Sitting of 11 February 1985

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

    Limited List Prescribing
    Mr. Raffanasked the Secretary of State for Wales
    if he will make a statement on the proposals to limit the range of drugs prescribed under the National
    Health Service.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn
    Roberts): The proposals for limited list prescribing announced on 8
    November 1984 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services have been the
    subject of consultation with the medical, dental and pharmaceutical professions and the pharmaceutical
    industry. The consultation period ended on 31 January and the many responses received are now being
    considered.
    Mr. Raffan: Will my hon. Friend give the most
    serious consideration to the introduction of an over-rule that drugs not on the list may be prescribed
    under the NHS subject to accountability to the local general medical committee? Would that not ensure
    not only that doctors could meet all clinical needs, but that they would be less likely to trade up, which
    could dramatically reduce savings?
    Mr. Roberts: I appreciate my hon. Friend's comment.
    He will know that it is our intention that the list of NHS drugs should meet all clinical needs, but if it is
    2
    demonstrated that there is a real problem in particular circumstances, we shall consider how best to deal
    with it. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion.
    Mr. Abse: The 900 people employed at the
    Parke-Davis factory in my constituency could be severely affected if the list is restricted. Has the
    Secretary of State for Wales, as I requested, made representations to his colleague the Secretary of
    State for Social Services pointing out the serious employment consequences if the proposed drugs list
    goes through?
    Mr. Roberts: My right hon. Friend has of course
    been closely involved with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services because of
    the responsibility that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has for health in Wales. He
    has made known his views about likely effects on the pharmaceutical industry in Wales. I cannot
    comment further on our proposal until conclusions have been reached.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Is it possible for my hon.
    Friend to give assurances that where there is a long history of a patient being allergic or intolerant to
    certain generic drugs, but able to take some particular proprietary drug, the doctor will have some
    scope for selecting such a drug?
    Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is basically on the same
    point as my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), and I stress yet again that it is our intention
    that the list should meet all clinical needs, but we are aware of problems, and they will be considered
    before the final list is drawn up.
    Dr. Roger Thomas: Why does the Minister not
    accept the method suggested by the Greenfield report, which will lead to savings in the drugs bill that
    will not discriminate against the less well-off members of our society?
    Mr. Roberts: We have no intention of discriminating
    against the less well-off members of our society, and I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the
    comments by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health in an Adjournment debate last
    Thursday. He said:
    "The Government have no intention of debarring any of the poor or elderly from the treatment,
    free if necessary, under the NHS that they require. We have every intention that under the NHS it should
    be possible for doctors and patients to have access

    3
    to a complete list of preparations, which is sufficient to cope with all the clinical and medical needs of
    the service."—[Official Report, 7 February 1985; Vol. 72, c.
    1231.]
    Mr. Best: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a
    capacity for real saving in the prescribing of drugs by ensuring that doctors, whether through oversight
    or otherwise, do not over-prescribe? Many recipients of drugs commonly find that they are given far
    more than they need for a course of treatment. Will my hon. Friend look into that aspect?
    Mr. Roberts: The point has been made by hon.
    Members on each side of the House, in particular in the debate on 8 November. There has been a
    doubling of the cost of drugs used in Wales. In 1978–79 the cost was £41·2
    million; in 1983–84 it had risen to £80·7 million. That is an increase of 96
    per cent.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that
    Aneurin Bevan introduced a National Health Service based on the principle that the best health service
    should be available to all, and that money should not be the consideration or the passport to better and
    quicker treatment?
    Does he further appreciate that the proposal to limit the range of drugs will, if implemented, bring a
    two-tier system of medical care into every surgery, and that such a system has been banished since
    1948?
    Mr. Roberts: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has
    not listened to my remarks. It is our intention that the drugs list will cope with all clinical needs of
    people within the Health Service.

    Heath Hospital, Cardiff
    Mr. Abseasked the Secretary of State for Wales
    why the details of the settlement between the Welsh Health Services Technical Organisation, S. W.
    Milburn and Partners and W. S. Atkins and Partners pertaining to structural and material defects at the
    Heath hospital, Cardiff, were not published at the time of the settlement; and if he will make a
    statement.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas
    Edwards): Yes, Sir. I intend to make a statement to the House
    tomorrow.
    Mr. Abse: So grave, in my judgment, is the breach
    that the Secretary of State for Wales has committed against the House in this matter, that he could do
    no other than reply that he will make a statement. But in the meantime, will the Secretary of State, having
    presided over the most massive administrative blunder in the history of the Welsh Office, and being
    known throughout Wales as Mr. "Nobody-tells-me-anything" Edwards, will he explain why, in a
    parliamentary reply in May 1983, he denied me access to reports on the hospital on the ground that they
    were relevant to litigation, and now admits that he so failed to monitor the chaos of that litigation that he
    knew of the final settlement only by reading the South Wales Echo?
    Why does the Secretary of State shamelessly seek to blame his own civil servants, including, of course,
    Mr. Lloyd, his assistant principal secretary, who, on his behalf, signed the settlement? Even more
    absurdly, why is the Secretary of State trying to blame a Labour Administration when it was in his
    period of office that the decision had to be made whether to issue writs, and when all he did was to
    issue a writ that was five days late?
    4
    Finally—[HON. MEMBERS: "No. Too long."]—since the Secretary of State clearly has
    no control over his own Department, why does he not have the dignity to admit ministerial responsibility
    and resign?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal for briefer questions,
    otherwise we shall not get anywhere today.
    Mr. Edwards: So many, so serious, so wild and so
    inaccurate are the allegations that I think it best that I deal with them all in the statement tomorrow. The
    hon. Gentleman is wrong in most of his allegations, including the allegation that the matter was out of
    time.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: My right hon. Friend is to be
    congratulated on the way that he has acted so typically quickly and completely correctly in the matter, in
    obtaining a full disclosure of all the information.
    Will my right hon. Friend consider telling the House, in his statement tomorrow, whether it would be
    appropriate for the matter to be considered by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, as the important
    point now is to ensure that it does not happen again?
    Mr. Edwards: I would welcome the fullest possible
    examination, becsause it is a story that covers many years, many organisations, many people, and
    different Administrations. I believe that there are lessons to be learnt from it. I will accept my degree of
    responsibility in the matter; I hope that others involved will accept theirs.
    Mr. Williams: When he makes his statement, will the
    Secretary of State explain how he reconciles the concept of ministerial responsibility with his statement
    that he knew about the settlement only when he read about it last week in the newspapers? Will the right
    hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the House will not accept as honourable a Cabinet Minister who tells
    the House, "It is not my fault. My officials got it wrong."?
    Mr. Edwards: I shall deal with those points in my
    statement tomorrow. It might also be a good idea if at some point it could be decided whether it is right
    that your rulings, Mr. Speaker, should appear for the first time not in the House but in the South
    Wales Echo.
    Mr. Barry Jones: In supporting what my right hon.
    and hon. Friends have said, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say whether the legal proceedings
    and writs involve any other major hospitals in the Principality? Has the right hon. Gentleman in any way
    concealed the true cost of repairs at the Heath hospital? In his estimate of an outline cost of £4
    million, in reply to a parliamentary question from me, did he leave out the cost of repairing the roofs?
    Mr. Edwards: That £4 million figure is
    absolutely correct and will be dealt with in my statement tomorrow. A writ was issued on 1 November
    in respect of Ysbyty Gwynedd and a statement of claim is being prepared.

    Cigarette Smoking
    Mr. Gristasked the Secretary of State for Wales
    what steps he has taken to discourage cigarette smoking (a)in his Department and (b)
    amongst the general public in Wales since 1979.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: In addition to various nationwide
    activities by the Government to discourage smoking, specific action in Wales includes the provision of
    funds for

    5
    Action on Smoking and Health and the production of bilingual advice to retailers and schools to combat
    smoking by children. Within the Welsh Office, certain no smoking areas are already designated and an
    extension of them is being considered.
    Mr. Grist: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the cost
    in lives and to the Health Service in Wales of cardiac and respiratory diseases, let alone cancer? What
    success is his campaign likely to have?
    Mr. Roberts: Of course I hope that our campaign is
    very successful in Wales. My hon. Friend is certainly right, in that many deaths and much of the
    incidence of heart disease are due to smoking. Indeed, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my
    hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security on 14 December 1984. It is
    because of the relationship, particularly in Wales, between smoking and heart disease that the health
    community in Wales welcomes the Welsh heart programme.
    Mr. Soames: Will my hon. Friend take it from me that
    such interference is absolutely intolerable? Although I accept that there is everything to be said for
    educating children about smoking, will my hon. Friend accept that if adults wish to smoke,, that is
    entirely up to them and has nothing to do with the state?
    Mr. Roberts: No, I cannot agree with my hon. Friend.
    There is a connection between smoking and disease. Although I am a smoker, I say so with regret, and
    can only say video meliora proboque deteriora sequor.

    Local Authorities (Capital Expenditure)
    Sir Anthony Meyerasked the Secretary of State
    for Wales if he will ensure that Government measures to restrict capital expenditure by local authorities
    in Wales take full account of the loss of assisted area status and of diminished access to European
    Economic Community loans and grants.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The Government measures
    announced last December are restrictive only in the sense that they should ensure a much closer match
    between local authorities' capital spending and the sum allowed for this in the Government's expenditure
    plans than has been the case this year under the previous arrangements.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: In the light of that reply, will my
    right hon. Friend assure me that no local authority will find that its calculations on the availability of
    capital for urban schemes or such like will be seriously affected by the unexpected withdrawal of
    assisted area status, leading in turn to reduced ability to obtain, for example, loans from the European
    Investment Bank?
    Mr. Edwards: Capital allocations are now largely
    determined by formulae agreed with the local authority associations. Urban programme applications are
    considered individually on their merits. As I have already told my hon. Friend, we are considering
    whether any further action is possible in connection with the European
    Community.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the right hon. Gentleman
    acknowledge that Government restrictions on capital expenditure have, to some extent, at least in
    mid-Wales,
    6
    been counterbalanced by the successful activities of Mid-Wales Development? When shall we hear that
    Mid-Wales Development is to have a substantially increased budget for the next financial year?
    Mr. Edwards: I agree that Mid-Wales Development
    has been doing extremely good work. For example, I welcome its contribution to the recent Laura
    Ashley decision. The announcement about the budget will be made shortly. I cannot anticipate the
    amount. but among other matters the Laura Ashley involvement will be properly taken into
    account.
    Mr. Best: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House
    that local authorities' accumulated capital receipts will remain theirs to spend and that they will be spent
    by the local authorities as soon as it is possible to remove the restrictions by the Government on that
    spending?
    Mr. Edwards: Yes. We have already said that we
    intend local authorities to spend the money over a number of years rather than in a single year, since
    many of them have already, in effect, used the money once by increasing their borrowing in the last year
    or two. We shall have to spread the expenditure over more than a single
    year.

    Cynon Valley (Housing Survey)
    Mrs. Clwydasked the Secretary of State for Wales
    what response he has made to the findings of the Cynon Valley housing
    survey.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: The 1981 Welsh house condition
    survey had already made clear the poor condition of much of the housing in the south Wales valleys. As
    the House well knows, the need for extensive renovation and repair lay behind the Government's recent
    grants initiative. The particular situation in Cynon valley—as in all district council
    areas—was taken into account when determining the housing capital expenditure
    allocations.
    Mrs. Clywd: I am afraid that the Minister has not
    answered the question. On 24 January my council in the Cynon valley sent the Minister the house
    condition survey of the valley, which that 48 per cent. of private housing is unfit for human habitation.
    Will the Minister receive a deputation from the council and make additional resources available under
    the capital programme, to come out of the housing improvement programme, to deal with the serious
    and shocking housing conditions in the Cynon valley which without doubt are the worst in Wales and
    probably the worst in the whole of Britain?
    Mr. Roberts: I am already aware of the council's
    request to send a deputation to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Consultative
    mechanisms already exist for discussing such matters. It would be easier to be more sympathetic
    Cynon valley if it had a better record of spending on renovating its private sector
    stock.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: When will the Government
    recognise the need to build new houses in areas such as the Cynon valley, which has such massive
    unemployment? Does the Minister agree that a housing drive would not only improve the infrastructure
    at a stroke, but provide jobs where they are so vitally needed?
    Mr. Roberts: It is for the local authorities to decide
    their spending priorities within their allocations. There is a record spend on housing for
    1984–85. Apart from

    7
    1983–84, when there was exceptionally high expenditure on improvement grants,
    1984–85 is the subject of the highest forecast expenditure figure for housing in Wales over a
    run of years going back to 1978–79.

    River Dee (Pollution)
    Dr. Marekasked the Secretary of State for Wales
    what steps are proposed to minimise the further risk of pollution of the River
    Dee.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: Improved monitoring introduced
    following the pollution incident in January 1984 has enabled recent incidents to be detected in sufficient
    time to prevent polluted water entering the public supply. A working group established by the statutory
    water undertakers which abstract water from the Dee is considering the need for further measures, and
    its report will be made public shortly.
    Dr. Marek: I accept that the majority of companies
    act responsibly after a pollution incident. However, does the Minister agree that, in the light of the
    phenol incident last year, it would be desirable if there was an obligation on companies to notifiy the
    water authority as soon as possible after any pollution incident?
    Mr. Roberts: I am very glad to tell the hon.
    Gentleman something that he may already know — that the last incident, when some melamine
    was deposited in the river, was reported by the company of its own volition. I agree that when pollution
    is even suspected it is highly desirable that any company associated with it or knowing anything about it
    should report it to the relevant authority.
    Mr. Raffan: Will my hon. Friend tell me how much
    the voluntary system depends on the co-operation of local companies? Will he assure us that they can
    all be relied upon to be as conscientious as Kronospan at Chirk?
    Mr. Roberts: The procedures adopted after the first
    phenol pollution incident in January 1984 have been very successful. Although there have been two
    pollution incidents since then, the intakes of water from the Dee into the public supply system were
    closed in time so that the pollutants did not enter the supply system. The water authorities and the
    companies involved are to be congratulated on their prompt action after the phenol
    incident.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Is the Minister aware that the
    Connahs Quay town council and the Alyn and Deeside district council still favour a public inquiry into
    the phenol incident, which poisoned many thousands of my constituents? Is the hon. Gentleman further
    aware that those who requested a public inquiry were told that a court case would ensue? It did not
    ensue. People on Deeside are angry and astonished that there is not to be a public inquiry. May we have
    one, please?
    Mr. Roberts: We must ask ourselves whether a public
    inquiry would serve any useful purpose, and I believe that the answer to that is no. Following the phenol
    incident, the chief executives of the authorities and the companies concerned set up, their own inquiry
    and instituted remedial action. In addition, something known as the Dee working group was set up and it
    will be reporting shortly. When the report is published, I hope that Opposition Members will give it as
    much publicity as they can so that consumers' fears are allayed.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Secretary of State for
    Wales how many people are unemployed in (a) Clwyd and (b) Wales compared with
    1979, as a total and as a percentage; and, of the total unemployed, how many are long-term
    unemployed.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 10 January 1985 there
    were 25,105 unemployed claimants in Clwyd. A comparable claimant-based figure for 1979 is not
    available. The figure for registered unemployed in January 1979 was 13,569. For Wales as a whole, for
    the same dates, the figures on a claimant-basis calculation were 185,529 and 86,416 respectively, an
    increase of 114·7 per cent. The latest figures for the long-term unemployed relate to January
    1985, when 75,697 had been unemployed in Wales for over one year.
    Mr. Jones: In the light of those quite disparate figures,
    will the right hon. Gentleman seek an emergency jobs package from his Cabinet colleagues? Will not his
    tenure of office be remembered as terribly destructive to manufacturing industries in Wales? With more
    than one in five men in Wales jobless, and growing social and economic problems ensuing from those
    policies, is not the right hon. Gentleman's record the worst of any Secretary of State for Wales?
    Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that
    we are spending about £2 billion on employment and special training measures, and that more
    than 41,000 people in Wales were covered by those measures at the end of December 1984. There is
    also a massive capital programme in Wales. I am glad to say that, as a result of the activities of the
    agencies and other Government initiatives, a large quantity of new investment is being made, much of it
    in Clwyd, which has been outstandingly successful in attracting new projects which are building their
    labour forces.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware
    that the process of finding badly needed new jobs in Clwyd would have begun much earlier and been
    much more successful had it not been for pressure from both sides of the House to delay the closure of
    the steelworks at Shotton?
    Mr. Edwards: The problems of the steel industry
    were undoubtedly magnified by the fact that essential decisions were not taken earlier. But hon.
    Members on both sides of the House must welcome the way in which the Welsh steel industry has
    faced competition during the past two or three years and made itself outstandingly
    successful.
    Mr. Foot: In view of those terrible figures —
    the worst in Wales, at any rate since the 1930s—will the Secretary of State take into account the
    fact that he has added insult to grievous injury by telling me in a letter that the cut in regional aid will
    assist in creating employment? When will the cut have that beneficial effect, and what will be its precise
    effect in the areas deprived of special development status?
    Mr. Edwards: We believe that the new regional
    scheme will be more beneficial and cost-effective than the previous scheme. There will be no cut in
    regional expenditure in Wales during the next couple of years; the reduction will come only after that.
    The area which the

    9
    right hon. Gentleman represents retains the highest level of assistance under the new scheme and is in an
    especially good position to compete.
    Mr. Grist: Does my right hon. Friend agree that major
    contributors to unemployment are political strikes and real pay rates increasing faster than
    productivity?
    Mr. Edwards: Political strikes are undoubtedly
    especially damaging, although it must be said that any industrial dispute may threaten jobs. I hope that
    the unhappy dispute now taking place in Merthyr will be brought to an end, because we all hope that the
    new investment being committed for the Hoover plant there will go ahead and that the future of that
    plant will be safeguarded.
    Mr. Rowlands: This is a civil question, and I hope
    that I shall receive a civil answer from the Secretary of State. When does he expect the figures for
    unemployment, in percentage and number terms, to return to the figures for May 1979?
    Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly
    well that no Minister in any Administration has ever made such a forecast. It would be foolish to do
    so.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Wales
    how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in Wales since May
    1979.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: A total of 39,432 council
    dwellings were sold to sitting tenants in Wales between May 1979 and 30 September 1984. In addition,
    2,292 dwellings were sold by the Cwmbran Development Corporation and Mid-Wales
    Development.
    Mr. Knox: How do those figures relate to right-to-buy
    applications?
    Mr. Roberts: There were more than 60,000
    right-to-buy applications to Welsh local authorities. In addition, more than 3,000 applications were
    received from tenants of Mid-Wales Development and the Cwmbran Development Corporation. At the
    end of September 1984, sales represented about 59 per cent. of right-to-buy applications and about 88
    per cent. of live applications. Offer notices have been issued to about 88 per cent. of
    applicants.
    Mr. Anderson: The Minister, in response to an earlier
    question, ingenuously said that housing expenditure this year was the highest since 1978–79,
    thus comparing expenditure with years of Conservative control only. Does he not feel some shame at
    the fact that sales of council houses have gone ahead at a time when house building in both the public
    and private sectors has slumped terribly under this Government and when the property that is being
    sold is not being replaced?
    Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman knows only too
    well that sales of council houses to sitting tenants do not decrease the housing stock. The secure
    tenants who have bought would have remained as tenants had they not become owners. There is no
    doubt that sales of council houses have resulted in considerable receipts for local authorities, and those
    receipts have been spent on improving older properties. The Government's policy has been extremely
    successful both in increasing home ownership and in improving the housing
    stock.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that
    the principles of the right-to-buy legislation are being extended fairly to all tenants of houses owned by
    county councils in Wales?
    Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend will know that the
    Housing and Building Control Act 1984 extended the right to buy to groups of tenants who did not
    previously qualify, including some county council tenants. The Act increased the maximum discount to
    60 per cent. and introduced the right to buy on a shared ownership basis. I am satisfied with the
    implementation of the Act.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Minister agree that one
    result of the sale of council houses is that district councils have been supplying large sums of money by
    way of mortgages? If so, will he explain why the Welsh Office is dictating to district councils what they
    can do with the mortgages? As the mortgages are the assets of the district councils, they should be
    allowed to use them as such.
    Mr. Roberts: Local authorities have been lending
    money for the purchase of council houses. That is a right that tenants have under the right-to-buy
    legislation. It is entirely for the local authorities to decide what they will do with the mortgage books. If
    they choose, as many have, to sell the books to the private sector, I see no objection to
    that.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Ron Daviesasked the Secretary of State for
    Wales what are the male, female, youth and total unemployment rates for Mid-Glamorgan for the latest
    available date.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 10 January 1985 in
    Mid-Glamorgan there were 26,264 males unemployed, a rate of 23·3 per cent., 9,884 females
    or 13·1 per cent., giving a total of 36,148, or a rate of 19·2 per cent. The number of
    unemployed youngsters between 16 and 19 in October 1984 totalled 7,800 or 4·1 per
    cent.
    Mr. Davies: First, may I suggest to the Secretary of
    State that he has a word with the chairman of British Rail? I am sure that British Rail could reduce the
    unemployment figures by employing a few extra linesmen to hasten the unfreezing process for the
    HS125 service from Cardiff to London.
    Will the Secretary of State confirm that the figures that he has recited reflect the fact that in
    Mid-Glamorgan there are 37 unemployed adults for every vacancy that exists? Will he also confirm that
    in the Rhymney Valley 1,500 young people are searching for jobs and that on 10 January there was not
    one vacancy? How will the cut of £60 million in regional aid solve the problem?
    Mr. Edwards: I am sure that hon. Members on both
    sides of the House would wish to express regret at the death of some linesmen on British Rail last night
    in a sad and unhappy accident, and I take this opportunity to do so.
    I am sure that the hon. Gentleman at least welcomes the fact that there has been a substantial reduction
    in the number of unemployed school leavers in Wales, including Mid-Glamorgan. I am sure also that the
    hon. Gentleman is pleased that again Wales has had the highest success rate in Great Britain in finding
    youth training scheme places. We have met the Christmas undertaking. Only 77 minimum-age school
    leavers had not received an offer of a place at the time that undertaking
    concluded.
    Mrs. Clwyd: However much the Secretary of State
    tries to sugar the pill, the fact is that Wales has suffered a massive cut in regional aid. My constituency
    is again at the top of the league table with 27·7 per cent. male unemployment—the
    highest unemployment rate in the whole of Wales. The only things that the Secretary of State can offer
    are factories such as Hitachi which encourages people at the age of 35 to become redundant. The
    National Coal Board plans to shut at least one pit in my constituency. What hope can the Secretary of
    State offer to those men in my constituency who, under this Government, have only long-term
    unemployment to which to look forward?
    Mr. Edwards: I am sure that the hon. Lady welcomes
    the fact that her constituency receives the maximum assistance under the new regional policy scheme. I
    am sure that she also welcomes the fact that there is no blockage of an area with an even higher level of
    assistance further to the east. I am surprised at the suggestion implicit in the hon. Lady's question, that
    she was somehow running down the jobs provided by firms such as Hitachi, which provide not only
    jobs but a degree of technical innovation and standard of management which are likely to improve job
    prospects generally.
    Mr. Barry Jones: The right hon. Gentleman has cited
    statistics which depict the daunting problems of our valley communities. Why, therefore, do the
    Government propose to close skillcentres in South Wales? Since the Scottish local authority member of
    the MSC has resiled from his support for closure, the Secretary of State now has the excuse to go to
    the Cabinet and say that the skillcentre at, for example, Pontllanfraith should not close. Will the right
    hon. Gentleman do that?
    Mr. Edwards: Part of the MSC's programme is to
    extend and enlarge the training programme, and to provide in a more flexible way, more, not fewer,
    training places in Wales. The MSC has recently put specific proposals to Ministers, which are being
    considered.

