaps the last 30 seconds of the debate have produced a happy consensus. This is an appropriate moment for me to resume my seat, to thank all, those who have contributed thus far, and to look forward to the further important speeches that will be made on this important subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield has allowed us to express our support for the royal society's admirable programme in Industry Year 1986.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The shortest speech in the debate so far has lasted for 19 minutes. No fewer than 10 hon. Members still wish to speak, and we have only just over an hour left, so may I appeal most strongly for short, sharp contributions.
1.27 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The longest speech in the debate was made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), who knew that many hon. Members wished to speak. It was wrong of him to speak for so long when he could hear objections being voiced around him while he was on his feet.
The Minister said that industry was being cranked up at that time because of lack of investment. That was not the position. It happened simply because the capital allowance arrangements were being changed. Those hon. Members who served on the Finance Bill Committee that year were smothered by information from companies and the CBI saying that that was the case. Companies believed that that Budget created an artificial position, and they asked us to table amendments during the course of that Bill. Indeed, some Conservative Members tabled amendments.
The Minister tried to rubbish the idea of managed trade. To rubbish that principle is to be complacent about what is happening. While we ignore the vital principle of managed trade, others will exploit our markets. That is exactly what the Japanese are doing today.
I congratulate the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts Manufactures and Commerce, and especially Sir Geoffrey Chandler and his staff, on the initiative that they will take next year. I welcome any initiative that places more emphasis on industry.
I welcome that initiative to some extent, too, because from the age of 21 I was self-employed, either in the United Kingdom or abroad. Before I became a Member of Parliament I spent all my time running a business. I began in a very small way. I went down the route that today we are advising others to follow. I was the designer, the marketing manager, the advertising manager and I had to organise trade exhibitions. On a number of occasions I exhibited at the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham. That is why I intervened when the hon.
1238
Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) referred to that matter. As a Socialist, I found that it was a thrilling and an exciting experience.
It is very sad that society has always looked down upon those who are engaged in trade. I am told that this is a historical pattern. In the 19th century trade was regarded almost as a second rate activity, while the professions were regarded as first rate. That pattern continues to this day. During the 1970s I went abroad on business. When I met management, particularly in Germany and also in France, I found that their attitude to business was completely different from ours. They had a different attitude to the position that they thought they held in society and on the shop floor. The demarcations in British industry —the white coat for the manager, the separate canteen for the workers and all that nonsense —has been responsible in many ways for what has happened in this country. I want those demarcations to be broken down. During the debate there has been an almost cross-party coalition on the need to intervene.
My period in business, which I remember with great affection, did me a great deal of good. It helped to remove any prejudices that I had about industry. Although I might be very ideological about the way I conduct my politics in this House, I pride myself upon adopting a very objective view towards industry and business. That is why the announcement of this campaign and the identification of three important priority areas, given the constraints imposed upon it by central Government and the limited finance that is available from the Department of Trade and Industry, will be successful to some extent.
The identification of the need to develop an increasing awareness of industry is important. Many people do not understand that this country has to generate wealth in order to provide the essential services for which I, as a Socialist, so vigorously campaign on the Floor of the House of Commons. I object strongly to the attitude that somebody else will pay. Those who sit on the Government Benches address this problem as though only the work force and those who are out of work adopt this attitude. However, it is also to be found among those who do not work but who are well heeled.
The worst prejudices that I have heard spoken in my life about the role of the state have come from the well heeled. They should know better but they do not. They are often articulate but they have never experienced life on the shop floor, so they do not understand what happens in factories. It is possible that half of this country's population has never been inside a factory. They do not know what is happening. Nevertheless, aided by the press, prejudices are built up, dwelt upon and developed and they serve to reinforce the prejudices of previous generations. That must be broken down by the campaign so that there is an increasing awareness of industry.
I can put in no better way than the Minister the link between education and industry. He put it excellently. It is important to educate young kids about industry. They should not regard becoming a barrister, a lawyer, an accountant, or even a Member of Parliament as their goal in life. They should realise that their aim should be to become a good industrial manager. That is where the real excitement lies: to go out into the market, to sell, to produce, to design, to get involved in wealth creation. If we can get young kids to follow that route, it will serve our country well.

1239
I want to pay tribute today to the SATRO organisation in the county of Cumbria which to some extent has been involved in that area over a period of years. There are now 40 SATROs throughout the United Kingdom and the one in my county has been particularly active, thanks to the considerable efforts of Mr. Roger Day, the co-ordinator, who has been asked to help in the promotion of this initiative in the coming year.
However, SATRO in Cumbria has problems. It has a small grant from the Department of Trade and Industry of £350 and an annual grant from Cumbria county council of £4,000. It simply cannot manage. It is disturbed because it has found out that although some additional moneys are to be made available under the Industry Year 1986 programme, none is to go to SATRO operations in Cumbria.
I hope that the Minister will take note of what I am saying and write to me about whether we can re-examine that to ensure that more money is made available. I am not asking for a lot, but the hon. Gentleman knows how tight the budgets are. We are talking about only the lower thousands. He might be able to make some particular concession to help SATRO through its financial problems. It can do so much more if it is given just a little more money.
I am told by way of rumour that Energy Conservation Year, being next year, is being treated within the county as of more importance than Industry Year. If that is so, it means that industrialists might not support the scheme in the way that they should. I ask the Minister to look at that and perhaps, through the regional CBI, to advise industry to take an even greater interest in the matter and not to put energy conservation first.
There is some feeling that the centre at the RSA is consuming the lion's share of the cash. I hope that the Minister will look at that. I am not criticising the RSA. All I am saying is that if it is taking the lion's share it might look at its budgets to see whether more can be given to the regions to support the front-line battle that has to be waged next year on this particular front.
I am grateful for the support given to SATRO by Marchon, British Nuclear Fuels, the British Steel Corporation, High Duty Alloys, Camtex, Leyland, and Eskett Quarries in my county. Perhaps next year we shall be going to them for even more to help us with this important initiative. That is all the more reason why the Government should help us if possible.
Mr. Butcher: I wish to put it on the record that the direct grant to the RSA from the Department of Trade and Industry towards the central administration costs for the programme is about £500,000 and another £1·5 million associated with the programme will be given during the year.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am grateful for that comment from the Minister. I hope that we get our share within the county, and perhaps even more. We have all the machinery set up to make the scheme work. We want to make it work and I hope that we will be given every support.
The third initiative is action in industry. Let me quote something from that because I want to raise a subject which arises directly from the proposals set out in the document for industry in 1986. It says:
"The success of Industry Year will depend crucially on action by industry itself and its component parts —directors,
1240
managers, trade unionists, employees and the companies or other institutions in which they are involved. All have a contribution to make in explaining the fundamental role of industry in society."
Then is says:
"Companies will be encouraged to develop a statement of principles or code of practice which will spell out their obligations and responsibilities to employees."
I want to look at those codes of practice because they are important. If we do not get the codes of practice right we will not attract people to industry and industry will be discredited. It is important that we ensure that the picture that industry paints of activities is one that entices, inspires and attracts.
There have been many developments, particularly over recent months, that have frightened our young people away from industry. Rows in the City, the activities of the Takeover Panel and the revelations of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) have all caused concern. My hon. Friend has to bring out those matters, because these evils have to he rooted out if we are to present industry in the right way.
A recent report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on a takeover bid affecting a brewery in my constituency recommended the closure of two breweries. When young people in Workington hear that an independent organisation, which is responsible, to some extent, for what is going on in industry, has recommended the closure of two breweries, they must feel alienated and think, "Industry is not for me. —We must ensure that these silly mistakes are not made.
There was talk some weeks ago —I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, heard it —about Associated British Foods. I am told that that company, which owns more than 100 branches of Fine Fare supermarkets and makes Sunblest bread, is a particularly good firm with a fine track record.
However, we are informed that in 1984 that company made a £2 million contribution to the IRA. Reports suggested that Associated British Foods paid £2 million protection money into a Swiss bank account controlled by the IRA. The payment was traced via Switzerland and New York to a branch of the Bank of Ireland in Dublin. Information suggests that early this year the Government of the Republic passed a Bill to free from the bank several millions of pounds which, it was believed, belonged to the IRA.
Of course, the company is denying that claim. It has denied it today. The company says that it is rubbish. But what will the company say when the truth comes out? how will that affect the way in which people look at industry? When all that happened is finally revealed —we always find out in the end what happened —how will people respond? Surely the reputation of industry will fall.
In statements this morning, the company says that it did not pay £2 million to secure the release of a kidnap victim. That was a careful and selective use of language. I have never suggested that the company paid £2 million to secure the release of a kidnap victim. I say that it paid £2 million protection money. It paid that money after the kidnap victim had been released. The company is playing with words in the statements that it is making to the media today.
I believe that when the Attorney-General answers the questions that I tabled last night he will have to recognise that something that bears investigation has happened.

1241
I am told that Scotland Yard is very angry, because it has been unable to get to the bottom of the matter. Scotland Yard knows that it happened. The security advisers to the company, Control Risks, are just across the road from Scotland Yard. It had the information, but, because of codes of practice in its business, felt unable to come forward.
The point is that money like this is used to kill soldiers in Ulster. What about young people when they—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am finding it difficult to relate the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the motion, wide as it is.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am being very careful to keep absolutely in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am talking about codes of conduct of business. Industry Year relates specifically to codes of practice in which companies spell out obligations and responsibilities to their employees. It is about the public relations efforts of industry to ensure that it is seen in the right light and perceived in the right way.
The truth is that Associated British Foods may have broken the law in a number of ways. It may have contravened section 1(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, in relation to the payment of money to the IRA in the knowledge that the money would be used for the purposes of violence, section 243 of the Companies Act in relation to the fact that the company failed to provide full accounts for the purposes of taxation, section 393(2) of the Companies Act in relation to the misleading information that it supplies its auditors as to the use of money which it failed to declare as being contributions to the IRA.
Either we make the law work, or we pull the soldiers out of Ulster. We cannot condone—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must appeal to the hon. Member. Time is getting on and he has already made a long contribution. In fairness to the House and to other hon. Members who wish to speak, he must stick to the motion.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps I can examine codes of practice; because the motion relates to principles and codes of practice.
Auditors who operate under the Companies Acts are subject to two types of control. They are governed by Companies Act legislation and by professional rules of conduct laid down by the institute of which they must be a member.
The Companies Act 1985 contains two relevant sections. Section 237 states the circumstances in which an auditor must qualify his report on the accounts. This includes cases where proper account of records has not been kept. Section 393 strengthens the powers of the auditor by making a criminal offence of anything which
"conveys or purports to convey any information or explanation which the auditors require"—
which is
"misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular."
The guidelines issued by the accountancy profession are more vague. I am dealing with codes of practice which is at the heart of the initiative for 1986. The guideline issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in guidance note 1306 on the disclosure of defaults or unlawful acts states:
1242
"It is an implied term of a member's contract with his client that the member will not, as a general rule, disclose to other persons information about his client's affairs acquired during and as a result of their professional relationship, against his client's wishes. Therefore, where a member becomes aware that a client has committed a default or unlawful act, the member should in principle keep the matter between himself and his client by virtue of the contract. A member who acquires knowledge of the commission of a criminal offence (other than treason), or a default which is a civil wrong, is under no legal obligation to disclose what he knows to a proper authority. There are, however, circumstances in which in spite of the contractual position, a member may be obliged to disclose information to the authorities or may be free to do so if he wishes."
That is an important part of the code because if that guideline were exercised in the case to which I have referred and in other cases that will come up in 1986 during Industry Year it would help to ameliorate industry's reputation with the public.
Mr. Ryman: Surely any reputable company in those circumstances would simply refuse to certify the accounts.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: That might be so, and I only wish that it had happened in one particular case. If it had happened I might not be standing here today.
"The circumstances in which it is envisaged that the nondisclosure principle need not apply are when,

(a) the auditor is obliged to disclose information by a Court;

(b) where the client has authorised disclosure; or

(c) where there is a public duty to disclose information.

The 'public duty to disclose' principle is triggered off by: —

(a) an intended criminal offence whether serious or trivial; or

(b) an intended civil wrong or breach of statutory duty if the damage to an individual is likely to be serious, or if the wrong may affect a large number of individuals".

The code of practice continues:
"Council therefore recommends that members, even though free to do so, should not disclose past or intended crimes or civil wrongs (except treason), which they are legally obliged to disclose unless they feel that the damage to the public likely to arise from the non-disclosure is of a very serious nature."
I believe that the killing of soldiers in Belfast is serious. The funding of that should have been reported by the auditors in the case to which I have referred.
I want to give another example which is not quite the same because it involves an hon. Member of the House. I make it clear that I am not criticising him personally.
A particular contract has been the subject of much public debate. That contract discredits Government and industry. I am arguing that it is important to clean up the show so that people outside know what efforts are being made to make industry enticing during 1986.
The £900 million contract for Nimrod, the early warning aircraft project, went to GEC. The contract is five years behind. The company was beginning to lose a lot of money and was in trouble. What did it do? It hired a right hon. Member of this House to negotiate with the Secretary of State on its behalf. The right hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) was purchased by GEC's Lord Weinstock. He was simply purchased to negotiate with the Secretary of State for Defence on the question of that particular contract. I find that quite outrageous.
There was a meeting yesterday to discuss these matters. On the one side, there was Mr. Peter Levene and the Secretary of State for Defence, quite legitimately there to represent the Ministry of Defence and the interest of the taxpayer. On the other side were Lord Weinstock and the right hon. Member for Waveney. They were hassling over whether the Government should give £100 million for the

1243
completion of the contract, or £400 million over the next four years for its completion to the required standard. That is unacceptable.
That sort of activity discredits the House. It certainly discredits industry, and we are discussing the reputation of industry in the country. It is wrong that a right hon. Member who represents his constituents in the House and sits on its Committees can be in contract negotiations with a Minister who is one of his own parliamentary colleagues where the public interest is served by securing the lowest possible price and the highest standard.
We must clean up the whole show. We must make this place cleaner than clean. We must ensure that industry is perceived as cleaner than clean. Only then will people be able to say, "I want to go into industry because it stands for all that I represent." Until we achieve that climate, we shall not succeed in the way that the House and the country demand.
1.53 pm
Mr. Iain Mills: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), who is known in his constituency and in the House for his vigorous activity in the campaigns that he follows —an example of which is Industry Year 1986 —on raising this debate. I am sure that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) feels these matters strongly, but I always thought that it was one of the conventions of the House to give a colleague prior notice if one intends to refer to him in the Chamber.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I did.
Mr. Mills: I understand that the person concerned is the chairman of the company to which the hon. Gentleman referred and has declared that interest. The House has resolved that such an entry in the Register of Members' Interests is the proper way in which to declare an interest. I find it strange that the hon. Gentleman was so critical.
I welcome Industry Year 1986. I spent nearly 20 years in manufacturing industry and I have the honour to be associated with the industrial anti-counterfeiting group, as its adviser. I trained as an engineer and I worked on the drawing board for some years as a designer. Many of the problems which Industry Year 1986 is setting out to tackle are part of the cultural ethic of the United Kingdom. Wealth creators—for example, engineers and those who manage manufacturing and other industries —are somehow seen as lesser beings than those in the professions. That is sad. In Germany, I was called Herr Doktor Mills, in Italy, Ingegnere Mills, and in France, Ingenieur Mills. Those who knew of my profession in my home country thought that I was using spanners and hammers instead of drawingboard skills with my pen, which I hope brought some benefits to the company for which I worked.
Until we change that —my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has tried in his committees with the Engineering Council to upgrade the wealth-creators —Industry Year 1986 will not be successful. This part of the multi-disciplinary or multi-occupation base is an ideal one in which to advance industry's role and society's attitude to it. I wish that more colleagues had come from the roots of manufacturing industry. Perhaps the House of Commons is too attractive to those in the professions. We can but hope —I think
1244
that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who comes from industry agrees with me —for future Parliaments containing more manufacturing men and women.
We need a vast shift in the attitude of the country and the Opposition to profit. If Industry Year 1986 is to be successful in promoting understanding in society of industry's role, it must be genuinely accepted that profit is a good and honest motive so long as the profit is honest and good and cleanly and properly made. The creation of an enterprise culture demands the motive of profit. Companies that aim to profit properly and wholesomely will ensure our future in the manufacturing enterprises that we need. We need also a much higher standard of management. I deplore the way in which management standards declined in the 1960s. It is only in the past five years that British management has started to become sharp and professional. Marketing and professional skills are emerging to match those of the Americans and Japanese. This is matched by marvellous achievements in productivity by our companies, not the least of which is the Austin Rover group which covers the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield and supplies much employment to my constituency of Meriden. The company's achievements in the car group and in the Land Rover group, which is partly in my constituency, have been an excellent example. To those companies which, in Industry Year 1986, would see the high interest rates policy employed by the Government as limiting, I say that wage settlements must be low as part of the macro-arguments aimed at achieving the right level of the pound, low inflation and success for Land Rover, Austin Rover, Talbot and the other companies that provide many jobs in my constituency.
I congratulate the Government on the extension of regional aid to the west midlands. So far, many thousands of pounds have been spent in my constituency, and I hope that that will continue during Industry Year 1986. I welcome the credit that my colleagues gave to those institutions in my constituency such as the national exhibition centre and the airport. I very much regret the redundancies that have been announced in my constituency at Castle Bromwich by the Austin Rover group and SP Tyres, which was formerly Dunlop. I am concerned about these redundancies and shall closely look into them.
Locally we have a striving and thriving promotion of Industry Year. Mr. Glover, who works for Massey-Ferguson as a senior director, is chairman of the Coventry and Warwickshire sub-region group which is planning excellent activities to promote the year, including video films and school and industry links. The Government have already established, through their technical and vocational initiatives in schools, the type of links that we used to see in technical schools and that which are important if our young people are to understand the joys and challenges of working in industry.
I welcome the extension of the young enterprise programme and the provision of a panel of speakers who can promote and talk knowledgeably about industry. This will further links not only with schools and industry but with higher education. This is imoportant for those at universities and polytechnics, such as the Lanchester polytechnic in Coventry, to establish the delights of working for industry.

1245
During Industry Year 1986, there will be a commitment, which will continue, for major companies to provide specialist assistance and advice to smaller companies. There will be displays in Coventry, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State —the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) —and I represent. These proposals show that Coventry has done its bit under the chairmanship of Mr. Glover to ensure that Industry Year is well promoted. I hope that he does not forget the pressures that there are on the green belt around Coventry. My hon. Friend the Minister would not expect me to make a speech without mentioning briefly how appalling it would be in Industry Year 1986 if the many hundreds of acres of derelict land in the west midlands were not developed but, instead, the green fields between Coventry and Birmingham were unneccesarily despoiled. I hope that he will encourage the present initiative, and new initiatives, which will enable derelict land to be brought back into use.
We in the United Kingdom suffer from the cultural identity problem whereby we see wealth creators as less imoportant than others. That is partly because we had our industrial revolution last century. We struggled through the cycle of good economic fortune and recess to build our industrial foundation. We have had time, unfortunately, to forget how important wealth creators —engineers and others in industry —are. Newly developed countries are straight into their industrial revolution. With instant access to western technology their engineers suddenly become the most important people in the country. Their whole thrust in national economic terms is through the developing new industries. Their place in society, their role and their rewards are high.
We are competing with those countries on the basis of a relatively small domestic market which is why the establishement of the European Community is the single most important step towards establishing a large domestic market. We must foster that link. Part of the fostering of that link must be cross-European action against the illicit trade in counterfeit goods.
That is a subject upon which I have become knowledgeable because of my fascination with the many hundreds of thousands of jobs that our industry is losing. During Industry Year 1986 we must encourage the Government to act. I ask my hon. Friend to speak to the Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry about the points that I shall make briefly. We wish to see an end to the loss of those jobs from illicit counterfeit goods. They are identical in brand name, packaging and every other aspect except for quality to good British goods produced by big British names.
I want to see the Government introduce criminal penalties for industrial counterfeiting similar to those that exist in the United States. In a recent case, some counterfeiters of £7 million of perfume were arrested. They were acquitted because the law did not allow their conviction. I shall be happy to write to my hon. Friend because the time is short. It was a conspiracy under the Criminal Law Act 1977. The Government are reviewing the matter and it is most important that they introduce penalties that are sufficiently severe to deter that illicit trade.
The United States Counterfeit Act 1984 is a good model. It provides for five years' imprisonment for a
1246
second or subsequent offence of counterfeiting and fines of up to $5 million for a company. I should like to see such a measure introduced in the United Kingdom. I hope that the Government will soon respond to the recommendations in the Nicholson report.
In Industry Year 1986 it would be splendid if the European trade mark office were located in London. It is the last and most important European institution to be established. It will be talked about in Europe for many decades. It is vital to achieve that objective. I chair a committee that has been set up to promote the country's interest in that office. It has reported and identified a splendid site at the old boy's school at Blackfriar's bridge or, alternatively, in the borough of Harrow, should an outer London location be required.
I must apologise to my constituency interests in Coventry and Birmingham, but London is the Government's proposal. It is in the national interest that we shold have that most important European institution. In 1986, it will help to bring jobs and prosperity to our nation. The knock-on effect on jobs dependent upon that office will be considerable. I shall be grateful if the Minister will mention the matter to the Minister of State and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to ensure that our bids against Munich, Paris and The Hague are successful.
It is about time that the world achieved, through GATT, a far better approach to the prevention of barriers to trade, the production and sale of illicit and counterfeit goods, and other matters. It will require a degree of determination that has not been shown, unfortunately, since 1979. It would be a superb initiative in 1986, as well as ensuring that we quickened the change in cultural attitudes towards industry in Britain, if we were to achieve better controls internationally on British trade —the furnace of trade —and better opportunities for our goods and our manufacturers throughout the world.
I hope that the debate will be taken seriously and that it will be given wide circulation, with great publicity for my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield in the national press. Unless Britain can re-establish the identity of the industry man —the engineer and the creator of wealth —as holding a desirable position in society, aspired to by young people in our schools and universities, the achievement of an industrial base, such as we had in the past, will be much slower. I wish Industry year 1986 every success.
2.6 pm
Mr. John Ryman: I congratulate the mover of the motion, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), on initiating what has been a good debate, although I was somewhat appalled at the nonchalant complacency of the Minister in dealing with certain aspects of the subject. I want to deal briefly with two specific matters. The first is the role of women in industry. The second is the disgraceful misuse by various companies, particularly international companies, of industrial grants and regional aid in the north-east of England.
I share the views expressed by other hon. Members that women have not been sufficiently encouraged to go into industry. The problem starts at school. The teaching in girls' schools of subjects such as science, which are of use in industry, lags far behind the teaching of science in boys' schools.

1247
The daughter of a family that I know wanted to be an electronics engineer. She was very bright, with all the necessary O-levels and A-levels. When she applied for a university place she was told that there were only two universities at which she could study the subject —Churchill college, Cambridge, and another university —subject first to being accepted for sponsorship by a company. She was lucky enough to get sponsorship and to get a place at Cambridge, but many girls of that age are not able to do so, because the opportunities are very slight.
Women are the greatest untapped source of manpower in Britain, and it ill becomes us not to encourage them to enter industry and take a leading role. The Government have tremendous responsibility for the lack of provision of nursery places because of their asinine policy of squeezing local authorities and putting many obstacles in the way of women who wish to have useful and successful careers in industry.
With regard to regional grants, until the Government were elected in 1979, we had a fairly intelligent policy of special development area status for certain parts of the north east where, because of high unemployment, it was necessary to offer a 22·5 per cent. capital grant for moving new industries into the area to create jobs.
As soon as the Conservative Government were elected in 1979 —indeed, by July of that year —the then Secretary of State for Industry, who is now the Secretary of State for Education and Science —Heaven help us —announced the abolition of special development area status for Blyth valley in my constituency and various other parts of Northumberland and the north east. The result of that was chaotic. As notice was given when the facts had not been examined carefully, much of manufacturing industry in the north east was suddenly without the regional aid programme which it had been budgeting on for several years. Several companies had to reduce their apprenticeship programmes drastically because they relied on the regional aid programme for funding.
It is worse than that, because experience has shown that firms such as Ronson, Courtaulds and Dunlop, before it was taken over, accept and seek large regional grants. When they are in difficulty in other parts of the country, the money from the regional grant is then taken out of the north east to other parts of the country where there is no development area. That is clearly an abuse of public funds.
I have referred that to the Department of Trade and Industry on several occasions, but I have never had a satisfactory explanation or investigation. I have given the Secretary of State and the previous Secretary of State detailed facts about companies in the north east that are doing that. Courtaulds is one of the biggest culprits. It had a factory called Exquisite Knitwear in Cramlington and Ashington. It closed that factory, making many people redundant, and it took the machinery, that had been bought with regional aid money, to the south east of England and the Channel Islands. It was clearly not intended that that money should be spent on machinery in the south east or the Channel Islands.
Before Dunlop was taken over fairly recently, causing massive redundancies in the north east, it shipped some of its machinery bought with the regional aid money to South Africa. That is scandalous. When the facts are drawn to the attention of the Department of Trade and Industry I do not receive satisfactory replies. On one occasion, the Minister and the civil servant concerned asked me if I
1248
expected them to sit on the M1 watching to see if machinery was brought from the north east of England to the south.
There is insufficient monitoring by the Department of money spent for regional development. Grants and loans should be checked carefully. Courtaulds and Dunlop are two of the worst offenders, but a company called English Numbering Machines and various car component companies are also involved. The majority of those are international companies which are American-based. When they get into trouble, they throw hundreds, if not thousands, of men and women out of work in the north east, close factories and take the machinery out of the north east and ship it elsewhere.
There is a very strong case for an inquiry. The Government have pursued an asinine policy of regional aid in the teeth of the opposition and sensible advice that they have received from industrialists, the regional TUC and their own Department in Newcastle. The Department of Trade and Industry has a good regional office in Newcastle staffed by very experienced and able people. The Department in London has ignored its regional advice. That is a serious matter.
Time is short, and I do not wish to prolong my contribution because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. But it is a scandal, among a wealth of pompous platitudes coming from the Minister, for him to ignore the serious problem of an abuse of regional aid by international companies that come to the north east for the money. They rape the area, and when there is the slightest difficulty in one of their factories in another part of England or abroad, they get out of the north east, throw hundreds of men and women out of jobs, and keep the money that has been advanced to them by the Government because they were working in the north east.
2.18 pm
Mr. Kenneth Warren: I declare an interest as an aerospace engineer. I shall try to speak at a pace that will be applauded by those who also wish to take part in the debate, without being supersonic and not heard at all.
I welcome Industry Year and hope that the Government will commit themselves to it wholeheartedly. My experience of industry is that we must operate as a team. I hope that the Government will join the team because, without their help, industry will not get the success that it deserves if it can restore its competitiveness.
I know how difficult it is to carve out a share in the market, hold on to it, make a profit and maintain competitiveness. When I started on the shop floor as an apprentice, I wasted a couple of years of my life, which is often done in the House as well. It took a long time to convince those in charge that we were all in the game together and it's a case not of "them and us", but of all of us working together to try to achieve the competitiveness which, so far, has eluded too much of industry.
It is not a new problem —it has been going on throughout the 20th century. In the past 80 years we have lost over half the share of world exports of manufactured goods that we had originally to people who are not employing better technology or better management but who are looking after the competitiveness of their products. That competitiveness is a factor for the Government as well as for industry.

1249
In Industry Year 1986, I hope that the problems will be tackled by management. It is right and proper that those in industry should expect to receive good wages and salaries for the work that they do. It is not right and proper that management should pay workers for greater output than they achieve, because that leads to job losses and the unemployment that we have. We merely destroy our competitiveness by management's ineffectiveness and inaction. Neither is it right and proper that managers and directors should pay for increases far beyond the progress that they have achieved in the companies where they are responsible not only to their shareholders but to the workers whom they employ.
In Industry Year, the Government have a substantial part to play, rather than just mouthing words. These may be facts that I have tried to tell Ministers before, but I hope that in Industry Year the Government will pay attention once and for all, and do something about it. I refer first to public purchasing policy. There is no policy. The Government are the largest single customer in the whole of the United Kingdom for goods and services. Surely they can draw up a purchasing policy to give specifications not only to stimulate home production but to benefit exports overseas.
Secondly, I refer to the cost of industrial operations. The Government must not just say that rates and taxes are there to finance social services, which we all need. I hope that the Government will constantly and ruthlessly examine their costs of operating in the way that industry has to day-by-day to survive.
I welcome the substantial progress made by the nationalised industries, and I hope that they will play their part in Industry Year. I am delighted at the way in which Rolls-Royce and the twins in Northern Ireland —Short Brothers and Harland and Wolff — the British Steel Corporation and British Shipbuilders have made substantial progress over the past few years on a world competitive scale.
However, the Department of Trade and Industry should not just rest on the laurels of stimulating that achievement and getting in the right management at the top, but try to stimulate new technology. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is deeply involved in that in his day-to-day work. Will he look at the timing and the way in which the stimulation takes place? The way in which new businesses should be stimulated changes as time goes by. It is no good putting cash into prosperous companies. In government, we must be more entrepreneurial and take the risk with the cash, putting it into companies that deserve the chance, which they would not get unless the Government were there to help.
I ask the Government to re-examine the real values of regional policy. The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Ryman) drew attention to asinine regional policy. It is asinine in my part of the country, in Hastings and Rye, where we have difficult employment problems. We cannot get regional aid, yet our enterprises that are struggling to make a profit are taxed to help competitors in other parts of the country. That is nonsense. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) would agree with that entirely. Some of the Government's regional policies are encouraging inward investment. For
1250
example, a foreign company in Scotland is to receive £180,000 for every job that it creates. That is also nonsense.
I hope that the debate will not just set the scene but begin the discussions that will take place in Industry Year, at a time when not enough people in the House are involved in wealth creation. With respect, there is an imbalance of those who are used to the consumption of wealth and how to distribute other people's money to other people.
I have the honour to be Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. I hope that, in its report on tourism to be published in January, it will be able to identify new service industry opportunities. That is a nice trailer, but I hope that the Government will not hide behind the growth of the service sector and fail to recognise that it requires only energy and determination on their part to stimulate manufacturing.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) talked about the Westland saga. I hope that the Government will examine how they participate in industrial restructuring. I understand that the Department of Trade and Industry is the sponsor Department for aerospace, but that the Ministry of Defence has invited Westland's competitors to restructure the company. Such an argument should not be going on in government and I hope that those in government who play Monopoly with companies understand that companies such as Westland are a major British engineering resource that deserve every assistance to survive.
That takes me back to public purchasing policy. Two thirds of the products of a company such as Westland come from a wide range of other companies in Britain such as Racal Electronics, General Electric Company, Ferranti and Smiths Industries. It is not just Yeovil but the whole country that is involved. I am a loyal supporter of the Government, but I do not think that they have got it right when it comes to understanding their role in restructuring.
We have had an interesting debate —it is especially interesting how speeches have got faster and shorter. We are welcoming the start of Industry Year. I hope that it will turn the tide of fortune for Britain's manufacturing industry.
2.21 pm
Mr. Mark Wolfson: I am mindful of the lack of time and the courteous brevity of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) and of the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Ryman). I shall try to follow their example.
I welcome Industry Year and the opportunity to speak today. I shall confine myself to that part of the motion which says:
"that the most talented people are again attracted to work in industry to secure its future".
The debate has been wide-ranging but I shall talk only about this matter, of which I have some experience.
It has already been said that Britain has to live by manufactured goods. There are no two ways about that. I do not buy the proposition that our manufacturing base will inevitably decline. I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye ended on that note.
There is an increasing divide between industries that are modern in outlook and those that are not. The gap between industries that are standing still and those that are moving

1251
forward is growing ever wider, and companies that believe in the future must accept that there is a divide which must be crossed. Making the leap takes real commitment. Change can sometimes be the responsibility of one person —a catalyst —but more often it is the responsibility of a whole team.
I worked for some years in the youth services department of the Industrial Society. One of my responsibilities was to run "challenge of industry" conferences in a wide range of sixth forms. Those conferences have since been developed and similar activities are carried out by other organisations. Their idea was to bring home to sixth formers the challenge presented by the management of people in industry and to combat reluctance to regard industry as an attractive career.
Why are the most talented youngsters uninterested in entering industry? First, there is a lack of understanding of what is involved. Secondly, they fear getting lost in large companies and believe that success will not be rewarded early. Thirdly, it still takes too long to attain major responsibility in many industrial careers. Fourthly, salaries are not good enough. That is especially relevant in terms of attracting people of the calibre of production engineers. It is also tied up with the problem of the status of those who work in industry. Yet those youngsters will be crucial to the future success of British industry.
As some hon. Members have said, industry is still regarded as culturally not necessarily the highest status career to pursue. That attitude must be changed. Above all, the picture of industry as not the most effective driving force in Britain, or the most successful part of British life, must be changed.
During Industry Year I hope that industry will do everything it can to publicise its successes and the difference between companies that are successful and those that are not. A recent survey conducted by the CBI revealed three extremely interesting points. In the 1980s, profitability, productivity and growth have moved forward dramatically in successful companies. The key factor perceived by the industrial managers who replied to the questionnaire was that successful management is the management of people. That ties in closely with attracting the most talented youngsters to the challenge which, in any industry, is the management of people. Those managers who replied rated people attributes as the key factor in whether management would be successful or unsuccessful.
1252
The survey highlighted four essentials to good management: the ability to control costs; the ability to devolve responsibility; the need to pay more attention to customers, products and the motivation of staff; and communication within the company, which is vital, if the challenges of foreign competition are ever to be met. Sometimes good communication networks arise from crises, but it is essential that managers continually explain to their workers what is going on, not merely in terms of organisation within the company but in terms of the problems faced by the company in the outside market. Workers should also be told about the financial position of the company. As many hon. Members said, teamwork is vital to effective management in any industry.
What are good managers required to be? The senior industrial managers who replied to the survey said that good managers are professional, that they maintain high standards, that they can delegate and give employees a clear idea of what is expected of them, that they are friendly, open and seem to be fair. They communicate easily and inspire confidence, they deal with queries and make decisions quickly. They have a "can do" attitude; they show imagination and intelligence and are realistic about strengths and weaknesses.
During Industry Year, industry will put itself across most effectively and will encourage the most talented people in the country to commit themselves to industrial careers, by demonstrating that those are the attributes required from people in industry. They must be effective managers who will ensure that our industry is more competitive than it has been in the past, and that it is in a position to improve our trade, exports and services so that through wealth creation, we can provide the social and educational services that all of us agree are necessary and important. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) has given us the opportunity today to pay attention to wealth creation. I am grateful to him for providing the House with that opportunity.
2.29 pm
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The aim of Industry Year is to improve the attitude of the general public towards industry. I agree with those right hon. and hon. Members who have emphasised the disadvantages for so long—
It being half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

St. Andrew's Hospital, Billericay
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
2.30 pm
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor (: This is the first occasion upon which I have sought to raise a matter on the Adjournment of the House. I do so now because of its importance and significance to my constituents. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Health replied on 3 December to the Adjournment debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess). Both debates have their origin in the decision of the Basildon and Thurrock health authority to reorganise health services in its district. As my right hon. Friend indicated in his reply on 3 December, the health authority's proposed changes form a wide-ranging package of proposals and are largely interdependent, one upon the other.
The proposals are contained in a document from the health authority that is entitled
"Consultative document for the reorganisation
of hospital services, particularly involving the maternity, gynaecology, paediatric, regional plastic surgery/burns and some geriatric services and
thereby the closure of in-patient facilities at
St. Andrew's hospital Billericay and changes to Orsett and Basildon hospitals."
The previous Adjournment debate revolved around the proposal that, for clinical reasons, inpatient maternity services should be centralised on one site, namely Orsett hospital in my constituency. That decision has met with the approval of my constituents in the Thurrock part of my constituency, but understandably it has met with the disapproval of my constituents who live further away from Orsett hospital —in Laindon, Wickford and Billericay.
However, I wish to concentrate today on the proposal of the health authority, contained in its option 5, to close St. Andrew's hospital in Billericay and transfer the regional specialty units of plastic surgery and burns to Basildon hospital. It is this proposal that has met with universal condemnation not only from my constituents in Billericay but from across Essex and the country.
Several of my colleagues have generously given their support to opposing these proposals. My right hon. Friend will have seen the terms of early-day motion 99. It has been signed by eight other right hon. and hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who I am glad to see has joined our debate and who, with the agreement of the Minister and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will say a few words in support.
I have received over 600 personal, individual letters opposing the proposals. That is an enormous mailbag on any one subject. I have received nine petitions, including one from the Federation of Essex Women's Institutes that is signed by 4,200 people. More than 20 separate organisations have registered their opposition with me. The consultants' staff committee for the district is also opposed to the recommendations. On Monday I shall help to deliver a petition to the health authority that contains over 80,000 signatures. In total, that represents locally the strongest, unified body of opinion placed before me since first becoming a Member of Parliament in 1979. To that body of opinion I wish to add my support and hence this Adjournment debate.
I have had three separate meetings with county councillor Mrs. Joan Martin and Mr. Richard Taylor, the
1254
chairman and the administrator of the health authority. I thank them for their courtesy and frankness. I plan to meet them again after the consultation ends on 21 December —on 13 January. I urge all my constituents who have not already done so to let the health authority know their feelings before the 21 December deadline.
Let me try to explain briefly to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health why we all feel so strongly, although I appreciate that he will not be able to comment in any detail. St. Andrew's hospital is old. The oldest part of the site dates back to 1840 and some accommodation is contained in temporary huts erected during the second world war. But it is a well loved local hospital with a deservedly high reputation and, with the plastic surgery and burns unit, a reputation far beyond the bounds of my constituency. However, most of the buildings on the site are in good condition, with the exception of the emergency medical services wards, and a considerable amount of money has been spent on the site and the hospital in recent years.
The hospital is well sited geographically. It is convenient. A recent survey shows that if the services are transferred to Basildon, 57 per cent. of current patients would experience an increase in return travelling time of an extra one hour and 26 minutes every time they visited the hospital. Basildon would be only marginally faster for only 23 per cent. of current patients.
Inevitably, a move will risk the break up of the team of specialists in various disciplines so important to the super specialties which operate at St. Andrew's. The team includes not just the consultants and surgeons but the physiotherapists, speech therapists, occupational therapists and nurses, all of whom have pooled their expertise. A move will inevitably loosen up that team for no good purpose.
On 3 December my right hon. Friend said that we have to achieve a proper balanced judgment which will ensure
"efficient use of resources to the benefit of everyone concerned."
However, a central plank of the current proposals is the move of a purpose-built burns unit which was opened only three years ago. It is the ideal burns unit format, separate and isolated from other services. I am afraid that my right hon. Friend was wrong on 3 December when he inferred that burns patients would be rehoused
"in modern buildings more suitable for the practice of modem medicine." —[Official Report, 3 December 1985; Vol. 81, c. 279–-80.]
Option 5 of the health authority report clearly envisages that the burns unit will be placed in existing ward accommodation vacated by the maternity unit. That is completely unacceptable. Cross-infection would be much more difficult to prevent and it would be a wholly backward step.
My right hon. Friend knows well the problems of recruitment for the NHS. Yet the Billericay site, I am pleased and not at all surprised to say, is the easiest site in the district for which to recruit. I am told that Basildon is not good and that the difficulties at Orsett are appalling. That is a fact which must weigh heavily with my right hon. Friend.
Remarkably, option 5 did not take into account another hospital in Billericay, the Mayflower. The 75 long-stay geriatric beds there in an old building must sensibly be considered as must the question of whether the 35 acute

1255
geriatric beds at St. Andrew's hospital should not be placed at an acute hospital as best medical experience advises.
All the consultants at St. Andrew's hospital have supported an alternative proposal involving the closure of the Mayflower hospital for long-stay geriatric patients, as envisaged in the district strategic plan for 1983–93, the transfer of those beds to a redeveloped St. Andrew's and the switch of the acute geriatric beds to Basildon hospital, where there is no geriatric provision. The alternative has been submitted to the district health authority for consideration and I believe it to be a well-argued document.
If the proposals go through unamended, there will be a threat to voluntary endeavour. Building the burns unit cost £1·2 million, of which £400,000 was raised by the spectacularly successful burns unit appeal. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point for all that he did to get the burns unit established and for his help with that spectacular appeal.
Is that endeavour to be wasted? Not only will those who gave their time, effort and money feel hurt, offended and angry, but the goodwill that was generated will disappear. People in Billericay and Essex generally will never again respond to help the NHS and I, for one, would not blame them.
I have said outside the House, and I should repeat for the record, that we are not talking about cuts, although our political opponents will muddy the waters by suggesting that we are. In fact, we are talking about how sensibly to spend increased sums of money on the Health Service locally. We must remember that there is no limit to the amount of money that could be spent. The level is an arbitrary one and a matter of political judgment. Locally, we must get the best deal in the best interests of the patients. They must come first.
As a Government, nationally we have done well. We have 58,000 more nurses and midwives, over 5,000 more hospital doctors and dentists, 3,000 more family doctors and over 13,000 more radiologists, laboratory technicians and other professional staff than were in place in 1978. They are all caring for patients. Government spending on health services has increased by 23 per cent. in real terms. This year, the NHS will receive over double the amount provided by the Labour Government in 1978–79.
We must ensure that the money spent locally by our health authority is well spent. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will realise that I mean no disrespect when I say that I hope that these local matters do not come to him for his decision. I hope that cold logic and rational argument will win the day with the health authority. However, the Minister now knows the strength of feeling on the issue; that feeling will not abate until St. Andrew's hospital and the burns unit are saved.
2.43 pm
Sir Bernard Braine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) for raising this matter. I think that I speak for many Essex Members when I say that it is high time that the subject was ventilated in the House.
My hon. Friend kindly said that I had an interest in the matter. When I was elected as the first hon. Member for Billericay 35 years ago, St. Andrew's hospital was dear to the heart of all the town's citizens, and I believe that it still is.
1256
I intervene to support my hon. Friend, who deployed the case superbly, and to say something on my own account. I was involved from the beginning in the campaign to provide a regional burns unit. There was a powerful reason for my interest. As the House knows, I represent a constituency where 30,000 or 40,000 people are exposed to the largest concentration of gas, chemical and oil storage in this country, where there have been four public inquiries and where the Health and Safety Executive carried out its first environmental survey into those hazards and concluded that they were considerable. Canvey island is safer than it was, but the possibility of burns resulting from an industrial accident is high.
I lent all the enthusiasm that I could to a public appeal. The National Health Service was not concerned with providing a regional burns unit. Our region was the only one in the country at that time without a regional burns unit. If children were seriously burned at home or a man was burned at work they had to go either to a hospital on the west side of Middlesex or to East Grinstead. As anyone with any knowledge knows, in the treatment of burns it is essential to take the patient quickly to the right place with the right skills.
My task was to try to persuade the public to demonstrate an interest. By golly, they did demonstrate that interest. They raised substantial sums. I conducted the first negotiations, helped by Mr. Moonman, then the Labour —Member for Billericay, to persuade the regional health authority and the Department of Health and Social Security to match pound for pound the money that we raised. So it was that after many years of struggle, led by the public, a magnificent regional burns unit was established at St. Andrew's hospital.
The reorganisation of other hospital matters in my hon. Friend's constituency is a matter for him. My interest is that this first-class, purpose-built unit should not be moved in defiance of the wishes of its medical staff, of the local authorities and of many people. I too have received many letters from former patients and people whose relatives have been patients there. They are deeply grateful for the magnificent treatment that they have received and for the lives saved. No risks should be taken with it. It should not be moved to Basildon.
Our purpose is to ensure that the Minister understands the deep sense of anxiety and anguish in our part of Essex that such a plan should be contemplated. I hope that the Minister will persuade the regional and district health authorities to scrap the plan, to clear it out and to start thinking again. Whatever is done about hospital reorganisation generally, they must leave the burns unit alone. It admirably serves the whole region, not just the people of Basildon. Staff morale and public confidence are high. Leave it alone!
2.48 pm
The Minister for Health (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) on his "maiden" Adjournment debate. He has chosen a subject of considerable local and regional importance. He has had the spoken support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who intervened with his usual passion. My hon. Friend also has the unspoken support of my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip who, unusually, is present during an

1257
Adjournment debate. That is a sign of my right hon. Friend's close interest in an issue which goes wider than my right hon. Friend's constituency.
I am left in no doubt about the strength of local feeling that the proposal arouses. As my hon. Friend kindly and courteously made clear, the proposal to relocate the regional plastic surgery and burns unit at St. Andrew's hospital, Billericay, at Basildon hospital and to close St. Andrew's hospital is part of a package of measures which may ultimately —if the community health council, which formally represents the views of the community, objects —come to me for a final decision. The only way in which that happens is if the district health authority wishes to go ahead with the proposal and the community health council objects to it. If the regional health authority endorses the proposal; it will be submitted to Ministers for a final decision.
As my hon. Friend acknowledged —he has been following these matters with care —it would not be appropriate for me to comment now in detail on the arguments one way or the other. My hon. Friend has concentrated on the transfer of the burns unit from St. Andrew's hospital, as he did in his recent early-day motion, which he said was signed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and a number of other local Members who have a particular interest.
It must be borne in mind —this was reflected in the speeches of my hon. Friend my and right hon. Friend —that we are dealing wth one facet of a wider proposed reorganisation involving the maternity, gynaecological, paediatric and geriatric services in the area. A number of hospitals are involved and the proposed reorganisation involves the closure of St. Andrew's hospital in Billericay.
As my hon. Friend acknowledged, this is the second debate on these matters that we have had during the past few days. On 3 December my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) spoke powerfully and eloquently on another part of the proposals. He directed his remarks to the proposed centralisation of the district's maternity services at Orsett hospital. Much of what I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon is relevant today to the subject of my hon. Friend and right hon. Friend's concern, which is the effect of the proposals on the burns unit at Billericay and the future of St. Andrew's hospital.
The proposals are wide-ranging and they intermesh. I am advised that they are largely interdependent. In considering the proposals, the overall interests of the many types of patient needs must be kept in mind. As the debate has shown the proposal to relocate the plastic surgery and burns unit is clearly a matter of considerable local interest and concern. St. Andrew's hospital is, I gather, a well-loved local hospital that offers a high standard of care. As my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay recognises, there is provision for consultation and comments must be submitted by 21 December. I have little doubt that the two debates that have taken place in the House, one on 3 December and one today, will encourage local people to make their views known. It is an important part of our democratic process that individual matters of this sort can be raised in the House. They attract attention, and proper account will have to be taken of the views which have been expressed.
1258
I said on 3 December that I understood that the district health authority believes that the move to Basildon would improve facilities for burns and plastic surgery cases by rehousing them in a modern building more suitable for the practice of modern medicine. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay has commented upon that and my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point referred to the purpose-built character of the unit and the special consideration that should apply to it. I would not wish to go further than merely to note their comments and to reiterate that I am sure that they, along with the many other relevant factors, must be taken into account when decisions on this matter are made, whether at district, region or, if the matter reaches Ministers, national level.
I am told that the general condition of St. Andrew's hospital is not good and that considerable capital investment would be necessary to get it into a proper state of repair. I recognise the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay, which I am sure are well known to the health authority, about the travelling that some patients will have to undertake if the unit is moved. My hon. Friend commented with considerable precision on the extra time needed for travel. The health authority recognises that local people who have recently contributed to improvements in facilities —£400,000 was raised by local efforts, in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point played an important role —should be taken into account.
Sir Bernard Braine: I think that my hon. Friend made a slip of the tongue. In talking about contributions from local people, he used the word "recently". The point that we are trying to establish is that, from the beginning contributions came from local people —from all over the regions, but principally from Essex —and it was not until they had made a substantial showing that there was the slightest interest in NHS money being found. Our interests is not recent —we have been demanding this facility for a long time. We have only just got it, and now it is to be moved away. That is unacceptable to us.
Mr. Hayhoe: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that clarification. In trying to scramble through in the limited time available, I may have over simplified the point which my right hon. Friend made tellingly earlier. It is not appropriate for me to comment, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point recognises as well as any other hon. Member because he has served here for so long with such distinction. I face the difficulty of having to respond by saying that I have no substantive comment to make because of the procedures that have been set up to allow the committees in the Health Service at district and regional level to bring their consideration to bear on the problems and to provide opportunities for the expression of local views.
I want to emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay said about the purposes of the review. There is a considerable difference of opinion between what we have heard today and the views of some of those who have brought these proposals forward as to what is right in terms of patient care. I am glad that my hon. Friend made it absolutely clear that the purpose of the proposals is not to save money but to meet clinical service needs. If any financial benefit arises, those resources will be used to improve patient care. This is not a cost-cutting exercise, although I recognise that local people, motivated by party