    East Dyfed Health Authority
    Dr. Roger Thomasasked the Secretary of State
    for Wales if he will provide additional finances to the East Dyfed health authority to enable the
    completed intensive care unit to receive patients.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: No, Sir. East Dyfed health
    authority is responsible for the revenue cost of running the intensive care
    unit.
    Dr. Thomas: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware of
    the deep outrage felt in that area, especially as almost one third of the money for the capital cost of that
    unit came from the public and recently the unit has been lucky enough to have a consultant
    cardiologist?
    Mr. Roberts: If there is a sense of outrage, I am
    afraid that it reflects on the East Dyfed health authority, because the authority should not have embarked
    upon the unit until it was sure that it had the money to run it. I am aware that, of the total capital cost of
    £341,000, some £54,000 was raised from voluntary sources locally and
    £287,000 came from the district health authority. As I understand it, the authority is waiting for
    some savings to be made. It is to be hoped that the unit will be opened in the not-too-distant
    future.

    Nuclear Burst
    Dr. Twinnasked the Secretary of State for Wales
    what effect a megaton nuclear burst at a height of 300 miles overhead would have on the equipment and
    resources in his charge.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I am advised that there would
    be no physical damage by blast, shock or heat, but that the electromagnetic pulse produced could
    cause damage to unprotected electrical and electronic equipment over a wide
    area.
    Dr. Twinn: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that
    his Department will be studying the effects of electromagnetic pulses, and will he ensure that the civil
    defence authorities in Wales have that information and are able to plan effectively with it?
    Mr. Edwards: My right hon. and learned Friend the
    Secretary of State for the Home Department is responsible for these matters and for giving that kind of
    advice, and I shall draw his attention to my hon. Friend's point.
    Mr. Buchan: Does not the description of the
    electromagnetic effect on Wales bear a startling resemblance to the Government's effect on the country
    at large?
    Mr. Edwards: I am not sure that that arises from the
    question that I have answered.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Andersonasked the Secretary of State for
    Wales what were the male unemployment figures in Swansea at the latest available date; and what were
    the figures for the equivalent months since 1978.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 10 January 1985 the male
    unemployment figure for the Swansea travel-to-work area was 13,816. Comparable figures for earlier
    years are not available because of changes to travel-to-work area boundaries and the move to
    claimant-based figures.
    Mr. Anderson: Have not male unemployment figures
    in the Swansea area increased by roughly three times since 1979, when they stood at about 8 per cent.?
    They are now almost 23 per cent. Does the Secretary of State recall that when he was Opposition
    spokesman there was a large advertisement in Swansea in 1979 which read, "Labour is not working"? Is
    he not now ashamed of the con trick which over the years has led to three times the male unemployment
    of 1979?
    Mr. Edwards: We must all be anxious about rising
    unemployment. The hon. Gentleman was no doubt worried when it rose steeply under the Labour
    Administration that he supported. He will be aware that we have been taking a number of measures,
    particularly in his constituency, to attract new investment and jobs. There have been notable successes
    through the urban programme in regenerating the lower Swansea Valley, and the enterprise zone there is
    proving a considerable success.

    Nuclear Burst
    Mr. Gerald Bowdenasked the Secretary of State
    for Wales what action he is taking to harden vulnerable equipment in his charge against the effects of
    nuclear electromagnetic pulse.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: None,
    Sir.
    Mr. Bowden: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that
    adequate places are available on training courses so that those who need to know about the effects of
    the nuclear electromagnetic pulse can learn, study and make provision for such an emergency?
    Mr. Edwards: Once again, that is a matter for my
    right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I shall draw that suggestion to his
    attention.
    Mr. Best: Will my right hon. Friend deprecate the
    decisions of some county councils in Wales, under whose charge the citizens are placed in the event of
    such a catastrophe occurring, not to involve themselves fully in civil defence matters? Will he also
    remind the House that a unilateral declaration that Wales is a nuclear-free zone is not of much use unless
    the Kremlin agrees to it as well?
    Mr. Edwards: I agree entirely with what my hon.
    Friend says. I believe that it is of great importance that we should pursue civil defence measures. My
    Department will continue to give every possible encouragement to the activities of those involved to
    ensure that proper civil defence arrangements are made.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for
    Wales what was the total number of unemployed in Wales in 1979 and at the latest date; and what is the
    change, expressed as a percentage of the 1979 figure.
    Mr. Ray Powellasked the Secretary of State for
    Wales what is the total number of males and females unemployed in Wales at the latest date for which
    figures are available; how many were unemployed in May 1979; and what, in percentage terms, is the
    difference.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 10 January 1985 total
    unemployment in Wales was 185,529, comprising 131,720 males and 53,809 females. In May 1979 the
    equivalent figures were 77,200, 55,800, and 21,400, respectively—an increase of
    140·3, 136·1 and 151·4 per cent.
    Mr. Hughes: In relation to those disgraceful figures,
    has the Secretary of State's attention been drawn to the article in the Financial Times this
    morning, which said that the Japanese Honda company had acquired a huge 330-acre site in Swindon
    for the development of an engine plant and full car production? Does he appreciate the anxiety that that
    has caused throughout British Leyland's ranks? If that project is to go ahead, will he ensure that the
    Government have the necessary powers to see that that plant comes to South Wales; or is he prepared
    to see the further rundown of our communities?
    Mr. Edwards: I have, of course, seen this morning's
    press reports. I am aware that Honda has taken a site at Swindon, where it intends to carry out
    pre-delivery inspection of cars manufactured jointly with BL as well as perhaps producing certain
    components. No proposal for a major car assembly facility has been put to the Government by Honda.
    If such a proposal were advanced, we should clearly have to consider it carefully and judge whether
    mutually acceptable arrangements to benefit the United Kingdom as a whole could be worked
    out.

    AIDS
    Sir Raymond Gowerasked the Secretary of State
    for Wales what recent representations he has received asking him to take early steps to make acquired
    immune deficiency syndrome a notifiable disease in Wales.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: I have not received any
    representations on this matter.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Does my hon. Friend agree that
    information from other countries, including the United States and Australia, shows that there is a
    terrifying possibility that this disease will spread? Does he also agree that there is probably far too much
    complacency about the matter in this country?
    Mr. Roberts: The Government are certainly not
    complacent. We are very concerned, but the consensus of the DHSS expert advisory group on AIDS is
    that there are, as yet, no clinical grounds to support making AIDS a notifiable disease. However, the
    point is very much under consideration. While appreciating the gravity of the problem, we are anxious
    not to cause unnecessary panic.

  THE ARTS

    National Theatre
    Mr. Freudasked the Parliamentary
    Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts what representations Her Majesty's
    Government have had regarding future funding for the National Theatre; and if he will make a
    statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William
    Waldegrave): My noble Friend had a case put to him and discussed
    it with the theatre's chairman; but it is for the Arts Council to decide the level of
    funding.
    Mr. Freud: Will the hon. Gentleman persuade his
    noble Friend to look at separate funding for the National Theatre building, in the way that the National
    Gallery and the British Museum are separately funded, and thus allow the National Theatre to continue
    to produce plays of excellence and to collect seven-figure sums in VAT for the Treasury?
    Mr. Waldegrave: That is one point which I am sure
    Sir Peter Hall put to my noble Friend. If it means that, from one source or another, more money is to be
    spent on the National Theatre, that will have to be met out of the budget
    somehow.
    Mr. Jessel: Does my hon. Friend agree that the
    superb and brillant standards of acting and production at the National Theatre do not always require
    quite such lavish sets and costumes and extras as they sometimes receive? Does he agree also that it is
    not self-evident why a cut of one fiftieth in real terms in the grant should lead to the closure of the
    Cottesloe Theatre and the sacking of 100 people? Is Sir Peter Hall sacrificing his staff to make a
    point?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I saw a suggeston in an article by
    Michael Ratcliffe at the weekend that Sir Peter Hall might be closing the Cottesloe to make the
    maximum stink. I doubt whether that is so. We must remember that the National Theatre has had an
    increase in its budget from the

    15
    Arts Council since 1979 of a little more than the inflation rate. Therefore, it should be able to live within
    those figures.
    Mr. Foot: What is the use of having a great and
    adventurous National Theatre and a Cabinet of barbarians? Cannot we get rid of the second instead of
    the first?
    Mr. Waldegrave: One of the things that soon gets lost
    in any discussion of money for the arts is relevance to reality. The right hon. Gentleman has given us
    another example of that. There has been an 18 per cent. real increase in Government spending on the
    arts since 1978–79, and that is not a record of which to be
    ashamed.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: As my hon. Friend is a
    distinguished hon. Member and not only not a barbarian, but a Fellow of All Souls, would he care to
    essay an answer to Machiavelli's question, "What good is power without glory?" Is not the National
    Theatre one of our greatest glories? I appointed an independent commission to examine the financing of
    the Victoria and Albert Museum and my successor appointed an independent commission to examine
    the financing of the Royal Opera House. Could not my hon. Friend do the same for the National
    Theatre and give satisfaction all round?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend
    for his kind words. Certainly we need the glory, but, as the Arts Council has said, perhaps the glory
    needs to be spread around the country. That is one reson why some pressure has been brought to bear
    on the London companies. I believe that an investigation by the National Theatre is already in train. We
    hope that when other ways of raising money have been examined, the Cottesloe will still be
    open.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: If the Minister believes that Sir
    Peter Hall is not closing the Cottesloe to make a point, presumably he accepts that it was inexorable that
    its closure would follow the level of grant given?
    Mr. Waldegrave: No, I do not think that that
    necessarily follows. There must be a whole range of things to which the National Theatre and other
    companies can look. For example, it is always taken that the level of pay is given in all those matters. I
    am not sure whether that should be accepted without question.
    Mr. Hannam: Does my hon. Friend accept that the
    investigation by Lord Rayner has already corroborated the need to close the Cottesloe Theatre so that
    the National Theatre can survive the cuts that are taking place? Does he agree that the Arts Council's
    reduction in the amount that should have gone to the National Theatre as a result of its policy of taking
    the arts out to the regions will kill off the main trunk that is necessary to sustain the arts?
    Mr. Waldegrave: With respect to my hon. Friend, I
    think that we must keep some sense of proportion. The National Theatre will still get a larger grant
    — it is a considerably larger amount — than that of any other theatre company in the
    country. I believe that just under £7 million in subsidy to the National Theatre is not unfair
    when taken with the fact that there has been a real increase in its funding since
    1978–79.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: If the Cottesloe closes, the
    Minister's noble Friend will be the first Minister for the Arts to be responsible for shutting rather than
    opening a theatre that is the subject of public funds Is that not a
    16
    disgraceful turn of events? Will the hon. Gentleman report to those responsible how the House feels
    about the matter, and bring about a change in policy?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My noble Friend is no more
    responsible for closing the Cottesloe Theatre than he is for the superlative performance of "Guys and
    Dolls" which National Theatre put on this year. Those are matters for the management of the theatre, in
    conjunction with the Arts Council.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend accept that the
    quality of Sir Peter Hall's work has always been excellent and stimulating? However, does he agree that
    the National Theatre is receiving a subidy of nearly £7 million a year, and that Sir Peter Hall
    should be able to cut his coat according to that cloth?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Sir Peter Hall's work has always
    been adventurous and always on a large scale. The successes have been on a large scale and sometimes
    the failures have also been on a large scale, as we saw with "Jean Seberg". The whole purpose is to be
    adventurous. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that with such a scale of financing it is possible to
    produce good theatre in the centre of London.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister aware that there is a
    link between the low level of settlement which the Government made on the Arts Council this year, rate
    capping and the abolition of the Greater London council? When will he become alarmed and worried,
    and indeed honest, and admit that the Government have betrayed the arts?
    Mr. Waldegrave: There is no relationship between
    those things. The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that the GLC has not yet been abolished,
    unfortunately; and it may be of interest for him to know that the Arts Council's funding for the National
    Theatre has increased a little faster than the GLC's funding for the National Theatre since the Labour
    party took over the GLC.
    Mr. Buchan: The Minister must not rest on this
    business of the amount of money being given to the National Theatre. It is not one theatre, but three. It
    has been bequeathed an extremely costly building at over £2 million. Is not the truth simply
    that, not content with running down our manufacturing and coal industries and, for that matter, the
    pound, the Government are equally complacent about running down one of our national glories? If we
    have any respect left in the world under the Government, it is with regard to our National Theatre. Will
    the hon. Gentleman bring the matter back to the Cabinet? He might remind the Prime Minister that the
    last major play put on at the National Theatre was about Coriolanus, who was not totally dissimilar,
    apart from his unfortunate predeliction for compassion now and again. The hon. Gentleman might show
    the same in relation to the arts.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I shall not venture into arguments
    about Coriolanus with the hon. Gentleman. We must remember that funding for the arts has increased
    sharply since 1978–79—by 18 per cent. in real terms. There has been a real terms
    increase this year as well.

    Public Libraries
    Mr. Fisherasked the Parliamentary
    Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts what representations Her Majesty's
    Government have received on his planned expenditure on public libraries in
    1985–86.
    Mr. Waldegrave: None,
    Sir.
    Mr. Fisher: Is the Minister aware that the public
    expenditure White Paper shows a real decrease of £55 million in Government expenditure on
    libraries next year? Is he further aware that that decrease is forcing library authorities throughout the
    country to cut services, that Somerset has had to abandon all spending on adult fiction, and that the
    Highlands and Islands have had to reduce their book fund by 82 per cent? What does he intend to do
    about that? Does he perhaps think that libraries were overfunded this year and thus require a decrease
    next year?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Since 1978–79 there has
    been a reduction of only 1 per cent. in the number of people employed in the public library service. My
    noble Friend is satisfied that the level of provision is adequate, although no doubt there are hard choices
    to be made in individual instances.

    The Arts (Private Sector Funds)
    Mr. Proctorasked the Parliamentary
    Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts what representations he has received with
    regard to tax advantages to private sector fenders of the arts.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My noble Friend the Minister for the
    Arts has received some letters from the National Federation of Playgoers' Societies advocating further
    tax concessions. The question of tax reliefs for the arts continues to be kept under
    review.
    Mr. Proctor: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is
    continuing concern about the activities of the Inland Revenue special unit at Bristol, which tends to
    depress available private sponsorship for the arts? Is he further aware that the Association for Business
    Sponsorship of the Arts is currently collecting representations from its members and that a document
    prepared by leading accountants will be in the Minister's hands in April? Will he give that document and
    those representations the most careful consideration?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I was aware that ABSA was looking
    into this, and I will take seriously any representations submitted by it, although I am not aware of any
    evidence that the Inland Revenue has changed or tightened its rules in this
    area.

  Mr. Speaker's Letters to Members
  Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr.
  Speaker.
  The Secretary of State for Wales, whose capacity for getting things wrong seems to be unlimited, said
  in a supplementary answer at Question Time that it was improper that your ruling on a recent application
  in relation to contempt was read in a newspaper before it was heard on the Floor of the House or
  notified to the House. As this is an important matter perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, will confirm for the
  record that you told me that you would rule out of order any attempt to raise the matter on the Floor of
  the House but that I was perfectly free to make the contents of your letter known to whomever I
  wished, although the releasing of the letter was a matter that you wished to consider. Will you confirm
  that you are currently considering the question of the confidentiality of Mr. Speaker's rulings given in
  letters to Members?
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is quite
  correct. I am considering the extent to which letters from me to right hon. and hon. Members could be
  released to the press. Clearly, I cannot give a blanket agreement to all my letters being released, but I am
  looking at the matter and I will be in communication with the right hon.
  Gentleman.
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas
  Edwards): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Perhaps you will also consider whether it is good practice for a Member to approach you to inquire
  about a possible breach of privilege involving another Member without that other Member being in any
  way involved in the approach and for that other Member to read about the matter in a newspaper in
  which your letter is published in full under the headline, "Edwards Secrecy Contempt Warning," as that
  does not seem to me to be a very satisfactory way to proceed.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not know the date on which that
  article appeared.
  Mr. Edwards: It was on 5
  February.
  Mr. Speaker: Last Tuesday. I think that puts into
  perspective my comments about my letters having wide distribution in the press. I am considering the
  matter. Clearly, my public rulings are available to everyone, but private letters to Members should
  perhaps not be quite so public.

Haringey Borough Council
3.34 pm
Dr. John Cunningham(by
private notice)asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he
will make a statement about meetings and other contacts between his Department and Councillor
Salinger or other councillors of Haringey borough council and the disclosure to Councillor Salinger of
the Secretary of State's assumptions under the Rates Act about the finances of the borough
council.
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick
Jenkin): There has been no impropriety. The Guardian
headlines are flatly wrong in suggesting either that Councillor Salinger has been
"given information refused to Councils"
or that I misled the House.
The majority parties in the rate-limited authorities are refusing to negotiate with the Government about
their rate limits. I have made it absolutely clear that in those circumstances I am
prepared—indeed, legally bound—to take account of information from elsewhere,
including of course from elected councillors, of whatever party. It was in that context that one of my
officials telephoned Councillor Salinger on 5 February because he understood that Councillor Salinger
might have relevant factual information to provide. In Haringey's case I have not needed to make any
assumptions, as all the figures required to calculate its rate limit have been supplied to me at various
times by the council itself. The suggestion that I have privately revealed assumptions made in calculating
Haringey's rate limit is, therefore, entirely false.
There have been meetings between Ministers or their special advisers and Conservative Members of
Haringey council. One of the meetings was attended by officials, who, in accordance with the normal
conventions of such meetings, recorded factual information and commented on its technical
relevance.
Dr. Cunningham: The Secretary of State's statement
is singularly unconvincing. Will he confirm that Councillor Salinger has confirmed that there were
discussions with officials of the right hon. Gentleman's Department about the assumptions and has
clearly stated that the assumptions were given to him at an open meeting of the borough council?
Did not the Secretary of State tell the House as recently as last Wednesday that there had been no
contact between his Department and Conservative councillors on the borough council? That is on the
record. Why has the Secretary of State not taken this opportunity to put the record straight and to be
candid with the House about his dealings with minority group councillors in an attempt to bypass the
decisions of the ballot box at Haringey?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the figures given in The Guardian and in the letter of the
chief accountant of Haringey borough council?
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a question, not a
statement.
Dr. Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman
confirm that in exercising his discretion in this matter he has capriciously withheld
£6·4 million from Haringey borough council? Does not the whole sorry affair
demonstrate the fact that the punitive centralizing
20
legislation is a mess, and that fixing the budgets of councils, is no business of the House or of the right
hon. Gentleman's Department?
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman continues to make a
very bad case. He should accept that I have made no assumptions whatever in relation to Haringey. The
council gave me all the figures necessary to enable me to calculate its rate limit. The accusation made in
the House last week was that I told Conservative members of Haringey council of assumptions made in
calculating the Haringey limit.
Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman's
Department told them.
Mr. Jenkin: No. What I said in the House was
absolutely correct. Indeed, I went on to say that had there been any meeting with officials at which such
assumptions had been disclosed—
Dr. Cunningham: They have
been.
Mr. Jenkin: No, they have not. I have made no
assumptions in relation to Haringey. In suggesting that if an elected councillor chooses to contact a
Government Department that is bypassing the ballot box, the hon. Gentleman is carrying the argument
to absurd lengths.
We all know what the hon. Gentleman is up to. It is spelt out in The Guardian. The hon.
Gentleman and the councils which he supports are trying to demonstrate that the assumptions are
unreasonable, so that I can be beaten in the courts and the whole rate-capping policy reduced to tatters.
That is what he says, that is what he is after and that is what this is all
about.
Sir Hugh Rossi: Is my right hon. Friend aware that
Haringey is one of the most extravagant and profligate local authorities in the United Kingdom, with
expenditure running at 34 per cent. above GRE; that for the past 12 years both Labour and
Conservative Secretaries of States alike have drawn attention to the council's spending policy but that it
has refused to heed any of them; and that currently it is more concerned with an expensive advertising
campaign and confrontation with the Government — with the encouragement of the Opposition
Front Bench—than with trying to bring about economies in expenditure? Is he also aware that
my constituents and ratepayers will welcome and endorse anything that he does to reduce the intolerable
burden at present upon them?
Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If I
may say so, this is all a very sad falling away from the days when he and I served on Hornsey borough
council, Haringey's predessor.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will
the Secretary of State acknowledge that the speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for
Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) is precisely the same as his remarks to justify his call to the
Haringey authority to dismiss some 2,200 of its workers from service? The hon. Gentleman stands
condemned for demanding that of the local authority.
Is it not the explanation for all these revelations much more politically sinister than the Secretary of State
makes out? Has not the right hon. Gentleman indeed made a number of assumptions? He quoted the
figure of £6·4 million, which was one of his assumptions and which

21
appears in the correspondence. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is condemned by his own
correspondence with the local authority.
Is not this part of a political strategy? The Secretary of State knows that all the rate-capped authorities
have agreed to act in unison. The right hon. Gentleman wanted Haringey to come to see him personally
and he would then have conceded the £6·4 million, thereby making it beneficial for
those authorities to come to see him, and as a result breaking the
unity—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have speeches during
questions on a statement. The hon. Gentleman must bring his question to a close, because he has now
been on his feet for several minutes.
Mr. Atkinson: Is not a political strategy the purpose
of these "behind the scenes" discussions with friends of the right hon. Gentleman's own family whom
he has known for many years? Was it not from out-of-hours discussions that these revelations
emerged?
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman knows that the leader
of Haringey council, Councillor Meehan, has consistently argued that he ought to be free to talk to the
Department about the rate limit, but that because of this stupid boycott imposed by Labour's national
executive committee he has been precluded from doing so. There is still time, and if Councillor Meehan
wishes to argue for a higher rate limit, my door is open.
Mr. John Cartwright: Will the
right hon. Gentleman confirm the statement apparently issued by his Department on Friday that the
deputy treasurer of Haringey telephoned his Department and had certain calculations confirmed? Will he
make a similar service available to the other rate-capped authorities? More important, will he make
available to the House details of the assumptions which he has used so that we do not have a repetition
of last week, when the House was asked to rubber stamp rate limits without adequate information?
Mr. Jenkin: I have made it clear that in relation to
Haringey there were no assumptions. If any authority wishes to discuss the calculation of its rate limit, it
is absolutely clear under the Act that it should use the right of appeal to come in and put forward an
alternative rate limit. These matters may then be discussed. The deputy treasurer of Haringey did have a
consultation, and, as I have said frequently, skilled treasurers are perfectly well able to work out how
their authority's rate limit has been calculated. Haringey got the relevant calculations right within two
days of the announcement last December.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Private notice questions are an
extension of Question Time. We have a heavy day ahead of us, with Private Members'
motions.

Mr. Clive Ponting (Trial)
3.45 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John
Biffen): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may be of assistance to
the House if I say now that it is the Government's intention for an oral statement to be made tomorrow
concerning the Ponting case.
Mr. John Morris: Further
to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for me to make an application under Standing
Order No. 10 at this stage? If not, at what stage would it be appropriate?
Mr. Speaker: Not until after the
statements.
Mr. Morris: In that case, I give notice that I intend to
do so.
Mr. Speaker: I say to the right hon. and learned
Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and other right hon. and hon. Members who have given notice of
Standing Order No. 10 applications that this is a private Members' day, and we already have two
statements and two other applications under Standing Order No. 10 that came in before 12 o'clock. I
appreciate that the judgment in the Ponting case was not received until after noon, so it might be
appropriate to delay further applications under Standing Order No. 10 until tomorrow, in the interests of
private Members.
Mr. Morris: Further to that point of order, Mr.
Speaker. It is my intention, as I have given notice, to move my application today because the earliest
that we could have a debate, as opposed to a statement, would be
tomorrow.
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas:
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As many hon. Members will not even have heard the verdict
in the Ponting case as yet, and as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has given an
undertaking that there is to be a statement tomorrow, would it not be reasonable for hon. Members to
read and reflect on the verdict before we have a discussion in the House?
Mr. Speaker: I have not heard the details either, so I
am as much in the dark as anybody else.
Dr. David Owen: Further to that point of order,
Mr. Speaker. As the Leader of the House has raised this point of order, would it be in order to ask him
which Minister will make the statement? Will it be the Prime Minister, in view of her responsibilities as
head of the Civil Service? Can it be made clear to the Government that many of us feel that, as the
Prime Minister has misled the House, she should make the statement?
Mr. Biffen: Further to that point of order, Mr.
Speaker. The purpose of my point of order was to inform the House that a statement would be made at
the earliest possible opportunity. I shall take account of what right hon. and hon. Members have
said.

Sleipner Gas
3.47 pm
The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker):
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the proposed purchase of gas from the
Norwegian Sleipner field.
As the House is aware, major negotiations have been in progress for some time between the British Gas
Corporation and the licensees of this gas field, which has reserves of some 7 trillion cubic feet, for
supply of gas to the British market. Any deal resulting from the negotiations required the endorsement
of Her Majesty's Government, and I had made this clear to the parties concerned.
The British Gas Corporation approached me during 1984 with the terms of a provisional agreement
under which delivery of gas would start in the early 1990s, reaching a plateau in the mid-1990s at a rate
which would be sufficient to meet up to 30 per cent. of United Kingdom requirements and continuing at
that level well into the 21st century. The Government immediately examined the details of the contract
from the point of view of the broader national interest and thereafter entered into discussions with the
Norwegian Government. We explained to the Norwegians that, at the rate of delivery proposed, there
was a serious risk that prospective development of gasfields on the United Kingdom continental shelf
would be held up. We accordingly sought agreement that the rate of delivery provided for in the draft
contract should be reduced. Discussions with the Norwegians on this and other matters continued
throughout the remainder of 1984 and good progress was made.
The Government have now reviewed the proposed purchase in the light of the situation which has
developed during the period of these discussions. In particular, the Government have been impressed
by the results of the recent record levels of exploration and appraisal activity. As a result the estimates
of proven and probable gas reserves remaining in the United Kingdom continental shelf, as shown in the
Brown Book published in April 1984, have increased by 6·2 trillion cubic feet. As a
consequence the Government have concluded that it will no longer be necessary to import gas in the
1990s on the scale anticipated even last summer. Accordingly, the Government have decided not to
endorse the draft contract negotiated by the British Gas Corporation for the purchase of gas from the
Sleipner field. The Norwegian Government and the British Gas Corporation have been informed of this
decision. We recognise that the Governnent's decision will cause disappointment to our Norwegian
friends. I emphasise that we shall continue to value the relationship which has developed between our
two countries through our common interest in oil and gas matters.
The Government welcome the fact that current and prospective developments on the United Kingdom
continental shelf now seem likely to provide sufficient gas to meet the needs of the British market well
into the 1990s. However, they recognise that the British Gas Corporation has clear obligations in regard
to the security of gas supply. The Government, in consultation with the corporation, will therefore keep
under review the likely availability of supplies to meet demand in the coming decades.
24
The improved prospects for the development of our own offshore gasfields over the next few years will
have important and welcome implications for the generation of additional orders and employment in the
offshore supplies industry as well as reducing expenditure on imports in the
1990s.
Mr. Stanley Orme: The statement begs as many questions
as it answers. Above all, I find it astonishing that the Secretary of State has made no mention of price.
He has based his decision on a major revision of North sea gas reserves. The question is not just about
the size of the reserves but whether they can be developed to meet gas demands in the 1990s.
In recent reviews it was assessed that 45 new fields could be developed between now and the year
2000, providing North sea related jobs, but that that would still leave a significant gap between supply
and demand. Will the Secretary of State tell us which additional fields he has identified to fill that gap?

In view of the potential demand for gas in the 1990s, will the Secretary of State at least confirm that
British Gas will be allowed to consider importing gas in the future if it finds that it has insufficient
supplies?
The Secretary of State mentioned the discussions with the Norwegian Government. I hope that the
decision will not damage our good relations with Norway. Will he make it absolutely clear that there will
now be no question of exporting North sea gas from Britain?
With regard to the future of gas, will the Secretary of State say whether supplies from the North sea will
be significantly cheaper than those offered under the Sleipner contract?
What role has the collapse of the pound played in the Government's decision?
The Secretary of State has taken a risk and a gamble on the nation's future gas supplies. The House
deserves a much fuller assessment than he has included in his statement. Will he provide it as urgently
as possible, so that the House can make a proper judgment as to the extent of the gamble?
Mr. Walker: I understand the views put by the right
hon. Gentleman. I understand his fears about supplies, as he does not have the updated detailed
information. We shall be making that detailed information available to the Select Committee in the very
near future, so it will be available to the House, and the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members
can then make their judgments on the validity of the improvement in the supply position. It is a genuine
improvement and a pleasing one for both sides of the House. Some people think that we are still
underestimating the supplies that will be available during the period concerned, but we have made our
estimates in accordance with the usual prudent methods employed by the Department, under all
Governments.
With regard to price, if we are talking about the price of deliveries in 10 years' time, obviously the
exchange rates then prevailing will have an enormous influence. The variation in the currency exchange
rate during the period since the contract was originally negotiated shows the degree to which, if the
dollar is strong at a particular time, it produces a big variation in the price.
In looking at the availability of our own supplies, as opposed to the need to import them from Norway,
my guess is that the availability of our own supplies will mean

25
that prices will be lower than they would have been if we had taken the Sleipner
contract—[Interruption.] There is no way in which one can make a valid pronouncement
on that. However, that is my genuine guess about the position.
As I made clear in my statement, I accept that there is a statutory obligation on the British Gas
Corporation to ensure security of supplies. It is the duty of any Government to ensure that that is so.
As I also made clear in the statement, judging by the now known reserves, we believe that far fewer
imports will be required in the 1990s than was originally envisaged. On current estimates, it is still likely
that some imports will be required during that period. Of course, the BGC will negotiate in consultation
with Government—as it always has done—about the possibility of those supplies
coming from Norway or elsewhere. While that remains the position the question of exports does not
arise, especially if the demand for gas in this country is not met by our own supplies. In the foreseeable
future we shall need all the supplies from the North sea. As hon. Members know, at present we are a
major importer from the Frigg field in Norway.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have not taken a gamble. We have consulted carefully, and the
BGC has increased its estimate of gas reserves since it began negotiations. That implies is no criticism
of the corporation because when it began negotiations it was working, perfectly sensibly, on the then
known facts.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I repeat that we have a private
Members' day today, and it would be very unfair if a lot of time was taken up by the statements. I
therefore propose to allow questions to run for a further 15 minutes on this statement, and that goes for
the next statement as well.
Mr. Michael Morris: Is not the key fact that we now have
a rate of increased finds in the North sea? Does that not have major implications for security of supplies
and, just as importantly, for British jobs? Can my right hon. Friend estimate how many British jobs will
flow from this decision?
Mr. Walker: It is impossible to give any accurate
estimate, but, obviously, as we find more gas fields in the North sea there will be substantial investment.
As the majority of that investment will come from firms operating in Britain, the availability of more
supplies, and new and better discoveries, are obviously good news for jobs, particularly as many of
those jobs will be provided in the north east and in Scotland, which are areas of high
unemployment.
Mr. Dick Douglas: In view of his statement, will the
Secretary of State give an assurance that he will not in any circumstances permit the export of southern
sector gas from the United Kingdom? Will he give some assurances about the finds of probable and
possible reserves about which he spoke. The probable reserves are very futuristic. What is the right
hon. Gentleman's guesstimate of how long we can be assured of security of supplies?
What—
Mr. Speaker: Briefly.
Mr. Douglas: Yes, Mr. Speaker. What is the
likelihood of publishing the BGC's background papers, together with the right hon. Gentleman's views,
on the contract that he has renounced?
Mr. Walker: Obviously, it is for the BGC to decide
what it should publish.
The hon. Gentleman asked about security of supplies. I can only say that the increase of about 15 per
cent. in availability that has occurred since we published the Brown Book in July is something that I
could not have predicted last June. The hon. Gentleman has considerable experience of, and interest in,
these matters, and he will understand the difficulty. Ten years ago, when I previously had responsibility
for oil and gas, I was shown predictions which have now been proved to be totally wrong. I hope that
that trend will continue, because they are often proved wrong in the right direction for this country. The
estimates that we are now making are below those of some oil companies and above those of others.
To some extent, because of what is required from the licensing agreements that we have with various
fields, is only the Department that has all the detailed information. Thus we believe that there is good
security of supply. Judging by present requirements, all the gas in the North sea will be required by the
BGC in the immediate future. Obviously, if the time comes when our gas supplies are such that we have
surpluses, any Government would have to review the scene.
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I am grateful to my right hon.
Friend for his statement, because had it not been for the excellent news about reserves additional to
those published in the Brown Paper in April the position would have been unfortunate for my
constituents. Will my right hon. Friend maintain close liaison with the British Gas Corporation on the
question of increased production? Does he agree that that would not only secure existing jobs at St.
Fergus in my constituency, but possibly create further jobs?
Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend referred to the Brown
Book published in April. He is right. I referred to it as the July Brown Book, but it was published in
April. This decision will be helpful for jobs. A great deal of investment will take place in the new fields.
In the period leading up to the 1990s there will be further requirements for pipelines, which will also
provide more work.
Mr. James Molyneaux: In the light of the Secretary of
State's encouraging words about improved prospects for the development of our own offshore gas
fields over next few years and his hope that they will have welcome implications, will he look
sympathetically at the desirability of extending supplies of gas from the continental shelf to areas such
as Northern Ireland, where such gas is not currently avaialble?
Mr. Walker: I shall certainly discuss that with my right
hon. Friend who has responsibility for Northern Ireland.
Mr. Tony Speller: Does my right hon. Friend agree
that, although deciding not to buy may or may not be a big decision at this time, it could have traumatic
effects upon a supplier who has relied upon a contract, as in this case? May we have my right hon.
Friend's assurance that the Norwegian Government—very good friends of ours—have
been kept fully in the picture and that there is no financial liability upon us for non-completion of the
contract?
Mr. Walker: Yes. I can assure my hon. Friend that we
value the manner of our talks with the Norwegian

27
Government. I have been involved in meetings with Norwegian Ministers and my right hon. Friend the
Minister of State has been in Norway over the last few days having full consultations with the
Norwegian Government. They will be disappointed, but they understand the reasons. The Government's
objective is to continue to have good relations with Norway.
Mr. James Tinn: Is the
Minister aware that, following the earlier Government decision not to go ahead with the gas-gathering
pipeline, to encourage the development of a totally unnecessary and unwanted petrochemical complex
at Mossmorran is yet another body blow to the people of Teesside, where unemployment is the highest
in mainland Britain? What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do? Why will the Government not
allow the corporation to go ahead with an agreement which makes good commercial sense to it and
sound common sense to our good friends the Norwegians?
Mr. Walker: I do not think that the news is bad for
Teesside. There will be more developments in our own sector of the North sea and more suppliers,
investment and equipment will be required, much of which can come from the north-east. Further
pipelines are likely to be developed in this period and requirements in refining capacity are likely to be
increased from our own resources of gas in the North sea. That should not be bad news for the
north-east.
Mr. Peter Rost: Does my
right hon. Friend agree that one of the unsatisfactory aspects of the proposed deal was that the British
Gas Corporation was prepared to offer a higher price for Norwegian gas than it was to our own
suppliers? If our suppliers had been offered better prices earlier, we should not have had to negotiate
for the gas.
Mr. Walker: The fact that there has been such
success in our exploration over the period, and that there have been finds, shows that every
encouragement and incentive have been given for people to develop and produce. If one is negotiating
an import contract for the 1990s, one has genuinely to calculate the world price for that volume of
contract at that time. I am sure that that is what the British Gas Corporation did. I am pleased that the
taxation and other policies pursued by the Government have encouraged this development of our own
resources.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Is the
Secretary of State not in danger of misleading the country by presenting this as an either/or decision,
when the reality is that even the best forecasts suggest that we are likely to need Sleipner, and everything
else that has been discovered and is not yet discovered? Is the Minister not gambling on supplies which
have not yet been found? Will he acknowledge that by using the improving success rate as a justification
for his decision he is giving the opposite reason to that which the Government gave for not going ahead
with the gas-gathering system, which might have secured the gas supplies which we now need?
Mr. Walker: I think that further pipeline developments
will take place. I totally disagree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. If he looks at the
facts and the figures he will see that a contract for sales from Sleipner is not needed for the
1990s.
Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Is my right hon. Friend aware that,
to get security of supply, it would be best to link the European grid system with the English grid
system? Is my right hon. Friend aware that by his good decision announced today producers will be
given the incentive to bring their gas production forward, because there are ample supplies in the North
sea?
Mr. Walker: My projections show that there are better
supplies in the North sea than we predicted for the 1990s. Forecasts of consumption suggest that there
might well be a need for imports during that period. Any Government and the corporation have a duty
to keep the position under careful watch and care. Linking pipelines here with those in Norway or
elsewhere depends upon the nature of the supply and demand built up. At present we are in the happy
position of being able to take ourselves all the gas from North sea.
Mr. Frank Cook: In reply to my right hon. Friend the
Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) the Secretary of State said he was unable to make any prediction
about price. How then is he able to predict capacity and volume? Further to that, and following the
question by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Mr. Tinn) about employment—which is of
dire importance to us in the north-east—is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the 650 jobs at
the Philips handling, storage and processing facility which will be at risk before the end of the decade
will be guaranteed beyond the end of the century by the home-based reserves which he says we shall
tap for the next 15 to 20 years?
Mr. Walker: There was no guarantee under any
Sleipner agreement. Under that agreement, no decision was made about where the liquids would go.
There was no agreed position on that. As a generalisation, I think that for jobs in the north-east today's
announcement is a plus. On estimates and capacity, one must take the best information available. The
Department of Energy, under all Governments, can never be accused of having made over-optismistic
estimates of capacity. The Department has made the current estimates of capacity in the same way as it
has done over the years, under all Governments. The estimates are highly conservative and they are not
as accurate in their optimism as they could be. The Department has always been wise to be on the side
of prudence rather than of extravagance. It has continued that with these
estimates.
Mr. David Crouch: Does
my right hon. Friend agree that we have given a great deal of thought to this complex problem for many
years? Does he think on reflection that, looking at the possibility of a serious gap in the 1990s, we might
have passed up a valuable opportunity by turning down this contract? Does he agree that we might have
to resort to panic buying of Dutch and even Soviet gas in the 1990s?
Mr. Walker: Obviously, if I had thought that I should
have given approval to the Sleipner deal without hesitation. As my hon. Friend knows, we examined the
matter carefully, without any prejudice against the deal. The situation has genuinely changed to the
advantage of our country. It is the duty of any Government and the British Gas Corporation to ensure
that they have secure supplies for the decades to come. Those supplies may be available from many
parts of the world, including Norway, in the future.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Do not the anxieties mentioned by
the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) exist because the country and the House are so
uncertain about the Government's hopes and intentions for energy supplies from all different sources in
the coming years? Will the Secretary of State make much more clear to the House and to the country
how the Government see the energy mix for the future, so that better judgments can be made on such
deals? What is the British Gas Corporation's reaction to the decision that he has just announced?
Mr. Walker: The British Gas Corporation must be
free to make its own pronouncements. It has been fully consulted throughout and knows of the
adjustments we have made with regard to capacity and also the validity of the reasons on which we have
based our judgments. Obviously, having negotiated the Sleipner deal, the corporation must be
disappointed that it has not been completed. I am sure that the BGC will wish to continue good
relations with Norway as a potential supplier of gas in future, as it is at the present time.
On the hon. Gentleman's question about projections on a whole range of energy supplies, I remind him
— although not wishing to do so—of his political past. The party of which he used to
be a member published a series of projections for energy supplies over five and 10-year periods, but the
only thing that can be said about them is that they were all proved to be dramatically
wrong.

Atomic Energy Authority
4.10 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alastair
Goodlad): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make
a statement about the future of the Atomic Energy Authority. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of
State for Energy told Parliament on 28 March that he had set in hand a wide-ranging review of the role
and activities of the authority. On 3 October he placed in the Library of the House a press statement
which summarised the recommendations of the review. Following consultations with the interested
parties, I can now inform the House of the conclusions reached by the Government.
Since the authority was established in 1954 as a vote-funded body with a high degree of statutory
independence, it has made a crucial contribution to the development of the civil uses of nuclear power
in this country. Today, civil nuclear power is an essential and established part of our national life. Last
year more than 18 per cent. of electricity supplied in the United Kingdom was nuclear. The proportion
will reach 21 per cent. when the three nuclear stations most recently linked to the national grid reach full
power, with a further increase when stations now under construction are completed. The civil nuclear
industry in the widest sense now provides about 100,000 jobs. All this has been achieved with an
excellent safety record. The authority's work is held in high regard and it will continue to have a major
role to play in both the nuclear and non-nuclear field.
The review had two guiding principles: first, that the authority should move further towards a
commercial basis of operation; secondly, that a defined customer-contractor relationship should be
applied as far as possible to its work. The Government fully endorse those principles.
The review recommended, and the Government accept, that the activities of the authority should be
placed on a trading fund basis. The authority will be required to account for its activities in a fully
commercial manner, within financial objectives set by the Secretary of State. We intend to provide the
authority with a capital structure and powers to borrow as required to enable it to operate as a trading
fund from April 1986, and will introduce legislation as soon as possible for that purpose.
I have considered carefully, in consultation with the authority and with its customers in the nuclear
industry, how the principles of the review should apply to the funding of particular programmes at
present financed by my Department. A balance is required between the application of the
customer-contractor principle, which is valuable for financial discipline and a more commercial
approach, and the retention of an independent capability for safety and underlying research in the
authority. The electricity industry, like the Government, attaches importance to that independent
capability. Although the generating boards will increase the amount of work which they pay for on a
customer-contractor basis, my Department will continue to fund a substantial authority programme of
thermal reactor and general safety research. The Government broadly endorse a recommendation of the
review group that there should be an element in the authority's charges to customers, including the

31
Department, in respect of underlying research. I am discussing the application of this recommendation
with those principals concerned.
The effect of the proposals will be to carry further the development of recent years under which the
funding of the authority's expenditure has become more broadly based and proportionately less
dependent on Department of Energy Votes. In particular, there will be a further increase in funding by
the CEGB. With other changes, I expect this to result in a reduction of £5 million in my
departmental Vote in 1985–86 compared with previous plans.
I have already mentioned the authority's contribution to the development of civil nuclear power in this
country. It continues to give valuable support to the nuclear industry in both the public and private
sectors. It is diversifying its services in the non-nuclear field, and has made an important contribution to
technology relevant to North sea development.
The evolutionary changes I have just announced will put the authority on an increasingly commercial
footing and will give its staff a new incentive. I am confident that the changes will enable the authority
further to develop its role and contribution to the economy on both a national and international basis. I
am also confident that all those concerned will join in taking full advantage of this new
opportunity.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: The
Minister's announcement is unsatisfactory on three counts. First, as the Minister said, to put the
authority on a commercial basis is an evolutionary change. We believe that it is a change towards
privatisation. I draw the Minister's attention to the note appended to the statement of 3 October so that
the House is under no misunderstanding about the way in which the Government have clothed today's
statement. Paragraph 9, entitled
"The Authority as a Trading Fund"
states:
"The extension of the customer/contractor approach to the Authority's nuclear work for the
Department would be facilitated by putting the Authority on a Trading Fund basis. This would require
all work to be accounted for on a fully commercial basis, impose additional discipline through the
requirement to meet financial objectives, create financial flexibility between years, highlight major issues
which need to be dealt with in commercial terms, and facilitate possible eventual
privatisation."
Secondly, does the Minister realise that the people of this country will be appalled that work connected
with nuclear power, whether research or in any other area, will be on a commercial basis, in private
hands? The Minister has argued that the justification for that is the saving of £5 million. That is
not an argument; it is an unsafe betrayal in the interests of private profit.
Thirdly, is it not monstrous that the result of the announcement will be to take from Parliament the right
to question and seek accountability for that aspect of nuclear power activity?
The Government appear not only to be preparing the way for privatisation, but to be weakening the
authority of Parliament.
Mr. Goodlad: I may be able to put some of the hon.
Gentleman's fears at rest. There are no plans to privatise the Atomic Energy Authority. Therefore, the
fears that animated his first and second points do not apply.
32
On the hon. Gentleman's third point, there will be no reduction in accountability to this House because
of the change to the trading fund.
Mr. John Hannam: Does my
hon. Friend agree that this decision really consolidates the existing trend on outside financing? Will he
reiterate that research into the safety of nuclear reactors will still be a top priority of the Government?
Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is quite right to say
that the move to a trading fund will reinforce a trend that is already taking place. He is also correct to
say that the resources available to the authority for thermal reactor and general safety research will not
be reduced. The Department will continue to fund substantial authority programmes in that area. The
Government attach paramount importance to safety, and will continue to do
so.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Under the trading fund structure, will
capital borrowings now cease to be counted by the Treasury in the public expenditure totals?
Mr. Goodlad: The capital structure of the trading
fund has yet to be established by my right hon. Friend, and will be the subject of continuing
consultations.
Mr. Rob Hayward: In
welcoming the statement, may I ask whether the authority will continue to co-operate with its European
partners in the projects that are currently operating?
Mr. Goodlad: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I accept that, after it has
successfully spearheaded the development and research of the nuclear programme during about 30
years, it is sensible to move towards a recognition of the commercial possibilities of the authority.
However, does the Minister realise that his statement is unsatisfactorily opaque in that, although it
accepts in principle the recommendation of a trading fund, it does not begin to define which matters will
still be funded by the Department? There have been six months of consultation on this matter. Is there a
risk that fundamental research will not be commissioned, and therefore, not carried out? How does the
Minister propose to continue to fund the fast-breeder reactor programme?
Mr. Goodlad: I said in my statement that the
underlying research of the authority will remain a priority. That will be the case. My Department will
continue to provide funding to underlying research, and the industry will also contribute. The position
of the fast-breeder reactor programme will remain as it is at present. The programme is proceeding
through the collaborative arrangements set out in the intergovernmental memorandum of understanding
which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State signed in January last year. The resources available to
the programme are not changed by this decision, but the work will be carried out on a more explicit
customer-contractor relationship between the Department and the
authority.
Viscount Cranborne: My hon. Friend's statement will be
studied with the keenest interest at the atomic energy establishment at Winfrith, which is the largest
employer in my constituency. The workers there will appreciate his remarks about their work in safety