1259
political considerations, may seek to misrepresent the position. I hope that the debate has gone a long way towards discrediting such comments.
Resistance to change in Health Service matters is often deep seated. When the proposed change is for the worse, one has total sympathy with that resistance. Over the years I have found that sometimes —I make no comment on this specific proposal —resistance to change is expressed even when the change is for the better and in the long-term
1260
interests of all concerned. I hope that we all want a more effective deployment of resources to provide better patient care and that proper account is taken of local wishes and desires in arriving at those judgments. I insist that the test —I hope that I carry my colleagues with me —is that of better patient care. That is what we are about.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Young Persons (Tobacco Sales)
  Young Persons (Tobacco Sales)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  UNESCO
  UNESCO
PRIME MINISTER
  Military Nuclear Installations (Cancer)
  Military Nuclear Installations (Cancer)
  Workplace Nurseries
  Workplace Nurseries
  Research and Development.
  Research and Development.
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Dogs
  Dogs
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Education Expenditure (Comparisons)
  Education Expenditure (Comparisons)
  Medical Research Council
  Medical Research Council
  Agriculture and Food Research Council
  Agriculture and Food Research Council
  Inner London Education Authority
  Inner London Education Authority
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Licensed Premises (Exclusions)
  Licensed Premises (Exclusions)
  Strip Searches
  Strip Searches
  National Drugs Unit
  National Drugs Unit
  Metropolitan Police (Bullets)
  Metropolitan Police (Bullets)
  Immigration Regulations (Detainees)
  Immigration Regulations (Detainees)
  Remanded Persons
  Remanded Persons
  Custodial Sentences
  Custodial Sentences
  Sentencing
  Sentencing
  Mohammed Fasih
  Mohammed Fasih
  Political Asylum
  Political Asylum
  Young Persons (Tobacco Sales)
  Young Persons (Tobacco Sales)
  Drug-dealing Offences
  Drug-dealing Offences
  Probation Service
  Probation Service
  Coroners (Supporting Staff)
  Coroners (Supporting Staff)
  Controlled Drugs
  Controlled Drugs
  Fourth Television Channel, Wales
  Fourth Television Channel, Wales
SCOTLAND
  Child Leukaemia (Rosyth)
  Child Leukaemia (Rosyth)
  Tobacco-Related Disease
  Tobacco-Related Disease
  Controlled Drugs (Report)
  Controlled Drugs (Report)
  Housing Association (Glasgow)
  Housing Association (Glasgow)
  Arts Council
  Arts Council
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour statistics
  Labour statistics
  Ministerial Engagements
  Ministerial Engagements
  Accidents at Work
  Accidents at Work
TRANSPORT
  Road Signs
  Road Signs
  Road Accident Statistics
  Road Accident Statistics
  Leeds
  Leeds
  M1 Lighting
  M1 Lighting
  Motorway Delays
  Motorway Delays
  Air Agreements
  Air Agreements
ENERGY
  Sizewell Inquiry
  Sizewell Inquiry
  Nuclear Safeguards
  Nuclear Safeguards
  Plutonium
  Plutonium
  European Fast Reactor Collaboration
  European Fast Reactor Collaboration
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agriculture and Food Research Council
  Agriculture and Food Research Council
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Telephones
  Telephones
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax Payments
  Income Tax Payments
  Data Protection
  Data Protection
  Mutual Organisations (Recognition)
  Mutual Organisations (Recognition)
  Trustee Savings Bank
  Trustee Savings Bank
  Securities (Taxation)
  Securities (Taxation)
  Economic and Finance Council
  Economic and Finance Council
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Assisted Status Scheme
  Assisted Status Scheme
  Tobacco Sales
  Tobacco Sales
  Multi-Fibre Arrangement
  Multi-Fibre Arrangement
  Association of Accounting Technicians (Exhibition)
  Association of Accounting Technicians (Exhibition)
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
ENVIRONMENT
  Black Arts Groups
  Black Arts Groups
  Retail Superstore Developments
  Retail Superstore Developments
  Homes Insulation Scheme
  Homes Insulation Scheme
  Housing Investment Programme Allocation (Waltham Forest)
  Housing Investment Programme Allocation (Waltham Forest)
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Defective Dwellings (Designation)
  Defective Dwellings (Designation)
  Urban Programme (Resources)
  Urban Programme (Resources)
  Planning Controls
  Planning Controls
  Gipsy Sites
  Gipsy Sites
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
DEFENCE
  Nuclear Tests (Christmas Island)
  Nuclear Tests (Christmas Island)
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Devonport Dockyard
  Devonport Dockyard
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Fraud (Private Prosecutions)
  Fraud (Private Prosecutions)
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
  Illegitimacy
  Illegitimacy
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  U.N. Agencies
  U.N. Agencies
  Argentina (Football Match)
  Argentina (Football Match)
  Drug Trafficking
  Drug Trafficking
  Libya
  Libya
  British Embassy (Moscow)
  British Embassy (Moscow)
  Falkland Islands-Chile (Air Link)
  Falkland Islands-Chile (Air Link)
  Immigration
  Immigration
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Legionnaires' Disease
  Legionnaires' Disease
  Management Consultants and Accountants
  Management Consultants and Accountants
  Smoking
  Smoking
  Vaccinations
  Vaccinations
  Vaccine Damage (Pension)
  Vaccine Damage (Pension)
  Whooping Cough
  Whooping Cough
  Infant Deaths
  Infant Deaths
  Social Security Payments
  Social Security Payments
  Vaccine Damage Payments
  Vaccine Damage Payments
  Tobacco-related Diseases
  Tobacco-related Diseases
  Nursing Staff (Physical Attacks)
  Nursing Staff (Physical Attacks)
  NHS Staff (Compensation)
  NHS Staff (Compensation)
  NHS (Efficiency Scrutinies)
  NHS (Efficiency Scrutinies)
  Child Abuse
  Child Abuse

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.

Sizewell Power Station: Value of Contracts
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: 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 is the value of contracts so far placed and what expenditure has been incurred to date by the Central Electricity Generating Board in connection with the proposed building of a pressurised water nuclear power station at Sizewell.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am advised that contracts placed to date for Sizewell B amount to £440 million. Of this, less than £100 million is for preparatory design work which is proceeding. The balance of £340 million is for manufacture and supply which will proceed only if the project receives consent. To the end of November 1985 the Central Electricity Generating Board had incurred expenditure of £172 million covering essential design and development work to prepare the safety case and enable a prompt start on site if consent is granted for the project to proceed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that very full Answer to the Question. Would he agree that these sums of money are quite enormous? Is he aware that a great deal of concern is being expressed that the CEGB is anticipating the result of the inquiry which, I understand, is likely to be delayed? Can he further explain to me and to the House just exactly what would happen in relation to these hundreds of millions of pounds if by chance the inquiry came down against the project? Would that money be written off, or what would happen?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, the amount of money I specified of £340 million is subject to the project receiving consent, so if the project did not receive consent, that money would not be spent. On the other point that the noble Lord mentioned—that is, the enormous sums of money and the concern that it could be wasted—it is inevitable in such situations that where any company is going for a contract some money will be spent on preparatory work without necessarily being known that that contract will go ahead. Regarding the timing of the inquiry, the latest information I have is that the inspector has informed my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that he now expects to deliver his main recommendations in the spring of 1986.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, in view of the article in the journal of the Institution of
460
Mechanical Engineers which quoted Mr. John Baker as saying that the CEGB was already committed to spending over 90 per cent. of the total station cost with British manufacturers and suppliers, am I to take it from the Minister's earlier Answer that that is a commitment to buy British rather than a commitment to spend that 90 per cent of the money? From his earlier answer is it clear that the money will be spent, as he said, only if the inquiry result is favourable?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct. The figure I have is that some 93 per cent. of the total cost of the project would be for contracts placed in this country. However, that would depend upon the project going ahead.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the amount that the noble Lord has mentioned in connection with the cost of preliminary work seems to be very large indeed. Can he give the House some particulars (or will he do so on some future occasion, if he finds it more convenient) as to how this enormous sum of money has been spent? Can he asssure the House that no further sums will be expended or committed on preliminary work because it is yet uncertain as to how far this preliminary work will result in the materialisation of the project.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should be happy to try to give an analysis to the noble Lord at some stage, perhaps in a letter, of how this money has been spent so far. As I have said, most of it is involved in preparatory design work. There has been only one physical contract for £12 million. As for the future, that will depend entirely upon the results of the inquiry.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am 263
sorry to come back on this, but can the Minister confirm that the amount of money which will be expended and written off will amount to about 15 per cent. of the total estimated cost of the construction of the whole power station? Can he say whether, if that money has to be written off, the electricity consumers or the Government will pay?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, obviously if the project did not go ahead, that money would be written off, but this is a matter for the commercial judgment of the CEGB. They realise that it is important to get some work done at this stage. It is a risk that they have taken. It would be a matter for them to find this money. If I am wrong on that, I shall certainly let the noble Lord know.

SDI Research: British Participation
11.7 a.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they agree with United States Assistant Secretary of Defence Richard Perle that "if we are successful [in

461
SDI research] we will be putting a dome over the Soviet Union, that's the correct image" and whether it is to this end that British firms and institutions will now be working.
The Minister of State for Defence Support (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the purpose of the SDI research programme is to explore technologies which might enhance our security at lower levels of offensive weapons on both sides. It is in that context that British firms and institutions will be working.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, do the Government not realise that by signing a secret agreement on SDI they will now have to accept vicarious responsibility before the world community for United States administration statements of this sort which give a very much more precise and a very much more questionable objective than the noble Lord has just given.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid that the warped objectives to which the noble Lord referred are the product of the noble Lord's imagination. The United Kingdom's position on this matter was very clearly set out in the four points to which I referred in the Statement made earlier this week.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could allay the thoughts among the more cynical of us who feel that the support by the Government for the SDI was, at least in part, given in view of the prospect of our being able to get some fat defence contracts. Would the noble Lord care to comment not only on the apparent contradiction posed in the Question but also upon the remarks of General Abrahamson, who has said that there is no such thing as a perfect astrodome—not a dome but an astrodome—over Russia? Yet we have the situation that the President is quite confident that there is. Would the Minister care to tell us which theory or which view he supports, that of the President or that of the scientists?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there are a number of technical questions still to be resolved. That is why the United States have embarked upon a research programme in which we are proud to play a part.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Answer the question!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that most scientific opinion is that the most that SDI will be able to do is to put a dome over land-based ICBM silos in the United States of America and that not much more than that is likely to be scientifically possible? In vew of this, is it not the case that star wars is not more than another enormous escalation in the nuclear arms race?
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords, that is not the case. The purpose of this research programme, as I said in the original Answer, is to look at technologies which might enhance our security at lower levels of offensive weapons on both sides. I agree that there are still some scientific matters to be resolved. That is why there has to be a research programme and that is why we are part of it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people in this country welcome moves towards providing some measure of defence against the menace of attack by missiles? Is he also aware that many people in this country regard the observation of the noble Lord opposite, that it would be a bad objective to obtain valuable contracts giving employment in this country, as rather odd?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that was a point I endeavoured to make during exchanges on the Statement earlier this week.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether any of our universities are involved in this research? If so, which?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I understand that some of our universities are interested in securing work under this particular programme, but I am not aware that any contracts have been signed.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister not agree that the strategy here is to disarm or to destroy the missiles when they are in the boost phase before they have got up speed, before the warheads have been divided, thereby creating what is in effect an umbrella over the airspace of the Soviet Union?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that my noble friend is looking a considerable way into the future. There are a number of hurdles that have to be overcome before we reach that point.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the noble Lord answer a rather simpler question than my first supplementary? Is it the opinion of the Government that the statement by the United States Assistant Secretary of Defence quoted in my original Question is in accordance with the four points agreed by the Prime Minister and the President last December, or not?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I may say so, the noble Lord occasionally quotes things out of context. The United Kingdom position is clearly set out in the four points, to which, of course, the President of the United States also adheres.

SDI Research Results: Control
11.16 a.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether research results obtained by United Kingdom firms and institutions under last week's secret Memorandum of Understanding on SDI will remain wholly within United Kingdom control, or will the use the United Kingdom Government and firms make of them now be controlled in whole or in part by the United States Department of Defence.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I reported to your Lordships on 9th December that the Memorandum of Understanding concluded between the United States and the United Kingdom Governments on 6th December safeguards British interests in relation to the ownership of intellectual property rights. As I made clear on Monday, the detailed content is confidential: I am unable therefore to add anything to what I said then.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is not the point that this research will push forward the frontiers of technology in a very large number of fields which in the future will be the centre of weapon systems of all kinds and of civilian advances whether there is a SDI or not; and the risk that we may see the results of research done in this country restricted by this agreement and thus be worse off than, say, France or Germany which have not signed the agreement at all?
Lord Trefgarne; My Lords, as I have said, the United Kingdom has been at pains to ensure that proper arrangements are made with regard to the intellectual property rights; that we have done.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why this memorandum has to remain secret? Is he aware that this secrecy has never been really fully justified and that a reversion to secret diplomacy in such a key area needs public justification if the Government are to give or carry conviction on the point?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the memorandum refers to a number of matters concerning national security. It is for that reason that it has to be confidential.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, under the terms of the memorandum have we not been led to believe and understand that it is the desire of President Reagan that there should be almost total participation including the Warsaw countries as well as NATO, so that the whole idea is ultimately to provide for the entire world a kind of safe cover? How can this be done if some parts of either the Warsaw pact or NATO are going to demand to have a little secret investigation on their own?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Soviet Union are, of course, conducting a major research programme into these matters, as well. The noble Lord may not have had an opportunity to see the Written Answer which I gave yesterday to my noble friend Lord Alexander, which was not published in yesterday's Hansard but is available in the Library.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister will recall that when he made the Statement earlier this week I pressed him to say a little more about the safeguarding and protection of intellectual rights. He declined to take the opportunity then, and today he has simply said that they are safeguarded. Will the noble Lord understand that, on this side of the House at least, we are very sensitive to the possibility that arrangements may be made that are not in accordance with the best interests of British scientists and industrialists?
A noble Lord: Speech!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, would the Minister care to say something about the point that I raised in respect of the brain drain? The Americans are apparently going to be getting the benefit of a number of scientists travelling abroad. Could we not have an assurance that there will be at least a two-way traffic, with scientists from America working over here as well? What about—
A noble Lord: No!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, what about the protection of the small firms?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me about the brain drain when we discussed these matters earlier this week. I told him then that without the benefit of this agreement the brain drain would have been very much greater. Now, of course, the research is going to be carried on in this country, and that means that there will be many opportunities for British scientists to participate here in the United Kingdom. On the question of the confidentiality of this agreement, I am afraid it has been agreed that it should be confidential because, as I have said, it contains a number of matters which refer to national security. I am afraid I cannot go further than that.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that there is a tradition of privacy and confidentiality in these matters which goes back to Mr. Attlee's agreement on American bases in Britain?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct. It is not the case that every agreement of this kind or every memorandum between Governments is secret but quite a number of them are, and I am afraid this is one of them.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord made a very important point in reply to an earlier question—I took a note of it—when he said that British firms "will be working". Is it clear, therefore, that work is going to be found for British firms in British factories? Have the Government made a calculation of the job prospects, and are they satisfied that smaller firms in this country will be able to compete with the large American firms? Does the agreement, albeit secret at this point, provide specifically that certain areas of the work will be carried out by British firms?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there is already in the Library a document which refers to the specific areas where we believe British firms will have a particular interest and where, indeed, British firms and British institutions have a particular expertise. We naturally expect that British firms will make a major contribution in those areas. In that regard the noble Lord might care to study the document which is in the Library. It is not possible to exempt British firms entirely from the competitive process, but I am quite clear that they have such important and, in some cases, unique capabilities that it would be very surprising indeed if they did not secure a major part of

465
this work. I am referring to the research, of course. We are at this moment embarked upon a research programme, and nothing more.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in that case I think it is very important that the Minister should make it abundantly clear that there is no positive commitment at this stage and that the phrase he used earlier, that British firms "will be working", is not precise. In fact, what he said is that there are areas of interest and expertise; but he must be clear when he is at the Box that he makes a positive statement. I should be glad if he would withdraw what he said earlier, that British firms "will be working", because there is no certainty of that.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is not quite correct, because there will be some areas of activity where British institutions or firms will be awarded sole-source contracts.
Lord Morris: My Lords, my noble friend said that he expected British firms to make a contribution. Can he possibly clarify the level of his expectations?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think I have just answered that question in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is it not the case that the confidential agreements in the defence field made by the Attlee Government with the United States were supported by the Opposition?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I wish this one was as well!

Holloway Prison Cl Unit
11.25 a.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps have been taken to improve conditions in the C1 Unit at Holloway prison prior to its resiting in purpose-built accommodation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, a detailed assessment of the fabric of the C1 Unit has been made and preparation of a design brief for the interim improvements to be carried out is nearly complete. Interviews for the post of senior medical officer with responsibility for the medical management of the C1 Unit are due to take place early in January.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for that Answer and also for the personal concern which I know he has shown on this subject. Notwithstanding that, would he not agree that the present situation in the C1 Unit is both intolerable and critical? Is he aware that in November alone there
466
were six cases of self-mutilation, two major fires and many floodings brought about by the disturbed inmates? Would he not agree that the conditions are inhumane for the prisoners and are such that it is impossible for the prison officers to carry out their duties? Would he take note of the recommendations made by the Prison Officers' Association in the very good report they have just brought out?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords. Progress is being made but one simply does not achieve results overnight: they have to be planned carefully. With regard to the interim improvements, we have been looking in detail at the practical steps and in particular at improvements to the fabric and the replacement of potentially dangerous fittings, together with the provision of more space for association, improvements to the lighting and things like that. But your Lordships will understand that it has been necessary to assess the condition of the fabric in some detail before planning the changes which can be if real improvements are to be achieved. This is being done, bearing in mind the fact that we have said that we shall build a new unit. I have read the report from the Prison Officers' Association, and many of their concerns, especially those expressed in the press release, are being met.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why the Prison Officers' Association was not involved in the negotiations about this matter? It is disturbing to read that they were not. After all, they have to handle these disordered prisoners in this most unfortunate place. They are, in a technical sense, detained there; but some on trial will no doubt be acquitted, bound over or whatever it may be. Will the Home Office in particular pay attention to the proposals that in the meantime the prisoners from the unit should be moved to specially adapted accommodation elsewhere in the prison, and above all that the cells should be altered so that the persons inside can be seen, in view of their dangerous and unhappy state?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, on the last two points put by the noble and learned Lord, as regards the alteration of cells so that the prisoners can be observed, that is a matter which is under detailed consideration, as I described to the noble Baroness. One cannot just knock down walls and hope that solves the problem because the effects could go rather further than that. So far as moving prisoners to another part of the prison is concerned, we are faced with a great many of the same types of problems. The fittings, and so on, in other parts of the prison which have been suggested as a possibility simply are not up to scratch.
Regarding the involvement of the Prison Officers' Association, there is of course very close liaison at Holloway between the association and the governor. The interesting thing is that the report they have come up with matches very nearly so many of the points that were brought out in the project committee's reports.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, may I ask the Minister a simple question? What is the C1 Unit?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the C1 Unit at Holloway is the special unit there for the

467
psychiatrically-disturbed prisoners, both on remand and sentenced, who need the special care provided there.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, the Minister has spoken of assessment, but not much assessment is needed to safeguard the security of prisoners by changing the washbasins or the heating installations and surely these could have been carried out. May I ask whether they have indeed been carried out?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, they are being carried out but we need to assess precisely how it is to be done. It is in hand. The noble Baroness looks at me as though I were not doing anything about it but I can assure her that making the fittings safe, together with the lighting, plumbing, improved observation and the wall and floor coverings are all very much in hand.

Severn Bridge Tolls: Judgment
11.30 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to repeat the Statement now being made in the other place by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Transport. The Statement is as follows:
"The challenge to my right honourable friend's decision to increase tolls on the Severn Bridge succeeded in the High Court yesterday morning.
"The judge held that there were procedural improprieties at the inquiry in that the inspector did not evaluate and recommend on matters germane to the decision. This was not, the judge found, cured in the decision letter. The order therefore was held null and void. No transcript of the judgment has yet been seen. When we have studied this an appeal will be considered.
"Action was taken so that tolls could be charged at the old level as soon as practicable, probably some time later today. Vehicles are being allowed to cross without payment while the necessary mechanical changes to the toll booths are being prepared'.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for repeating that Statement made in the other place. But he will he confirm reports in today's press that the issue first arose because the Gwent County Council and other local authorities objected that they had to meet through tolls the cost of approach roads and also the £19 million cost of strengthening the Severn Bridge? Is this not therefore a case where the whole policy of providing for estuarial crossings should be reviewed and not met in this way, because the Severn bridge is of national importance, including, of course, its importance to South Wales?
I note from the Statement that the Secretary of State and the department have not yet decided whether they should appeal. On reading the judgment it may be
468
decided not to appeal, but if, alternatively, there is an appeal and it does not succeed it will be the fourth time in 12 months that the Secretary of State has fallen foul of the law. Is there something wrong in the legal department of the Department of Transport—for example, inadequate staff to meet all the legislative measures that are going through that department?
Lord Kennet: My Lords, while every Member of both Houses will no doubt have the greatest sympathy with human failings—and it is clear that anybody can be the subject of many human failings—the present Secretary of State for Transport seems to be subject to a special degree of accident proneness. It is not very many weeks since the courts held that his attempt to take £250 million from the Greater London Council, in connection with the transfer of London Transport to the new regional authority, was unlawful, irrational and procedurally improper. We may think he is lucky to have got off a bit lighter from the court this time.
Is it not necessary to place his performance over the last year in the general context of a Government which has been knocked down in the courts on the unionisation of GCHQ and on the Secretary of State's proposed changes in benefits? In short, would it not be a matter worthy of debate, or at least of getting some data out on paper and into Hansard by means of Questions, to consider how this Government's record compares, in the task of not falling foul of the courts, with the record of other Governments?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for welcoming this Statement. He asked me a number of questions, one of which was whether the policy on tolls would be reviewed. I think that we have to wait until the transcript of the judgment is received, which I understand will be in about 10 days' time. When we have studied that, of course, the policy on tolls, if that is affected by the judgment, will be considered. The noble Lord also asked me what decision we would make on the judgment. I am afraid that the answer is the same. Until we have seen the transcript of the judgment we do not know what action should be taken and how we should proceed.
I turn now to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who did not welcome the Statement. He asked me a number of questions not related to the Statement, but if he puts them down in Question form I will do my best to answer them.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there is a considerable amount of concern in South Wales about this matter, because it is not the first time that the Government have acted imprudently in connection with this bridge. Can he say what amount of money was involved? How much money was mistakenly charged in view of the error of the Secretary of State in this matter?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I do not know the precise amount of money that was taken during the period when the tolls increased. I can tell him, if it is helpful, that the tolls on cars rose from 20p to 50p, the tolls on motor-cycles dropped from lop to nothing—and I

469
gather they are concerned that the judgment means that they have to continue to pay 10p—and the tolls on lorries increased from 40p to £1.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, if the judgment stands, will there be an attempt to reimburse those who have been improperly charged 90p a time—is it?—for going over the Severn Bridge? There will be a great queue of Welshmen claiming a refund.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think that the Welsh will be crushed in the rush by the Scots to get there first. No, I do not think that is a practical proposition, because we do not know who has gone across the bridge and there would be no way of proving—as I am sure the noble and learned Lord will understand better than I—that they had done so.
Lord Morris: My Lords, may I suggest that a practical way in which this matter could be handled would be not to raise the toll for a period of time, in order to compensate those who were wrongly overcharged?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, does my noble friend mean that we should increase the toll for motorcyclists to compensate them for when they did not pay anything?
Lord Morris: My Lords, I mean that for a period of time do not charge anything at all.
The Earl of Caithness: But, my Lords, they are at the moment going across free and the tolls will revert to the 1979 figures as soon as the machinery is altered. I think that that is the fair and reasonable thing to do.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, does this not illustrate two points? First, with the increasing use of judicial review by the judicary, on a basis that I have never really understood—often it is based on neither statute law nor common law—every ministerial decision can now be challenged, with the consequence that when judgments come after a long time there is great inconvenience. Is the whole question of our procedures, particularly in the transport field, being looked at? Secondly, is it not much better, if, obviously, in proper fields costs rise in accordance with inflation, to make a regular small increase rather than an enormous one of this character, which understandably causes a very sharp reaction?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, for those two questions. As I understand it, the tolls are increased as a result of the Severn Bridge Tolls Act 1965 which Parliament approved and tolls can be increased when considered necessary. So I think that when the legislation was drafted provision was made to increase the tolls, and provision was made for an appeal as took place in this case. Once an appeal has been made, it then automatically goes to a public inquiry.

Okehampton Bypass (Confirmation of Orders) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Channel Fixed Link Proposals
11.39 a.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness rose to move, That this House takes note of the proposals to build a Channel fixed link submitted to Her Majesty's Government.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity offered by this debate today. It will not only enable me to explain the stage which the Government have reached in their consideration of the proposals for a cross-channel fixed link; it will also give me the chance to hear the views of your Lordships' House on the principle of the fixed link and on the four submitted schemes.
Earlier this year the two Governments of the United Kingdom and France issued what is known as the Invitation to Promoters. In the Document the Governments made it clear that they were willing in principle to facilitate a fixed link across the Channel if certain conditions could be fulfilled. The main condition, as noble Lords will know, was that there should be no support from public funds or Government financial guarantees. Failure to respect that condition would render any proposal by a prospective promoter completely unacceptable.
The invitation also set out a large number of issues to which the promoting groups were required to give attention when submitting their schemes. They were, for example, required to show what measures they would take to prevent the spread of rabies, or other diseases, to humans, animals and plants. They were also asked to detail the arrangements they would make to safeguard the link against terrorist attack. There were many other requirements, covering matters such as safety, including the safety of navigation, environmental impact, and hydrology. One particular requirement was that the promoters should carry out an environmental impact assessment—known as EIA—of their schemes. The invitation required that the EIA should be on the basis of the draft European Community Directive and should cover land use, environmental pollution, amenity, safety and local employment considerations. To show the detail to which the four promoters went, I have copies here. They weigh 181b 4oz or 8·3 kilos.
An important element of our assessment is the likely effect on the ferries. The Government are concerned that the link should not decimate the existing ferry fleets. My right honourable friend will wish to be satisfied on that particular point. Noble Lords will realise that I will, too, as I have a special interest in that subject. The reasons for this are clear. We recognise the importance of the ferries as a source of employment: but we are also conscious of the important role of the ferries in national defence; and we want to ensure that the creation of any link would increase and not reduce competition for cross-Channel travel.
When the invitation, also known as the 'Guidelines', was issued, the two governments made it clear that any submissions by promoting groups were to be received by 31st October. A total of four valid proposals were received by that date. These were Channel Expressway: the Channel Tunnel Group: Eurobridge: and Euroroute. The details of these schemes will be

471
familiar to many noble Lords but I can give further descriptions if required. For their part the governments undertook that they would use their best endeavours to reach a decision, for or against a link, and between the competing proposals, within three months of that date. That was made clear in the Statements to both Houses on 2nd April this year.
I can report that the timetable set out last spring is still on course, although it is recognised that it is demanding. To facilitate examination of the four rival schemes the governments have formed a joint group of assessors. The British part of the assessment group has organised 20 teams, each considering a separate, but vital part of the project. Let me, if I may, mention the subjects of the assessment teams. There are groups dealing with civil engineering and road safety; programme, capital and operating costs and project management; the adequacy of third party insurance; traffic and revenue, including through rail traffic; tax implications; financing; hydrology; frontier control; maritime requirements; environment; the adequacy of consultation; protection of marine environment; economic and employment implications; legal implications; the technical and safety aspects of railways; inland rail; inland road infrastructure; civil aviation (safety implications); security; and organisation of promoters and relationships with governments.
To assist in this task a number of outside consultants have been commissioned. On the British side we have engaged consulting engineers, a firm of land use consultants, hydrological experts, project management consultants, and a merchant bank. The French have done likewise so that the projects are being double checked and the co-chairmen of the Anglo-French assessment group will present a jointly agreed report to both governments by Christmas.
Following the recent summit talks, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced her intention of meeting the President of France again during January.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves the subject of the assessment panels, perhaps I may ask him this question. He has told us about the consultants who were heard, but can he say who are the members of the panels themselves—not by name but what sort of persons they are?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not fully understand what the noble Lord requires me to give him further details about. The noble Lord has an opportunity to speak later and perhaps if he raises that matter again then and is a little more specific I shall be able to tell him more.
At that time it would be their hope that they could announce the decision on which scheme, if any, should in due course be brought before Parliament for approval. The Government intend, as soon as possible after the decision has been taken, to issue a White Paper setting out the reasons for the decision and giving as much information as possible about the results of the assessment.
Negotiations are also taking place with the French on the necessary treaty. The Government intend that,
472
if the decision in January is positive, it will be signed before the end of February. It will of course be subject to subsequent endorsement by Parliament through the Hybrid Bill procedure before it can be ratified. The Hybrid Bill would be introduced in another place during March next year.
A number of people have commented on the fact that there is to be no public inquiry into the principle of the link, but I hope to explain to the satisfaction of your Lordships why that would not be the right course for this particular project. The principle of whether there should be a fixed link and if so which scheme, must be determined by Parliament, in response to a proposal of the Government. It is a project of national importance, requiring decision by the highest tribunal in the land—Parliament.
To authorise any form of link, legislation would be needed and it is not possible to avoid that Bill being hybrid. Objectors would therefore be faced with the double expense of a public inquiry and petitioning Select Committees in your Lordships' House and another place. Also, this project is quite unique in that it is one that has to be facilitated by two sovereign states, Britain and France. Our two national systems for considering implementing investment projects are very different and the French have a much more abbreviated system than our own. It would simply not be possible to fit a public local inquiry into the timetable for such a bi-national decision but that does not mean we do not want local and national consultation. I shall return to that in a moment.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, as one who supports the project that is in mind, a link between both countries by whatever form is finally decided, may I ask this question? Is it not odd that those who support it are also demanding a public inquiry? I have always been brought up to believe that those who insist on a public inquiry are usually those who oppose the project. The whole purpose of a public inquiry, quite properly, is to have all the arguments put out and of course to delay. I should think that the Channel Tunnel inquiry would not only take months and months but people would be opposed to whatever decision was finally arrived at, so what the heck is it all about?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord has a valid point and perhaps he highlights some of the curiosities of the British character. However, let it not be forgotten that it was the Party opposite which made it clear in 1974 when they revived the Channel Tunnel hybrid Bill that there would not be a public inquiry. Furthermore, only last week the Select Committee in another place recommended that the precedent be followed.
This project is also unusual not only in its scale but also in that it is to be financed wholly in the private sector. The investment institutions would not be willing to give the kind of commitments necessary if they were faced with the long and protracted timetable and the uncertainty of a favourable decision resulting from the public inquiry procedure, which the noble Lord has just mentioned. A public local inquiry, which would last many months if not several years, would kill the project stone-dead before it had a chance to be considered properly.

473
Although the final decision has to be taken by Parliament, my right honourable friend wants maximum consultation, principally, but not exclusively upon: the precise effects of the link selected on individuals and on their properties and amenities; the effect on the local economy, particularly local employment; the effect on the natural environment of the garden of England; the communications needs of the area (road and rail) as a result of the link; and the effect structures in the channel would have on the safety of shipping and the freedom of navigation. It is impossible to comment on these matters properly before the assessment is completed but these are questions which figure prominently in the work we are now undertaking.
In the Invitation to Promoters, the promoting groups were encouraged to undertake informal but wide-ranging consultation. Some of the promoters have been very active indeed in consulting widely. That responsibility to consult did not come to an end when the schemes were submitted on 31st October. The adequacy of individual promoters' consultation arrangements will be one of the matters to which the Government will pay attention when they are making their decision.
Nevertheless, the Government are undertaking extensive consultations with local authorities in Kent and adjoining areas. Advertisements were placed in national and local newspapers, inviting comments on the four promoters' schemes. Arrangements have been made for public inspection of the proposals throughout Kent and in my department's offices throughout the country. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has already visited the area, and my right honourable friend will follow next week. I can assure the House that the comments we receive from your Lordships, from local authorities, from groups and individuals, will be taken fully into account before any decision is reached on the principle of a fixed link. I shall take a very careful note of the comments made by noble Lords today.
If the governments agree to facilitate a fixed link, there will of course be further consultations and opportunities for comment on a firm proposal. We shall consult local authorities and amenity groups, in particular about the content of the proposed legislation. There will also be consultation throughout the passage of the hybrid Bill, so that any problems of detail could be resolved in the legislation. The precise effect on the environment, the economy, transport links, and upon those personally affected will by then be much easier to assess and take into account.
The hybrid Bill procedure contains every opportunity for those affected to be heard. The procedure is well-known to your Lordships, but if I may recap on it, if noble Lords give the Bill a Second Reading, it will be committed to a Select Committee, to hear and consider petitions. The Bill will already have been advertised and anyone who has an objection to the Bill will have an opportunity to petition against it and, subject to the petition being accepted by the committee, one will appear and present one's case to the Select Committee, which, I remind the House, can take evidence in any part of the country.
Subject to the rulings of the Select Committee, I expect that those eligible will include individuals
474
whose private interests are affected; those representing local trades, businesses and other local interests that may be adversely affected; those representing amenity, ecology, educational and recreational interests, who believe their interests are adversely affected to a material degree; and local authorities in any affected areas. So far as the government are concerned, we will be taking a relaxed attitude on matters of eligibility to petition, to ensure that those with a legitimate interest are heard, that means we will again be following the precedent of 1974.
The Bill will then go on to a Committee of the Whole House, followed by Report and Third Reading in the normal way. The same select Committee procedure with consideration of petitions will apply in the other place. This is a very substantial and thorough procedure and it ensures that the public have the widest opportunity to make representations as petitioners to the two Select Committees. That is of course in addition to the rights that members of the public have to lobby noble Lords and honourable Members of another place. We all know about the volume of paperwork we have already received; but that is quite proper.
I fully understand the concern of local people about the impact that a fixed link would be likely to have on the economy and on the environment of Kent. What such effects are varies of course from scheme to scheme, and the assessment that is currently being carried out will identify as far as possible the implications of the schemes. I can assure noble Lords, that the Government will consider sympathetically, in the light of the scheme chosen, giving priority to necessary improvement in the national and local roads system. There may also be consequences for rail services. Each of the promoters' schemes would have different implications for BR. Whatever BR's investment proposals are, they will have to be commercially justified in the usual way.
Although I have spoken mainly about the consequences of this project for Kent, we should not forget the real national dimension to this project. The existing modes of crossing the English Channel are the most expensive forms of travel in pounds per mile almost anywhere in the world. In saying that, I do not wish to minimise the great strides in efficiency that have taken place on the part of our cross-channel ferry operators. Nor do I suggest that prices are being held at an artificially high level. The operators have been subject to close scrutiny by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for some years and we have no doubts on that score. But one of the attractions of a fixed Channel link is that it would open up the market to greater competition. It would provide a spur to efficiency on the part not only of the ferries but also of the airline operators.
The European Community now accounts for more than 60 per cent. of our foreign trade. Traffic through the Channel ports has tripled in the last 20 years. It is likely to double again in the next 20 years even without a fixed link. There is a real prospect that the fixed link would reduce transport costs, boost the construction industry, provide a shop window for Britain's construction technology, and mark what I hope will be the first of many major transport infrastructure projects constructed in the private sector.

475
The fact that there are four major groups ready to finance a fixed link with risk capital is a remarkable tribute to the economic recovery we have experienced in the past few years. There are many matters about which we would need to be satisfied before we could contemplate approving such a project. I refer in particular to the environmental and economic impact on the county of Kent. But there are also national matters that the Government will have to consider, and I hope that some of the attention of your Lordships' House today can be directed to those questions as well. Sadly, my noble friend Lord Ferrier who is, as we know, interested in this subject is not in his place today. He means no discourtesy to the House, but was unable to change his plans from being in Scotland due to the short notice that was given of this debate.
My Lords, we have waited more than 200 years for this exciting project. It will surely take place one day. Provided that a scheme meets our stringent requirements and can be financed without Government support, why should it not be now?
Moved, That this House takes note of the proposals to build a Channel fixed link submitted to Her Majesty's Government.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
11.56 a.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I begin my remarks by thanking the Government for agreeing so rapidly through the usual channels to have this debate after I requested it only about one week ago. So far as I am concerned, I want to make it absolutely clear that I have an open mind on the question of a fixed link. Personally speaking, I want to see the best solution that will ensure the maximum relationship with Europe—but that will also secure the best possible national well-being. The proposal before the House has great implications for our transport system. It has great implications for economic development, in particular regional employment. And it has great implications for the environment.
I have no intention of discussing in detail the four schemes that are held to meet the Government's criteria. As the noble Earl said, most of us have been almost over-burdened with literature, and many of us have seen a number of presentations. Many noble Lords have had experience of considering a Channel tunnel over a period of years. No doubt those noble Lords with considerable experience of the subject will be taking part in the debate. I naturally assume that any noble Lord who has an interest in any of the schemes will make that known to the House, so that we shall know the value of his or her remarks.
We have also had the advantage of the recent debate in another place—as recently as last Monday—and of the report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Transport, which they speeded up in order to meet the timetable for their own debate in another place. Also, my noble friend Lord Carmichael, who will be replying to the debate from our Front Bench, was way back in 1981 a member of the Select Committee that made a report on that occasion.
476
I cannot agree with all the recommendations now made by the House of Commons Select Committee, but no doubt that report will assist our deliberations. However, because of the time factor, we have not had the advantage of considering yet Volume II of the Select Committee's report, which will contain all the evidence submitted to that committee. If that evidence is as substantial as the evidence that the assessment teams are to consider, and which the noble Earl showed us, naturally we would want to have it in a condensed form. Nevertheless, we do not have the advantage of having read that evidence.
The first issue is the vital one: is there a need for a fixed link? That decision must not be taken on sentimental or any other similar grounds. It must be taken on from grounds. Obviously there would be advantages. There would be no cancellation of services because of poor weather, and there is also the time factor. On the other hand, how surprising—but perhaps not so surprising—is the number of motorists who, though they could use the short hovercraft route to Calais, prefer to use the longer route; I do. Every Easter I go to the Netherlands and North Germany to see friends. Frankly, I prefer to go via Dover to Ostend because the route from Calais to Ostend bores me stiff having done it once. I refuse to use motorways because they are all the same and when on a motorway one might be driving in any country. The vast number of motorists prefer the longer ferry route despite having the short hovercraft route.
Paragraph 15 of the Select Committee's Report says that,
'the Government initially announced that its decision on a fixed link would not be confined to the question of which proposal should go ahead but would consider whether any proposal should go ahead".
The Select Committee made clear that there is not unanimity on this question among those who submitted evidence nor among members of the committee. I quote again from the Commons Select Committee:
"indeed, some members see no economic or social necessity for such a link".
This question of the need for a fixed link is dealt with more fully in paragraphs 128 to 130 of the report and also in the Commons Select Committee inquiry report of 1981.
Paragraph 129 of the present report states:
"The balance of argument for or against a fixed link is difficult to quantify".
Although Ministers have indicated that the question of whether there should be a fixed link has still to be taken, the impression is given that the Government have already decided the principle; otherwise, why did the Secretary of State in the debate in the other place say this:
"The Government want a fixed link built. Let there be no doubt about that"?
That did not seem to be an open mind on an issue still to be decided. How is the vital question of whether there should be a fixed link to be determined, apart from the question of which scheme, if any, should be adopted? That is why my right honourable friends in the other place pressed for an inquiry. That issue has obviously been settled by the result of the debate in the other place. But the Secretary of State in that debate, and again I quote, said:

477
"First, the principle whether there should be a fixed link and, if so, which scheme, must be determined by Parliament, in response to a proposal of the Government",
and went on:
"It is a project of national importance, befitting of national decision".
The noble Earl used similar words in his comments. But to me he seemed to imply that the decision is of such importance that Parliament will decide. But how will Parliament consider consultation in order to be able to make this decision? That seems to be the important question.
We must take a look at the timetable to which the noble Earl referred. Schemes which meet the necessary criteria had to be submitted by 31st October. There have been complaints from some interested bodies that they would have had to make submissions in something less than six weeks to have had any effect at all on the consideration to be given. Why this haste?—because the assessors are due to report to the Secretary of State by the end of the year.
The noble Earl showed the mass of material to be considered. I wonder whether the Government will have adequate time to consider this mass of material which has been presented to them. One organisation has stated that this is a reckless timetable for evaluating proposals—I am not quoting but paraphrasing—for the largest civil engineering project ever mooted in Europe. The Prime Minister and the President of France are then to finalise a decision, we are told, before the end of January.
The noble Earl has repeated some of the information given by the Secretary of State and I find listed in col. 643 issues for local consultation. Listening to the noble Earl I think he repeated those particular issues. The Secretary of State spoke easily about public consultation and we heard this morning of press advertisements and of writing in. Surely that is not the way to consider whether or not there should be a fixed link—the biggest engineering project that Europe has ever considered. Surely that is not a serious way to deal with the matter.
How are we to have it? I quote from a leader in the Financial Times on 29th November headed:
"Consultation and the Channel link".
I hope that noble Lords will bear with me, but I have cut out much of it:
"Where expensive, long-term projects are concerned, it is important to strike a balance between local and national interests…It is far from clear who will be allowed to petition against a fixed link—will, for example, the workers on Dover ferries who face the prospect of redundancy get a hearing? In any case, the hearings will be academic: the Prime Minister plans to sign an agreement with France by the end of January. Admittedly this will not be ratified until the fixed link Bill gains Royal Assent".
The leader concludes:
"There are genuine attractions, and not just political ones, in the idea of a fixed Channel link. But the British Government has to satisfy itself both that the financial projections are sound and that the social benefits outweigh the environmental and other social costs. This requires, not a Sizewell-type public enquiry, but a degree of consultation and public debate which at present appears not to be envisaged".
Nothing that the noble Earl said this morning dispels the feeling that we are not going to have the type of national debate and scrutiny that this important matter requires.
478
The Secretary of State said that this is a project of national importance befitting of national decision. That is absolutely correct. But where will the national interest he considered? The report of the United Kingdom and French study group, issued in June 1982, certainly did not go into this question of national issues. The noble Earl explained, as did the Secretary of State in the other place, that the hybrid Bill procedure will be followed. But referring to the right to petition and to appear before the committee the Secretary of State said—and I am certain that the noble Earl will not mind my quoting the Secretary of State and not him because I have the Secretary of State's words in front of me and I know I am not making a mistake:
"Subject to the rulings of the Select Committee, I would expect that those eligible would include individuals whose private interests are affected". [Official Report, Commons. 9/12/85; cols. 641–7.]
He went on to list what might be held to be local interests. I note that the noble Earl referred again to local interests so I must repeat: where will the national interests be considered? Where will the evidence be considered on the national aspect and effect of a fixed link?
Obviously the national interests are British Rail, road haulage organisations, the Association of British Ports, and the ferry interests. But there are also the interests of local authorities and industry outside the area—the Midlands, the North, and South Wales. Their interests should be considered. Where will they have an opportunity of submitting evidence and being questioned? Or is that to be confined to these bodies meeting with officials of the Department of Transport and Ministers at private meetings? That is not the way to consider these vital national interests. The national interest must cover what will be the effect of a fixed link on those areas to which I have already referred.
It is obvious that in the construction period many jobs may be involved in a number of areas in the country—that is, provided EC competition rules do not stop us from having our proper allocation of work throughout the country. But what will be the effect on industry and jobs when a fixed link is operating?
Paragraph 121 of the Select Committee report deals very briefly with the national impact. It states:
"It has been argued that a fixed link might induce a further drain of economic activity from already distressed parts of … the North."
It also comments that industrialists might find it more economically advantageous to set up developments in Northern France rather than in the United Kingdom. I repeat, where will these matters be considered?—because these are the important national interest.
It is generally accepted that road haulage is the best method for the transport of freight for less than 150 miles, but beyond that distance, particularly over 200 miles, there are great advantages in rail transport. If national interests are to be served and industry in those outlying regions in the North, Scotland, the Midlands and Wales is to be helped, then in my view it is imperative that whatever scheme is adopted it must include some form of rail freight transport and ensure the fast movement of rail freight.
British Rail have put forward a very powerful case, and I understand that they have had discussions with

479
all four possible operators and also with the French railways. There is a great fear that though a fixed link will bring further jobs to the South, only something like a fast rail freight link would help the deprived regions of the country. I think that it would be a tragedy just to push that on one side as being unimportant. Without a proper rail link there could be a much increased lorry traffic in the South, and especially in Kent, which would seriously affect the environmental position. There is general agreement that any fixed link will hit Dover Harbour Board and the town in general, and will also hit many of the ferry routes from the southern ports. This is indicated, by the way, in the fact that Sealink itself is proposing the Expressway scheme and that they seem to recognise that the ferry system is in grave danger.
But what will be the effect on the longer ferry routes from Dover to Ostend, which some people might prefer to use? Will they no longer be viable if the shorter ferry routes are taken away? What will be the effect on other ports in the south and east of the country where considerable expenditure has been incurred? If those ports are to be affected, what will happen to the local industries in those areas? I have heard nothing about that issue. These are the kind of issues that we should have wanted to be dealt with by a full-scale inquiry, but that is now out of the question. Therefore, the Government must tell us how those issues are to be tackled. Merely by reading an advertisement and writing in response to it seems to me to be an infantile way of dealing with that issue.
If further ferry routes are lost it means a still further reduction in Britain's merchant fleet. If this should happen, are the Government considering—as some of our EEC partners are—the question of cabotage, where the sea travel around our coast will be confined to our own merchant fleet? Has that point been considered at all? Also, what will be the effect on air travel of a fixed link?
It is important to remember that when a scheme is in operation—assuming that we do have a scheme—it will in effect be a monopoly, a private monopoly. This danger was envisaged by the Commons Select Committee in paragraph 132, Point 4 of its recommendation, where they say:
"The Government should ensure that a mandate to proceed with the scheme provides … against predatory pricing and abuse of an effective monopoly position".
The question was put in the other place: what would happen if the money ran out? The Under-Secretary of State—and this is rather surprising—said in the other place:
"promoters are required to put up a bond or insurance to cover the cost of removing any structure that has been erected by them". [Official Report, Commons, 9/12/85; col: 710.]
So if the money runs out and we are two-thirds of the way through with the tunnel, something "erected by them"—that is what the Under-Secretary of State said in the other place—may be removed. Therefore, I repeat the question: what happens if the money dries up? What will be the position once the link is completed and gets into operation, if the undertaking runs into financial difficulties? Surely, one cannot continue pricing upwards. Will the Government allow the project to go bankrupt?
480
I have said that I would not consider the four schemes in detail, and I shall not; but whatever else is included in any scheme that may be selected, I repeat that in my view there must be a rail link which must allow fast trains from the Midlands, the North, Scotland and Wales—and that is a view echoed by the Select Committee itself.
We must consider, too, if there is to be a road tunnel, how drivers will react to long-tunnel driving. I note that in the other place there was an attempt to ridicule with laughter any suggestion that drivers could be affected, but I should like noble Lords to look at paragraph 54 of the Commons Transport Committee Report, which refers to psychological problems which may be faced by drivers.
The noble Earl has told us about 20 assessment teams that are working here. There is a similar number in France, and we are undertaking joint consideration. He outlined the matters to be referred to these assessment teams and perhaps he will check what he said because I saw no reference at all to any team which would consider the national economic considerations or the possibility of economic problems in the regions—no mention whatever.
I conclude by saying just this. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has said—and the noble Earl has repeated this statement—that there is to be a White Paper. How far will that White Paper include evidence which has been submitted, and detailed reasons for the conclusions reached by the various assessment teams? Will there be a debate on the White Paper before the Government decide to conclude a treaty on the fixed link?—because in my view it will be a constitutional impropriety if we do not. Will there be a debate on the White Paper, so that we can have a real consideration of the assessment teams, and the Government's reasons for going ahead, before a Bill is presented in the House and the treaty is signed?
12.18 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, my debut in the unlikely role of a pseudo-spokesman on transport is due entirely to the absence of my noble friend Lord Tordoff in the Falkland Islands. It is difficult to be in two places at once, especially if one of them is the Falkland Islands, and my noble friend greatly regrets his absence today.
I should like to start by responding to and supporting the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, by saying that I have a non-interest to declare. To the best of my knowledge and belief I have no financial interest in any of the banks, consortia, companies, etc., which are bidding for this contract. All I want to do this afternoon—and I hope I can do it quickly—is to inform the House in broad outline of where the Alliance stands in relation to these various proposals.
My honourable friend in another place, Mr. Stephen Ross, in opening his speech, deplored the overcautious speech which had preceded his, and asked what had happened to the spirit of Brunel. As he went on to make clear, for quite a long time we have been in favour in principle of a Channel tunnel. But since the Motion before us this morning refers not to a tunnel but to a fixed link, I should perhaps make it

481
clear that when we say that we approve of a Channel tunnel we do mean a tunnel. We do not want any fancy constructions sticking up above sea level, no matter how clever they are, interfering with the already congested sea lanes of the Channel. Just in case the Government do not share that preference, may I at this point put a direct question to the noble Earl of which I have given him notice? Is it true, as I have been told, that there has so far been no consultation at all with Trinity House and with the United Kingdom pilots' association?
There is one other important condition which we would attach to our approval of boring a tunnel under the Channel, and it is—and I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, on this—that it must include through rail traffic. If this project is to be of use and profit to the country as a whole and not just to the South-East, we must be able to load our goods on to a train in Glasgow, for example, and unload them in Milan, or perhaps in Birmingham for them to go to the Ruhr.
Speaking personally for a moment, I should be happiest with a rail only tunnel, because, provided that British Rail was given the necessary support (and that is most important), that would help in what I am sure is an absolutely vital task of transferring as much freight as possible from the roads on to the railways. I am sure that the good people of Kent would be only too pleased to see the last of some of those juggernauts which are thundering through, making what was once known as the Garden of England for some people a hell on earth. However, I understand that a rail only tunnel is a non-starter for economic and financial reasons and so I have to accept that fact.
I hope, though that, as they make their difficult decision, the two Governments will disprove the oft heard jibe that governments never look further ahead than the next general election. In making a decision of this nature I suggest that we must look at least 50 and perhaps 100 years ahead. In that timescale I hope that Ministers as they make up their minds will ask themselves whether it is possible that the fume-emitting vehicle of today may be approaching the end of its useful life.
I have to admit to a certain amount of prejudice on this matter. I have never regarded the invention of the internal combusion engine as anything better than a mixed blessing; but I seriously suggest that the car and the lorry are posing an ever growing threat to civilised living in this country, and I look forward, without much confidence, to the invention in the foreseeable future of a better means of locomotion. I hope that the Government in making up their minds will relegate the road user to as low a priority as possible. Put vehicles on shuttle trains, by all means, but one must seriously question on safety grounds the wisdom of a drive-through tunnel of this length.
There is not only the question of accidents, but also the question of ventilation, which I am not competent to discuss technically. But I imagine that it is beyond argument that if today's vehicles are driving in their thousands through a tunnel of 30 miles length, the ventilation problem is infinitely more difficult to solve and the consequences of any failure will be infinitely more horrific and catastrophic. The legislative powers of this House are a touchy subject about which we
482
often talk, but there is one law that we can do nothing about and that is Murphy's law.
I think that it only remains for me to deal with the question of a public inquiry. If we were citizens of Switzerland, I have no doubt that we should have a referendum because that is the way that they do things in Switzerland. But we believe that it is more in accordance with the way that we do things in this country that a decision of this importance—yes or no to a fixed link—should be taken here in Parliament. It is a political decision and in our view not fitted to a public inquiry. But a local inquiry is an entirely different matter. Let the two Governments make their choice. We have to assume that they will make the same choice, and provided that they do we shall then know exactly where in the unlucky county of Kent this thing will erupt at this end. The people immediately affected must surely be given the chance in a strictly limited inquiry to make their representations.
Objections to the whole idea would be inadmissible, since Parliament would already have made the decision, but suggestions for minimising the inevitable damage to the local environment ought, I suggest, to be welcomed. The siting of the marshalling yard, the landscaping of an approach road, even the decent concealment of the duty-free shop—those are subjects worthy of careful study, and I cannot see how the people on the spot (the sufferers) can possibly be denied a chance to make their views known.
To recapitulate, we favour in principle a Channel tunnel. We prefer rail to road, and we insist that the local people who will have to pay the price should be heard and listened to by the Department of the Environment and should be generously compensated by the successful bidder.
12.27 p.m.
Lord Benson: My Lords, there are two great causes for satisfaction this morning. The first is that it appears likely that there will be a decision on a cross-Channel link after a hundred years or more of dithering. To that extent great credit rests with the Government at last for bringing this to a head so that we do not dither any longer.
There will of course be objections. There are objections to every scheme. I am sure that the same objections were launched in this House when we opened the railways in the last century. We know very well in this century that we agonise for 10, 15 or 20 years about a new airport, but ultimately the airport has to be built because we have to progress. But the decision is particularly valuable at this time because the Common Market, as we know, is hoping to abolish or reduce border controls by the year 1992.
The second great cause for satisfaction is that the whole of this project, whichever one is selected, will be financed by the private sector. That enables the Government to take a much more objective view of the proposals. No part of the cost will fall on taxation, so from that point of view the citizen does not have to worry. Such inquiries as I have made show that whichever scheme is adopted there will be ample resources at our disposal in this country to finance the project.