33
and nuclear matters, and about the additional research that they have done on North sea oil. However,
will he give them some assurance this afternoon as to whether the commercial implications of his
statement, which I am sure will be broadly welcomed, will give undue leverage to the Central Electricity
Generating Board over the authority's activities? Does he accept that many people throughout the
industry, and especially in my constituency, would be most grateful for a reassurance on this matter?
Mr. Goodlad: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute
to the distinguished work that has been done at Winfrith for many years, in which I know he has taken a
close interest. I assure him that no undue influence will follow this review either from the CEGB or
anyone else.
Dr. M. S. Miller: The Minister referred to research,
notably in connection with the fast-breeder reactor. What effect will the Government's proposals have
on longer-term research into changing to the fusion process instead of fission?
Mr. Goodlad: The review of the authority did not
cover fusion. The position remains that research into fusion forms an integral part of the Euratom fusion
programme and is a successful example of European cooperation in a high technology sector. Recently
I announced that the Government's direct contribution to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy
Authority's fusion work, which is carried out under a contract of association with Euratom, should be
£15·9 million in 1985–86, £13·7 million in
1986–87 and £13·3 million in 1987–88. That funding, together with
our commitment to the joint European Torus project under the joint understanding and the host
agreement, will ensure that the United Kingdom maintains a substantial fusion
programme.
Mr. Michael Morris: Will the external financing limit of
the electricity supply industry be adjusted because of its increased contribution, which will come about
presumably because of this change?
Mr. Goodlad: In principle, changes will be reflected
in the EFL.
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Does the Minister accept that nuclear
power capacity is a matter of considerable political sensitivity, and that there is genuine concern that
increased commercialisation is bound to impinge on control and accountability? Will he expand his
previous assurance and tell us what changes are being made to ensure that, in this different perception
of the authority's role, there will be genuine accountability to, and control by, the House?
Mr. Goodlad: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the
Government and the House will have as much control and accountability as they have always
had.
Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Will the financial objectives be set
out in White Papers or in specific legislation brought before the House for that purpose, like section 29
of the Water Act 1973? When is such legislation likely to appear?
Mr. Goodlad: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of
State will be responsible for setting the financial objectives of the authority, with the agreement of the
Treasury and after consultation with the authority. The timing of legislation will be a matter for my right
hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

NHS (Theft and Corruption)
4.25 pm
Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to ask leave to move the
Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and
important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the detailed revelation that has just been made of the magnitude of theft and corruption in the
National Health Service by a number of consultants who abuse NHS facilities in their practice of private
medicine at a cost to the public purse of some tens of millions of pounds a year."
The matter is specific because, for the first time, after an in-depth audit of 37 district health authorities
after the revelation of significant fraud at Sutton Coldfield last summer, several hospitals and
consultants were named in a detailed analysis of the official evidence by a "TV Eye" programme last
Thursday evening entitled "Consultants on the Make." It revealed point by point how even the recently
tightened procedures adopted by many health authorities cannot prevent abuse by private medicine on a
significant scale, and showed that it is now becoming endemic in the National Health Service.
The matter is of vital national importance because it reveals that the fundamental principles of the NHS
are being eroded, not by the odd rotten apple in the barrel here and there, but systematically and all over
the country. In Darlington, consultants destroyed 27 key forms which showed that fees were owed to
the NHS. In Merthyr Tydfil, NHS patients were told that they would have to become private patients if
they wanted hospital treatment urgently. In Sutton Coldfield, after the original row had been made public
and a tightening-up exercise instituted, consultants' fees to the Good Hope hospital suddenly increased
by £1,000 a month. In Wakefield, consultants manufactured forms to conceal evidence of
having treated private patients. In Derby, NHS laboratory facilities were used for testing hundreds of
animal specimens for local vets, without the knowledge or permission of the health authority, and such
tests were given precedence over tests for some human patients. Yet the "TV Eye" programme shows
that those examples are only the tip of the iceberg.
This matter is urgent for two main reasons. First, Ministers have a clear public duty to stop this
haemorrhage of public funds from the abuses now uncovered as being of a serious and growing
magnitude. The annual loss to the Exchequer is already substantially greater that the annual income to
the Exchequer from the overseas visitor regulations which the Government insisted on introducing
because a tiny number of foreigners were not making full payment of fees to the National Health
Service.
The matter is also urgent because in any other walk of life theft on this scale would have resulted in
instant dismissal and criminal proceedings, possibly involving years in prison.
Where persons are found to have been deliberately using their positions of power and prestige to
defraud the rest of the community, the issue should be taken up without delay. The individuals
concerned should be named and dealt with immediately. I submit that it is incumbent upon us to ensure,
for the good name of the House, that that happens. For these reasons, I request that the matter be
debated in the House at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Oldham, West
(Mr. Meacher) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the

35
House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent
consideration, namely,
"the wholesale evasion of fee-paying by those practising private medicine in the NHS and the
consequential major loss of public revenue as revealed by a Thames Television programme entitled
'Consultants on the Make'."
I have listened with care to the hon. Gentleman, but I regret that I do not consider the matter which he
has raised as appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. Therefore, I cannot submit his
application to the House.

Coal Industry Dispute
4.32 pm
Mr. Dick Douglas: I beg to ask leave to move the
Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and
important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the deteriorating situation in the Scottish coalfield which raises questions about man
management relations, the future of jobs and investment prospects in the area and the survival of local
communities, indicating the need for a principled and negotiated settlement of the current
dispute."
The matter is specific, Mr. Speaker, because, while it is part of the miners' general dispute, it relates to a
specific coalfield. The background for that coalfield is different from that for other areas of the United
Kingdom, because before the present dispute there was evidence of a difference in the approach of
management to safety cover. In other areas of the coal board, the British Association of Colliery
Managers was called in to provide safety cover, but in Scotland that has not happened. I have made
submissions previously on this issue and referred to the Bogside colliery in my constituency.
We have no doubt that management has a right to manage, but anyone who knows anything about the
coal industry will recognise that this is an extremely circumscribed right because of practice and
legislation. A suitable analogy is that of the safety of a ship at sea. The coalmine manager wants the right
to manage, but he cannot manage properly without the co-operation of others in the industry, especially
the members of the NUM and NACODS.
In my constituency and in other areas of Fife there has been a massive loss of jobs, which has made the
matter extremely urgent. We have lost faces at Castlehill and at the Frances-Seafield complex. The
evidence is that the men have provided safety cover when requested to do so. On the other hand,
management has played a cat-and-mouse game.
There has been disagreement in the House about a principled and negotiated settlement of the dispute
because of different interpretations of the NACODS agreement of October 1984. I shall quote briefly
from the agreement to show that we must adopt a different interpretation from the one that has been
adopted by Ministers. Part of the NACODS agreement states:
"the Board are very ready to re-examine the Review Procedure and to adopt any amendments
which will improve its effectiveness. The Association will appreciate, of course, that this must be done
in a way which will meet with the approval of all the parties concerned, including NUM and
BACM."
I submit that that sentence gives the lie to the Government's interpretation of the agreement. The
agreement cannot be triggered, except with the approval of the NUM and the BACM. That reflects the
negotiated intentions of the parties.
The matter is urgent, because we are suffering a massive haemorrhage of jobs in the coal industry in
areas of high unemployment. We need to reach a settlement because of the damage to Scottish
employment and the effect that the dispute is having on areas of high unemployment, such as my
constituency in Fife.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this matter should take precedence over the business of the House as set out
on the Order Paper, and request you to grant a debate on it.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Dunfermline,
West (Mr. Douglas) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a
specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the deteriorating situation in the Scottish coalfield which raises serious questions about man
management relations, the future of jobs and investment prospects in the area and the survival of local
communities, indicating the need for a principled and negotiated settlement of the current
dispute."
I regret that I have to give the hon. Gentleman the same answer as I gave to the hon. Member for
Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I listened carefully to what he said, but I do not consider that the matter
which he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and, therefore, I cannot
submit his application to the House.

Mr. Clive Ponting (Trial)
4.36 pm
Mr. John Morris: I beg to
ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of
discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the misuse of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act and whether the Attorney-General, in
current circumstances, should have granted his consent to prosecute in the case of the Queen v.
Ponting."
The intervention of the Leader of the House on a preemptive point of order does not satisfy us. A
statement is to be made by a person unknown—the Government are coy about revealing who
will make the statement. That is no substitute for a debate at the earliest opportunity.
This matter is specific. As the House began this afternoon's sitting, the news reached us of the aquittal
of Mr. Clive Ponting. It might be said that it was as much a conviction of the Government as an aquittal
of Mr. Ponting. It is possibly a reflection on the role of the Secretary of State for Defence and his
Minister of State, both of whose actions must cause considerable anxiety to the House.
It is important that the Attorney-General, with the Solicitor-General, took the decision to prosecute in a
case where there was, on the Crown's admission, no security consideration. It is important that we hear
the Attorney-General's justification for his decision. On 12 November 1984 he told the House:
"Once the case has been disposed of, I shall have to answer for my decision here, and I am not
frightened to do it."—[Official Report, 12th November 1984; Vol. 67, c.
410.]
The matter is urgent because, for all we know, there may be other cases pending that are awaiting the
decision of the Attorney-General. Can the House save the Crown from falling flat on its face again? Are
others to be put in unnecessary jeopardy because of the Attorney-General's decisions and Parliament's
failure to substitute a code that is more intelligible and more capable of enforcement? That was the
effect of the Lord Chancellor's words when he was introducing a Bill seeking the protection of official
information in 1979. That measure sought to deal with the issue and to limit
criminality.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Member for
Aberavon (Mr. Morris) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing
a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the misuse of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act and whether the Attorney-General, in
current circumstances, should have granted his consent to prosecute in Regina v.
Ponting."
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has raised this matter at the first possible opportunity. He knows
that the verdict was announced after I took the Chair and he has heard the Leader of the House say that
there is to be a statement tomorrow. I have listened with care to the right hon. and learned Gentleman,
but I regret that I do not consider the matter which he has raised as appropriate for discussion under
Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the
House.
Mr. Chris Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I do not wish in any way to contest your ruling on the application of my right hon. and learned Friend
the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris)

39
to seek to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10. However, I have a
constituency interest in the matter that he raised and I seek your guidance on how it will be possible,
after tomorrow's statement, to call the Government to account for their motives and reasons for
bringing the prosecution in the first place. It does not seem to be possible, after a statement, to put such
questions to the Attorney-General. I ask for guidance on this extremely important
matter.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot advise the hon. Member about
tactics, and he would not expect me to do so. He should wait for the statement tomorrow. If he catches
my eye he will have the opportunity to put a question to the Minister who makes the statement. There
are other parliamentary ways of bringing this matter before the House.

Abortion
4.40 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern the continuing high numbers of abortions in the United
Kingdom, particularly the number of late abortions highlighted by the recent study group of the Royal
College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; and calls upon the Government to pay attention to the
moral and ethical questions raised by abortion.
A Member of Parliament may have to wait a considerable number of years before he is fortunate enough
to have a motion called for debate. I could have decided to ask the House to debate the economy,
which is of central concern to the nation, but the House spends virtually every day of every week
discussing such issues.
Abortion is one issue of vital moral and ethical concern to millions of people which has not been
discussed in the House for nearly five years. Since that issue was last discussed, about 600,000
abortions have been performed. Since the passing of the Abortion Act 1967, 2,234,326 abortions have
been carried out — 145 every day of every year. As one person put it, "It seems that the
Abortion Act has got cancer." It has resulted in many more abortions being performed than the original
sponsors of the 1967 legislation intended. For those reasons, I believe that it is my duty to give
Parliament an opportunity to debate this issue.
The abortion issue raises classic arguments between principle and expediency. I shall deal, first, with the
arguments of principle, then go on to the arguments of expediency and finally review the law as it
stands.
Two questions are raised in the arguments of principle. First, is human life sacred? Secondly, where
does human life begin?
The answer to the first question must be an unequivocal yes. Human life is sacred to the Christian who
believes that every soul has a right to conscience so that it can know God. Human life is sacred to the
humanist who believes that, because life terminates with death, everyone has a right to life. I believe that
human life is sacred because everyone has a right to life. The mentally retarded have as much right to
life as the mentally normal. The old, the sick, the weak and the stupid have as much right to life as the
young, the healthy, the strong and the clever.
The second question is: where does human life begin? Foetology has made great strides in recent years.
Ultra-scan techniques allow us to peer into the secret life of the womb. We know that the embryo is
genetically complete at conception. We know that at the 25th day following conception the heart beats.
We know that the bones are being formed by the sixth week and that by the 10th week all limbs are
established. Even to the layman's eye, the foetus is obviously a human being. We know that at the 16th
week the heart pumps about 50 pints of blood a day. We know that at the 20th week eyebrows and
eyelashes have already formed. From the knowledge that has been built up during the past 20 years, we
know that birth is an incident in a long-established process. A line cannot be drawn at any one stage
— whether at six, 12 or 20 weeks, or even birth—at which one can say, "This is where
life begins." The only logical conclusion is that life begins at conception.
Another objection to these arguments is that life begins when it is capable of being sustained away from
the

41
mother. That begs other serious questions. Is life sustainable immediately after birth when a baby is still
reliant on outside support? A baby left in the womb would have a chance to survice. Most important of
all is the question: does dependence deny existence?
A woman certainly has a right to choose to have, say, her appendix taken out. Her appendix is
dependent on her and can have no prospect of independent existence. Does a woman have a right to
choose to terminate the foetus, which is certainly dependent on her but which has the opportunity of
independence in the future? Those are two very different arguments.
I should have thought that those arguments show that, if one looks at this issue purely from the point of
personal principle, there can be only one answer—that abortion is wrong. However, many
would say, "Although, speaking for myself, I may think that abortion is wrong, I am not prepared to
impose my views on society."
I do not want to deny the seriousness of the back-street abortion argument or to deny the pain and
humiliation suffered under the previous law by many women through back-street abortions. I must,
however deal with the moral argument put forward by the anti-abortionists who say, "Because burglaries
will always take place, is that an argument for making them legal?"
One need not take the moral point of view alone. There is evidence that the 1967 abortion laws created a
new clientele for abortion. Society today is very different from society in 1967. Birth control is
universally available. Society hopes to care and counsel women faced with unplanned pregnancies
rather than to censure them.
An interesting report published by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in 1966
showed that, based on hospital admissions and deaths, there were about 14,000 illegal abortions in
1966. That compares with 128,000 abortions a year now. It is said by those in favour of abortion that
the official statistics camouflage the real state of affairs. If that were the case, one would have expected
the deaths to figure somewhere in the official statistics. In fact, the figures show that, although the
number of deaths among women of child-bearing age was decreasing by 300 a year before 1967, in the
first full year of the operation of the 1967 Act the number increased.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that
Britain has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world—a rate that has changed little during the
past 10 years — contrary to the impression that he is trying to give?
Mr. Leigh: I said that there had been about 128,000
abortions a year. The abortion rate has been fairly steady in recent years, as the hon. Lady said. That is
a matter of interest and concern to the House.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Since the passing of the 1967
legislation, there have been about 2,333,000 abortions. That is a substantial and damaging
figure.
Mr. Leigh: I said that at the beginning of my speech.
My hon. Friend has made a fair point.
Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Gentleman has cited
the number of abortions since the 1967 legislation was passed. He seems to be motivated by the
increased numbers. Have we any means of finding out the number of back-street abortions? Does the
hon.
42
Gentleman assume that the number is less since the 1967 Act and that more abortions are now carried
out in a proper way because that is the more sensible approach?
Mr. Leigh: I said that the report by the Royal College
of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists suggested that there were about 14,000 illegal abortions in 1966.
There is no doubt that, although the Act has resulted in fewer backstreet abortions, it has created a
considerably enlarged clientele for abortions, and that is a matter of anxiety. They have increased. There
have been 2 million abortions since 1967. There is no doubt that the Act has resulted in a considerable
increase in abortions in this country.
Ms. Clare Short rose—
Mr. Leigh: I am sure that the hon. Lady will wish to
speak. I want to go on to other points. If she wishes to intervene on them, I shall give way.
I shall deal with the difficult arguments about rape. I do not deny the existence of the serious and
heartfelt anxiety about that issue. The Churches take a moral line which I must mention briefly. It is that
one act of violence can never justify another, but the figures show that only about 2 per cent. of
abortions are for genuine medical reasons, including rape. Many people who are worried about the
abortion legislation as it now operates would be prepared to provide for rape, but that would not affect
the 108,000 abortions carried out last year under section 2.
The main argument pursued by pro-abortionists is: better no child than an unwanted child. In modern
Britain there is and need be no such thing as an unwanted child. For every child there are 10 childless
couples desperate to adopt. Our want is not a reliable judgment as to whether a human life should be
allowed to exist. There is no evidence to show that wanted children are not maltreated. Dr. Edward
Lenoski calculated that 91 per cent. of child abuse took place with wanted children. Since the passing
of the Act, there have been 317,000 more children in care. The arguments about wanted or unwanted
children are the same as those used in the pagan world about infanticide and exposure of children on the
hillside.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does
my hon. Friend agree that the statistics show that in 1968—the year that the Abortion Act came
into effect—there were about 24,000 adoptions in this country, and that in 1983 there were
about 9,000 adoptions, of which only about 3,000 were for truly illegitimate children and were
non-parental applications? Does not that vast decrease in the number of children available for adoption
since 1968 say a great deal in favour of the point that he is making?
Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. There
is the argument that, as a man, I have no right to discuss this issue. It is not my business to apportion
blame. I do not underestimate the considerable pressures caused by unwanted pregnancy. Society has
no right to censure unplanned pregnancy. Society has a duty to care and to give unstinting love,
guidance and advice on how life can be saved rather than on how it can be destroyed. The House has a
duty and a right to speak up for the weak against the strong.
I said that I would begin by looking at the arguments of principle and then of expediency. I wish briefly
to review the law as it stands. The fundamental law on this subject is the Offences Against the Person
Act 1861, which proscribed abortion. That was amended by the

43
Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which introduced the offences of child destruction or causing the
death of a child capable of being born alive. That is an important point to which I wish to return later,
because it is of significance to late abortions. The Act was amended as a result of the case of Regina
v. Bourne which decided that a woman's life depended upon physical and mental health as much
as anything else.
Those Acts were amended by the Abortion Act 1967. The Abortion Act provided four grounds for
abortion—life saving, therapeutic, social and engenic. In 1983, out of 127,375 abortions,
108,806 — the vast majority — were performed under section 2, which relates to the risk
of injury to the physical or mental health of the woman; only 538 abortions were perfomed under
section 1, which relates to the risk to the life of a pregnant woman; and only 2,019 were carried out
under the engenic section, which relates to the risk of birth of a severely abnormal baby.
Apart from the strongly pro-abortion lobby, there is almost universal anxiety about the number of late
abortions. I am talking about abortions performed between the 24th and 28th weeks. Advances in
medical science have ensured that babies of fewer than 24 weeks gestational age can be born alive. As
The Times put it on 9 January 1984:
"Every advance in obstetric techniques makes the present position less tenable."
My reading of the Acts, and that of many others, tells me —I hope that my right hon. and
learned Friend will comment on this point — that the Infant Life (Preservation) Act defines child
destruction as the killing in utero of a child capable of being born alive regardless of gestational age. A
baby aborted alive is covered by the law relating to homicide.
I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to comment on the view that it is unnecessary to have a new
upper limit Bill. All that the Government need do is to circulate and inform area health authorities that,
with the advances in medical science, the age of viability stands, according to the Department of Health
and Social Security, at 20, 22 or 24 weeks and that abortions committed beyond that gestational period
are illegal.
Mrs. Renée Short: How many abortions have
taken place after 20 weeks of pregnancy during the past five years or so?
Mr. Leigh: I do not have the figures in my head, but I
have them in my briefing papers.
Mrs. Short: That is the
case.
Mr. Leigh: Of course, the hon. Lady is right. The vast
majority of abortions are performed within the 10th or 12th week period.
Dr. M. S. Miller rose—
Mr. Leigh: May I just answer the hon. Lady's point?
As I said, the vast majority of abortions are performed early in pregnancy, but that does not deny the
argument about principle that I put forward earlier. Abortions are still carried out beyond the 20th
week.
Mrs. Renée Short: How many?
Mr. Leigh: I wish to deal with that point
now.
Mr. Charles Morrison: In the
interest of accuracy, will my hon. Friend accept from me that in 1983
44
—the latest year for which figures are available—the number of abortions carried out
later than 20 weeks was 1·38 per cent. of the total and that the reasons for those abortions
were good and strong?
Mr. Leigh: To answer that point, I wish to deal with
the confidential study carried out by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which was
worried about late abortions, and some interesting facts emerged from that study. The number of late
abortions was six to one in the private sector as against the National Health Service; 54 per cent. were
carried out on women from abroad; 87 per cent. were under section 2, which, I think, answers the point
made by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison); and only 0·16 per cent.
were carried out under section 1—risk to life of the pregnant woman.
There is anxiety about late abortions and the financial link between referral agencies and abortion clinics,
which are not allowed to advertise, and how people are persuaded to go to abortion clinics on the
advice of referral agencies.
Dr. M. S. Miller: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves
the issue of late abortions—I sympathise and agree with much of what he is
saying—does he accept that it is not as easy as he says to pinpoint the exact time when an
abortion is late? He says that 26 weeks is accepted, but it is not accepted. There is no consensus that
viability is certain at 26 weeks, for the simple reason that the exact moment of conception is never
known. There can be differences of one, two, three or four weeks.
Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman is right, but I think
that most people accept that 28 weeks as the age of viability is far too late, given the advances that have
taken place in medical science. There have been cases of babies being born alive, even though their
gestational age is less than 24 weeks.
I do not believe that the sponsors of the original Act wanted to see a close financial link between referral
agencies and abortion clinics.
On the conscience question, under English law, a person is innocent until proved guilty, but under the
abortion legislation doctors are required to prove conscience. Recently nurses have been sacked for
refusing to insert instruments prior to an abortion, for refusing to fill in forms or for refusing to make
appointments. There should be an absolute right for doctors and nurses with conscientious objections
not to be involved in abortions.
One of the most difficult areas considered in the recent amending Bill was the tightening up of the
sections of the 1967 Act. In December 1979, during proceedings in Standing Committee C on the
Abortion (Amendment) Bill, the then Solicitor-General dealt with the statistical argument. The Act in
general gives the right to carry out abortions if the risk of childbirth to a mother's health is greater than
the risk of her having an abortion. Abolitionists claim that the figures prove that fewer women die from
abortion than used to die from childbirth. That is true, but the figures are not comparable, because
women who die during childbirth tend to be suffering from some gross abnormality, whereas those who
die from abortion tend to be healthy young women who would have had a normal pregnancy.
In 1979, the Solicitor-General stressed the lack of yardsticks in determining relative risks. I believe that
the statistical argument could be overcome by including in the

45
1967 Act the words "serious or substantial". It is interesting to note that Sir John Peel, the Queen's
gynaecologist, told the Standing Committee in 1979 that between 5 and 10 per cent. of women having
abortions suffered sterility; that figure did not include abnormalities.
In my review of the law, I have refrained from taking the absolutist line that all abortions are wrong. I
have simply tried to review the law as it stands. Politics being the art of the possible, I do not believe
that one can take an absolutist line. There is a case for a step-by-step approach in this immensely
important issue. Parliament has a right to discuss it, and I hope that hon. Members will support me for
having given Parliament that opportunity.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind
the House that the debate must end at 7 o'clock, so we have less than two hours left. Many hon.
Members wish to speak.
5.3 pm
Mrs. Renée Short: I think that the House would
have preferred not to have this debate. In the past 16 to 18 years, some of us have sat through
numerous debates following the passing of the 1967 Act, which provided relief for women, and we
remember hearing similar arguments to those presented today by the hon. Member for Gainsborough
and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh).
It is disappointing that so many years after the passing of an Act that has been endorsed by the medical
profession an hon. Member should present ad nauseam the same old jejune arguments that the 1967 Act
rendered out of date. I shall not bother to respond to those old arguments, though the Minister for
Health may feel the need to do so.
As regards the new points raised in the motion of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle,
there are legal restrictions on late abortions. The clinics where terminations are carried out are controlled
and inspected; an inspectorate was set up under the 1967 Act.
In 1975, the Department of Health and Social Security laid down that terminations in non-NHS premises
should be performed after 20 weeks only if resuscitation equipment was available and staff were present
on the premises to use it, thus obviating the danger to the mother. In 1980, the DHSS wrote to all places
that are approved to perform terminations saying that in cases of terminations where the stage of
gestation was believed to be over 20 weeks or there was a reasonable possibility that it may become 20
weeks and the period of gestation was in doubt, an ultrasound scan should be performed. In the same
year, the Department also recommended that scans should be carried out on all women who were 16
weeks to 20 weeks pregnant, in the hope that
"the additional assurance of an ultrasound scan will serve both as a safeguard to patients and
prove also to be in the best interests of both the operating doctors and the nursing home proprietors
against the possibility of subsequent allegations being made that a foetus was viable at the time of
termination."
So strong regulations are laid down to control doctors working in private nursing
homes.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Is the hon. Lady aware that in 1983
there were 1,747 abortions after the 20th week? Is that not still a matter of great concern?
Mrs. Short: I shall present figures later, but I wish to
go through my argument in sequence.
46
The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle must have regard to what the BMA says, and the
association's handbook of ethics states:
"the doctor should recommend or perform termination after 20 weeks only if he is convinced
that the health of the woman is seriously threatened or if the child will be seriously
handicapped."
That is a clear instruction to doctors.
The latest figures from the Department—for 1983—were published last year. They show
that only 1·19 per cent. of terminations were performed at 20 to 23 weeks, and that only
0·19 per cent. were performed at 24 weeks or later. That puts the matter in perspective.
We should congratulate all those involved and thank the DHSS for what it is doing to control nursing
homes. We should also congratulate the medical profession on ensuring that so few terminations take
place after 20 weeks. We should be celebrating those facts instead of discussing this sort of motion.
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle seems to think, the medical
profession is carrying out its responsibilities.
The other serious ground for late abortion is that there is likely to be permanent injury to the physical or
mental health of the mother. It is a serious decision, whatever the hon. Member and some of his
supporters say, for both the woman and her doctor to terminate pregnancy at 24 weeks or later. One of
the great benefits of the Act is that it has encouraged terminations to take place by a much simpler
process and much earlier, so there is much less risk to the mother.
What does the hon. Gentleman suggest should he done when lateness is the responsibility of the NHS
and not the patient? The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, whom the hon. Gentleman
quoted twice in his speech, said that only last year—perhaps these are more up-to-date figures
than the hon. Gentleman has —over 20 per cent. of women who had terminations between 20
and 23 weeks had been medically referred for termination before the end of the 12th week. It is clear
where the delay occurs—in the NHS machinery. Had their terminations been carried out as soon
as possible after the end of the 12th week, when they were referred, or as soon as is acceptable or
desirable, they would have been terminated before the 14th week instead of at 20 to 23 weeks.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister for Health will discover why the delay occurs between consultation
and operation in a small number of cases, which is obviously serious. It does not happen in the private
sector where terminations are carried out very early. There is a considerable impetus for the private
nursing homes to get their patients in as early as possible, and many of them are run precisely for
carrying out that procedure alone. Therefore, I must conclude that either there is poor organisation in
the NHS or perhaps some consultants hope that the patients will be diverted into the private sector,
where they have an interest in performing terminations in private nursing homes. There could be that
profit motive for some of the less scrupulous members of the medical profession. I am certain that they
are only a minority, but they exist and delays are caused.
Does the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle give any thought to the problem of the
menopausal woman who does not always realise when she is pregnant, or the young girl who is similarly
unaware? The latter perhaps does not want to accept the fact that she

47
is pregnant and hopes that if she does nothing about it, it will go away. What about the mentally
handicapped woman who becomes pregnant, perhaps because of rape, and who does not realise that
she is pregnant? There are many such cases. They can lead to late terminations which, I emphasise, are
a tiny proportion of the total number of terminations carried out.
I hope that the Minister will also examine this point. One of the most serious problems that is the
responsibility of the NHS is the delay in carrying out amniocentesis. There is a problem for the older
woman who is pregnant. Amniocentesis is carried out to establish whether the child is likely to be
handicapped. That is crucial to the older woman, who is at greater risk of producing a handicapped
child. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to deny her the relief that the law allows?
Professor Eva Alberman, who is well known to the Select Committee because she was our
epidemiologist specialist adviser when the Select Committee carried out an inquiry into perinatal
mortality, recently published a report in The Lancet which revealed that, in the absence of any
other change in medical practice, a reduction in the legal age of foetal viability to 24 weeks would have
meant that during 1982 a total of 26 abortions for seriously handicapping conditions could not have
been carried out. A reduction to 22 weeks would have stopped 77 such abortions from being
performed. Professor Alberman also referred to the importance of early diagnosis of foetal abnormality
and yet found that in at least a proportion of the late abortions studied there were delays, some of
which, she and others suggest, might have been avoidable both before and after the tests for
abnormality.
Therefore, it is clear that the weight of medical opinion supports early terminations. The figures show
that over 90 per cent. of terminations are carried out within the time limit prescribed by the Act, and
only a tiny proportion—less than 2 per cent. during the past four or five years—have
been carried out later than the legal time limit provided for in the Act. They are for serious cases where
there is a late discovery of a suspected abnormality.
Mr. Leigh: The hon. Lady has not answered the point
made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels). According to the official
statistics for 1983, the figure was 1,509, which is a considerable number. It may be only 2 per cent. but
some of us on this side of the argument realise that it is only 2 per cent. because the total number of
abortions is so large anyway—and far too large.
Mrs. Short: If one takes the number of terminations
that were carried out at that stage of pregnancy and thinks of the enormous number of deaths that
occurred when women had terminations before the Act was passed, one finds that there is no
comparison. The Act has brought enormous relief to women, and I am only sorry that so few
terminations, certainly in my region, are carried out under the NHS. Nearly 5,000 legal abortions were
carried out in the west midlands in three months up to December. Of the 4,919 total, the vast majority
— that is, 4,225 — were carried out privately in private nursing homes, where the
operation is carried out for private profit and gain. Only 694 were carried out under the Health Service
in the whole of the west midlands region. Therefore, there can be no argument that terminations,
certainly in the west midlands
48
region, are preventing other gynaecological cases from having the treatment that they require. It is much
to be regretted that the private nursing homes can make so much money out of carrying out those
operations, but the Act provides for that.
The overwhelming majority of terminations should be carried out early, well before the 20th week, many
before the 12th and 14th week. There should be proper inspection of the private nursing homes. The
House and the country as a whole should be satisfied that the provisions of the Act can be carried out
correctly and that there is no need for the present motion, which does not take account of the
improvements in technique, in inspection and, above all, of the overwhelming number of cases where
terminations are carried out so much earlier even than the limit that the Act now
provides.
5.18 pm
Sir Bernard Braine: I should like to begin by
congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) on his good
fortune in the ballot and his personal decision to choose what is to all of us a difficult, emotive and
distressing subject. He argued his case with good sense and moderation. He is right to ask for a fresh
look to be taken at the whole subject.
I should make it clear that I am not—and was not in 1966—opposed to abortion where
there is a serious risk—I am using my words carefully—to the life of the pregnant
woman, or a risk of grave injury to her physical or mental health, or where there is substantial risk that
the child, when born, would suffer from physical or mental abnormalities which would deprive it of any
reasonable enjoyment of life.
That, incidentally, was the view of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in 1966. If
that advice had been taken by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel),
the Act, which I admit was necessary in the circumstances, might not have led to so much criticism and
we should not have needed to debate the subject again today. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for
Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) that in 1966 the law needed to be cleaned up. There is no
dispute about that, although I do not think that it is possible to sustain the argument advanced by those
who favoured abortion virtually on demand that the figures for criminal abortions were horrendous
because, as the Royal College pointed out at the time, the figures it gave were
"without any secure factual foundation".
They were guesstimates. Nevertheless, I do not think that any one of us would deny that there was a
serious situation in regard to criminal abortions and therefore an urgent need for legislation. The pity of
it was that too little attention was paid to the wording of that measure.
I was involved in those early debates and many moments stand out clearly in my mind. On 22 July 1966
the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale told the House that he simply wanted to
get rid of back-street abortion. He added that
"it is not the intention of the promoters of the Bill to leave a wide open door for abortion on
request."—[Official Report, 22 July 1966; Vol. 732, c. 1075.]
I believe that the right hon. Gentleman's intention was indeed as he stated it. That was also the intention
of the Standing Committee and indeed of the whole House.
Dr. M. S. Miller: The right hon. Gentleman is
widening the scope of the debate, but he must remember that the inclusion of words such as "serious"
or "substantial" lead to problems. The legal profession said that such definitions were impossible to
make, and the medical profession was not prepared to be put in jeopardy because the circumstances in
which abortion was permissible were not clear.
Sir Bernard Braine: That is quite correct. The medical
profession was divided, but the leading bodies concerned were not. The Royal College of Obstetricians
and Gynaecologists gave us very clear guidance, but that guidance was ignored. In addition, I recall that
the British Medical Association had carried out an inquiry into the subject. I believe that the present
director, Dr. Havard, was a member of that working group, as was Dr. Gullick. They, too, gave clear
guidance. But it is the business of Parliament to make up its mind on these matters and nothing that the
hon. Gentleman has said weakens my argument that Parliament's failure to realise what was at stake led
to serious difficulties.
In those early debates I repeatedly warned that the legislation would lead to abortion on demand, and I
was quite right. [HON. MEMBER: "No."] I was indeed right, because the law has allowed abortion on
demand. That is how it has been interpreted by a great many doctors. [Interruption.] We shall
not make much progress if there is a running commentary on every speech. I listened in silence to the
speech of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East because I respect her greatly and wished
to hear what she had to say. Constant interruptions merely show a lack of conviction that one knows
what it is all about; such chatter does not help parliamentary debate.
Week after week following the enactment of the Bill, anxiety increased at the practices developing. For
example, there were taxi touts at London airport picking up foreign women who wished to take
advantage of the new law. Those women were driven to abortion clinics which were able to pay the
drivers generously out of the fat earnings which they were making from frightened women. I agree
entirely that the whole matter should have been under the proper direction of the National Health Service
from the start, and I said so at the time. It was not, and racket after racket developed. Taxi touts were
even stealing girls from other clinics. One driver took girls to a clinic in Bournemouth although they had
been booked for operations at a clinic in London.
Such was the public outrage and the ensuing row in Parliament that the Government were forced to set
up the Lane committee. That committee consisted entirely of people who had originally favoured
abortion on request, just as the more recent Warnock committee was made up of people who favoured
the use of the human embryo as a guinea pig. Such was the weight of evidence, however, that the Lane
committee was forced to admit that some doctors were practising abortion on demand. The fact that its
members advocated no steps to prevent such practices was simply a measure of their views. They were
also forced to admit that there was disappointingly little evidence to suggest that the legislation had
stopped criminal abortions. [Interruption.] The report is in the Library if any hon. Member
wishes to consult it.
Mrs. Clywd: Will the right hon. Gentleman give
way?
Sir Bernard Braine: No, I wish to develop my
argument. I am dealing with matters that arose in the House long before the hon. Lady became a
Member.
Mr. David Steel: The right hon. Gentleman will
accept that I was here at that time. I hope that he intends to quote the main finding of the Lane
committee, which was that the advantage gained from the legislation far outweighed any criticisms that
could be levelled against it.
Sir Bernard Braine: If the right hon. Gentleman had
been here earlier he would have heard me say that in my view his Bill was necessary and that certain
advantages flowed from it for that very reason. The Lane committee said that. Interestingly, however,
increasing public disquiet led the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. White) to introduce the
Abortion (Amendment) Bill which led in turn to the establishment of the Select Committee on Abortion,
of which I was a member. That Select Committee, chaired by a distinguished Labour Member, exposed
the fact that abortion on demand was virtually the order of the day. The evidence clearly established the
fact.
Mrs. Clywd: Will the right hon. Gentleman give
way?
Sir Bernard Braine: I am telling the House what the
Select Committee recommended. When I have done that I shall give way, although I know that many of
my hon. Friends wish to speak. [Interruption.] This method of conducting the debate does not
help us to make progress.
The Select Committee not only exposed the fact that abortion on demand was the order of the day, but
suggested a number of amendments to the Act to ease the situation. One involved the severing of
financial links between abortion clinics and referral agencies. The Committee also advocated
strengthening the conscience clause and urged that Parliament be given ample time to debate and vote
on the criteria for abortion to establish whether we wished the law to be changed.
It is to the everlasting shame of the Government of the day that they failed to implement the main
recommendations of the Select Committee. Moreover, it is dishonest of the pro-abortion lobby to claim
that repeated efforts to change the law in Parliament have failed. They have failed for one reason alone
— the perpetual and successful attempts to talk out every private Member's Bill.
We must not declare that the Abortion Act has achieved nothing. However, one of its achievements is
nothing to be proud of. It has resulted in the denial of life to some 2 million unborn children. In fact,
while this debate is taking place, some 60 babies will be deprived of the right to life.
Ironically, the Warnock committee was set up to deal with the problem of infertility. Infertility has
always been with us, but the problem has been thrust into the foreground because the natural and
laudable desire of childless couples to adopt has been frustrated as there are no more babies available
because, under the law, we are killing them in increasing numbers.
There is another tragedy associated with infertility. It must be a very bitter thing for some women to
have to bear. Few of us can claim to have done nothing in life to cause us regrets. I know that I cannot.
But comparatively few of us have to live with the fruits of our misdemeanours. What must make
infertility hard to bear is the fact that in many cases it is avoidable. Many cases

51
of blockage to the tubes, for example, are avoidable. It is often caused by infection, which can result
from previous abortion or sexually transmitted disease. Secondly, while I believe in contraception, I
wonder how many women fitted with the coil realise that it can make them barren.
One of the most appalling aspects of women's right to choose, as it is often expressed, is the fact that
they are not properly informed about what they are choosing. That is why I have always argued that
there should be no connection whatever between abortion referral agencies and abortion clinics,
because the one has a financial interest in the other.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East put her finger on the point long ago. If we are to
have proper, therapeutic abortion in this country, it should have been controlled from the beginning
under the NHS.
People complain about the way things are going, but refuse to see what is happening under their very
eyes. They refuse to see that the cheap and shoddy rarely supplies the answer.
I refer again to the original abortion debates. One of the reasons put forward by the abortionists for
liberalising the law was that by doing so they would reduce the number of unwanted children and level
off—that was an often-used phrase—the rate of illegitimacy. In vain we said that killing
babies in the womb would hardly lead to a more responsible society in which children would receive
more love. We were right to say that. The numbers of children in care were not reduced after the
abortion law came into operation. On the contrary, the numbers have risen by leaps and bounds.
Between 1951 and 1967 the numbers rose by fewer than 7,000, from 62,700 to 69,300. In the 10 years
after the Act came into operation, the numbers rose at an unprecedented rate and hit the 100,000 mark,
where they remain today.
Pro-abortionists give every possible reason for this rise — and I would agree that our liberal
divorce law has something to do with it—but the fact is that every other country which has
liberalised its abortion laws has witnessed a similar increase in child
tragedies.
Mrs. Clwyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman give
way?
Sir Bernard Braine: In so short a debate, I shall not
enter into an argument on the causes. However, there is no scrap of evidence from anywhere in the
world to support the claim by the pro-abortionists that their policies result in greater love and care for
born children and that we are overcoming the tragedy of unwanted children. All the evidence suggests
the reverse.
Mrs. Clwyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman give
way?
Sir Bernard Braine: I wish to be brief, to give others a
chance to speak. I end by asking a simple question: where should we go from here?
Mrs. Clwyd: The right hon. Gentleman said earlier
that he would give way when he had developed his argument. If he is interested in evidence, he might
like to know that I was a member of the Royal Commission on the National Health Service. We gave
evidence to his Government and pointed out that far from abortion being available on demand the
reverse was true. It is now more difficult to get an abortion under the NHS. According to the latest
figures available, those for 1983, only 49 per
52
cent. of women in this country who had abortions had an abortion on the NHS. How can the right hon.
Gentleman say that we have abortion on demand?
Sir Bernard Braine: I am talking about abortion not on
the NHS, but in the private sector. The hon. Lady has been so anxious to intervene that she has not
listened to what I have been saying.
We started off on the wrong foot. From the beginning, therapeutic abortion based on clear-cut
criteria—and the criteria were certainly not as clear-cut as they should have been—
should have been performed within the NHS. The whole matter could then have been properly
controlled. It was not, and, overnight, abortion clinics sprang up by the score. The racket was so great
that the Lane committee had to be set up. Even then the racket failed to disappear. There was then the
Bill of the hon. Member for Pollok. There followed the setting-up of the Select Committee. The hon.
Lady was not a Member of the House at the time and cannot remember what intense anxiety there was
both in the House and the country.
Mrs. Renée Short: The right hon. Gentleman
keeps referring to abortion on demand and the need for better services under the NHS. I cannot recall
whether, when I introduced a ten-minute Bill in 1981 appealing for an extension of NHS facilities, the
right hon. Gentleman voted for it. Can he tell me whether he did or not?
Sir Bernard Braine: I would not like to give an answer
off the cuff. However, I once served in the Ministry of Health and have always been a strong supporter
of the concept of the National Health Service. In 1966 the leaders of the medical profession were
concerned about two things: first, to whom the task was to be entrusted; and, secondly, where it was to
be done. They said that there was no need for complicated legislation. If strict rules were laid down on
those two points the matter could be left to the medical profession. By that they meant that at least one
of the two doctors concerned should be a consultant and also that there should be the strictest possible
control over where the operation was done.
If that had been our aim from the outset, we would probably not have been discussing the subject
today. However, the decision was made not to entrust the task to two medical practitioners, one of
whom would have to be a consultant. And so, presumably because of the fear of strain upon the NHS,
the greater part of the demand was met by the mushroom growth of clinics, with all the abuses that I
have mentioned.
I should like to recommend a number of courses of action. At the appropriate time the Government
should give the House adequate time to debate an amending Bill. That is unlikely to be in the present
Session, but the Government should be prepared to help an amending Bill through, so that it cannot be
talked out by its opponents. Only in that way shall we see whether or not Parliament wishes to retain the
present law unamended.
In my view, the grounds for abortion in the present Act should be more carefully defined to stop
abortion on demand. I believe that that result could be achieved by the addition of two words to the
Act. We should also put an end to the hypocrisy of allowing the referral agencies to advertise so that
they can refer women to clinics in which they have a financial interest. All financial links between referral
agencies and clinics should be severed. That

53
should apply equally to those clinics described as charities, from which doctors take home the bulk of
the large fees of patients who have abortions.
The conscience clause should be strengthened. In addition, something should be done to help those
genuine charities and agencies which offer positive assistance to girls with problem pregnancies. It is
scandalous that abortion clinics should be receiving help from local authorities, while agencies which
look after girls who wish to keep their babies receive no Government grants.
The Government should also take a positive stand to ensure that under-age girls are not aborted without
parental consent. A dentist in this country is not allowed to extract a tooth from a young patient without
parental consent, yet the entrepreneurs of the abortion business are allowed to carry out an operation on
a young girl which could blight her entire life and leave her sterile. Indeed, if we look at the abortion
figures, we cannot fail to realise that those most in need of protection—the young—have
become more and more vulnerable. Abortions on girls under 16 increased from 2,619 in 1969 to 10,555
in 1983–8 per cent. of all abortions in England and Wales.
Great play has been made of the fluctuations in the number of abortions on girls in this group since
1978. Frankly, this means nothing at all as the total number of girls aged 13 to 15 has declined, while the
number of abortions has remained constant at about four per 1,000 girls in this age bracket. That is a
very sad commentary on the state of affairs in this country.
During the last election some of the leaders and spokesmen of my own party made great play of the
importance that we attach to the family unit and our concern for the young and
unborn—
Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman said that he would
be brief.
Sir Bernard Braine: Indeed, but I assure the hon.
Gentleman that many Opposition Members share my view.
If, in fact, the Government are concerned about the family, children and the unborn, and intend to keep
faith on this, they should give Parliament the time fully to debate the abortion law so that any
amendments have the opportunity of reaching the statute book.
5.41 pm
Mr. David Alton: There is no point in my disguising my
sincerely held belief on this issue, and I hope that the House will bear with me as I attempt to make a
number of brief points. I am opposed to abortion and always have been. There is no point in saying that
had I been in the House in 1967 I would have supported the legislation of my right hon. Friend the
Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), because I would have been in the opposite
Lobby. He and I have had many disagreements on this issue, although I respect his sincerity.
The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) spoke of my right hon. Friend's intention when
he introduced the Bill. It was to turn the tide of human misery. I know that my right hon. Friend
intended to address himself to the question of back-street abortions. I have no simple, easy answer to
that problem and am well aware that because of my position I am open to the
54
argument that without an abortion provision on the statute book there could well be a return to the
back-street abortion.
The right hon. Member for Castle Point also referred to the Lane commission. That led me to recall that
in 1980 I introduced a ten-minute Bill on the termination of pregnancies and whether, as the hon.
Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) pointed out, termination should be allowed to
occur beyond 24 weeks.
During that debate I quoted Mrs. Justice Lane's committee, which said:
"Informed opinion is, and the Committee agrees, that a maximum gestational age of 28 weeks
for abortion is too high, having regard to modern methods of sustaining prematurely-born
infants".
Elsewhere in the committee's recommendations it stated
"that the Abortion Act should be amended to authorise abortion up to the twenty-fourth week
of pregnancy and not thereafter".
In fact, The Guardian commented that two out of every 1,000 abortions which take place do so
on developing children between the ages of 24 and 28 weeks. That goes some way towards answering
the interjection made in the speech of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle.
I believe that this is something on which the House could agree, and I know that my right hon. Friend
the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale is very much of a view that at the very minimum
there ought to be a reduction from 28 to 24 weeks. It is something on which he and I agree. Indeed, my
right hon. Friend was a sponsor of my Bill. The World Health Organisation takes a similar view.
I am conscious that we are going over arguments that have been rehearsed before, but that is inevitable.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) said that she had heard these
arguments before, but when 162,000 abortions take place each year it is inevitable that this House
should want to continue to discuss the legislation and the way in which it is working. It would be
surprising if it did not, given the sincerely held views of hon. Members and their constituents, apart
from the fact that our constituents would require us, as their representatives, to raise these important
issues.
Dr. M. S. Miller: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept
that many operations are performed in this country, yet he is distinguishing between this one and the
others? However, the Act has given some consideration to the 162,000 women who would otherwise
have been placed in difficulty.
Mr. Alton: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's latter
point in a moment. Like him, if I were concerned that insufficient was being done to help people who
needed kidney transplants or those with cardiac complaints, and if I felt that the NHS was not helping
them or that the system was not operating as it should, I would want to raise such matters in this House.
However, when discussing a sincerely-held view among many people outside this House that too many
abortions are taking place, it is legitimate for hon. Members to return to this issue. I hope that the hon.
Gentleman will accept the sincerity of those who seek to raise the matter in this way.
Last week, a group of Liverpool women came to see me about the general problems that women face. I
accept that society does not treat women in the dignified way that it should, and that many of the
prejudices and taboos about