483
When the two Governments come together to make their final decision there will be a number of political and other factors to be taken into account. I should like to suggest to the House that three major characteristics have to be taken account of. The first is that the citizen should have the greatest freedom of choice. Also industry should be able to arrange the flow of goods to and from this country in a way which gives the greatest possible competition and the greatest freedom of choice. Those things seem to be fundamental. We are not building for 10 years; we are building for 100 years or more. It would be absurd, I suggest, to confine the Channel link to one form of transport only when both road and rail can be built at the same time. Apart from anything else, it gives a built-in insurance against temporary breakdown, which would cause great dislocation. More important perhaps, it provides a built-in insurance against industrial action, which would be disastrous, on either side of the Channel.
The second factor which I suggest could properly be taken into account is that the scheme should be whichever gives the greatest possible employment in this country. What we are suffering most is a recession in industry. Whichever scheme uses our industry to the greatest advantage and uses the greatest number of people in employment, should, above all, be selected because the cost does not fall on the Government. Our steel industry, particularly—it has been in the doldrums for 10 years or more—could well be revivified. This great adventure could be a real possibility for stimulating trade and industry in this country that we have lacked for years past.
A third consideration—it should, I suggest, be a dominating one—is that the four schemes provide different technologies, some worn, some outworn and some new. But the new ones have been well tested overseas. If we are to make a choice, let us choose those technologies that are new so that we can go forward to compete in the future, properly equipped instead of relying on the past. We should be competing in the future with those nations that have taken a big step forward. Those seem to me the three major considerations that might perhaps be borne in mind.
There is only one more matter to which I wish to refer. This link has been played in rather low key so far in this country. Once the decision has been made and the group has been suggested, I hope that some steps will be taken to fire the imagination of the population of this country to make them realise that this is a huge industrial adventure, one in which they can take part and one that is likely to make a significant contribution to the economy of this country.
12.32 p.m.
Lord Soames: My Lords, I should first like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Underhill that I did not need any prompting from him before deciding that I would, of course, declare my interest in this debate. One remark that he made did not fill me with satisfaction. It was to the effect—I think that these were his words—that "we shall then know what value to put upon his words". It gave me a little the impression that the noble Lord felt that if someone was working in any way for any of these schemes, this meant inevitably that he was
484
talking in favour only of that particular scheme. Let me assure him that where I am concerned that is no way the truth.
There are two ex-ambassadors to France involved in this. One is my good friend Sir Nicholas Henderson, who is nothing less than chairman of the Channel Tunnel Group. The other is myself in a much more lowly and humble position as a liaison officer. I indulge in liaison, stangely enough, between Britain and France on behalf of Euroroute at their request many months ago. So there we are. Anyhow, this is not the time to talk about different plans which have been proposed. I intend to talk about the principles of a fixed link. I do not expect to go outside that any more than the noble Lord, Lord Benson, has just done in what I thought a most excellent speech.
This project, as many of your Lordships have already stated, has been on the stocks, as it were, for one hundred years or more. Indeed, Sir Winston Churchill's father, Lord Randolph Churchill, bought some shares in the 1880's in the Channel Tunnel Company. But, again, looking at the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I would like to assure him that those shares are no longer of any value. We have now arrived at the time when a combination of circumstances demands that this great project be implemented. I should like to refer to four of those circumstances.
One, to which my noble friend Lord Caithness referred, is the amount of cross-Channel traffic that is building up. As he said, both passengers and freight traffic have increased enormously in the last 15 to 20 years. The cross-Channel traffic in 1984 amounted to 22 million passengers and 1.25 million trucks and lorries. The forecast is that this will double in the next 10 or 15 years. The mind boggles at what that would involve if surface traffic was the main method for moving all those passengers and all that freight from here to the Continent. When one considers that 60 per cent. of our trade is already done with Europe, the mind boggles, as I say, at the possible effect if that is all going to be carried across the sea lanes. Already in the Dover Straits there are on average 250 movements a day through the shipping lanes with a further 150 movements crossing these lanes, going from coast to coast. That is without any increase in traffic.
The second factor which leads me to say that now is the time for this project is that it is now technically feasible to provide crossings both by rail and by road. Indeed, once the TGV, the very fast French train, is extended to Calais, the French and British railways envisage anything up to 10 trains an hour crossing each way at peak periods. Surely this warrants and justifies a rail link totally dedicated to SNCF and to British Rail. Indeed once that is going, it would be at least as fast, I would submit, to get from London to Paris by rail as it is by air. Those involved are thinking in terms of three and a quarter hours from the middle of London to the middle of Paris and three hours from the middle of London to the middle of Brussels.
I know that some promoters are now satisfied that private finance would be available for their scheme because of the conviction on the part of financial institutions that it would be a paying proposition. They have decided in common parlance that it would make a noise like a dividend. My fourth reason is that the studies, this time, by all concerned, have been very

485
thorough, not to say very expensive. They have covered a broad field and they have been going on for a long time. But if, after all that, a fixed link is not proceeded with, then I honestly do not believe, having had something to do with this one, that anyone will try it again. There is a tide in the affairs of men, and it will be either now or never. My noble friend Lord Caithness said "Why not now?". My answer is that if it is not now, it never will be.
What are the objections that have been raised to this great and imaginative scheme? I have read the Press cuttings on the subject for months now. I listened to much of the debate in the other place; and I have had the advantage of hearing the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. Generally speaking, the objections seem to fall into three broad categories. The first is a generic category, "We are an island, aren't we, and we don't want any umbilical cord with the Continent. It is too different. We don't want to see any fixed link". There are some who say that for varying reasons; and in this category fall those who have objected, and will always object so far as I can see, to our presence in the European Community, and who are against anything which could reinforce this and make it more successful. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Benson, has remarked, by 1992 we are aiming at having a proper Common Market which will involve the flow of yet more trade both ways.
Other objections come under the heading of vested interests and special pleading: there will be too much traffic here; there will be too little traffic there; people may lose their jobs. With regard to too much traffic here, too little there, there are those who say that they do not want these great lorries going through Kent. Road transport will continue to be used if there is no fixed link, and those lorries will still go through Kent whether they are going to Dover to go on to a ferry—as they do now—or whether they are going across a fixed link, whatever it may be. There will be a changing pattern of transport, of course. There will always be those who will oppose any idea of change, and I understand the fear in the breasts of some people, particularly perhaps on the ferries, who fear that there will be less transport going on the ferries. My own view is that there will be so much traffic going to the Continent that all four methods of transport will be well used; road, rail, air and sea. I myself believe that these fears are much exaggerated.
I then come to what I can only say astonishes me—this demand for a public inquiry. I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, today say that that will not happen because there was a vote in another place. However, I also heard the plea from the Labour Party in another place to have a public inquiry. How long will that take? I do not know. We had a public inquiry over Stansted; we had a public inquiry over Okehampton bypass; and they lasted—what? Twenty years on average? It is blatantly obvious that there is not now time for that procedure in this situation. Anyone who studies this matter—as I am sure that those on the Opposition Benches in both Houses have done—must know that a public inquiry would kill the project stone dead, because all those who are prepared to put up money for the link will not have anything further to do with it while there is a public inquiry going on because they think that that will last for ever.
486
I have not yet heard one valid argument as to why it is necessary to have a public inquiry as opposed to all the processes of a hybrid Bill.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the noble Lord will recall that I was not pressing for a public inquiry in view of the decision in another place. I was asking that the Government assure us as to how these other matters will be considered; and suggesting that what they were proposing was inadequate.
Lord Soames: My Lords, of course the noble Lord said that because a decision was taken in another place. But that is the stance of the Labour Party—they wanted a public inquiry. I ask myself, why did they want a public inquiry knowing, as they must do, that a public inquiry would kill it? Does this mean that they did not want a fixed link? If they do not want a fixed link, say so. Do not go through the charade of asking for a public inquiry in order to kill it.
Because I have not been persuaded by any of the arguments I have yet heard in favour of a public inquiry, I am afraid that I am led to the conclusion that this is dog-in-the-manger stuff; it is playing party politics; it is because the Labour Party have made up their mind that this will be popular in the country, will create a lot of jobs, and they do not want it started during the lifetime of this Government. That is the view I have arrived at. All these objections come into the category of special pleading, which is not usually a basis for good decisions.
The 1950s and the 1960s were great years of growth. I was in government myself for a lot of that time, and difficult as they seemed at the time we look hack at them very largely as golden years when the standard of living of all the Western World increased to a very great extent. Do not let us ever forget that a main motor in that was that we decided to go for constant further liberalisation of trade, for the breaking down of trade barriers of all kinds. It is a fact that one of the problems today, which I think we shall all see develop more and more, is the difficulty of getting another GATT round going. Surely it must be true that anything which speeds up the flow of trade and people between our partners and ourselves must be in the national interest.
This is the only place at which I shall refer to the scheme itself. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Benson, in saying that had this link been built in the 1880s, had Lord Randolph's shares proved to be a good buy, it could not have been at that time other than a rail link, because that was as far as the technology had progressed. But we are in the 1980s, not in the 1880s. Surely, if a road and a rail link can be built, that will offer greater choice to the people and to those who trade with the Continent. If we are going to the expense of building this important link with the Continent eventually, at last, I cannot conceive that at the end of it we and those on the Continent would not say, "We can get to each other if we want by air, sea, rail and road", because that is what is possible today.
12.49 p.m.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in thanking the Government for making it possible to have this debate today. I gather that we

487
have to have it this week because the assessment panel is closing its books, as it were, on Tuesday of next week. I only hope that the superstitutious will not draw any ill omens from the fact that today happens to be Friday, the 13th.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Soames, I should declare an interest, albeit a rather small one. I have been asked to act on a short-term basis as an advisor to the Sealink project—Channel Expressway—in the matter of presenting their case in France, since they came rather late on the scene. In that connection I have attended a number of meetings on their behalf. I would not claim to have the same knowledge and contacts in France as the noble Lord, Lord Soames, or indeed the distinguished ambassador to whom he referred, Sir Nicholas Henderson, who is chairman of the Channel Tunnel Group. However, the main point of the debate is the question of whether or not we should have a fixed link at all.
For a very long time I happen to have been persuaded that such a link was vitally necessary and became the more necessary when we became members of the European Community. Although the actual scheme had been prepared by the outgoing Government and, indeed, the first draft of the Bill had been presented to Parliament by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, I was charged in 1974–75 with taking through the Commons the hybrid Bill with the very able assistance—because he did nearly all the work in the Committee—of my noble friend Lord Carmichael. If anyone thinks that it is an easy option to choose a hybrid Bill, I can assure your Lordships that that is very much not the case.
Parliamentary draftsmen and all the learned parliamentarians advise us, "If you can possibly find a way not to have a hybrid Bill, you should do so". Therefore, I do not think that the Government, in choosing this course, have in any sense taken an easy option. However, I hope that it will be very much easier because one of the problems and one of the difficulties which led to the final cancellation of the scheme was the plan then to have a completely new rail route from Dover to London which meant going through Kent and Surrey, which are not the easiest areas for which to get permission to build any kind of new road or new railway.
One of the main difficulties is that from our point of view the fixed link must start in Kent and there will be in every case some environmental problems. However, it will go to a part of France where there is a very great desire for industrial expansion and so on. It is unfortunately a fact of geography which we cannot change that it has to be that way round. However, I am certain that there would be a different point of view, for example, if it were feasible to have a link from County Durham or Newcastle or somewhere such as that where there would be a welcoming of the additional business that I am convinced any fixed link will bring.
The other point which I wish to make is quite simply that it was just not possible at that time to have a road tunnel. I very much enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Benson, who said that, as we are going to build something for the next century, we should not rely on the technology of the last. It was for that reason
488
that I was persuaded and agreed to help in a small way with the presentation of the Sealink Channel Expressway project which meets what seems to me to be the basic requirements of such a fixed link.
First, I confess immediately that I believe in a tunnel for what I am afraid to say, are in a sense selfish reasons, although there is a broader view. On many occasions I have been stuck on one side or the other of the Channel which has been quite impossible to cross by air or sea. I have been waiting to attend important meetings or to get back home after being in Brussels or somewhere such as that, but I have been unable to do so because of the weather conditions. The only way in which to be free of such conditions is to have a tunnel.
Secondly, there will tend to be far more British motorists and British transport rather than the other way round, and independent polls have shown an enormous preference by British motorists to want to be able to drive themselves through the tunnel and not to have to go through reservations, delays, formalities and so on. For example, it would be rather like living on the Continent where you can decide one morning to go on a journey and you just take yourself to the appropriate autoroute. You pay a toll, of course, in France, and you would also do so to cross the Channel. It is significant therefore, that the lower the initial costs involved, the lower the tariff or toll is likely to be for both rail and road users.
Equally, I believe that there must be provision for rail, and such provision was made by the Channel Expressway in their original proposals when they put the two features in the same two tunnels—one in each direction. Objection was taken to that. As the noble Lord, Lord Soames, said the expectation of the railway companies is that there will be a vast increase in the volume of rail traffic, both passenger and freight. As a result of such discussions, I think it is almost certain that the Sealink project—the Channel Expressway—will now have four tunnels. Two of them will be completely dedicated to rail transport and the two original tunnels will be confined to road traffic. So there will be separation between rail and road.
The other great difficulty which was raised against this scheme—which for good reason did not come out until rather later in the day, but of course in good time for the terms and conditions of the governmental requests—was that it was not known in France and did not have any French partners. That situation is being changed. Already I am glad to say that the principal bank in the area, the Pas de Calais, which is mostly concerned with the tunnel is the Credit du Nord, and that is an active participant in the project. I understand that a number of important companies are likely to join the Credit du Nord on the French side in supporting the project.
As noble Lords have said, we are more concerned today with the basis of the argument for a fixed link rather than the particular individual schemes. However, two particular points have been queried about any kind of road tunnel. The first is whether the ventilation would be adequate. The second point—and this is quite a serious matter—concerns the question of whether there might be some psychological difficulties for drivers going through a tunnel of some 30 miles in length.

489
As to the first point, I believe that the ventilation question has been overcome—and I have taken the best engineering advice that I could obtain—by utilising advanced technology developed and successfully operating in Japan. As your Lordships will realise, there are two separate aspects of ventilation which have to be dealt with in such a tunnel. The first is to reduce the levels of carbon and solid particles in the vehicle exhaust gases, and the second is to ensure that noxious gases, such as carbon monoxide, are also maintained within safe levels. Channel Expressway has overcome the carbon and soot problem by filtering the exhaust air in the tunnels. At regular intervals air will be drawn through bypass tunnels and across electrostatic precipitators which will remove the solid particles and filter the air to acceptable levels. Using these precipitators for this purpose is the new application of well-tried technology, and has already proven successful in road tunnels in Japan.
The amount of fresh air to be introduced therefore can now be reduced to that required to maintain dilution of noxious gasses within safe levels. In this way Channel Expressway will require only two channel ventilation shafts located off the British and French coasts outside the main shipping lanes. These shafts will pump fresh air into the tunnel and exhaust stale air. Each shaft will be surrounded by a breakwater to provide full protection from ship collision. I hope to some extent that may explain to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, who raised the point, what is proposed and would have to be proposed by anyone wishing to build a road tunnel.
On the question of driver safety, the promoters of the scheme were extremely concerned that this could be a serious problem. While personally I believe that most drivers would not find it difficult, it is worth remembering today that even now there are still a number of people who, while in every other respect seeming to be quite normal, just refuse to go in an aeroplane. There are quite a number of people who have not flown and will not fly. I am sure that there will be a number of people who, even though they have seen and heard from others that it is perfectly all right, will not wish to drive through tunnels, just as I know that some people will not go through the shorter tunnels in Switzerland.
The promoters consulted two highly-qualified psychologists who have both been involved in advising our Government and international authorities on driver behaviour and safety. They think that the stress on drivers will be reduced by the fact that they maintain control of their own vehicles and follow simple procedures through the length of the tunnel, and they will not have the complicated business of getting in the shuttle system, or moving their own vehicles in and out of some other features. Therefore, that should be a favourable factor.
It is also proposed that certain features should be incorporated in the design of the tunnel to provide an exciting visual environment which will be helpful and supportive to the driver. This could take the form of particular road and wall markings which would assist drivers in perception, distance and speed as well as creating lane and line discipline. Lighting and radio will be used to assist in the process of keeping drivers
490
alert, and a system of display panels will provide drivers with an information feedback.
It is thought that this should avoid the obvious danger of perhaps temporary lack of concentration in the 30-minute journey through the tunnel. Indeed, one of the psychologists has suggested that it is a pity that it is not possible to use some of these devices on our own motorways, though of course there are no walls on which to put them.
The Channel Expressway meets what to me seem in the year 1985 to be the dual requirements of an adequate road and an adequate rail link at a reasonable cost. With the association increasingly of French concerns it is a genuinely Anglo-French project, which is essential. I had the great unhappiness of having to convey to my French colleague in 1975 the then Government's decision not to proceed with the project. He was disappointed and displeased, if I may put his reaction in parliamentary terms.
There was no question at all that the French wanted, and I believe still want, this fixed link. Since from time to time relations between our two countries are not as good as many of us would wish, I am sure that this would be to our mutual benefit. I hope that one of the schemes comes along. For the reasons I have given I think it should be a tunnel, and I think it should involve road as well as rail. Thank you, my Lords.
1.5 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will accept from me that I did not need his reminder, any more than did my noble friend Lord Soames, to declare an interest. I am the chairman of a bank which is a member of one of the consortia, the Channel Tunnel Group, and I obviously have an interest. As to the value he attributes to my remarks, I think he can certainly discount them today, but it would be wrong to believe that because a noble Lord has an interest his remarks should in any way, or necessarily, be devalued. It is sometimes of considerable value to the House that your Lordships speak on subjects in which they have a special interest and a special knowledge. I do not claim that for my contribution today, but I make that as a general comment.
Because of my interest I think it would be inappropriate to comment on the technical or financial schemes put forward by the different consortia. I am content to leave the judgment of those technical and financial aspects to the assessors, to whom my noble friend referred in his opening speech, who I am sure will be looking at it with care and caution.
There is one comment which was provoked in my mind by the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Benson, and my noble friend Lord Soames, on the desirability of going for the newest technology. Of course I understand, and sympathise with, the argument that in this developing world we want to be at the forefront of technology. One must also bear in mind that in a vast project of this kind we have to measure proven success and proven testing against the risks which must inevitably go with new technology. Many of your Lordships will recall the difficulties, delays, and expense in the Concorde project.
Lord Soames: A very good aircraft.
Lord Boardman: I just plant that in my noble friend's mind as one of the points that I am sure he would wish to consider.
Perhaps I may confine my remarks because much has already been said with which I am in complete agreement. My noble friend Lord Soames and other noble Lords referred to the length of time. We have been talking about this for something over 100 years. I was not one of the initial shareholders, like Lord Randolph, but there have been a number of other issues which have come out at subsequent times, and still we are talking about it.
We talked about it with enthusiasm in earlier years before we were a member of Europe and before 60 per cent. of our trade went there. If it seemed sound that we should go ahead in those days—and indeed it did, but it was put off for a variety of economic circumstances—even more so must it be right today.
I do not see the fixed link as being in any way an exclusive method of travelling. As has been said, I see a continuing and no doubt increasing volume of traffic going through on the ferries and the airways in addition to the fixed link. In view of the wide all-party agreement which I believe there is across the House that we should go ahead with this now, I hope it can be accepted—perhaps I should exclude the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, from this remark—that there is a need for a fixed link and that we should get on with it.
The noble Lord, Lord Benson, rightly referred to finance. This is a remarkable project of vast expenditure which is being financed entirely by the private sector. It is of course for the Government to assess the financial viability of the various schemes that have been put forward for funding and the like, because what has been made clear from the outset, and must be maintained, is that there must be no residual liability on public funds under any of these schemes. I am sure that the Government, in their assessment, will review the financial viability of the alternatives put forward.
On the question of a public inquiry, I should like to endorse what my noble friend Lord Soames said. I believe that Stansted took 22 years; Okehampton, 17 years. At Archway they have started half-a-dozen inquiries and never got off the ground. If we really wanted to kill this scheme the best way would be to have a public inquiry. It would be impossible to face the delays that would go with it. The financing would not remain in place for more than a fraction of the time that would be involved. The timing is critical in the whole of the financial structure. A delay of six months over and beyond the targeted date adds 8 or 10 per cent. to the financial commitment, so one can recognise the importance.
Lord Soames: My Lords, perhaps in the important position that the noble Lord holds outside this House as chairman of one of the big clearing banks he might tell the House what he thinks would be his attitude and the attitude of his bank in respect of financing of this scheme, had the Labour Party's request for a public inquiry been acceded to?
Lord Boardman: My Lords, if that should happen it would be quite impossible for the financial proposals that have been put forward to remain in place. It would kill the schemes as they are now put forward. The delays would make it absolutely impossible to project any meaningful figures—dealing with these large sums.
The Hybrid Bill procedure—and my noble friend referred briefly in opening to that—seems to me to be appropriate in such circumstances. It is full of safeguards, it protects the private interests and one hopes that it can be done with reasonable speed; bearing in mind that the French are able to deal with their problems in six months. Regrettably ours will take somewhat longer, but I hope they will not be that much longer. Delay will cost money and put off the completion of the scheme for however much additional time it takes.
I did not intend to say anything on the rail or road alternatives until the issue was raised first by the noble Lord, Lord McNair, and subsequently by my noble friend Lord Soames and by the noble Lord, Lord Mulley. Perhaps I may comment on that, bearing in mind that the scheme with which I am associated does not have a road link. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, can discount my remarks in that context accordingly.
First, I believe that all who are in favour of a fixed link are fully supportive of rail. To be able to get into a train at Waterloo and to get out at Paris, instead of that awful business of having to go to Heathrow and then from Charles de Gaulle, would be advantageous. To get in a train in London, Glasgow or anywhere else for Paris can be a good way to travel in comfort and would give a wonderful opportunity for the further opening up of Europe. In regard to rail alone, I know that concern has been expressed about the possibility of vulnerability to industrial action. That applies at airports, sea ports and to a whole variety of means of travel. But it may not be inappropriate in a case such as this to have something which I think we should like in many operations: the legal provision that there will be no strikes; to agree on this vital fixed link to declare strikes and industrial action illegal. I leave that thought with my noble friend.
But as for road, as a motorist, and not as a participant in this project, the prospect of driving though the tunnel, which is much narrower than the M.1 for either 14 or 30 miles, fills me with some concern. I hope that if that is the project which is accepted we shall make sure that all motorists who go through the tunnel will have recently taken advanced driving tests, their cars will have had their MoT and the drivers and the passengers will all have a certificate to say that they do not suffer from claustrophobia. But perhaps that is prejudice on my part about the fear of driving through tunnels of that length. I am sure all these factors will be taken into account when the projects are assessed by the Government.
Lord Soames: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me again? I wonder whether in this scheme, which is purely a rail one, he envisages that it would be possible to continue to run a shuttle though that tunnel, taking on passengers and lorries at the point of entry to the tunnel and, at the same time, run though that tunnel sufficient ordinary fast trains, at the same