55
women and their place in society have placed women at a lower level than men. That is something to
which we must address our minds.
Those women told me of a recent survey of women at Liverpool university who had undergone
abortions. It showed that had a creche been available for under two-year-olds, 14 per cent. of the
women would have been happy to go ahead with their pregnancies. Perhaps we can do something about
that. If some people genuinely have abortions for such simple reasons, we ought to make adequate
provision for women in that position.
To some of my fellow Roman Catholic churchmen I say that attitudes on birth control, which
sometimes seem to have more to do with the Middle Ages than with life in contemporary Britain and the
centre of places such as Liverpool, are undoubtedly one of the reasons why people have abortions. I
hope that they will address themselves to that problem.
Like the right hon. Member for Castle Point, I also believe that there is a desperate need for more
counselling facilities. There is also a need for more tolerance among families who reject their pregnant
daughters and cast them on to the streets. Up to 30 per cent. of people living in parts of my
constituency are single parents with one child, then two, who find themselves on the rackety road to
ruin as they get lured into things such as prostitution.
We have already heard about a woman's right to choose, and women will ultimately make that decision
whether they come within the system or are forced to use the back-street abortionist. However, many of
us also believe that the developing child has rights. For purely philosophical and ideological reasons
rather than reasons of religious conviction, I believe that the liberty of the individual is paramount. It is
because I place such a high price on the rights of the individual that I take the view that I have just
expressed.
There is a strange contrast between this debate and the one which will take place on Friday. That
contrast concerns the premium that we place on life, the reflections of the Warnock committee, which
has examined the whole question of in vitro fertilisation, and the Bill to be introduced by the right hon.
Member for South Down (Mr. Powell).
A few weeks ago, a child psychologist and a doctor addressed a group of hon. Members at a forum
held in one of the Committee rooms. The right hon. Member for Castle Point, who was present, will
recall that during that discussion we were told that in London medical students were now paid
£12 for sperm which is used to father up to six different children. That is £2 per
child. The problems that they may cause to those children later in terms of a possible identity crisis over
parentage—
Ms. Clare Short: That is out of order. Why not wait
until Friday?
Mr. Alton: It is not out of order. I shall come to the
point when I relate it to today's debate.
Ms. Harriet Harman: The hon.
Gentleman's local newspaper probably comes out tomorrow, not
Saturday.
Mr. Alton: The hon. Lady is mistaken. I assure her
that there are as many people in my constituency who take
56
the same view as she does, whom it would be easier for me to placate by not speaking, as there are
those who maintain my view. It is wrong to try to ascribe such motives to hon. Members who have
sincerely held views.
In the discussions that took place last week, many hon. Members listened to remarks, which concerned
us all, about what would happen as a result of the in vitro fertilisation methods that are to be introduced.
On Friday, we shall be having a debate about people bringing children into the world scientifically, as a
result of methods that we shall place on the statute book. Today, we are talking about ways in which to
remove the rights of children to be born. There is an odd and stark contrast. It is right that the hon.
Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle has given us a chance to discuss the other side of the
equation, and it helps to put into some perspective the debate that we shall be having on
Friday.
5.51 pm
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I declare an interest, in that I am
president of the Brook Advisory Centre, which counsels not only on birth control but on whether
pregnancy should be terminated. As I did medicine and set up birth control clinics at about the time that
the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) was wrecking the law of
Scotland in this respect, I have always had a particular interest in these matters. Without attempting to
upset him —beautifully groomed as he ever is—I shall tell the House how the Abortion
Act 1967 came about.
In Scotland there was a perfectly satisfactory law, the common law. It was exactly the same as the
common law that governs every other medical condition. In other words, if I go to my doctor and ask
him to cut off my ears, he will advise me that he does not think that it is in my interest to do so if I do
not have leprosy, but it is if I do. The decision whether to terminate a pregnancy was, in Scotland, a
matter of common law.
Until the week of the wretched 1967 Act, passed for England and Wales and extended to Scotland,
there had never been a prosecution of a doctor or medical person in Scotland. I acted for the only
person who ever was prosecuted, until he did not turn up for trial. It was quite proper that this person
was prosecuted and pled guilty, because he did an unprofessional operation without anaesthetic on a
woman to terminate her pregnancy, and sent her home on a tram, and in a condition in which she was
still subject to the likelihood of septicaemia. Therefore, it was proper that he should have been
prosecuted. However, that was the only prosecution for the termination of a pregnancy in
Scotland.
Dr. M. S. Miller: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman
implying that no illegal abortions were carried out in Scotland? Does he not realise that there were quite
a number of deaths from abortions in Scotland?
Mr. Fairbairn: I am sorry if I did not make myself
clear, and I am glad to be able to be able to do so now. That was the only prosecution of a medically
trained person for the termination of a pregnancy. Many people were prosecuted in Scotland for
improper, non-medical abortions, just as someone would be prosecuted in Scotland if a person came
along and asked him to pull out his teeth and he proceeded to do so with a pair of pliers. That would be
an assault.

57
At that time there was a desire for change in England because, under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act
1929, quite a large number of medically trained people had been prosecuted in England and sentenced
to terms of imprisonment. It was to get over that difficulty that, when the then newly born foetus from
Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles arrived in the House, the midwife stuffed into his hand, when he won the
ballot, the Abortion Bill that became the Abortion Act 1967.
Having done that, and realising that it would look a little odd if this new tartan fairy were to cure the law
of England, having been elected for a Scottish seat, he applied it to Scotland and ruined a perfectly
satisfactory law. Interestingly enough, although Scotland has a much bigger proportion of Roman
Catholics than any other part of the United Kingdom, there was never any complaint about the common
law of Scotland and its application. If I were to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and
Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) to say anything, it would be to say that he would have the words, "This Act
does not apply to Scotland" put at the end of the 1967 Act.
Mr. David Steel: As always, the hon. and learned
Gentleman is entertaining and inaccurate. He may recall that in 1966–67 Professor Sir Dugald
Baird, who was the chief exponent of a liberal abortion law in Scotland, was in the Aberdeen health
area, the only one to which the law which the hon. and learned Gentleman is describing applied.
Professor Sir Dugald Baird told me that the reason for this was that a Lord Advocate of a few years
before had sent round a circular to consultants in Scotland saying that they were liable for prosecution
for carrying out abortions. It was because of that threat, arising out of the uncertainty of the common
law hanging over doctors, that Sir Dugald Baird was one of those who advised me strongly to include
Scotland in the Act.
Mr. Fairbairn: That is a strange recollection. I
remember trying to persuade the right hon. Gentleman not to extend the Act to Scotland, and I
personally addressed the Royal College of Physicians, with Professor Sir Dugald Baird in the chair, on
the law of Scotland and on abortion. He did not take that view then or in any of the correspondence that
I had with him afterwards.
Dr. M. S. Miller: My experience in general practice in
the years before the Abortion Act was passed totally conflicts with the views expressed by the hon. and
learned Gentleman. I was never able to have an abortion terminated for a patient by referring her to any
hospital. No gynaecologist in Glasgow would perform abortions except in the most serious
circumstances.
Mr. Fairbairn: That may be the hon. Gentleman's
recollection of his private practice in Glasgow, and practice varied throughout the country, but, as
Professor Sir Dugald Baird demonstrated, the law was satisfactory.
I introduced birth control clinics into Scotland and I am anxious about this matter because of what I
have come across in my legal practice. I spent part of my time divorcing people who had married in the
first place only because there was an unintentional pregnancy. I spent a great deal of my time in the High
Court with children who had been unintentionally conceived and whose parents were not emotionally
capable of looking after them. It was never the last child, but always the one in the middle. My practice
involving this catalogue of misfortunes arose out of unintended pregnancies.
58
The difficulty which my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle gets into when he
starts talking about the limitation of time period is that of the consistency of those who say that the
correction of a mistake is forbidden, that the mistake is hidden or denied until later and later in the
pregnancy. People say, "Perhaps I have missed my period, but it may be natural," and they say that
about the next one as well, and so on. Unintended conception is a mistake. The parties may have used a
contraceptive method which did not work, or they may have made a miscalculation. If a woman
becomes pregnant unintentionally, is it right for this House to say that that is a mistake which she is not
allowed to correct? That seems to me to be a strange moral judgment.
People talk about the right to life of the unintended foetus. The unintended foetus did not have a choice
whether it should be unintendedly conceived in the first place, so why should it have a right not to be
intendedly disconceived thereafter?
Mr. Nicholls: No hon. Members have yet said in the
debate that they would ban abortion entirely in all circumstances. It is simply that, for a combination of
practical politics and personal morality, they are saying that there should be fewer circumstances in
which abortion should be allowed—not that it should be abolished.
Mr. Fairbairn: I appreciate that, but what I am trying
to stress—it is very important and rarely understood—is the psychological barrier facing
a woman who becomes pregnant unintentionally. The barrier is such that she tends to defer the taking of
any action. If she were able legitimately, and with public approval, to correct the mistake when it was
made, she would not face the difficulty later of getting into the period of gestation before any operation
was performed.
I agree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) that it is disgraceful that a
woman who is referred to a consultant under the National Health Service can be held responsible for the
lateness of the proposed abortion. I agree that the later the termination, the more difficult it becomes. I
am in favour of very early abortion, but that can be achieved only if the moral climate alters and we
move away from the idea that abortion, even if it is permitted by the 1967 Act, is wrong.
In looking round the Chamber—not, of course, this evening—one may well feel that
from time to time a good many mistaken conceptions have taken place. There is no other mistake in
human activity which we do not think it right to try to correct. What is wrong with correcting that one?
6.2 pm
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Before commenting on the speech
of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn), I should like first to refer to one
or two of the points made by the mover of the motion, the hon. Member for Gainsborough and
Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). There seemed to be one or two contradictions in his speech.
The hon. Member referred to the sacredness of all human life. In looking round the Chamber, I noted
that most of the Conservative Members who accept that view are in favour of capital punishmment.
Either human life is sacred or it is not. It cannot be said that it is sacred in some circumstances and not
in others.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the hon. Member give way?
Mr. Hamilton: In view of the limited time available, I
hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not give way to him.
Another point that the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle made has been mentioned
frequently in all the debates on legislation dealing with abortion—that nurses and other people
have been persecuted and even dismissed because of the exercise of their conscience. Whenever that
has been alleged, we have asked for one such case to be produced. No one, in any circumstances
whatever, has been able to produce a case of a nurse or anyone else in the medical profession who has
been dismissed for the exercise of conscience under the 1967 Act.
The hon. Gentleman asserted that there is no such thing as an unwanted child. I wish that were so, but
we live in the real world and we know that there are unwanted children. There are many women
throughout Britain and throughout the world who find that they are pregnant and who, for whatever
reason, do not want to bear the child for very good reasons. The ultimate test must be the consultation
between the patient and her general practitioner, and the law should be at a minimum in dealing with that
relationship.
The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) laid rather more stress than did the mover of the
motion on the development of private clinics. I think that we are all agreed on the undesirability of such
a development, but the only possible acceptable alternative is the improvement of facilities within the
National Health Service. The answer is not to abolish all such clinics but to improve NHS facilities. I
hope that the Minister will give the House some assurance in that respect.
Throughout the country public opinion, no matter what people's political or religious persuasion may
be, is massively in support of the way that the 1967 Act is operating. There may be a case for
considering a time limit for abortion. I served on Standing Committees which dealt with two abortion
Bills. The right hon. Member for Castle Point will remember them vividly. Those Bills were talked out of
existence. I think we were right to do that, because public opinion was massively on our side.
It is right that minorities should express their opinion. I understand that a petition containing
1·5 million signatures is to be presented by a Conservative Member. There are another 55
million signatures that are not on the petition. Let us not be under any illusion as to the strength of
feeling on abortion. Minorities have a right to be heard but the majority have the right to prevail.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle was right not to lay too much emphasis on the
grounds for abortion. I do not think that there is an authoritative body, in the medical profession or
anywhere else, in support of any tightening up of that part of the 1967 Act. The main argument relates to
a time limit. There may be a case for that. However, even if it is set at 24 weeks, there will always be
cases where, for one reason or another, exceptions will have to be made. For that reason, the greater the
flexibility in the legislation the better.
The 1967 Act does not lay down a period of 28 weeks or any other period, and that is for a good
reason. There
60
is a degree of flexibility to enable the medical profession to examine and treat each case on its merits.
The less we do about changing that the better.
We are all against late abortions; indeed, we are all against all abortions. It is a horrible operation. At the
weekend I was talking to a doctor who does abortions and he said that there is not a more undesirable
operation, because it is an expression of failure. But if we can do anything in this House to eliminate that
failure, it will bring happiness to many women and many families who would not otherwise have it. We
legislate in this place for the sake of humanity. We legislate to make practices more humane than they
would otherwise be. Whatever this House does, women will have abortions. They have had them over
the centuries. It is up to us to make the operation more humane by putting on the statute book
legislation which is flexible and which recognises the human problems that lie behind
abortion.
6.9 pm
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I shall
not take up too much time by going over points that have already been made, especially as some of my
comments may be almost identical to those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and
Horncastle (Mr. Leigh).
I should make it clear that I am not against abortion per se. In whatever proposals I might make, I am
not working towards a day when abortion will be completely abolished. Whatever my private and
personal views may be, other people will hold different views, and on this subject—perhaps
more than on any other—one tries to achieve a consensus.
Two points need to be made. First, it concerns me that the word "abortion" seems to be caught up with
the concept of contraception and birth control. That is extremely dangerous. Hardly anyone would now
argue against contraception, but in talking about abortion we are not talking about contraception.
Contraception ensures that human life or conception does not occur. Despite the argument that the
spermatozoa and ova are alive, there is no human life until they are fused at conception. Thus, even a
hard-line Roman Catholic — if I can use that phrase in a non-pejorative sense — who
might be opposed to both abortion and contraception, would probably admit that one of them is much
worse than the other.
It must be recognised that abortion is ultimately a form of population control. Whatever the motives
may be, it terminates human life. That is not the same as preventing that life from forming in the first
place.
Dr. M. S. Miller: The hon. Gentleman argues that
human life begins at the moment of conception. But what are sperm and ova if they are not human life?
What does he call them?
Mr. Nicholls: I call them on the one hand sperm and
on the other ova, but they are not human life. The hon. Gentleman has asked a question so he must
listen to the answer. Until they are fused, they are not human life which, unless it is interrupted by nature
or some other physical event, will inexorably lead to a birth —[Interruption.] The hon.
Gentleman goes on heckling from a sedentary position, but if he does not like the answer to his question
he could at least have the courtesy to listen to it in relative silence.

61
Secondly, we are used to referring to the 1967 Act and to the fact that it liberalised abortion or allowed
it in certain circumstances, as though that Act was the complete source of our abortion law. But it is
not. It has to be read in conjunction with the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. Subsections (1) and
(2) of that Act say that if the gestation period is more than 28 weeks, it is assumed that the child is
capable of being born alive. In combination, those two Acts form the basis of our abortion law. When
the 1929 Act spoke of 28 weeks, it did so because at that time it was not expected that a child could be
born alive before then. In law, capable of being born alive was not even taken to mean capable of
surviving. I hope that the one common ground uniting us all is that 28 weeks can no longer be
considered appropriate.
Ms. Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman has touched on
a crucial point that is frequently misunderstood. It is not the case that it would be legal to abort a foetus
that was capable of life, even if it was less than 28 weeks old. It is illegal to kill any foetus that is capable
of being born alive. That is the law. Therefore, many of the arguments for reducing the 28-week period
represent a misunderstanding of the present law.
Mr. Nicholls: I suspect that this will be the first and
last time, even in this Parliament, that I say that the hon. Lady and I are in total agreement on a
point.
The essence of that Act was the capability of being born alive and not the period of 28 weeks. The
difficulty is that in practice the exception becomes the norm. It would be a brave, optimistic and,
probably, well-heeled man, who would tell a doctor, who had gone through the procedures under the
Act and who had aborted a foetus at 23 weeks, that he was to be subjected to a private prosecution
claiming that at that age the child was capable of being born alive. That is the difficulty.
I think that I have correctly identified the source of the abortion law. We have moved a long way since
1929, and it is now obvious that a child is capable of being born alive at 28 weeks. It is not just a
question of making a slight advance involving a week here or there. It is now possible for a child to be
born alive at 23 weeks and, moreover, for it to survive. In such debates, the evidence inevitably tends to
become anecdotal, and is sometimes no worse for that. But here the evidence is better than that.
On 10 March 1984 an article appeared in The Lancet entitled, "Capable of Being Born Alive".
Mr. Dunn and Mr. Stirrat of the Bristol maternity hospital reviewed the state of the law as we all
understand it to be. A footnote to that article read:
"At the time of writing two infants of 23 weeks gestation are in our care, one now being
2½ weeks old the other 1 week old."
I do not know whether those two children even survived the date of publication, but if they did, there
cannot be the slightest doubt that the child who survived two and half weeks was capable not only of
being born alive but of surviving.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister will make a statement along the following lines.
If those two statutes taken in combination are properly the foundation of our abortion law, it cannot be
right that that 28-week guideline — I hestitate to use that word for reasons that the hon. Member
for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) would correct me for — with all the implications that it
has, should still be valid. If we are
62
concerned to get our abortion laws right, something must be done, sooner rather than later, to ensure
that that time limit is reduced.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central, (Mr. Hamilton) spoke about the sacredness of human life, and that
is right. He might have correctly identified me as being one of those who are in favour of capital
punishment and in favour of strengthening or, as he might have it, of deliberalising our abortion laws.
We could both argue until we were blue in the face, but neither of us would be convinced that the other
was right. But I would argue that a person can forfeit his right to life by a crime so heinous that he
should be subject to a capital penalty. But ingenious though the mind of a lawyer is, I cannot begin to
conceive of how a foetus that has yet to be born can have committed some crime that requires its
extinction. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's point was no good.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central also spoke about the elimination of unhappiness. Again, that unites
us. I am not arguing in favour of the abolition of abortion. With all due respect, however, the hon.
Gentleman will have to do better than talk about the elimination of unhappiness. In talking about
eliminating unhappiness, we are talking about eliminating human life. To consider the woman's
happiness does not mean to say that one can simply ignore the fact that the child will be subject not just
to unhappiness but to death.
Where do we go from here? We are entitled to say that the legislaion under which abortions are
performed should be tightened up in view of what we now know about foetology. There is also a job to
be done in terms of educating the public, and especially the child-bearing public, about exactly what is
involved in an abortion. It is not just a question of going into hospital and having an anonymous
collection of cells removed. If a woman has an abortion by vacuum aspiration, she is committing herself
to allowing the child within her to be dismembered. If that is the sort of thing that abortion involves, the
public should know about it. If a woman, knowing that, still goes ahead with an abortion, she has at
least done so with her eyes open. I hope that a film such as "The Silent Scream" will be broadcast on
ITV and BBC with all the counterbalancing propaganda that I am sure that the hon. Member for
Ladywood will be able to provide.
Ms. Clare Short: That film is completely
fabricated.
Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Lady howls that the film is
fabricated. The death of the child certainly is fabricated, but if it is such a monstrous fabrication, I can
see no reason why it should not be given air space so that the hon. Lady can produce her arguments to
prove that it is fabricated.
Since 1967, 2¼ million babies have been killed before being born but after conception. In only
2 per cent. of the cases were the mothers' lives at risk or the babies seriously deformed. In 98 per cent.
of the cases, therefore, the babies were killed because under the Abortion Act 1967 one can have one's
child killed for what amounts to little more than the fact that one finds it inconvenient to bear it or
because it might be inconvenient to its existing brothers and sisters. In a civilised society, we cannot
allow that to continue indefinitely.
6.20 pm
Ms. Jo Richardson: The hon.
Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has just made the most

63
unbelievably, incredibly patronising speech. He talked about educating the child-bearing population. It is
about time that he and some of his hon. Friends were educated. The trouble with this House is that it is
dominated by males who think that they know what is best for women.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) is one of a string of hon. Members
who have said that the Abortion Act brings to the country an air of permissiveness, a lowering of moral
standards and a diminution in the sanctity of the family. He and others suggest that the Act allows
abortion on demand. That is not true. They say that women frivolously use abortion as a contraceptive.
That is not true either. They say that the tightening up of this already limited legislation will ensure a rosy
picture of happier and more stable parents and children. Nothing is further from the truth.
As everyone in the House knows, abortion has existed since the beginning of time. Throughout history,
wealthy women have always been able to have abortions without problems or questions; they simply
had to provide the money. No comfortable place in a private clinic was open to those without money.
Poorer women had two options. Their first was to continue the pregnancy and have an unwanted child.
It is not true that children are always wanted when they arrive. Their second option was to have a
back-street abortion—a messy and dangerous practice which I am glad to say has almost
disappeared. However, I fear that it may be on the way back if some Conservative Members have their
way.
Many figures have been quoted, and I want to put mine on the record. The number of abortions on
residents in England and Wales fell each year between 1980 and 1983. However, in the first half of 1984
the number increased by 3,052–5 per cent.—compared with the first half of 1983. That
rise occurred in the 16 to 29 age group. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys has pointed
out that this took place about three to five months after the publication in the previous October of
papers associating certain malignant diseases with the long-term use of oral contraceptives. It is obvious
that many women were frightened by the pill scares and changed to less reliable means of
contraception. The result was more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions.
It is more important to consider the rate of abortions rather than the numbers, because the rate takes
account of the increases and decreases in the numbers of women in the fertile age group.
The abortion rate has remained at or under 12 women per thousand for the past 13 years. That is one of
the lowest abortion rates in the world, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd)
said. It is remarkable that it has remained so steady. It shows that women are using contraception in the
most effective way possible. There is no foolproof method of contraception. Women are not using
abortion as a method of contraception. Abortion is used only in the most dire circumstances —
when contraception has failed or when conception is the result of an unplanned act.
Much has been made of the number of abortions performed on young women between the ages of 16
and 29 who are not married and have no children. The implication is that all such women are fit and
healthy and that they should have babies or, if they do not want babies, that they should bear them and
offer them for adoption.
64
Many hon. Members have said that. It is an odd argument, because many of those who use it are now
holding up their hands in horror at the idea of surrogacy. They suggest that everyone should go through
with an unplanned pregnancy to term and then offer the child for adoption, but when it comes to
surrogacy they say, "No, we cannot have that." I do not understand their argument.
The House should take account of the trends. Women are no longer prepared to put up with a
pregnancy that they do not want and with which they cannot cope. Many women want to plan a family.
They want to develop their talents, to work and to earn a living before having a family. Few women now
feel compelled to marry if they become pregnant. In 1969, about 44·5 per cent. of pregnant
women married before the child was born. In most cases, they were shotgun marriages. In 1981 the
figure was 19 per cent.—a much healthier figure.
Society no longer condemns a woman for having an illegitimate child. That is another reason why
women do not feel that it is necessary to marry. Many women categorised as single live with their
partner in a stable relationship. They simply do not think it important to marry. In 1982, 59 per cent. of
illegitimate births were jointly registered. Parliament must take account of changes in attitudes and values
and in the way in which people live.
Births and abortions to under 16-year-olds since 1974, when contraceptives were made freely available
to all, regardless of age, have remained static. At least, they have up to now. Abortions for women in
that age group have remained at under 10 in 1,000 since 1974. The rate of live births in that age group
has been at or under three in 1,000 since 1974. The number of illegitimate births has risen as young girls
have decided to keep their children, because they believe that society will tolerate that decision.
An acute danger to that stable position now hangs over young girls and their doctors. I refer to the
recent judgment by the Appeal Court which stops girls under 16 from getting help from their doctors
without the express consent of their parents. Lord Justice Parker, one of the Appeal Court judges, said
that that might lead to pregnancy, backstreet abortion or even death.
On 8 February, The Times reported that the British Medical Association had received
information that two young girls were alleged to have committed suicide as a result of not receiving the
contraceptive advice that they sought. One was a girl who was sexually assaulted by her father, and who
learnt that she could not obtain contraceptive advice without her mother knowing of it. The other was a
12-year-old girl who sought advice, but her parents objected. They are reported to have taken their
lives. Is that really what Conservative Members want?
Perhaps hon. Members with teenage daughters have a close and understanding relationship with them. I
hope so. If so, they are fortunate, because many do not have that relationship. Many daughters do not
feel that they can discuss sex with their parents. Family situations vary enormously, and there is often
conflict in the home which creates a tense atmosphere in which young girls find it difficult to talk about
matters at that time in their development. Therefore, they need access to their doctors.
Under-16s are badly frightened and feel abandoned. I suppose that that fear and sense of isolation is
viewed by the moralists on the Conservative Benches as a healthy deterrent to young girls under the age
of 16 having sex. Goodness knows how many girls have become pregnant