493
time as the shuttles, to meet what is expected to the requirements of British Rail and SNCF in the future?
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I understand that that is in the scheme. I cannot give details of timing, but it is all in the plan that has been put forward. Forgetting, overlooking or discounting my comments in relation to road, nevertheless I believe it is important we should go ahead with a fixed link now, whatever form it takes, whether it be road, rail, bridge or tunnel. We need that fixed link. Delay in coming to a decision will mean that we may never get it. Indeed I go along with my noble friend Lord Soames today. It is now or not in this century. I hope that your Lordships will agree that it should be now.
1.16 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, before I briefly make my own points I shall pick up just one issue: public inquiries. I realise that this point has been made in several other speeches before, but it is of some importance. For 180 years, and 20 years very actively, we have been discussing a Channel tunnel, so the question has been well ventilated. Public inquiries, on both sides of the House know full well, have become completely out of hand. Until something is done to prevent minority and other interested groups holding up decisions for years, we should avoid their use in the national interest.
Once again one finds the Opposition opposing on these grounds, when in fact they would never do so in government. This sort of adversarial politics is in my view wholly unacceptable today. It makes a nonsense of the government of this country—Conservatives please also note.
I am strongly in favour of a rail Channel link, in spite of some environmental damage, but not a road link. This rules out using bridges, the Channel Expressway as now conceived. In any case there are several other reasons why I would oppose a bridge solution. We have several speakers and I shall therefore concentrate on my reasons for being against providing a road link. In the first place we have no experience of drivers' reactions, or failure to react, in driving through some 30 miles of tunnel. For most drivers of private cars it would be an experience repeated only once or twice a year. There would therefore be no opportunity of getting used to it as occurs with the M roads.
I simply do not believe that 60 mph will be a safe speed limit, unless some very sophisticated means of keeping vehicles at adequate spacing is devised. Even then the inevitable pile-ups, which will undoubtedly occur, will mean a reduction in the maximum speed to, at the very best in my view, 40 mph. This implies three quarters of an hour of tunnel driving. There will also be breakdowns in places, contraflow traffic for maintenance and other reasons. Journey times cannot therefore reasonably be assumed to be less than one hour in the tunnel. Having said that, there are two other considerations which I think are very important. They are, first, a major pile-up and conflagration such as we get on the M-ways. It is argued that the smoke from a fire caused by three vehicles can be isolated by the ventilating system. That may be so, but there could be a fireball going down the tunnel and a very high
494
concentration of carbon monoxide. Certainly, these points need further consideration.
Much more frighteningly is the terrorist attack. Let us say that 100 lb. of explosive is hidden around a vehicle, and if precautions (which cannot ever be entirely adequate) are taken, then it will impose much greater delays than the Customs ever do on the ferries. What would be the effects of such an explosion? It would be interesting to know. I gather that, with a bored tunnel, it would not be sufficient to break the tunnel cladding and flood it. But if you think of the effects of blast in an open area with windows broken at several hundred yards, then the effect in a tunnel would certainly be fairly catastrophic—over, I would estimate—at least half a mile either side of the explosion due to the shock waves and the over-pressure. Something like 100 vehicles would be crucially involved.
I am not so concerned with the immediate effects of a major pile-up or terrorist explosion; but all experience shows that the public at large become unreasonably emotional when it comes to taking even very remote risks. The consequence would be that very few people—and for the same reason goods vehicles—would use the road tunnel. It could very easily become a white elephant, with very large overheads. The ventilation system and lighting would consume several megawatts of electricity. I do not know the exact figure but one megawatt represents something approaching £1,000 a day and I suggest that the overheads on this would be at least £10,000 a day. There are other reasons against the road solution. We have only to see the traffic and the hold-ups on the new M.25 if a roadway becomes as popular as its protagonists suggest, although I doubt whether that will happen.
Moreover, I do not think that we should try to put out the ferry business, the hovercraft and the existing forms of crossing the Channel. You may well ask whether the same considerations apply to a rail link. The terrorist threat is there, but in effect would be far less. Even if motorists did not then use the rail track, it would still remain a viable means of transporting freight and I expect that lorry drivers, no doubt with suitable inducement, would continue to take any future risks which might be involved.
1.24 p.m.
Lord Layton: My Lords, I must very definitely declare an interest, having been a member of the Eurobridge study group for several years. My interest in the Channel link goes back much further than that, as I was involved in earlier discussions in the 'sixties. I must admit that it does not go back further than that, and I was interested in the figure of 180 years mentioned by a previous speaker as being the length of time this thing had been under discussion. I think that that was in fact Napoleonic, and the proposal was for coaches and four to go through a tunnel—a little impractical, I think, even with the technology of today.
Having declared my interest, I should like to congratulate the Government in particular for having pinned us down at last to a sensible timetable—a timetable which is short enough for a project which can be financed privately to be brought into effect and

495
to be effective. We have heard a great deal about it and there is no doubt at all, with the wealth of paper which has been produced, that there is a great deal of discussion taking place on the details and in the wide range of areas of interest for all concerned. One particular mention was made of consultation. I think that anyone who, like myself, has been involved in the project for some time will realise the immense depth of consultation that has taken place already. We have had several discussions with people who are concerned with the fisheries; we have had deep discussions with the international maritime organisations; and we have had discussions with Trinity House over the last seven years on the impact of putting the project that I am concerned with in the Channel. I might add that, as a result, we have designed the project to produce the minimum interference with the movement of maritime traffic.
We think, frankly, that a bridge such as we propose is certainly going to reduce the short, cross-Channel ferry traffic; but we have also felt that it was essential by some means or other, in order to avoid getting into this monopoly situation in crossing the Channel, that there should be some arrangement or link whereby we made sure that the ferry system continued. I believe that the Government themselves are very anxious that for defence purposes there should be a retention of the kind of ships that run this ferry system. It is equally important, although we are building a road bridge, that there should be a rail link, and several speakers have made much of the need for through, high-speed trains. I believe that this is not only true for the high-speed passenger trains but that it would be very useful if a chap could put a sealed container on a truck in a train in Glasgow, for example, and have it delivered somewhere in Germany, or even Eastern Europe.
I am in favour of having a tunnel for rail, but specifically a rail tunnel. Until recently we had discussed with British Rail and with SNCF the project for their original single-rail tunnel. I think they would now prefer to go for a twin tunnel, and on that we are under discussion with them. But we got into that particular act only because it was appreciated that our proposed bridge would be so highly profitable. This leaves room for a gradual reduction in the real cost of moving across the Channel.
I say this because our proposal is to build a bridge with 12 lanes on it, six lanes on each of two decks, with supporting service lanes and a complete enclosure of an elliptical type round it. This meets very many of the objections that have been raised this morning; for example, the security question. Explosives with a light covering will not affect anything like the amount of traffic which has just been mentioned. In fact, we have investigated the effect of a container with 10 tonnes of high explosive being taken on to the bridge and being exploded. We found that it would damage one level but that you would still be able to move traffic on the other level; so that we could divert traffic and avoid any congestion.
The other most important point is this. In the roadway, with modern technology—and this is where I come back to what Lord Benson has said; we should look at the latest technology—we plan to have devices
496
every so many metres in every roadway so that vehicles, when they come on, will be known as to weight and will be followed through by the computer right to the other end of the bridge. Then, if there is any build-up or congestion at any point, an appropriate video camera will flow along a rail to that point, check out exactly what it is and make sure that services are brought in to help to clear it, whether it is a puncture, a collision or anything of that kind. Therefore, we believe that we have a very sophisticated proposal, with the latest of modern technology to carry out the project and to carry out the movement of traffic by means of this bridge.
It is essential, in my belief, to have this particular bridge of this size. None of the other projects is capable of carrying in the ordinary way a peak load of the traffic that we see today. The capacity of this 12-lane bridge is three to four times as much as that of the other projects. Euroroute has two lanes in each direction, and anyone who has driven on a highly-congested four-lane highway can appreciate how easily that can be blocked—much more easily than the M.1, with its six lanes. That problem is a very serious one, especially when you happen to be in a tunnel. The same applies to Expressway. The problem of congestion is a serious one.
There is a further point—and I appreciate that even if we are building a rail tunnel we have to face this—and that is the problem of sabotage or damage in a single rail tunnel, which is a very serious and difficult one to deal with. We believe, in fact, that from a security point of view the bridge is much the safer way to go. Not only that, but it is much more difficult to sabotage through a sabotage-type attack or an effort to restrict movement.
I must admit I am myself anxious that we should have some means of keeping a proportion of the cross-Channel shipping going because, as has been mentioned, there are always people who prefer to go by boat rather than in any other way. But if we were to put in this 12-lane bridge, using the latest and most modern materials in a way which is highly sophisticated and which has been used to some extent in the North Sea, in the oil industry and also in connection with the development of television masts and so on, we believe this would provide adequate capacity until at least the year 2010.
It was rather interesting that when we were being checked up on by the joint working party of the French and British ministries they raised the question of how we would feel if during the early years of the lease and the authority for the concession there was a proposal to build a second link. My comment on that is this. If you take any one of the other three projects you will probably need a second link within 10 years after the project has been completed—or even earlier—because of the development of traffic, which they will be unable to handle. In our case you can postpone that for 20 years. Therefore, the low cost of the unit crossing available on the 12-lane link is an immense encouragement to the free and easy movement of traffic over a very considerable period, and of much greater advantage than any of the other projects.
Many other matters have been raised this morning and I would not like to take up your Lordships' time too much over them, but it is quite clear that if we

497
build this bridge using the super-fibre which we are proposing to use to make the suspension bridge one with spans of something over three miles each, we shall not be putting more than six towers in the Channel, and only one of those will come in any important flow of shipping. As I have said, we discussed this earlier with the IMO, and we believe we will get the authority to go ahead with it. Many of the Merchant Navy groups, such as some of the oil industries, with whom we have had discussions on the question of navigation in the Channel—and also the General Council for British Shipping—agree that in fact our proposal would improve navigation in the Channel because it would mark certain areas which are shallow and it would mark the borders of the main flow channels in both directions for the main shipping movement. By reducing (though not eliminating) the ferries, we would certainly reduce the chances of collision; and by our engineering we have so studied this question as to ensure that no ship will hit a pier and damage itself or the pier to any extent. So we have protective devices for that particular purpose.
I think it is worth while realising that if we go ahead with a project as large as this we shall certainly be able to see an extended, steady reduction in the real cost of moving goods across. As I have always been in favour of developing our trade with the Community, I am quite clear that it is essential for us to have an adequate opening to encourage the enlargement of that trade, both by reducing its costs and by providing a much wider, broader and bigger spectrum of movement. I strongly believe that the idea of being able to get into a train in London and be in Paris quickly is excellent. That is why I think we should certainly support this, on the basis that we have a highly profitable operation on the bridge. We are certainly not so sure that it would be profitable on the rail; but it is worth while to ensure that there is no monopoly and that there are alternative means of movement—air, train, sea and an open drive along a road, which I believe is the most elegant solution to the whole problem.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he answer just one question? Bearing in mind the experience we already have with the Bristol Channel Bridge, and bearing in mind that his proposal takes into account very high technology, what life does he think there will be for the bridge and what maintenance costs does he anticipate—as compared, of course, with the alternative, which is likely to last 100 years; that is, a bored tunnel?
Lord Layton: My Lords, referring to the materials we are putting into this bridge, first and foremost the Severn Bridge, which I think is the one referred to, is hung on steel wire. Part of the problem they have on that bridge at the moment is that the fine wires in some of the hangers are rusting through. I happen to be a steel man, and I am very conscious of the problem of corrosion in the case of steel bridges. Furthermore, on the Severn Bridge the structure itself, I believe, is subject today to over 150 cracks at welding points. The proposal for our bridge overcomes that very radically. There are several reason, and the first is that the cable is non-corrosive. It does not require painting, and therefore the maintenance cost is extremely low. That applies to the hangers and to the suspension cable. The
498
structure of the bridge itself is enclosed and is accessible at all times, so there is no real problem over maintenance that cannot be solved.
The road material we are applying, which is one-third of the weight of normal standard tarmacadam, has a life which we think will be something like 15 to 20 years before it will need replacement. Taking into consideration the scale and the number of traffic lanes, we see no problem of road maintenance obstructing at any time the flow of traffic. That is my answer to the noble Viscount.
1.40 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, declaration of interest is the order of the day, so I should like to begin by declaring the very remotest of interests. When times are good, I lend the National Westminster Bank money. When times are bad, it lends me money. Thus only is my financial interest in today's topic. But I have what seems to me a very much greater interest, and that is in being able to get to nearer continental Europe quickly, comfortably and economically. Hence it follows that I welcome the British and French Governments' commitment to a fixed link, not least because the timescales outlined by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, suggest that such a link, if it goes ahead, will go ahead quickly. As has been said, we have had two centuries of discussion. Now perhaps we are doing something that will be a reality, not only in my lifetime, but in the lifetime of most of your Lordships.
I have read the very considerable amount of material that has been sent to me and I should like to say that, regardless of whence it came, as an arts man myself, I find it extremely illuminating and useful. From my point of view I could hardly have taken so much interest in today's debate had I not had the very great deal of well-explained material that I have had.
But this material is such that those proposals which involve bridges are those which have least persuaded me; in fact, they have scarcely persuaded me at all. The technology involved seems to me not really, to have been proved on the scale of which we are speaking. It involves, in many cases, extrapolation of known data and taking the decision which is one of the most difficult decisions which any manager can ever face—when do you stop using the old technology and go on to use the new? I do not think the case has been made that we are yet ready to go for some of the new technology that has been put forward by the bridge supporters.
I, and I am sure other noble Lords, have had industrial experience where a theory stands up when you work it out with pencil and paper; it stands up in laboratory scale tests and to computer analysis, which one can now so simply do; it stands up even to pilot scale plant work in the field. But when you get to the real capital investment then, for one reason or another, it fails. My experience in this field is not so much in the context that we are talking about today; it is drawn from the treatment of metal bearing ores. But I have had experiences where theory, sadly, does not live up to expectations.
Secondly, although we have been told that both the bridge proposals involve infrastructure outside of the

499
busy waters of the Straits of Dover, I feel that any infrastructure anywhere in the Straits of Dover is a negative factor. I realise that it would be constructed to be safe to itself. I was a little surprised, though, to hear the noble Lord who spoke previously say that it would also be totally safe to ships. Alas!, ships are not constructed to be totally safe to each other and I cannot believe that, in terms of the ships which may hit the infrastructure we find in the Channel, we will have—
Lord Layton: My Lords, will the noble Lord excuse me? Perhaps I did not enlarge enough on that point. There will be only one major pillar in a shipping lane. The others will be on the boundaries of it. But they will all be protected by buoys and cables which we have designed with special recognition that the largest ship moving up the Channel is likely to be a 250,000-tonne tanker, fully laden and running at 17 knots. This gear will stop that tanker, whether it is head-on or side-on, before it touches the bridge and therefore will both protect the tanker from its own misalignment and the bridge from being damaged.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to his beliefs. I wish that I could share them. The traffic that is currently using the Channel does not always consist of vessels built to what used to be called Board of Trade standards, nor even vessels commanded by officers certified by what were known as Board of Trade standards, or officered by men certified by bodies setting other similar standards. There are flag of convenience vessels using the Channel and I have personally seen the alarm which can arise on the bridge of a Sealink ferry—and doubtless elsewhere—when a ship sailing under a flag of convenience not only ignores the established lane pattern in the Channel, but also ignores all directions that are given to it by Channel traffic control.
Furthermore, even when one applies the highest standards one can get accidents. Some of your Lordships will no doubt remember the tragedy last year when a hovercraft hit the walls of Dover harbour. Others will no doubt remember the incident where a Dutch registered ferry of very modern and, clearly, very sound construction practically bisected a French vessel containing nuclear waste, which was, I believe, destined for Eastern Europe. No, my Lords, taking into account all these circumstances—I have given only two examples, but I am sure there are very many more—I am not convinced that any infrastructure in the Channel is totally safe.
I inevitably favour a tunnel, unless somebody comes up with a bridge involving no infrastructure at all in water. Anyone who has heard me speak before will appreciate that, at the end of the day, I will come down in favour of a tunnel dedicated to a rail link and thus, really, to the Channel Tunnel Group's proposal. Not only on the evidence that I have does it appear to be the cheapest proposal, but it uses technology that has been proven. Therefore, my doubts about unproved technology fall away.
It has other merits, though, if it takes the form of a dedicated rail link. By means of the British Rail network it brings the benefits of whatever fixed link
500
one has directly to all those parts of the country which are accessible to the British Rail network. It could be argued that the road network does the same, but the British Rail network is, at the moment, under-utilised and has capacity to absorb additional traffic. I am sure all those of your Lordships who are motorists will agree that this really cannot be said about the British road network, which is coming under increasing pressure in terms of both trunk roads and minor roads.
I believe that the rail element has a big part to play. Not only that, but rail has an in-built ability to move block loads and in certain distance spans beyond 150 miles and under 400 miles, but varying to a greater or lesser extent depending on the loads considered, it has considerable economic advantages, too. So a dedicated rail link gives one the ability, as several noble Lords have said, to move block loads from Manchester to Brussels, be they block loads of passengers or block loads of frieght.
Not only that, but, because we have inland ports already and one can thus have customs clearance inland, the demands for space in Kent can be very much reduced. Block trains travelling from London or beyond can transit the area of the two tunnel gateways very quickly indeed. We already have inland clearance points, but we also have a Government policy which seeks to divert traffic from road to rail by means of the Section 8 grant. I believe that when the Section 8 grant legislation was framed nobody envisaged a Channel fixed link, but I believe that Section 8 is becoming another powerful point in favour of a tunnel, particularly a rail dedicated one.
In conclusion, I should like to turn to one matter which causes me some concern, though I hasten to add that it has nothing to do with the technology of any proposal. It concerns itself particularly with the passenger traffic through a rail dedicated tunnel, if that is what we have. However one crosses a frontier, there are requirements of immigration and customs controls to be met, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, mentioned that there is a group of assessors looking at frontier controls. I have discovered that one can travel by train—in fact, I have done so myself—from Belfast to Dublin without getting out of the train, and one can cross from East Germany to West Germany without getting out of the train. I hope that if we get a fixed link involving train traffic, the Home Office and the Customs and Excise will be persuaded to permit on-train controls in transit. If they did not do that, particularly for passenger traffic, so much of the time advantage which a Channel tunnel would give us would fall away.
Noble Lords may recall the recent Question of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about the inability of Gatwick Airport to cope with surge loads in terms of immigration. I understand that the Minister of State for Employment with special responsibility for tourism is discussing with the Home Office similar problems at Heathrow. My point is that the procedures for rail passengers should be as simple as possible. It would be a shame if, having achieved the triumphs, certainly the benefits, of a fixed link, the welcome we give our foreign visitors and indeed our own returning citizens—that first impression which is all important to our tourist industry—should be denied by bureaucratic inflexibility.
1.51 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Caithness for spelling out, as did my right honourable friend Mr. Nicholas Ridley in another place, the position of the Government in regard to the establishment of this fixed link. I agreed very much with all that my noble friend Lord Soames said in his most persuasive speech on the principle and the need for the link. I also agreed very much with my noble friend Lord Boardman on the main issue.
I am very glad that Her Majesty's Government and the French Government are pressing ahead for an early decision in this matter after well over 100 years, or as my noble friend Lord Layton said, perhaps 150 years, of pondering it. I thought that the remarks of my noble friend Lord Layton, in perhaps the most interesting speech so far in this debate, were highly convincing because he is so very well informed in the matter. I shall not say or repeat what I said in initiating the debate on my Unstarred Question on 16th January this year but I repeat that, being half French, I have a family interest in the matter.
If I have a family interest, I would nonetheless emphasise that I have absolutely no financial interest at all in any of the four schemes which have been accepted by our two governments as runners in the race. I shall indeed support enthusiastically whichever project is chosen by governments for reasons well expressed by my right honourable friends and noble friends on the Front Benches here and in another place, especially in respect of the fact that the European Community (as other noble Lords have said, in particular my noble friend Lord Soames in his highly convincing speech) is now our most important trading partner.
However, I cannot conceal what I think many of your Lordships know already: that for many years I have—if it is technically possible—favoured a bridge as well as a high speed rail tunnel. I do in fact think that we need both. It was for this reason that I told your Lordships in January that I was most interested in the Eurobridge submission which my noble friend Lord Layton has just described. This project involves the use of the superfibre material, Parafil, which would provide the very long spans between the piers in order to satisfy maritime requirements. What my noble friend Lord Layton said on the use of other new technologies was very sound. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Benson, spoke on the same lines.
As I say, I have little to add to what I said in January. I would refer your Lordships to that speech if your Lordships are interested in my fuller views. The only practical point which I might now make is that I agree very much with more recent variations to the bridge scheme. That is to say, that the enclosed motorway should be on two rather than four levels—six lanes with hard shoulders and walkways going one way, and six lanes with hard shoulders and walkways going the other, as well as six double rather than single piers or towers which would be some 4·5 kilometres apart. I hope, too, that there could be laybys on these piers with viewing windows which could be looked through when the weather is fine. There would indeed be nothing like the claustrophobic problems on such a bridge which could be experienced in a road tunnel.
502
I should like to say one further word about employment. In January I said that I thought the project might employ some 60,000 to 70,000 people. As I understand it the scheme would in fact require some 47,000 man years of employment directly related to construction, and that it would employ 4,400 people on a permanent basis. The link will certainly attract industry to the area, and with 160 acres set aside for this purpose 25,000 regular jobs are foreseen at each end of the link. Then there are the various service industries which this kind of growth would attract and require. One can go on ad infinitum but the point I want to make is that during construction the Eurobridge will create three or four times as many jobs as it displaces. Although this is a complicated calculation, there is I believe evidence to substantiate the probability that through industrial spin-off some 450,000 to 900,000 jobs may be created.
In regard to security, I do not believe that the defence, terrorism or sabotage risks should be exaggerated. After all, ships can be sunk and airports can be bombed as easily as bridges or tunnels can be blocked or blown up. I might add here, as I think other noble Lords have implied, that the existence of a bridge and/or a tunnel will not in my view automatically result in a great loss of ferry and air traffic. I am sure that people will still travel from Harwich, Newhaven, Portsmouth, Southampton, Plymouth and maybe elsewhere—even still, perhaps, Dover and Folkestone. Moreover, many others will continue certainly to prefer to go by air.
It is well known that an improvement in a road leads to increased traffic using that road; and we must remember—and I should like to repeat what I said in January—that already 80 per cent. of the traffic in this country and on the Continent now goes by road. We must surely cater for it with a truly adequate multilane drive-through facility as well as high speed rail transport. That, my Lords, is why I favour a bridge as well as a rail tunnel.
Otherwise, I wish the Government the best of good fortune in this great adventure and in their choice of a scheme which will bring our two countries, for both of which I have a great affection, closer together and perhaps make it less likely that distressing remarks such as my noble friend Lord Bethell felt obliged to make in his feature article in The Times on Wednesday will be repeated. I thank my noble friend for this debate.
2 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I have no interest to declare. I have only a few elementary questions to ask, most of which have already been asked in one form or another. Nevertheless, they are the kind of questions that are in the minds of many people and I make little excuse for asking them again.
I am a cautious supporter of the fixed link, although I am a little suspicious of propositions recommended to Parliament on the ground that they are highly imaginative. Since I have been in Parliament, two such propositions in particular come to mind. One was the groundnuts scheme, which was constantly recommended to us as offering the most imaginative future for