65
since the Court of Appeal judgment. The moralists have tabled an early-day motion against abortion for
girls under 16. I am afraid that that will not stop pregnancies. I hope that the Court of Appeal judgment
is changed. Do hon. Members really want no advice, no counselling, no contraception and, if the worst
comes to the worst, no abortion, other than illegal or back-street abortion, for girls under 16?
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I want girls under 16 to take
advice from their parents and not to obtain contraceptive advice that is not officially allowed because it
is against the law. That would help to bring about a decent family life for those
girls.
Ms. Richardson: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken.
Contraceptive advice for under-16s is not against the law. He overlooks the fact that many girls cannot
and will not discuss it with their parents. They feel that they cannot talk to them. Of course, it would be
preferable if they could, and that is what the counselling service and the doctors advise. If we follow the
advice of Conservative Members, the clock will be turned back.
Almost every day during Question Time we urge girls to make the most of education and employment
opportunities. We tell them to stay at school, get on with their education and grasp the chances to make
something of themselves, yet we deny them the understanding advice and help that would enable them
to view sex in a sensible manner at a difficult time in their lives.
There is little support among the public or the medical profession for restricting the grounds for
abortion. In 1983, the Gallup Poll found that 74 per cent. of the public thought that the decision whether
or not to continue a pregnancy should be left to the woman in consultation with her doctor. Support for
that view has been high since 1979 —never lower than 74 per cent., which is three quarters of
those sampled. The support is high regardless of the age, sex, political opinion or religion of those
polled. There is growing support for a more liberal abortion law that would allow women to make their
own decisions on abortion. In 1979, the National Opinion Poll found that 56 per cent. of people thought
that abortion should be available legally to those who wanted it. That was confirmed in a later NOP
survey in The Sun.
People tend to think that it is easy to obtain an abortion. It is not. Many of my hon. Friends have
pointed out the difficulties that face women and girls seeking abortion. We know of the widespread
concern about the unevenness of NITS provision—from the disgraceful figures in the west
midlands where only 3 to 4 per cent. of women can obtain abortions on the NHS to the 97 per cent.
who can do so in the north of England. It would have become the hon. Member for Gainsborough and
Horncastle more and earned him my respect if part of his motion had referred to the inadequacies of
NHS provision for abortion. That would have been a good point to debate, and preferable to the high
moral tone that the hon. Gentleman chose to take.
A number of different organisations and bodies have taken a similar view about NHS
facilities—for example, the Royal Commission and the Select Committee which considered
abortion in 1981, on which both the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and the
Minister's predecessor served. Indeed, the Minister's predecessor expressed his concern that NHS
abortion facilities should be improved. However, those facilities are still not good
66
enough. Only last month the Women's National Commission working group on health, chaired by Dame
Ann Springman of the Conservative women's national committee, said that where an abortion is
permissible, NHS facilities should be made available at the earliest possible stage and that day care
facilities should be extended. The Labour party's programme gives priority to improving NHS facilities,
including day care, so that choice can be effective wherever the woman lives.
During all the agitation, the pontificating, the attacks on the existing abortion laws and the moralising that
we have heard this evening, nothing has been said about the role of the man. Women are blamed for
needing abortions. It is represented as their fault if they become pregnant —they have not taken
precautions; the precautions have gone wrong so it is bad luck on them; they must bear the agony and
the fear of not finding a doctor willing to help; they must bear the main brunt of an abortion and all the
difficulties that go with it. Nowhere in the argument is the role and the responsibility of the man pointed
out. That was most noticeable in the speech of the hon. Member for Teignbridge. The women are made
to feel blameworthy and guilty. If they cannot cope, people look down on them. They are talked about
as though they did not exist or work in this place. They are continually put down by less than half the
population—the men—who want to decide for them what they should do with their
bodies.
Even in the argument about the under-16s and the recent Court of Appeal judgment, it is the daughters'
difficulties that are exposed and it is their lives that are being endangered. The law actually protects
boys of 14, but they have not been mentioned in our discussion. The House should remember that in
our moralising we must understand that women will not for ever be prepared to go on being unable to
control their fertility and their bodies. They will continue to demand more rights and more of a say in
how they shape their lives.
6.39 pm
The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I begin
by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), first, on
his good fortune in obtaining this allocation of parliamentary time and, secondly, on giving the House
the opportunity to consider this subject again. Since the Abortion Act 1967 was passed the House has
considered its provisions on several occasions and several attempts have been made to introduce
amending legislation, although none has been successful. But it is surprising — it has surprised
me during my time as Minister for Health—that the House has not considered the subject since
1981. The previous occasion on which the House considered it was when the hon. Member for Barking
(Ms. Richardson) introduced a Ten-minute Bill, which did not reach the statute book.
Although some hon. Members criticised my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle,
and although I do not agree with all of his views on this subject, the way in which he put them forward
commanded respect, and I am sure that his reasonable proposition will be supported by many inside
and outside the House.
I must make it clear that the Government, like all their predecessors, are neutral on the great issues of
principle that are raised by abortion. The Government believe that it is for Parliament to decide the law
and to take any opportunity that the majority wishes to change the law. Since Parliament has decided
that abortions may lawfully

67
be carried out in the circumstances specified in the Act, the Government have a duty to ensure that the
provisions of the law are properly applied. That must remain our view. I have always been a supporter
of the 1967 Act and believed that the way in which it has been applied has, on balance, been beneficial
to society. But as I speak in this debate, because I happen to be the Minister for Health, I shall not take
advantage of the time to discuss at length some of the issues that have been raised, which I might have
done were I not on the Front Bench.
Following the examination of the working of the Act by the Lane committee and later by the Select
Committee on abortion, we now have a strict system of control over the application of the Act. I assure
the House that my Department takes seriously its duties of inspection and control of private clinics. We
monitor closely the operation of the Act, and I assure hon. Members that our monitoring machinery
does not reveal any abuse of it. The Government are satisfied that they are ensuring, to the best of their
ability, that the wishes of Parliament are respected. That means that abortions are being carried out in
proper circumstances and only when the provisions of the Act are satisfied. Obviously, we must strive
to ensure that that continues to be the case.
I and the Government share my hon. Friend's concern that many abortions are still considered
necessary, for the reasons that were expounded by the hon. Member for Barking. The background to
most abortions is at least error, but often it is severe emotional crisis. Abortion is often the cause of
considerable distress and difficulty. The figures for 1981, 1982 and 1983 showed a slight decrease in
the number of abortions. From the best test that can be applied, which is the number of abortions per
thousand women between the ages of 15 and 44, we discover that the rate fell from 12·62 in
1980 to 11·94 in 1983.
It is regrettable that the 1984 figures that we have so far show a slight increase in abortions. No one
knows what caused that, but I share the theory of the hon. Member for Barking that it almost certainly
resulted from the scare that followed last year's reports of possible dangers from the contraceptive pill.
When those stories emerged, we did our best to give proper advice to women, which included asking
them to ensure that they finished the course of contraceptive treatment upon which they had embarked,
and that they took advice about alternative methods of contraception. But it seems likely that some
women, in panic, stopped the course of pills that they were taking or made a mistake in changing to
other methods. Everyone who has spoken in the debate, with whatever views, must hope that the
downward trend which we previously witnessed will soon return and continue.
I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn), who put his
views in his usual colourful way, that one of the best things that we can do to reduce the large number
of abortions is to encourage the sensible use of family planning. We do that by the provision of a free
family planning service, which we believe is an essential preventive measure which contributes to the
avoidance of unwanted pregnancy, to the proper spacing and timing of children and, therefore, to better
maternal and child health and to a secure and stable family life. For that reason, we support financially
those voluntary bodies that work in this area and the family planning information service.
68
The hon. Member for Barking felt free to express her views about the case that has been brought
against the Department by Mrs. Gillick. She will understand that, as the matter is still waiting to go to the
House of Lords, I would rather not be drawn into that discussion. But it is important that that Court of
Appeal decision is appealed, if only to clarify some of the doubts left unanswered by the way in which
the judgment was expressed. This is an important matter for our society, and the highest court in the
land must give a clear ruling on whether the guidance issued by the Department was lawful.
In the brief time that I propose to take in the debate, I shall say a few words about the matter which
most concerned my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle. He was worried, as
were many hon. Members, about the late stage at which some abortions are performed, especially
having regard to the advances in medical techniques of helping premature babies to survive. This matter
has caused anxiety for many years, and it has been considered from time to time since the Lane
committee produced its report. Several hon. Members have accurately described the legal and statistical
position, so I shall not repeat everything that has been said about the Infant Life (Preservation) Act
1929, which was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), and its
relationship to the present law. As he said, the Act requires prima facie proof that a foetus is capable of
being born alive if a pregnancy is of more than 28 weeks' duration.
As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) made clear, the Infant Life (Preservation)
Act protects the life of any foetus capable of being born alive, but in practice the 28-week period has
been taken as the usual guideline for the application of that Act. The Lane committee recommended that
it should be made illegal for an abortion to be carried out after 24 weeks, but, after repeated attempts,
the House has not yet been able to resolve that matter, and the law stands as it was in 1929 and in
1967.
The Government have become concerned about the state of the law because of the changes in medical
techniques. In March 1980, my predecessor—my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East
(Sir G. Vaughan) — asked the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to undertake
a review of late abortion practice. Its report was published early in 1984, and I commend it to those
hon. Members who have not read it. The Government have been considering how best to follow the
eight major recommendations in the report, which examined the causes for late abortions and the way in
which unnecessary delays and, therefore, the number of late abortions might be reduced. The report has
been helpful in drawing attention to the factors which cause abortion to be carried out later than need
otherwise happen. We hope that those who provide abortion services, whether it be the National Health
Service or the private sector, will consider its findings carefully.
The Government propose to act in several ways. First, to take the point made by the hon. Member for
Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) among others, we propose to discuss with NHS
representatives the report's findings about delays between referrals and operations in the NHS. We shall
be having serious discussions with National Health Service representatives to ascertain whether
improvements can be made in practice in areas where delays seem to be inexplicably longer than

69
in other parts of the country. We shall try to disseminate the best practice so that the lessons learnt in
one place can be applied by authorities elsewhere. I understand that there is a good scheme which
appears to be working well in Newcastle. If it is proved that Newcastle has a better method of handling
these matters, we shall do our best to commend it to other health authorities and so spread it through
the service.
Secondly, the recommendations of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists point to a
need for more education, especially for younger women, to make them appreciate the urgency of early
consultation and decision making when pregnancy occurs. We shall be consulting our colleagues in the
Department of Education and Science about the prospects for more health education and counselling
facilities for young people in this sensitive area.
Thirdly, we shall be seeking to reinforce in every other way the importance of early recognition of
pregnancy and recourse to advice when anyone faces a crisis of the sort that we are discussing. That
message has already been highlighted by the Maternity Services Advisory Committee, which the
Government set up and whose report we have already commended to health authorities.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, together with other medical bodies, is
considering actively whether to recommend that the 1929 Act should be amended to change the
definition of "foetal viability" from 28 to fewer weeks. The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller),
the only Member with a medical qualification to speak in the debate, told us that there is not unanimity
within the medical profession on this matter. However, I feel that most doctors consider that 28 weeks
is too long a period. This important matter needs to be considered at the level at which the Royal
College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is now examining it. When the medical bodies produce
their advice, I am sure that it will be widely debated and that the House, as well as the Government, will
want to consider it and decide what implications it has for abortion law. I suggest that until we have had
time to consider the views of the Royal College it will be foolish for the Government to take a view
about any alternative to the 28-week provision. It is probably a little premature for anyone to try to
introduce a proposal to make changes in the law.
I think that we all expect the Royal College to come out with a shorter period than 28 weeks. Long ago
the Lane committee said that 24 weeks should be the maximum for a legal abortion. Practically everyone
who has contributed to the debate has suggested that perhaps 28 weeks is too long a period and that it
should be reduced.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and others reminisced about previous
Bills. I remember the issues which have been discussed this evening being canvassed when the House
considered the Bill that was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr.
Corrie). My hon. Friend tried to introduce a substantial amendment to the 1967 Act. In this debate those
with views as opposite as the hon. Members for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and for Fife,
Central (Mr. Hamilton) have supported a reduction from 28 to 24 weeks. I remember that I did when the
Cowie Bill was passing through the House. I think that I voted to that effect, although I have not
checked to ensure that I was present when the Division took place. However, I recall that I supported a
reduction from 28 to 24 weeks.
70
The majority of the House voted in favour of the reduction when the Division took place in the course
of our consideration of the Corrie Bill.
It is my recollection that the sponsors of the Corrie Bill insisted on adding many other drastic
amendments, with the result that those like the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and
Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), for Fife, Central and for Barking and myself, who would otherwise have been
happy to see a reduction from 28 to 24 weeks placed on the statute book, found that everyone's wishes
were frustrated because the Bill was eventually talked out.
If the Royal College returns with some clear advice, I think that the House will have a duty to recognise
that there is an amazingly wide spread of opinion. I hope that I shall be forgiven for referring to the
opinions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and of the hon. Member for Barking.
Probably 28 weeks is too long a period, and the House must concentrate on making progress on that
issue, if on nothing else, if that proves to be the recommendation of the Royal College. It will be for my
right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to decide whether the Government will provide time for these
matters to be considered by the introduction of a Bill, if and when this hypothetical situation ever arises.
That is not a matter to be decided before the Royal College reports to us.
Mrs. Renée Short: Is the right hon. and
learned Gentleman aware that only 0·6 per cent. of terminations take place at 28 weeks or
later? It is still a tiny percentage and we should not get it out of all proportion when considering this
matter.
Mr. Clarke: I accept that the number is tiny, but it is
not insignificant. If the Royal College says that 28 weeks is now an unrealistically long period for "foetal
viability", to use the jargon, and that medical practice has been transformed during the period from 1929
to 1985, I think that the House will wish to address itself to modern practice and, perhaps, to insert a
more realistic limit in the statute book. However, I accept that we must not get this issue out of all
proportion.
Mr. Alton: I think that earlier the Minister said that he
did not think that this would be the right moment for any hon. Member to introduce amending legislation
to reduce the time limit when abortions can be carried out from 28 to 24 weeks. The Lane committee, a
long time ago, said that that should be done, the World Health Organisation said that that should be
done and the sponsors of earlier legislation took the same view. When does the right hon. and learned
Gentleman think will be the right time?
Mr. Clarke: The Government will not produce any
legislation of that sort. I was expressing a personal view. As the Royal College is considering the issue
at this moment, I take the view that we might as well await its report. It may be that the Royal College
will not say that 24 weeks is the right time. It is possible that it will opt for some other period. As I have
said, I do not think that it will be long before it reports.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle addressed himself to nurses and whether
the so-called conscience clause needed to be strengthened. When the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend
the Member for Cunninghame, North was being considered, it received a great deal of support from all
sections of the House as it

71
contained provisions that suggested that the conscience clause might be rewritten. I have no evidence
that the clause is not being applied properly now. I am not aware that any nurses have been dismissed
for refusing to take part in abortion operations. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for
Gainsborough and Horncastle that we would wish to intervene to ensure that something was done if we
found that any nurse had been so ill-treated.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have been told that when
doctors have applied for posts in certain hospitals they have been denied appointments because they
said that they would refuse to terminate pregnancies. Will the Minister corroborate or reject that
allegation?
Mr. Clarke: I am not aware of any such cases. We
have no evidence that such cases have arisen. The allegation has been made repeatedly, but no cases of
that sort have been brought to me as Minister. That applies to nurses and to doctors seeking
appointments. If anything of that sort has happened, it should not have
done.
Dr. M. S. Miller: Let us suppose that there are two
gynaecologists at a hospital, one of whom performs abortions and the other does not because of his
conscience. Let us suppose also that the one who performs the abortions leaves. The post would have
to be filled, and the board would be within its rights to insist that at least one gynaecologist at the
hospital should fulfil his obligations to the Health Service.
Mr. Clarke: I cannot say what considerations a
hypothetical board might take into account in the hypothetical situation that the hon. Gentleman has
postulated. However, nurses are protected. We insist that they have a conscience clause. A doctor's
prospects should not be adversely affected if, for some religious scruple, he does not want to take part
in abortions.
72
I have considerable sympathy with the two basic issues that my hon. Friend the Member for
Gainsborough and Horncastle raised. I do not believe that he had a fierce opponent or critic on the
proposal to shorten the period during which abortions can take place or on his remarks about a
conscience clause. I am grateful to him for raising these matters. I assure him that the Government will
maintain their neutrality while seeking to ensure that all the safeguards in the present Act are applied in
practice from now on.
6.59 pm
Ms. Harriet Harman: To
pregnant women, especially those in an advanced stage of pregnancy, the decision whether to have an
abortion is agonising. I do not believe that abortions are lightly entered into. I am convinced that the
decision whether to have a late abortion is not taken without a great deal of heart searching. Because it is
a difficult decision, I very much deplore the attitude of those who talk about abortion in terms of
numbers or as though it were entered into flippantly. That attitude is particularly deplorable when it
comes from men.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) will never have to struggle with the
problems of contraception which, despite recent advances, can not only make a person ill, but be
painful and unreliable. He will never have to face the shock of a pregnancy that has not been diagnosed
until it is well advanced. The hon. Gentleman will never have to face the agony of deciding whether to
carry to term an abnormal foetus and bring into the world to lead a short life a child who might be
severely handicapped.
It being Seven o'clock, the proceedings lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 6 (Arrangement
of Public Business).

Local Government Bill (Allocation of Time)
7 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John
Biffen): I beg to move, That the following provisions shall apply to
the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

Local Government Bill (Allocation of Time)

  Committee
  1. The Standing Committee to which the Bill (except Clause 1) is allocated shall report the Bill
  (except Clause 1) to the House on or before 7th March 1985.

  Report and Third Reading
  2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be
  completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of
  those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 45 (Business Committee) this Order shall be
  taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the
  Business Committee may determine.
  (2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on
  Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings
  on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the
  Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
  (3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 45 may be varied by a further
  Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or
  not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
  (4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which
  proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

  Procedure in Standing Committee
  3. —(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to
  be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not
  adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings
  have been brought to a conclusion.
  (2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee
  except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatiory statement
  from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the
  Question thereon.
  4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new
  Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee
  may include alterations in that order.

  Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
  5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the
  Bill (or such of its provisions as were committed or re-committed to that Committee) to the House
  without putting any Question.

  Dilatory Motions
  6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in
  the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question
  on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  Extra time on first allotted day
  7.—(1) On the first allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted
  business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
  (2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock
  under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that
  should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
  (3) If the first allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under
  Standing Order No. 10 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the
  proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

  Private business
  8. Any private business which has been set down for
  74
  consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by
  Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and
  paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a
  period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are
  concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the
  conclusion of those proceedings.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  9. —(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be
  brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or
  the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the
  Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the
  case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause
  or Schedule be added to the Bill);

  (c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of
  any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

  and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put
  only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order
  relating to the sittings of the House.
  (3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing
  Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration)
  would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

  (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which,
  under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or
  before that time;

  (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a
  Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be
  postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  (4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing
  Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill
  which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion
  on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that
  Motion.

  Supplemental orders
  10. —(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the
  Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might
  have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not
  previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and
  paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a
  time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the
  sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting
  by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee
  shall—

  (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or
  completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or

  75

  (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day
  after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

  Re-committal
  12. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on
  Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in
  consequence of re-committal.
  (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as
  a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the
  Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Interpretation
  13. In this Order—
  "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first
  Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to
  be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that
  day;
  "the Bill" means the Local Government Bill;
  "Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business
  Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
  "Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as
  agreed to by the House.
  As the whole House is only too well aware, this motion sets out a timetable for the Bill designed to
  abolish the Greater London and metropolitan county councils. This is a major piece of legislation. The
  Government have been committed to it since before the general election in June 1983. The case for the
  Bill will be dealt with in greater detail by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government at the
  conclusion of the debate, but let me say at once that I believe that case to be formidable and to have
  been fully made out during the prolonged debate which has taken place on the issue, both in Parliament
  and outside.
  The Bill had its origins in the White Paper "Streamlining the Cities" which was published in October
  1983 together with a series of consultation papers. These documents gave rise to a lengthy period of
  consultation and discussion. In addition, there were long and probing debates in Parliament during the
  last Session on the Bill which became the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984. I do not
  believe, therefore, that anyone can claim that the policy that lies behind the Bill has not been thoroughly
  examined.
  The Bill is substantial. It has to make arrangements for the transfer of functions to the successor
  authorities, including police, fire, passenger transport and the newly constituted Inner London education
  authority. The Bill has to deal also with the implications for staff and to settle the financial arrangements.
  It is therefore right that a substantial amount of parliamentary time should be provided for it to be
  debated, and the Government have recognised this.
  In addition to two full days on Second Reading, clause 1 was committed to a Committee of the whole
  House. The remainder has now been under discussion in Standing Committee for over 100 hours.
  In referring to the proceedings in Standing Committee I recognise that the Opposition have
  demonstrated their developing expertise in these matters. I congratulate them on the fact that they have
  not on this occasion chosen to rely solely on the tactics immortalised by the hon. Member for
  Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). There has been no repeat of the marathon filibusters which were
  such a
  76
  lamentable feature of the Telecommunications Bill in the last two Sessions of Parliament. None the less,
  progress has been slow.
  Mr. Dave Nellist: To backup the right hon.
  Gentleman's point, will he recognise that one of the longest speeches made in Standing Committee
  — 72 minutes — was made by the Minister of State, Department of Transport? If the
  guillotine motion is implemented, hon. Members will have less than 40 minutes to discuss each
  remaining clause. It is a matter not of filibustering but of the Government trying to curtail
  debate.
  Mr. Biffen: That statistic shows the generosity of my
  hon. Friend the Minister in giving way to the many interruptions that marked her speech.
  In its first sitting the Committee discussed the three lines that make up clause 2 for two and a half hours,
  despite the fact that no amendments to that clause had been selected. Thirty eight hours were then
  devoted to clauses 3 and 4 and schedule 1. At that rate of progress the Bill would have spent well over
  400 hours in Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The Opposition's cheers indicate
  that that was their aspiration.
  After more than 100 hours, there are more than 80 clauses and nine schedules still to be
  debated.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The right hon. Gentleman
  seems to be surprised that the Opposition should say, "Hear, hear" to the idea of the Bill being
  discussed for more than 400 hours. He will recall that the London Government Act 1963 at least had the
  benefit of three years of a Royal Commission to consider all the proposals for reorganisation. If we had
  had a similar amount of time to consider these proposals for reorganisation, the right hon. Gentleman
  would not now be moving the guillotine motion.
  Mr. Biffen: I am happy that the hon. Gentleman
  referred to a measure which, in its day, was also guillotined.
  Furthermore, the debate has to be concluded to enable the other place to carry out its own measured
  consideration of these major local government reforms. It is therefore clear that the imposition of a
  timetable is required to secure proper consideration of the very important provisions still outstanding.
  That timetable is realistically drawn and will not be unreasonable. The motion will allow the Committee a
  further 16 sessions if the Business Sub-Committee decides to continue morning and afternoon sittings.
  Sensibly allocated, that will allow all the significant issues to be discussed. In addition, two full
  days—one lasting until midnight—will be provided on the Floor of the House for Report
  and Third Reading.
  Mr. Tony Banks: We will all turn into
  pumpkins.
  Mr. Biffen: That fate overtakes a great many
  Opposition Members as they run out of reasoned arguments and resort to a level of contribution that is
  barely above a reading of the London telephone directory.
  I think it appropriate that at this point I should say a few words on the subject of timetabling in
  general.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: Before my right hon. Friend goes on
  to discuss timetabling in general, will he state whether he is aware that, under the timetable he is setting
  out—ending in Committee on 7 March—hon. Members will be allowed a maximum of
  40 minutes per