503
Africa. The other was the Humber Bridge. Nevertheless, the fixed link is an important proposition and it differs from the other schemes I have mentioned in that it has the backing of private money. I regard that as being of first importance, as showing that there are experienced people who really are willing to risk their own money on this, I presume, risky proposition.
The first question that sprang to my mind concerned the scale of the required bridge or tunnel. I was greatly interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Layton, because from reading various proposals it seems that some people feel that a four-lane tunnel or tunnels would be adequate for road traffic, if there is to be road traffic. The noble Lord, Lord Layton, says he thinks that nothing less than 12 lanes will be sufficient. That is a fairly big difference. I as an amateur venture to think that the noble Lord is right; but if the link is a success then some of the proposals for road traffic are inadequate and we might face the need to build another tunnel fairly soon.
If the noble Lord is right, very large questions arise, which I have no doubt will be considered by the assessors. If 12 full lanes of traffic are to run across the Channel there will need to be very large marshalling areas. Already at toll bridges one is held up for some time on even a four-lane route. Also, is it thought that every car will have to be examined for security reasons? I do not quite grasp the likely picture at each end of the bridge or tunnel where the 12 lanes emerge. I assume that the Government have that aspect very much in mind, even though they may not be able to answer that point this afternoon.
One answer to that problem is not to have road traffic. To my mind, however, one must have it for two reasons. First, I do not think that we can put ourselves entirely in the hands of the railway unions; secondly, there are many people for whom their greatest pleasure in life is to drive around in their cars. I personally can think of no greater hell than driving through a tunnel for 30 miles. I sympathise very much with those who have said that it must be a very alarming experience. But perhaps we are out of date. For many people, driving for 30 miles through a tunnel is just the same as driving any other 30 miles. So I believe that we must make an allowance for road transport.
Certainly we must have a rail link. Above all, we must ensure that there is an alternative surface method of crossing the Channel. I have come to the conclusion that that is of the greatest importance. The safeguard against whoever runs the fixed link driving out competition by, first of all, depressing their rates, and then later raising them, is the Office of Fair Trading. There is considerable doubt as to whether the Office of Fair Trading is able to prevent that kind of action in the economy today. Furthermore, is there any agreement with the French about the importance of keeping Channel ferries? Is there any agreement with the French as to who how we are to handle, for instance, an attempt to put the ferries out of business? Is it considered by the Government desirable that Channel ferries should also be implicated in the fixed link? I see that that is so. I am amazed to see that British Telecom are also implicated. I do not know
504
whether the Government feel that that aspect is of any importance, but I certainly do, and I believe that it merits some investigation. I trust that there will be very careful examination to ensure that competition is maintained.
There is also the question of public liability. We are assured that there is none and that everything is to be paid for by private money. I believe that we should view that assurance with a certain amount of suspicion. First of all, it seems to me inconceivable that if the scheme were to fail, that the Government could wash their hands of it. It is inconceivable to me, even if there is a guarantee that private interests will look after matters, that the Government would say, "That is just too bad. Here is a bridge standing in the middle of the Channel but it has nothing to do with us". Or, "Here is a tunnel with its entrances locked, but that has nothing to do with us". That seems to me to be a very naïve presumption.
I believe that there is an ultimate responsibility on the Government, but there is also a much more immediate responsibility. Presumably we shall be told how much the necessary changes to the road and rail network will cost. I accept that those changes must be made. We talk about passenger trains running from Manchester, London, and Glasgow, and so forth, to Paris. Can those trains run without large and expensive alterations to the track and platforms? I have always been told that they cannot. Perhaps I am wrong. I believe that we should be given some indication of the capital expenditure from public funds that will be needed if the tunnel is to fulfil the functions that have been talked about today, and which I hope very much it will fulfil.
I should also like some assurance that, when the assessors come to access the impact of the tunnels, they will look at the impact on the whole country. No doubt they will. Indeed, the noble Earl was good enough to say that the impact on Scotland and the North of England would certainly be examined. However, the assessors should also consider various alternatives. It may be that a very large improvement to the port facilities in Scotland—for example, from Leith to the Continent—might offset some of the draw to the South-East—if there is such a draw—because of the Channel tunnel. We should also remember that, desirable though it is—and I wholly agree that it is highly desirable—as much freight as possible should go by rail, a great deal of freight will continue to go by road whether or not we like it. The road facilities from Scotland and the North of England to the Continent are going to be very important.
I should like to say a few words about the financial position of the Government. I understand—no doubt I shall be told if I am wrong—that, once the fixed link has been built, the Government will get nothing by way of royalties, wayleave, or anything else. They will get the normal taxation on profits but nothing else. I should like to be told if I am wrong about that. There are, however, the Crown Commissioners and except in Orkney and Shetland, which are governed by udal law, they always claim very large amounts on any structures built between the high and low water marks. They are usually very particular about obtaining their ownership of the foreshore. Surely someone should look into this. It may well be that if the fixed link is a

505
great success the Crown Commissioners would be entitled to levy a continuing charge on the installations which are installed.
As to the hybrid Bill, I am greatly in favour of it. I hope that one of the results of these debates on the Channel tunnel will be that someone will look again at the whole planning laws. Planning inquiries, as has been said, are quite absurd. If one wants to kill anything the way to do it is to send it to a planning inquiry. I believe that the hybrid Bill procedure can be very effective.
We were assured earlier that the committee will be mobile. I should like to be further assured, if possible, that it will not only be mobile down to Dover and the South of England but, if necessary, will go to Manchester, the North of England and Scotland. I am sure that it can. The question is: will it? I very much hope it will. I also hope that the committee will be accessible to ordinary people and not just to organisations, lawyers and so on. Anyone who has a valid point to make must be able to appear in person before the committee to make it, as people are able to do under the Private Bill procedure for Scotland, and it must be made as easy as possible for them to do so.
Clearly the Government are determined to go though with this project. Do not let us delude ourselves that the Government are in any doubt. The Government intend to have this fixed link, come hell or high water. I know they will deny that, but never mind. Therefore we must make the best of it and ensure that it is the best link possible.
Only one Bill will be required. Within the Bill it is intended to deal with all the consequential matters which will arise in this country. Therefore, may I ask that the Government go a little further in what will be needed vis à vis France? This afternoon we have been speaking a great deal about what we would like in this country but what are the arrangements for France, not only about the immediate building of a fixed link but about its continued maintenance and the possible future developments such as have been spoken of this afternoon? I should be most grateful to have some answers to these elementary questions at some point.
2.11 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, in common with other noble Lords I must declare an interest. For the past eight or nine years I have been with the Eurobridge Group. In that time I have learned much about it, which is only to be expected.
In regard to finance, if we win the race and get the job I hope that I will benefit financially, but certainly I have not benefited financially to date. Moreover, I have a house in Kent. I have been having quite a hot time there because there is, of course, great conster-nation in Kent and we have had many meetings. I have been trying to soften up one or two of our MPs in Kent, and one or two are now with us. I refer also to the MEPs.
Your Lordships will remember—as I believe has already been mentioned—from having read about that era that when the railways first came in one would have thought that the whole country was going up in flames. There were fears that the corn would be burnt and that there would be starvation and heaven knows
506
what. The general public have no idea of the amazing advances in technology in the last few years. After all, eight or nine years ago man was walking on the moon. No one has actually said that it is not possible to build a bridge across the Channel. It is incredibly easy today to do so. The Channel is only really a ditch to cross today.
If one were to put St. Paul's into the deepest part quite a lot of St. Paul's would still be visible. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, will know that off the Orkneys and Shetlands the oil rigs are in thousands of feet of water. And you can get waves 50 or 60 feet high there, whereas in the Channel—which I know well, because I can navigate a bit though I have forgotten most of that now—one seldom finds a sea over 10 or 12 feet high. So to build a bridge across the Channel is child's play.
But as four-fifths of all traffic today is on the road, I should have thought that a bridge would be the obvious solution. I also said in the debate during which my noble friend Lord Bessborough spoke that we were not averse to a tunnel. I am rather frightened, however, of a road tunnel—not a rail tunnel—because you get great heat in a tunnel, and if you have a hold-up and people keep their cars running there is a real danger of fire. If anything goes wrong with the ventilation that situation, too, could be very dangerous.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord McNair, who was very worried about the maritime implications and the danger to shipping. Of course, if there is a tunnel there must be plenty of ventilation—for passengers in cars, that is obvious—and if a ventilation shaft were to be damaged by a ship, I do not know what would happen. Your Lordships' House has heard that owing to the new materials that are being used, bridge spans may be over three miles in length. During the last war the North Atlantic convoys used to assemble at Loch Linnhe outside Oban and come up the Sound of Mull which is about 20 miles long but only two to three miles wide. There were thousands of ships going up and down during the war—there was two-way traffic—and there were far stronger tides than occur in the Channel, but there never was an accident.
The only accident which occurred happened after the war, when on New Year's Eve an American liberty ship which was coming down the Sound ran straight into a small lighthouse in the centre of it and put out the light. Another American ship which was following her ran straight into her too—I suppose the crew were celebrating and must have been blind drunk—but it was the only time there was an accident there in the whole period of the war. So I really think that people who point to the dangers of ships in the Channel running into the towers are exaggerating a great deal. Since the towers are over three miles apart, every tower will be like a lighthouse; it will possess every modern radar and electronic device to warn ships and to speak to them. In fact, I would say that the Channel will be a far safer place.
I hate the word "colleague", so I shall say that my other noble Peers who have been speaking for Eurobridge have already given your Lordships a great deal of the technical details, so there is no object in my going over that ground again. However, I should like just to say that we have now decided to use nets on

507
buoys off the base of the towers. If a ship's steering gear jams and she is on automatic and the crew are drunk, should the ship veer off she would be caught by these nets and neither the ship nor the tower would suffer damage. It was proposed to have sand islands to protect the towers, but we were then advised by experts in maritime matters that this measure would be bad, because it would upset the tides in the Channel and there would be tide races where they never existed before. That is what rather worried me about the two huge islands of the Eurobridge route.
I attended the Conservative conference for two days this autumn and I happened to meet the former captain of the Texaco fleet of tankers. We were both looking at the Channel tunnel model and the Euroroute model. He was of the opinion that two extremely big islands would have an adverse effect on the currents in the Channel and might be a danger to shipping. I thought that I would just inform your Lordships of that.
Lord Soames: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me to intervene for a second, this matter has been put to the International Maritime Association which knows all these things. Were what my noble friend fears true, I think I can assure him that this would not have been proceeded with.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. I thought that I would just bring that up. I wish no harm to Euroroute at all. I think that the whole fixed link will end up in a vast consortium which probably everyone will be in; all the schemes will play some part.
I have spoken long enough. I thank the Government for all their help, and I heartily agree with noble Lords who have said that it would be absolutely mad to have a public inquiry. It would kill the whole project. As my noble friend Lord Soames said, if the fixed link does not come now it will probably never come.
2.21 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I begin by assuring the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that nothing but a deep personal interest would have made me come to a debate in your Lordships' House on a Friday. That deep personal interest goes back for over 60 years, when as a schoolboy my holidays on the Continent were precluded by seasickness between Dover and Calais and ended by seasickness between Ostend and Dover. I was comforted with the thought that I might live to see a more sensible method of getting between Britain and the Continent. All sorts of improvements have been made. Ships are more stable; travel by aircraft is now commonplace. But fundamentally the difference that is made to this country in its relations with the Continent by the lack of direct communication for either passengers or freight can be much underestimated and perhaps in looking at European developments over the past few years has been much underestimated.
In other words, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that what we are discussing is a major question of national policy. Where I find it difficult to follow him is in his belief that we have an inadequate
508
mechanism for discussing this in the procedures which the Government have outlined to us. As he reminded us, we have, after all, had this week a long debate in the other place; we have our debate here today. There has been nothing to prevent any noble Lord, in the interests, let us say, of the construction industry or of industries of parts of England other than Kent, making his voice heard in these debates, and there will be further debates.
I find it very curious that there is not a greater representation today on the Opposition Benches. They have frequently adjured us to spend more money on infrastructure, and nothing could be more "infra" than a tunnel.
Lord Soames: My Lords, it is private money; that is the trouble.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, we are going to the hybrid Bill procedure, and we shall hear whether there will also be a debate on the White Paper. The hybrid Bill procedure gives the opportunity for lengthy parliamentary discussion and, through the Select Committee, for hearing objectors. If we look at the precedents for who is eligible to object, it seems to me that they go well beyond those who are merely locally affected. Indeed, it would be open to any people who believe that their employment or other interests are affected to make representations at that time. However, I should like to ask my noble friend who is to reply to convey to the Secretary of State one suggestion in respect of procedure. There is a good argument for saying that, in the hybrid Bill procedure, we should have a Joint Select Committee of the two Houses rather than repeating the Select Committee procedure in each House. The arguments adduced by petitioners would be exactly the same. It would be a repetition of material that was already public. And it is costly to the petitioners, who can be represented by counsel, and so forth, if they have to go through the same procedure twice. I have consulted the authorities and also Erskine May and there are precedents, on a hybrid Bill, for a Joint Select Committee. It would, I believe, help the petitioners and also possibly abbreviate slightly the total procedure.
On the substance of this issue, I am convinced that the country has suffered and does suffer from this natural difficulty—the fact that we are separated from the Continent by a stretch of extremely rough water. It could be argued—I imagine that future economic historians may argue—that some of the success of what is called the golden triangle of north-west Europe would have been spread more easily to this country if there had not been that difficulty. For that reason, it seems to me that any project that involves rapid transit by rail, which is the most rapid, of goods from our industrial areas to the Continent, should be in the forefront of our minds.
I began by talking about human experience. There are good human reasons for the project. The noble Lord, Lord Mulley, referred to the interruption of communications. But even when communications are not interrupted, do not our diplomats, our civil servants, our MEPs and our businessmen, when they want to go to a meeting in Brussels or in Paris, start with the disadvantage of getting from here to

509
Heathrow which is a much longer and much more uncomfortable and unpleasant journey than their counterparts from other European capitals? Do they not start their negotiations with a built-in disadvantage that must mount over time the more often that they have to make the journey?
There are problems about the choice of route. Not being an engineer, I have no intention of entering into them except to say that as someone who lives by and looks at the English Channel, anything that involves putting obstructions in that waterway, whether in the form of the piers of a bridge or ventilation shafts, seems to me to be venturing against the forces of nature in a very big way. What one must try to do is to see that the administrative arrangements—the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, referred to this—are the most convenient from the point of view of the travelling public, particularly the public travelling by rail. Inspection of documents en route is obviously one solution.
In relation to traffic, there will of course be Customs and other formalities. One must hope that, in the interests of Kent, it might be possible to arrange for most of this business to be transacted on the other side of the Channel where there is less of a garden to despoil. Noble Lords will remember that Queen Mary died with the word "Calais" engraved on her heart. It may have been Tudor foresight to feel how nice it would be if we owned both ends of the link. Perhaps that is too much to hope for, but with our French friends we ought to be able to devise something which would enable us to bring about this major change in our relations with the Continent with a minimum of interruption and bureaucracy.
2.30 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, a month ago the Department of Transport was announcing that the Government would take their decision, not only without a public inquiry, but without even consulting Parliament. Then the Junior Minister went to Kent and a debate in the House of Commons was announced. Last weekend the Government decided also to yield to pressure for a debate in this House, although they left us to find out about it through the press.
Theoretically the hybrid Bill procedures will allow for detailed examination of complaints and fears. But what seems clear to some of us is that the Government themselves have had far too short a time to examine not only the application documents of the four groups, but also the four groups themselves. The Government are relying in the first place on the applicants to present their own assessments of engineering, environmental, employment and social implications. With regard to engineering, it may be that they should present the first assessment. But who are they, for heaven's sake, to present the first assessment of the environmental, social and economic implications of the proposal? To allow things to go that way throws, in my submission, an almost impossibly heavy burden on the assessment teams which the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, mentioned in his opening speech.
May I repeat now the question which I put to him then? I obviously did not put it clearly enough. In his speech the noble Earl referred to 20 assessment teams
510
or assessment panels who would advise the Government on each of the applications. What is the membership of those panels? I am not asking for a list of the names of their members, but what kind of persons are on them? Are they all civil servants; partly civil servants; none of them civil servants; and from whence are drawn those who are not civil servants; and what is the rank and department of the civil servants concerned?
I think that the whole House would agree that the award of the concession must not be a licence to print money. It must also not be an order for a monopoly position from which one group of people—with financial return their sole aim—could not only fix prices, but could also hold British industry and the British public to ransom. The fixed link has to be complementary to the ferries, the hovercraft, the freighters and the aircraft; and the terms on which the two governments award the contract must make this requirement clear. The award should not be made to any group which cannot make a profit without wiping out the ferries. If this means a rail-only tunnel, so be it.
In all our discussions so far we have heard nothing of the French Government's deliberations, or of the French Parliament's, or anyone else's in France. I understand that proposer groups have been actively discouraged from publishing here or elsewhere any comparisons between effects and impacts here and in France. Is it so dangerously beneficial to the French compared with the benefits it would bring to us?
What are the criteria for judging applications, which must by now have been agreed by the joint Anglo-French working group? Are the French members as much concerned as the British members to prevent any monopoly and any opportunity for price fixing and wiping out the competition? Do they see the fixed link as complementary to existing systems, as we do and should? Do they see the avoidance of monopoly and price fixing as the one sine qua non condition on the economic side? In making their judgment will our Government be careful to allow for the fact that French capital investment is under a much greater degree of public control than ours in the first place?
Our Government must notice not only the unwise words of Sir Nigel Broackes, who was reported as saying that he hopes that the Channel crossing would remain one of the most expensive in the world, but also the fact that Messrs. Channel Expressway—or rather Mr. Sherwood himself—first bought Sealink, then put in a bid for the fixed link, and now admits that the short-route Channel ferries would be closed down and redeployed to the Mediterranean and elsewhere. I shall quote Mr. Sherwood's words, written on Sealink paper, if you please. He said:
"Sealink British Ferries would love to see the ferries remain but we can't stop progress".
As my noble friend Lord McNair has already said, we on these Benches support the idea of a fixed link. However, it is essential that a fixed link should be no more than one choice among several that the exporter or importer taking his goods to or from Europe and the traveller with his car, or his coach or his train, can make. A fixed link will be no contribution to Anglo-French, let alone Anglo-Continental convenience, prosperity or well-being, if its effect is to reduce the choice of means and of destinations that are now

511
available. The Government will need to examine very carefully the proportion of short route traffic which the four schemes would each need to cream off before they could be profitable. The more they need to cream off, the closer they would come to establishing a monopoly on the short route and the less freedom of choice for the rest of us. There should be no financial overlap between the ferries and the fixed link. The remaining ferry firms should not be permitted to join the successful group, because in that way lies price-fixing and monopoly.
On the matter of free choice I have one more point for the Government. This point looks 50 years ahead. When the Prime Minister meets the President of France it is clearly of the greatest importance that she should not commit the Government to this being the only fixed link for all time. The Pas de Calais is by no means the only desirable destination for either freight or travellers. Supposing tunnelling under the Channel turns out to be much easier than we think it will be, other tunnels to other destinations may perhaps come to be proposed. Nothing agreed in the next few months should preclude that.
Much has been said about the psychological effects of driving all the way through the tunnel. The type of unremitting concentration that a long tunnel requires could have a variety of effects not only on driving inside the tunnel, but also later when drivers come out and feel that they can relax their concentration. What about the effect of one hour of the echoing noise? What about the effect on small children who may get claustrophobia and start screaming in the driver's ear? The public opinion polls whose respondents prefer a scheme which allowed them to drive, over one that did not, do not seem to have asked them if they had any particular experience of driving in long tunnels. Probably those who have often had to do the seven miles of Mont Blanc may agree with me that many people would try the 30 miles once and not again.
I was surprised to hear last week from the noble Earl in a Written Answer that he had no information on the reasons why the recently completed tunnel between two of the Japanese islands is not being used and is indeed being considered for such things as oil storage. It is surely obvious that the Government must inform themselves about that tunnel. Naturally, the Japanese Government are less than anxious to have it looked at, given that it presumably does not redound to the credit of their technology. All the more so should the Government find out what kind of difficulties were encountered—were they entirely geological? It is easy to understand that the job was indeed formidable. Alternatively, did it turn out that the overall flexibility of the ferry services was economically more rewarding than the fixed link? Or what? That experience must be at least as relevant to the Government's decision as the American estuarial constructions which are so much easier to find out about.
I turn to defence. A spokesman for one of the groups has gone so far in private briefing as to say that Mr. Heseltine seems fairly relaxed about the whole thing. This relates particularly to the question of the national security impact of a reduction in the number of ferry boats. Having been on the Lionheart Exercise last year, it was in those terms that I put a Question last
512
week which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, answered in the usual terms: these matters are not disclosed. I asked how many ferry boats they considered the minimum necessary for national security.
Lionheart showed very clearly that there are not now too many ferries. It is obvious that a bridge cannot possibly be depended on, nor can a tunnel, to convey the forces and equipment from this country to continental Europe in a crisis. Even in terms of plain overall shipping figures, which have so greatly alarmed the House already, the Government cannot, I believe, propose further reducing the Merchant Fleet by an act of policy.
The Ministry of Defence should certainly not be taking a relaxed view of a fixed Channel link, and I hope that it is not. Many of us hope that this House will shortly be able to set up a new Select Committee to go into the maritime interests of the country in greater breadth than is customary at the moment.
Lord Soames: My Lords, will the noble Lord permit me to intervene for one second? I know that he is a seeker after accuracy. The noble Lord made much play with the length of a tunnel and the number of miles one would have to drive in it. The noble Lord of course knows that there are four schemes before the assessors. One has no road at all; the other has a bridge; a third has a short tunnel of the order of 11 miles; and there is only one out of the four that has the long tunnel. Perhaps that also will be taken into consideration.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I was indeed aware of the difference between the four schemes, and the noble Lord will have understood that my preference would be for the rail-only tunnel. That is only a personal preference, based on personal experience and hunch. I in no way commit my party or any other.
Any idea that in Britain only Kent would be affected must be forgotten, and of course it has been forgotten. It is clear from this debate that everybody is looking wider than that not only in terms of the economic benefit but also in terms of the effect on ferries. My noble friend Lord Grimond has mentioned the Leith ferry and that is realistic. One has to look as far afield as Leith and Plymouth.
I begin to feel that the Government have bitten off a great deal not for their powers of decision, which are indeed formidable—they have shown their determination—but for the mechanism they have chosen to use to reach the decision within 100 days. Is it possible that within that time they will have valid results of any research into the psychological effects of long tunnel driving, about which I was just speaking? Is it possible that they will really know within that time, and be able to inform Parliament, of the exact meaning of Mr. Ridley's use of words when he said last Monday, 9th December, at col. 639.
"The guidelines made it clear"—
that is, the guidelines given to the intending contractors—
"that, while essential political guarantees would be provided by the Government, it was essential for promoters to demonstrate that their projects could proceed without support from public funds for Government guarantees against commercial or technical risks".

513
What does "without support from public funds" mean? Does it mean, for instance, that the promoters will reimburse the Government for unemployment benefit associated with the competition presented by the project to existing means of transport? If not, what?
It is already clear that Mr. Ridley has contradicted himself, as the noble Earl contradicted himself today in echoing the same words, "without support from public funds". Mr Ridley said that railway investment is indeed to come from public funds, if any is needed, and also that the necessary improvements in the national and local road system would, as expected, come from public funds. What kind of use of language is that?
Let us turn to some of the other questions which have to be answered by the proposed machinery so very quickly. What changes in transport conditions not envisaged by the promoters would affect the viability of the scheme? The price of fuel? Top speed governors for coaches? What limits on private and commercial road traffic might be imposed because of ecological considerations 50 years ahead, or 20 years ahead? The death of the forests, to which our car exhausts contribute? Maybe the whole of Europe will have to be not using cars and lorries in 50 years' time. My noble friend Lord McNair was looking ahead to this. The Government surely cannot actively promote the increased use of a polluting means of transport, or any other polluting technology, without careful thought when they could be actively promoting non-polluting ones.
For all these reasons, it seems to me that the Government should lean towards the prospect of a fixed link which uses a rail-only tunnel. This is not because I think it ideal, but it seems to have less glaring disadvantages than any of the others.
To conclude, I shall say a word or two about public inquiries. The Prime Minister has said that if there is a public inquiry, the investment money will melt away. The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, with authority, has confirmed that in this House today. People do not understand—I hope that we may be told—what sort of money is it which melts away in a year, or even in six months, which is the sort of delay we are talking about. What is so special about 1984 when it comes to the investment of large capital sums? What is wrong with 1985? What was wrong with 1982? I cannot conceal a feeling that we are accepting too much at face value the assertions of those who have the money ready now and may find it an inconvenience—though probably not more than that—to be asked to have it ready again in a year's time. In any case, recent public inquiries have only lasted so long because no attempt has been made to limit them. If I am not mistaken, the Government could set up a public inquiry on a timetable, with so many days for each subject, and the whole limited to three months, or one month, if you like. That would concentrate minds wonderfully. I should remind the Government that there is also such a thing as a Public Inquiry Commission, which has been on the statute book now for nearly 20 years and has never been used. What will be tested this time is not the ability of a public inquiry to be expeditiously conducted, but the
514
ability of the hybrid Bill procedure to get at the national interest.
Will submissions to the Select Committee which go to the national interest be permitted? I am asking for concrete answers from the Government. Will submissions about the disposition of that amount of venture capital in this project (as opposed to other possible ventures over the years) be permitted? Will technological forecasting submissions be permitted, about the future of transport in general? Will national environmental submissions, general economic calculations, and assessments of European Community interests, be permitted before the Select Committee or Committees of our Parliament? If not, will the Government please submit Motions to both Houses, changing the rules so that they can be? In passing, I should like to endorse, though I admit without reflection, the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, of a Joint Select Committee which would clearly be more efficient.
This project has been with us for 180 years, as many noble Lords have said. We are now asked to conclude it within a couple of months. I started by saying that we are in favour of the fixed link and we are in favour of doing it quickly, but we are not in favour of doing it blinkered and at breakneck speed. This Government are very good at getting on with things, but they are less good at thinking carefully in advance about the pitfalls. That is why they keep landing up in the courts. I have just heard that they have landed up in the courts again, even since we had the Statement about Mr. Ridley this morning.
I am reminded in this whole matter of a good German word, Torschlusspanik. This is the feeling of panic which overcomes people of a certain age when they see some gate closing, and it commonly leads to rash actions. It is a human instinct, and even governments of a certain age may fall prey to it.
2.48 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, perhaps I should also declare an interest at the beginning. My interest is that I was one of the early joint chairmen of the Channel Tunnel Group in the 1970s. On every occasion on which I have had the opportunity I have consistently spoken in favour of a fixed link. I must be quite honest and say that I have always been in favour of a tunnel. In fact, in those days it was always a tunnel that was discussed. There was mooted for a period an elegant and imaginative design for a splendid twin tubular bridge which I considered and discussed with the people concerned, but its development did not go as far as the proposals we have been given recently about the bridge.
I do not believe that this is really the time—and most noble Lords have taken the same point of view—to go into too many details about the technical problems. Most people have avoided the nitty-gritty. Personally I would only say, as I said last January in the House, that at this stage of the civil engineering development, I cannot really believe that we have solved all the difficulties of the choice that either a bridge or a bridge/tunnel/bridge would raise. At the present state of the art I believe the only solution must be a tunnel, if it is decided to go ahead at all.

515
Obviously, I have looked at all the other ideas in the four submissions; I have been to a number of demonstrations and I have great admiration for the technical skills and ingenuity of those who have put them forward.
My personal view is that at the end of the day if we wish ultimately to decide that a fixed link should be built, the one which is most likely to be viable would be a tunnel solution. I have some reservations about Expressway. One of the main ones is that the ventilation system—and this is perhaps going into the nitty-gritty, which is what I said I would not go into—seems to me to be a wee bit on the edge of technology. It has been used, though only to a much more limited extent, I understand, in certain tunnels in Japan, and I rather doubt its viability.
The second reservation is perhaps more substantial, and it has been mentioned by many noble Lords here. It concerns the question of driving through a 30-mile tunnel. I am always amused when I see the rather over-enthusiastic artists' impression of such things as these tunnels. You always see the lone motor-car, the Fiesta, the Metro or the Novo driving through a beautiful, clean, well painted, bright tunnel. You never see Aunt Agatha driving along with half a dozen big diesel lorries behind her, with a train running beside her or with a coach bearing down upon her from the back. I think that this is something which has not been quite fairly dealt with. Artists always do this. We had an example in Glasgow many years ago of a rather important street. The artist's impression showed a new building and, in order to impress the planners, he put trees round it. The trees were seven storeys high when you measured them and then, at a closer look, we discovered that the sun was coming from the north. Then we began to realise that it was perhaps a slightly false impression. That is, of course, only over enthusiasm.
My noble friend Lord Mulley also told us that Channel Expressway had included two separate rail tunnels as well as two tunnels for road traffic instead of the built-in rail traffic on the road tunnels. I have found many of the designs we have seen in the last few months rather disconcerting in the way in which, as someone put it, the goal posts are being changed all the time. Just when you are beginning to understand what is happening, something else is suggested to take care of the problems raised. There is also the question of how the money is going to be spread out and how suddenly new money is going to be found.
Having made these reservations, I must confess that I am not terribly concerned. I think there have been, and will be, enough safeguards discussed in the working parties and the assessment groups which are looking at the project to take care of the dangers of security, of defence, of rabies and of other health problems. I think that these have been genuinely looked at over the years and I believe that we will have no more risks from tunnels or bridges from these points of view than we have at present from the other ways by which goods are imported from continental Europe. It seems to me that the promoters have made proper provisions in their submissions to handle all these risks, and so long as the safeguards are properly
516
carried out and policed, I do not think we have any reason to worry about them.
I am sure that a link can be made—and I am speaking specifically about tunnels only, as I tried to make clear earlier—but can it be financed privately until it is totally complete? The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, made a number of important points on this. Can it pay its way once it is completed? What are the worries over bankruptcy in respect of the companies who are to be involved in this? The Government insist on private money. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said he did not understand why money was good this year and not next year. One point I could never quite understand was that if we are talking in terms of money, which is only a means of buying the resources—and I am sure this is terribly elementary—why are the resources going to be different because it is private money, as against the resources that would be used for the actual construction of the tunnel or the bridge if it were public money?
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I understand the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, raised that point while I was unfortunately out of the Chamber. It is one thing to put together a packet today and do all the calculations in respect of the terms upon which that money will be spent, starting in 18 months' time and following through to the end of the next half-dozen years. It is another thing to put forward a packet which would be required for some quite indeterminate period. I am not suggesting 22 years, such as with the by-pass and so on, but with a planning inquiry which might take a long time it would be quite impossible to put forward a financial packet which would stand up.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, obviously I must accept the much greater knowledge of the noble Lord but if, as we are told, the City is awash with money, it is difficult to believe that there would not be some of it still lapping around in two years' time, if that were the case. The point I was making was slightly different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I was talking about resources; and if Britain decides to play her part in this tunnel the resources will still come from Britain—at least we hope so. There is of course no guarantee of that and many of them may come from abroad, but the resources will still be British resources, whether the money is private or public. Perhaps I could get a tutorial from the noble Lord at some time to clear up this point privately and not bore the House with it.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, dealt seriously with the question of what happens if the project goes beyond a certain point and there is bankruptcy. This was discussed in another place very fully and no one really believes that the Government would pull out. As one speaker said in the other place, the French Government would not pull out. They would certainly insist on going ahead. If anything happened after the tunnel had been completed and there was an inability to compete with ferries (if there were any ferries left) or with some other method of crossing—perhaps by means of cheaper air fares and short take off and landing aircraft and so on—at least in regard to the passengers, who are the cream of the traffic, it might

517
throw problems on to the operators of the tunnel which they had not allowed for.
The other question of course is the fuel costs. The Under-Secretary of State in another place was asked about what would happen if the tunnel was not completed. He suggested that an insurance bond would be taken out so that any structures that had been erected by the operators or the constructors would need to be taken away and the insurance bond would pay for that. Hansard records that there was laughter at that point. I do not doubt that and I can see the reason. It is, however, definitely not a joke. There are a number of very large scars around the Scottish coasts where people thought they could get into the oil business. They got planning permission and built platforms in the building areas and yet never finished up with a single platform. There are scars that we do not know what to do with, but those responsible have moved on and the local people are left with the problem.
Parliament will need to be given time for examination of the treaty when it comes and at this point we should have an answer from the Government. Will the White Paper contain most of the points—certainly the salient ones—that will be included in the treaty, so that Parliament will have a chance to discuss it at that point, if not later? Also, will the White Paper give sufficient detail of this treaty before it is signed, so that Parliament can discuss it?
I should like to speak very briefly about the ferries. I have spoken, as have other noble Lords, to many of the people who are putting forward schemes for the Channel link, and all of them say privately that they doubt very much whether there will be any ferry service left after their scheme has come into operation. In other words, they are going for the lot and very few of them believe that there will be any ferry service of any importance left.
If the ferries disappear, which was not envisaged when the more modest earlier schemes were put forward, what will become of an island country such as this? How much more vulnerable shall we be? Will the Government accompany their acceptance of any fixed link with some protection for our coastal shipping and the whole question of sabotage, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Underhill? In the last few years, ferries have undoubtedly become more efficient and have grown bigger. The Select Committee of both parties was not unanimous and it was worried about the viability of any link with the new service.
But other new considerations have arisen in Britain since we discussed the Channel tunnel in the days when my noble friend Lord Mulley was Secretary of State for Transport. One of the most important is that we have become a totally different nation even in the last five years. One of the causes of worry about this whole question is the fact that we are very much more two nations than we ever were. There has been a drift over the last 30 years and this has accelerated in the last five years. In the 1960s and 1970s, I had thought of trainloads leaving Scotland, the North of England and South Wales on their way to the Continent, to Dusseldorf, Milan and even Eastern Europe, with—to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said in a slightly different way and I believe the noble Lord,
518
Lord Mountevans, also spoke about this—customs clearance before they left or on the trains on the way through.
Of course this goes for the whole question of cross-Channel traffic. I had thought of customs-cleared trains. We had inland customs depots—I am not sure whether they now exist—at places like Coatbridge, outside Glasgow, where the containers could be sealed and taken right through with goods for the Continent. Unfortunately, there are not now the factories, the workshops and the engineering shops left in the North to provide those goods. Therefore, the tunnel will, in the belief of many people, merely push more and more down to the South-East and make the situation even worse.
Lastly, I should like to say a word on the whole question of public inquiries. We all know that they have frequently been used to thwart plans rather than to improve them. People will always take whatever last step is left to them if they feel sufficiently strongly about something and if they feel that they can get their own way by using public inquiries. This cuts across party boundaries, but there is nothing against the suggestion that was made by some noble Lords, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, about a timetable for a public inquiry. I am sure Parliament is flexible enough to be able to evolve some method of doing that. We are not asking for an inordinate delay. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and I firmly believe that the best way of crossing the English Channel is by a fixed link. To be perfectly honest, both of us believe that, at the present state of the art, the tunnel is the right way. We also believe that it must be a rail tunnel because, if there is going to be any hope for other parts of the country, we need rail access right down to the south coast and right through to the Continent.
We have always been believers in a cross-Channel link but there are honest questions to be asked. Many of them have been asked today. They cannot be dealt with only by a hybrid Bill. The Secretary of State for Transport emphasised that the only people who will be able to appear in the proceedings of a hybrid Bill will be those with a local interest or those who have a direct interest or are directly affected. We are speaking in terms of the whole country being affected in some way. Therefore the proceedings should be much wider than a mere local inquiry. There was the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, for the Scottish method, the Opposed Private Business Committee, which incidentally is taken in a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons, where at least people can come with slightly wider interests or remits.
We do not know whether some of the questions we have to ask will be applicable to a hybrid Bill procedure or whether they have to be brought out in some other way. What is the future of the ferries? Will the Government be willing to subsidise ferries in order to keep them going if it looks as though it will be too difficult for them to make a living only by carrying hazardous goods and one or two people who are unable to travel in any other way? There is no possible profitable future for ferries if that is their sole role. What will happen to coastal shipping? What are the immediate, the long-term and the short-term prospects for employment not only in Kent but in other parts of the country? The Kent people are

519
concerned—and I know that local authorities in Kent are concerned—about where the money for the new roads is coming from. Will it be new money or will it be money taken from other parts of the country in order to feed roads into the Channel tunnel?
The North-South divide is becoming quite serious. People in the North say—perhaps as naively as I was saying earlier: if something like £3 billion to £5 billion is to be spent must it be spent in the South-East corner? Must that area absorb yet more money? That may be a naive question but these people are not going to be nipping backwards and forwards to Paris every year; these are people in the North of England and Scotland who probably seldom manage to get across to the Continent. Therefore they do wonder why it is essential for this money to be spent there and they believe it will make matters worse.
We believe that these doubts are genuine and that is why I should like as many answers as possible between now and the publication of the White Paper. People are anxious for these answers not only in this part of the world but outside it. I hope we get the answers in time so that when the final decision is made and when the Bill is before Parliament we shall have general and genuine national support—though of course there will always be people who object, and they are perfectly entitled to object to any link of that kind—for a cross-Channel link and that it will appear and people will be convinced that it is not another kick into an already over prosperous South-East of England relative to the rest of the country. I think it would be dangerous if the imbalance were to get any greater. That is one of the questions that the Government have to consider.
3.10 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have listened with very great interest to our debate today. It is clear that there is a great deal of interest and expertise in your Lordships' House on the subject of the fixed link. The debate has fully and admirably served the two purposes I outlined earlier. While on the subject of expertise, we were very lucky to have speaking in our debate today my noble friends Lord Soames and Lord Boardman, and the noble Lords, Lord Mulley and Lord Layton, who are all associated in a major way with one or other of the schemes. Their expertise has added greatly to our debate.
I have taken careful note of the arguments and opinions that have been expressed. I now have a good understanding of the views of this House. The House is almost unamimous: I mark it as 15½ for and 1½ against. Many of the points raised go to the heart of the assessment that British and French officials are currently conducting. I am therefore unable to respond fully and in detail at this stage. However, I am relieved that no noble Lord has mentioned a subject that to my certain knowledge is not already being considered by one of the assessment teams. Indeed, I am comforted by the knowledge that much of what has been said by the Government in the debates both in another place and so far today in your Lordships' House has been confirmed by noble Lords from all parts of the Chamber.
520
Secondly, I hope that what I said earlier and what I am about to say will confirm the position that the Government have reached in their consideration of the five options. I stress "five options" in particular for the benefit of the Doubting Thomas—the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. There are not four options, because I must emphasise once again that no decision has been taken for or against a link. All options, including the so-called flexilink option, remain open.
I will deal now with some of the detailed points that noble Lords have raised. I must start by saying how disappointed I was by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I had hoped that he would clarify that which his right honourable and honourable friends in another place refuse to clarify—that is, where Labour stands on this issue. That is a simple question, but it is one to which we have not received an answer.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I thought that I had made our position thoroughly clear, as far as the Opposition Bench in this House is concerned. We accept the decision of another place on the question of the inquiry. As my noble friend said, we are in favour of a link, provided that all national interests are considered. That is why we want the noble Earl to explain this afternoon exactly where interests of a national nature can put their points of view.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for clarifying the position and for re-affirming now the 1974 stance taken by his party: that there would be no public inquiry.
I will deal immediately with a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, concerning the national impact. He mentioned businesses in the Midlands and went on to say that the reduction in the transport costs of more than 200 miles by road is greatly to the benefit of industries. The industries that the noble Lord mentions are precisely those that could benefit from any fixed link because of the long and potential rail connection. I assure noble Lords in all parts of the House that the national interest is being very carefully considered in the assessments. Indeed, Assessment Team No. 13 is dealing with the economic and employment implications of any scheme.
The noble Lord raised a question about a debate on the White Paper before the Bill is introduced. That is a matter for the usual channels, and seeing the Opposition Chief Whip in his place I shall not trespass on that territory today.
I can assure the noble Lord also that defence implications are being taken fully into account in the assessment process, and will include the effect on the ferries, as I said in my opening speech. That is a subject to which I shall return in a moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, asked what would happen if the money runs out. If the concessionaire is bankrupted or otherwise unable to complete the works the lending institutions will have to consider their position. The governments have made it clear that they will not intervene to complete the work. The bankers would be able to substitute another concessionaire or complete and operate the link themselves. Of course, the link would be of no

521
value unless operated as a fixed link. This is the only way they could recover the money advanced. Only if the backers were unwilling to complete the project would the bonding arrangements, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in particular, come into operation. The noble Lord seemed to ridicule the proposal for a bonding agreement. Doubtless, he would ridicule us even more if we had not included it in our proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, asked if there had been discussion with Trinity House and the United Kingdom pilots. I can confirm that this is included in the maritime assessment and is confirmed by my noble friend Lord Layton who said he had been discussing his proposal with Trinity House for seven years.
The noble Lord, Lord Benson, was supported by many noble Lords, particularly my noble friends Lord Soames, Lord Boardman and Lord Bessborough. He said he would like freedom of choice for individuals and for businesses, and he suggested that there should be both road and rail tunnels. Not only will there be a possibility of road and/or rail tunnels, but there are still the ferries and air transport to carry goods and people from one side of the Channel to the other. I very much agree with him when he says that this is a huge industrial venture with terrific prospects and that the lack of enthusiasm round the country is a little disappointing. There seemed to be far more enthusiasm round the country about the prospect of a fixed link some 12 months ago when the debate was held in this House in January than there is at present.
My noble friend Lord Soames said that the time is now. I could not agree with him more. The four points have come together at the correct time so we should strike while the iron is hot provided the criteria are met.
My noble friend, Lord Mulley, said that his group had undertaken an assessment on driver psychology. Of course, we are considering that assessment. It shows the detail in which the schemes have been prepared. My noble friend Lord Boardman said very clearly only a moment ago to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that if there is to be a public inquiry this matter would become, in his words, "stone dead". and that any delay would mean that the private investors would doubtless find other investments in which to put their money. It would be extremely difficult to generate private finance for a scheme in the future.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, asked about major pile-ups and the possibility of terrorist attacks. These have been covered by the assessment teams. At the moment, for security reasons, it would be wrong for me to comment further on the possibility of terrorist attacks, but certainly the road assessors have gone into great detail on the question of any pile-up.
My noble friend Lord Layton said that the Government are on a sensible timetable, and I agree with him. As regards consultations, he said that his group had been consulting with the International Maritime Organisation for many years. Again, that goes to prove the depth to which the studies have been undertaken. My noble friend also told the House that his group had experimented with the possible effects of explosives on their proposed scheme.
522
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, mentioned on-train clearance by Customs, as did my noble friend Lord Beloff. There are very great attractions to on-train clearance. For example, it would reduce the need for a large Customs hall at the London terminal and would avoid the need to check in. As the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans said, on-train clearance is normal in Europe. But there are manpower consequences which the Government wish to consider and there are operational reasons why on-train clearance is not just the simple matter that we would sometimes wish it to be. There is the limited time available between an international station at Ashford and the portal in France. I note the noble Lord's point and it is being considered but I cannot give him a definite answer today. Let me say that we are anxious to arrange controls in a way that facilitates the rapid flow of traffic through the link without jeopardising the effectiveness of those controls.
My noble friend Lord Bessborough mentioned ferries in particular, as did the noble Lord, Lord Underhill and the noble Lords, Lord Kennet and Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. I said that I would come back to his query on the matter. On the shortest routes, that is, the Dover to Calais route, for example, because of its greater speed in a time-conscious market a link would probably take a large share of the traffic, but I agree with my noble friend that from the Belgian Straits routes, which are longer and less time-sensitive, a link would attract much less traffic and from the south and south-east coast routes it would probably win only a small share. These are the findings of the United Kingdom-French study group in 1982 and are likely to be confirmed by the current assessment.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, who was a cautious supporter and rated my half marks earlier on, if I can give him that, was concerned about the large marshalling areas that were to be erected and the security implications. I can assure the noble Lord that the proposals are being fully assessed. Decisions on the level of security there and elsewhere can only be taken at a later stage and after a particular promoter has been selected; but the noble Lord's points in particular about marshalling traffic are very well taken and are clearly a factor in the assessment.
The noble Lord also mentioned that there would not be a Government guarantee on the expenditure on any fixed link but that there would be other Government moneys going into road and rail. I can tell the noble Lord that British Rail have put forward for capital expenditure associated with the link a sum of between £250 million and £350 million. This is being examined closely and must pass the usual commercial tests. The impact on the road network is being examined and will form part of the overall assessment.
I think it is worth stressing at this point that any private development, such as a housing estate—or even Lord Kennet's house—involve public sector costs, such as for sewerage, and the costs are recovered in the usual way in rates and taxes. The link is no different.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, also mentioned the question of future maintenance. I can tell him that this is part of the proposals which the prospective

523
concessionaires are putting forward and it is being closely monitored by the assessors.
My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard spoke of the tide races in the Channel and the change in plans as a result of consultations. In fact my noble friend Lord Soames confirmed that Euroroute had discussed this matter with the IMO and again it only highlights the amount of consultation that has taken place so far.
My noble friend Lord Beloff asked a particular question about procedure and whether there should be a Joint Select Committee, as this would save time and expense. I shall take that matter up with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, of course. However, I must point out to the noble Lord that there are some differences in procedure between our Houses and it would not necessarily stop people petitioning again in this House if there were a Joint Select Committee unless there were an agreement to the effect that they could not do so, and that Motion is debatable.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that the Government had stated at an earlier time that Parliament would not be allowed to discuss this matter. Perhaps he believes too much of what he reads in the papers and acts without checking his facts—on that matter, anyway. That was never stated by the Government.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I accept what the noble Earl says. I shall revert to my source in a normally respectable newspaper to check its language. Perhaps he can then chastise the editor.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it would be possible to do nothing else than chastise editors for incorrect information in papers. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to set up a new department.
As to timing, I have to remind the noble Lord that the commercial world is able to move much faster than governments can, and is well used to making assessments and advising within the current timetable. From the not so distant past, when I was in the commercial world, I remember clearly that we undertook fairly major assessments in a short time. That is the way that we had always worked, and we were structured to take account of such things.
The noble Lord mentioned membership of the assessment group. I am grateful to him for the opportunity to clarify that point. It comprises senior officials of both Governments. The joint chairmen are Monsieur Rudeau and Mr. Lyall of the Department of Transport. On the United Kingdom side members are drawn from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Treasury, the Cabinet Office and the Department of Transport. That is the main assessment group, but work on particular assessment subjects is also being conducted by other Government departments. As I have mentioned, private consultants are involved as well.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is the Scottish Office represented in any of the groups?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, at the moment I cannot remember, but I do not believe that it is as such.
Lord Grimond: Perhaps it ought to be, my Lords.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the purpose of the debate is to bring forward points to my right honourable friend, and that is one which will be taken into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked how we view the competition issues. The guidelines make it clear that the link operator will have pricing freedom, subject of course to French, British and European Community law on monopoly and abuse of a dominant position. We cannot disapply the Treaty of Rome even if we should want to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, seems to have become more of a doubter than he was on 16th January of this year. He said then (at col. 1040):
"If we have to wait much longer … it may not be possible to get a start".
Then (at col. 1041) he said:
"the cross-Channel link would be a boon to people on this side of the Channel and on the other side … and that the most likely way to get something done would be to go for a tunnel".
Whether it is a tunnel or any link at all is still a matter for debate, but what he said then holds good. It will be a boon to people all over the country and particularly to our industries in the Midlands, the North and Scotland. His comment about two nations is wrong in any case, I believe, but it is even more wrong if the link will be a boon to the country and will bring the North, Scotland and Wales much closer to what he considers to be a cut-off South. I do not believe the noble Lord, but I do believe that any link, if there is a link, will bring tremendous opportunities and prosperity to the people of this country, wherever they are.
The noble Lord praised the work of the assessment teams and believed that they were checking every aspect that could be thought of. I am grateful to him for saying that, and I shall pass on the remark to the appropriate people.
The noble Lord asked about the treaty. It will be signed and published at about the time of the White Paper, or shortly thereafter. As I said in my opening remarks, it cannot, however, be ratified until the hybrid Bill has been approved. In theory, I understand, we could ratify it after a Second Reading, but that will not be the situation as I understand it at the moment.
The noble Lord also mentioned cabotage, which is a matter of great concern to me. It is a slightly different point. We are trying to open up the European countries' cabotage. If he would like a debate on the matter, I am sure that the usual channels would be delighted to arrange it and I shall be very happy to reply.
I have taken note of the wide range of opinions expressed today. We shall reflect carefully on what noble Lords have said—
Lord Kennet: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves that part of his speech, can he give the House any assurance that the Government are interested in finding out the reason for the apparent failure of what

525
is at present the largest transport tunnel in the world, the Japanese one?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, while we might be interested in finding out, whether we can get the information from the Japanese is another question. We will reflect carefully on what noble Lords have said. I shall ensure that all the arguments that I have heard are fully reflected in the assessment. Provided that the criteria laid down are met, the spectacular civil engineering project of a fixed link across the Channel financed by private capital, backed by political will and approved by Parliament, must be given its chance.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before four o'clock.

  NURSING STAFF RECRUITMENT
  NURSING STAFF RECRUITMENT
  NORTH EAST THAMES RHA: MANAGEMENT REORGANISATION
  NORTH EAST THAMES RHA: MANAGEMENT REORGANISATION