  77
  item to discuss the 56 clauses and schedules left? Is that a reasonable amount of time in which to
  consider such a complicated measure?
  Mr. Biffen: I believe that it is a reasonable amount in
  the light of my hon. Friend's known quality to present his arguments succinctly and
  persuasively.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: All the
  metropolitan counties and the GLC will be affected. The electorate in those areas expect the person
  representing them to contribute in Committee to a debate on the major issues. If we have only 40
  minutes for each clause, it will not be possible for Opposition Members, let alone Government
  Members, to speak for more than two minutes on major issues such as the police. I would be able to
  contribute for only two minutes to the debate on the consequences for the police force in the whole of
  Merseyside.
  Mr. Biffen: That is just an argument for debate
  sharing. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman, who has a reputation for putting his arguments with
  accuracy and effect, will put his case even more accurately and effectively if it is allied with the quality
  of brevity.
  As the House knows, the Select Committee on Procedure is now engaged on an inquiry into public Bill
  procedure, and timetabling figures in that inquiry. My own evidence to the Committee is a matter of
  public record and I do not wish to rehearse the arguments now. At business questions last week I was
  made aware by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) of the continuing
  desire in some parts of the House for automatic timetabling. I still believe that adequate and balanced
  debate on matters of great interest can generally be better secured by negotiation and agreement than by
  the imposition of a prejudged timetable from the outset. Agreement is, unfortunately, not always
  possible. My reluctance to abandon the system of negotiation and agreement is, I hope, a testimony to
  my personal instinct for unfettered debate.
  Sir Kenneth Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend know
  how many times after discussions with the Opposition there has been agreement to have reasonable
  discussions on a Bill without having to timetable it? Secondly, has he sought such an arrangement over
  this Bill, and if so what was the answer?
  Mr. Biffen: On my hon. Friend's first point, without
  notice I cannot give him a statistical answer, but most Bills go through the House with an overt or tacit
  agreement as to their broad time schedule. His second point can more appropriately be dealt with by my
  right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government.
  I make those comments notwithstanding the scepticism of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw),
  contained in an article in The Times last Monday. In that article, and again at business questions
  last week, he alleged that the statistics demonstrate this Treasury Bench to be the most enthusiastic
  guillotiners since Robespierre.
  Mr. Jack Straw: I did
  not say that.
  Mr. Biffen: The implication was even more dreadful.
  As we are all aware, an innocent reliance on global statistics can mislead. The House may benefit from a
  rather more detached, if not desiccated, analysis of recent history.
  The Labour party was in power for five years and two months from February 1974. During that period
  it
  78
  introduced a timetable on 12 occasions. This Government took office in May 1979, and five years and
  nine months have elapsed. This is the 16th guillotine motion that we have introduced. One must also
  bear in mind, however, the fact that two of those timetables were introduced on the same
  Telecommunications Bill because of the fortuitous circumstances of the 1983 general election. In
  addition, on one occasion in 1982 I had the irksome task of introducing a guillotine against some of the
  Government's supporters. The incident left me with the clearest impression that it was no ordinary
  guillotine occasion. I do not include it in the tally. Thus, a true reading of the score would be 12 to the
  Labour Government, 14 to the Conservative Government —[Interruption.] I have not
  finished. This is just the beginning of this in-depth analysis.
  We must also consider the fact that the Labour Government were effectively in a minority in the House
  from March 1977 onwards. Thereafter, the Government could only guillotine by courtesy of the Liberal
  party. Thus, it is fairer to say that an autonomous Labour Government introduced nine guillotines in
  three years and this Treasury Bench, on a comparable basis, 14 guillotines in five years nine months. I
  believe, therefore, that a dispassionate analysis of the fact—
  Mr. Harry Cowans: While the Leader of the House is
  reading out those statistics, will he tell the House how many of those guillotines were of a constitutional
  nature, as on this Bill, and how many of them the Government recognised as a constitutional issue by
  allowing two days to discuss clause 1 on the Floor of the House? If he were to allow two days for the
  rest of the clauses, that would make sense.
  Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman belongs to a party
  which during its last term of office forced through guillotines to support devolution—the Wales
  Bill, the Scotland Bill and a Bill for the establishment of a British contingent to a directly elected
  European Assembly. The Government need no instruction from him about the constitutional proprieties
  in these matters.
  A dispassionate analysis of the facts does not support the argument of the hon. Member for Blackburn.
  If there is any lesson to be learnt, it is that over a period of many years Governments of different
  persuasions have found the use of the timetable motion to be occasionally necessary to ensure the
  passage of their legislation. The timetable is as necessary to a legislative programme as sewerage is to
  civilisation.
  Mr. Straw: We have all been entertained by the
  speech of the Leader of the House, especially his dispassionate analysis of the the facts, which reflect
  his Treasury background. He will not deny that a dispassionate analysis of the facts in the Clerks'
  evidence to the Select Committee on Procedure clearly showed that in five years the Government
  guillotined more Bills in Standing Committee than previous Governments guillotined in 20
  years.
  Mr. Biffen: Yes, but they were the same basic raw
  statistics in respect of this Government and the previous Labour Government. [Interruption.]
  They are raw statistics, as I believe I have demonstrated to the general satisfaction of the House. On a
  more refined

  79
  consideration, it is clear that there is no preponderance of a disposition for the guillotine on one side of
  the House rather than on the other.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree
  that if sewerage is important for civilisation it should not be taxed? On the subject of a guillotine motion,
  following his arguments a few moments ago, does he agree that on both sides of the House guillotines
  have been used where constitutional arguments and perhaps constitutional propriety have been at stake,
  and that therefore that is a just criticism of the Bill which he now wishes to guillotine?
  Mr. Biffen: I do not believe that the character of the
  Local Government Bill is any more a constitutional measure than the three propositions of the Labour
  Governments which I read out a few moments ago. Any attempt to divert argument in that direction
  would merely lead one to a cul-de-sac.
  I do not wish to delay the House further. The Local Government Bill is an important part of the
  Government's programme. Its passage is awaited by millions of ratepayers and by all those in local
  government whose decisions will reflect the Bill's contents. This motion will facilitate that passage and
  do so in a way that allows sensible debate of the issues. I commend the motion to the
  House.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. Peter Shore: I have taken part, as has the
  Leader of the House, in a number of guillotine debates during this Parliament, but I cannot recall one
  where so great a folly and so much damage will ensue from foreclosing and limiting debate as in the
  case before us today.
  I found the right hon. Gentleman's speech to be completely unconvincing, and not merely in the content
  and the raw or refined statistics that he put before us which sought to justify or ensure his reputation as
  a liberal in the matter of guillotines. It was generally delivered in what can only be described as blazing
  insincerity.
  The Government's reasons for stifling debate are all too clear. When the Second Reading of the Local
  Government Bill came to an end on 4 December, the Opposition's reasoned amendment was defeated
  and the Government's proposition for the Second Reading was carried by majorities of about 135. It
  has been remarkable how the Government's majorities have faded since that initial event.
  When clause 1, which contains the principle of the Bill—the abolition of the GLC and the
  metropolitan county councils — was taken on the Floor of the House on Wednesday 12
  December, the Government's majority on the Opposition's amendment not to proceed until the House
  had received a report by a Royal Commission on those proposals was only 51 votes. The next
  amendment by the Opposition which asked for a prior report by the parliamentary committee of inquiry
  was defeated by only 44 votes, and on the third amendment calling for an independent inquiry into the
  cost implications for local services the Government had a majority of only 45. In the last vote of that
  day, an amendment calling for the replacement of the GLC by another directly elected authority was
  defeated by a mere 23 votes.
  80
  The strongest argument against the Bill, though not the only powerful argument against it, was put by
  the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath).
  The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Kenneth
  Baker): The right hon. Gentleman says that majorities fell during the
  discussion of clause 1 in two days' consideration on the Floor of the House. That clause abolishes the
  GLC and the six metropolitan counties, but the right hon. Gentleman did not say what majority we had
  in the Division on clause 1 stand part. How many over 100 was our majority?
  Mr. Shore: It was about 100, but there was a super
  three-line Whip to recover from the humiliation of the 23 majority that reflected the sentiments of
  Conservative Members at the end of the previous debate.
  The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said:
  "The Bill contains proposals for a major constitutional change and it comes without precedent
  because no public inquiry has been carried out as the basis for it. What is more, the case against the
  GLC and the metropolitan counties remains unproven. No substantial evidence has been produced for
  abolishing the GLC or the metropolitan counties."
  That is the heart of the matter.
  The Bill is, indeed, a constitutional measure. It marks a major shift in the distribution of powers between
  central and local government. It greatly diminishes the power of local government and local democracy.
  Indeed, how could it be otherwise when elected local authorities in the metropolitan counties and
  London, providing services for 18 million people, are to be abolished from 31 March 1986 and no new
  elected authorities are to be put in their place?
  The Secretary of State has disingenuously argued that the overwhelming majority of services taken away
  from the metropolitan authorities and the GLC will be exercised in future by the lower tier elected
  authorities in those areas. But he arrives at that conclusion only by listing the trivial with the major
  functions of the local authorities. Surely what really matters is that services involving 82 per cent. of the
  spending of metropolitan areas will be removed from directly elected bodies to statutory boards and
  quangos and that only 18 per cent. will go to the district councils. That conclusion was reached by PA
  Management Consultants, which carried out a major study of what the Government have
  proposed.
  We have no written constitution, but it has been the practice of successive Governments for a century
  or more to extend the scope of local democracy. The Bill, along with measures that have preceded it,
  including the Rates Act, which enables the Secretary of State to determine the rates levied by local
  authorities, the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act, which abolishes for London and the
  metropolitan counties the elections that were to have been held on 2 May this year, and the earlier
  powers that enable the Secretary of State to impose an elaborate system of targets on local authorities,
  have halted and reversed the long-established trend towards greater local democracy.
  Indeed, more powers are now exercised at the centre, by the Secretary of State and, through him, by
  nominated boards and bodies, than were at any time in the past 100 years. As the right hon. Member for
  Bexley and Sidcup stressed, all that has been done without an independent inquiry. Not only has there
  not been an independent inquiry, but there has been no serious thinking in Government Departments
  about the implications of the policy that they are pursuing and the future arrangements for the services
  that are affected.

  81
  How the Government landed in this miserable state was revealed by the right hon. Member for Old
  Bexley and Sidcup when he told us — and his words matter enormously:
  "The last sad part of the saga is being justified on the ground that the proposals were set out in
  the Conservative party's manifesto. They were put in nine days after the election was called against the
  wishes of the party policy committee. They were inserted without the general agreement of those who
  had been London Conservative Members." —[Official Report, 4 December 1984; Vol.
  69, c. 190–1.]
  Dr. Keith Hampson: When we had an independent
  inquiry—the Redcliffe-Maud inquiry —my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley
  and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) not only rejected its recommendations, but produced the present hopeless
  arrangements. In addition, the Labour Government did not accept the Redcliffe-Maud
  recommendations. They produced different proposals. The met counties had education, and that was
  not proposed by Redcliffe-Maud.
  Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman's memory has let him
  down. There was a minority and a majority report in the Redcliffe-Maud inquiry. The Labour
  Government had no difficulty in going for the large unitary authorities which were then proposed.
  Following the 1970 election, a botched-up scheme was put forward, but at least it had some relevance
  to a recent independent inquiry.
  The difficulties facing the Government were predictable. Local government structures and services form
  a complex jigsaw. By removing the GLC and the six metropolitan county councils, the Government
  have removed seven major pieces from the board, without any thought-out strategy for redesigning the
  remaining structure or filling in the gaping holes. That was bound to lead to chaos, improvisation and
  muddle—and we have had all three.
  It is the plain duty of the House and its Standing Committee fully to explore the ramifications of this
  ill-prepared measure. I reject—though I hardly need to do so, because the Leader of the House
  has conceded our claim—any suggestion that there has been filibustering in the 100 hours of
  Committee consideration that the Bill has so far received. Indeed, the longest speech — 72
  minutes—was made by a Minister.
  Sir Kenneth Lewis: If the right hon. Gentleman looks
  at the progress made on the Bill in Committee, he will see that, at that rate of progress, there was no
  chance of the measure coming back to the House in time to become law in this Session. If the
  Opposition really wanted a full discussion on this important subject—I accept that they do not
  want the Bill—would it not have been helpful and wise if they had volunteered a timetable for the
  Bill?
  Mr. Shore: No proposals were made by the
  Government for handling the Bill by agreement. The Government simply reached whatever bench mark
  of progress they had in mind and came forward with the guillotine motion.
  During that period, the Committee has considered the complex questions of town and country planning,
  development plans, listed buildings, national parks, highways and road traffic functions, waste
  regulation and waste disposal, land drainage and flood prevention, the administration of
  justice—including magistrates courts and the coroners service — valuation panels and
  the probation service.
  82
  No one in his senses would argue that those are small or trivial matters. They are of vital concern to
  people in communities throughout the metropolitan areas and our capital city. The new arrangements for
  the reallocation of those services, mainly to the London boroughs and the metropolitan district councils,
  needed the most careful scrutiny.
  What is really appalling is the vast areas of the Bill that have not even been reached. Not a word has
  been spoken yet in Committee on the future of our largest education authority, the Inner London
  education authority, nor has there been any opportunity to discuss such major matters as the fire
  service, the police and passenger transport, all of which are to be transferred to non-elected joint
  authorities. Yet, in the case of the metropolitan counties, those services account for no less than 67 per
  cent. of their current expenditure. Those joint authorities will at least be comprised of members
  appointed by the borough or district councils in their areas. However, that will not be the case in part V
  of the Bill, which transfers such major facilities as the historic house museums in London to the Historic
  Buildings and Monuments Commission. Collections of national importance belonging to the
  metropolitan county councils will be transferred to new trustee bodies. The South Bank arts complex is
  to pass to the Arts Council.
  Those are all transfers to non-elected bodies, but even that will not do the job. Part VII of the Bill
  provides for the establishment in each area of the body to be known as the residuary body, consisting
  of members appointed by the Secretary of State to deal with all those difficult and inconvenient matters
  for which no other body can he made responsible. To add insult to injury, all those new
  authorities—the joint authorities, the non-elected bodies and the appointed residuary
  bodies—will be empowered to issue a precept and will, from day one and at least the following
  three years, be rate capped by the Secretary of State. Along with the named authorities, they are to be
  brought within part I of the Rates Act 1984 at the moment of their existence.
  Those are very complex arrangements, and it is intolerable that there should no longer be the
  opportunity seriously to debate, amend and discuss them in what is now left of the Committee stage. Of
  course, the Leader of the House says that the timetable motion allows for further debate. It does. But
  since the Bill has to be reported to the House on or before 7 March, that will leave time for no more
  than seven further Committee sittings. So far the Committee has debated 16 clauses of the Local
  Government Bill, clauses that are linked with no fewer than eight schedules running to 62 pages of text.
  That is what the Committee has done already. In the seven remaining Committee sittings that we are
  now allowed under the guillotine, a further 81 clauses fall to be considered together with another eight
  schedules comprising 52 additional pages of text. Of one thing we can be certain: much the larger part
  of this most controversial and ill-thought-out Bill will go to the other place undiscussed and
  unamended.
  While the Government have persistently refused to subject their proposals to any sort of independent
  scrutiny, the authorities affected have called in consultants of repute. The report published by PA
  Management Consultants, after an intensive study of the new structures proposed, concludes with these
  words:

  83
  "the multiplicity of compulsory and voluntary joint working between Metropolitan District
  Councils is an unsound basis for an effective lasting structure".
  The report goes on to say:
  "overall we have been unable to find a single service where the quality of service to the local
  elector is likely to be improved as a result of the change in structure. In many cases we believe there will
  be a marked decline in quality".
  The only justification that the Government have attempted to advance during the discussions of their
  proposals is that there will be some cost savings. In the explanatory and financial memorandum to the
  Bill they say:
  "The government's current estimate … is that, subject to decisions yet to be taken by
  successor authorities, a saving of the order of £100 million annually will be achievable by
  removing a tier of government and eliminating duplication of functions.".
  No evidence has been presented by the Government to justify that claim. Against it, the councils
  themselves have commissioned Coopers and Lybrand to give its own independent estimate. In its
  second report, it concluded as follows:
  "the proposed changes cannot be expected to lead to savings in themselves … savings
  therefore can only be sought as a result of policy changes about the levels of services and hence
  expenditure in an area."
  One can get savings only if one cuts the services. That is nothing to do with changing the structure of
  local government. On the very claim that the Government make of a £100 million saving by
  abolition of the GLC and the six metropolitan counties, Coopers and Lybrand concludes not only that
  the Government's claims cannot be supported but that likely additional annual costs at least in the six
  areas of the metropolitan counties will be up to £69 million per year.
  The plain truth is that the Bill is part, perhaps the crowning achievement, of the Government's campaign
  against local democracy, the hard-hit inner cities and conurbation areas of the country, and areas where
  their political opponents, the Labour party, are in local control.
  Mr. Nellist: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Shore: I shall not give way to my hon. Friend as I
  must conclude.
  Not content with fining and penalising local councils that maintain their services, not content even with
  taking powers to limit their ability to raise and set their own rates, the Government have now reached the
  ultimate stage of abolishing the offenders altogether. That reflects all too clearly the authoritarian
  temperament of the Government, particularly of the Prime Minister. The new arrangements are not only
  an affront to democracy, but are illogical, cumbersome and unworkable. The guillotine at this stage of
  the Bill that gives legislative authority to the proposals adds insult to injury, and we shall oppose it in the
  Lobby tonight.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Martin Stevens: Those of
  us who have the pleasure and delight of serving on the Standing Committee on the Bill that we are
  discussing will have heard the remarks by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House with the
  greatest possible pleasure, first, because of the felicity and charm that graced their utterance, but no less
  because his speech spelt out for us not the end of debate on the Bill, but the beginning. As
  84
  we know, the Select Committee on Procedure is now examining this matter. Many of us feel that there
  would be benefit in Standing Committees always working to time from day one. First and, in my
  submission, not least, that would give the Government's supporters on the Committee a fair chance to
  participate in the debate. Second, and perhaps more important, it would tie down the Committee to
  debating the realities that are at stake and to forgetting, or at least passing over with relative speed, the
  emotional frivolities that we have been forced to hear throughout the past eight
  weeks.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: If we
  thought that the guillotine would assist Conservative Members to take part in the debate, my hon.
  Friends and I on the Committee would welcome that because so far we have heard almost nothing in
  justification of the measures on which Conservative Members regularly vote. The hon. Gentleman said
  that timetabling the Committee would allow adequate participation in debates. Does he include Ministers
  in that? Once the guillotine is passed, does he expect real answers from Ministers, rather than the casual
  reading of briefs which we have had so far?
  Mr. Stevens: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would
  not expect me to answer for my ministerial colleagues. It is up to them what they say and do. I have no
  doubt that they will continue to give a good account of themselves.
  When I said that there had been a certain amount of emotional frivolity, I go along with my right hon.
  Friend the Leader of the House, in that on this occasion I do not accuse the Opposition of filibustering.
  They have, however, concentrated their whole line of argument on a series of propositions which are
  false. For example, they have told us ad nauseam that no Government since Boadicea have ever denied
  people the democratic right to vote for an outgoing local authority. Yet that is exactly what the Labour
  party did in London in 1964 and in the rest of the country in 1975 when forms of local administration
  were being phased out.
  I do not say that this action was our first choice, but the House knows the reasons for it and there is
  ample precedent for it in the history of Labour Governments. If the Opposition keep repeating what
  everyone knows to be rubbish, I think that I am entitled to describe that as emotional
  frivolity.
  Mr. Tony Banks: As the hon. Gentleman well knows,
  far from repeating emotional rubbish, the Opposition have cited reams of evidence submitted to all
  members of the Committee from learned bodies, royal institutions and impartial sources to the effect
  that the Government have got it completely wrong. Meanwhile, the Government have been unable to
  produce even one substantial piece of evidence to support their proposals. Finally, why have 10
  Conservative Members sat in the Committee and said absolutely nothing throughout the proceedings?
  Mr. Stevens: It is always a pleasure to hear
  interventions from the hon. Gentleman. The reams of evidence from more or less interested outside
  bodies to which he refers do not relate to the point that I was making, from which he was careful to
  divert attention. As for the allegation that 10 Government supporters have not yet spoken, the timetable
  motion will give them the opportunity to break forth into compelling words. I look forward not just to
  hearing them but to joining them in weeks to come.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am not here to defend either
  Tory or Labour Governments, but the hon. Gentleman is wrong about a Labour Government having set
  a precedent, as both the GLC and the metropolitan counties were set up by Tory legislation. Moreover,
  neither occasion was a precedent for what the Government are now doing, because on both occasions
  the life of an elected authority was continued pending the replacement of higher-tier authorities. In this
  case, however, the life of an authority is continued for one year by the abolition of elections, but no
  interim authority is to come into existence. In this case the authority is to be dissolved. There is no
  precedent for that from any Government.
  Mr. Stevens: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting
  technicality and in so doing draws attention to another Opposition argument — the wilful
  assertion that less government means less democracy. I should have thought that the fewer tiers of
  government the people of this country have to find their way through, the greater the presumption
  should be that there will be more rather than less democracy.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Why not scrap the whole lot then?
  Mr. Stevens: Surely no one would argue that the
  abolition of the area health authorities has undermined the conduct of the National Health
  Service.
  Mr. Tony Banks: They should never have been set up
  in the first place.
  Mr. Stevens: My party set up the GLC and no one
  could be sadder than I at what has happened to it. I played a small part in that, as Chris Chataway and I
  put to the Royal Commission the evidence that came closest to its final proposition. That being so, I
  should have liked the GLC to operate successfully as a strategic authority. From the first GLC election
  in 1965, however, the GLC triggered off its reserve powers on a daily basis, and instead of being the
  strategic authority that it was set up to be it became a very slow and expensive duplicating authority,
  duplicating the functions of the boroughs which both parties had agreed should be, and now will be, the
  primary instruments of local government.
  Dr. Hampson: I understand that the Liberal party
  favours abolishing the metropolitan counties and not replacing them. It apparently wants an even more
  distant tier in the shape of some colossal regional government system.
  Mr. Stevens: That is a helpful intervention and I see
  some nods from across the way.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: At least we are
  consistent.
  Mr. Stevens: It is interesting that the right hon.
  Gentleman who leads the Opposition in Committee — I am sorry, the hon. Gentleman who
  leads the Opposition in Committee—
  Mr. Tony Banks: It is only a matter of
  time.
  Mr. Stevens: I am sure that that is so. The hon.
  Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has made it clear that an incoming Labour Government would
  not replace the six metropolitan counties, but he has not yet said whether an incoming Labour
  Government would reinstate the GLC. At Labour party local government conferences up to and
  including 1981 the speeches made by Labour
  86
  Members now passionately committed to the opposite view show that there is a twist of hypocrisy in
  the outrage and condemnation to which they now subject us.
  One very unpleasant feature of the Standing Committee on the Bill is the presence round the clock in the
  Public Gallery of a group of agents, presumably paid for by the ratepayers—some have
  assessed the number as being as high as 26, although it is difficult to identify them
  accurately—
  Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman can do better
  than that. As he well knows, GLC officers have been present, but at no time have there been more than
  four paid officers present. They are there to advise not just the Opposition but Conservative Members.
  I have made it clear to the Committee that if Government supporters need information — from
  the paucity of their arguments it is clear that they do — they are welcome to consult those
  officers. The hon. Gentleman should not continue to mislead the House. He should take it from me as a
  GLC councillor that there have never been more than four paid officers
  present.
  Mr. Stevens: May we also take it from the hon.
  Gentleman, as a member of the GLC, that at least some of the people who, day and night, accompany
  the Committee in the Public Gallery are not concealing their identity by means of false names or code
  names? Can he repeat—
  Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman give
  way?
  Mr. Stevens: I shall give way to the hon. Member for
  Bootle (Mr. Roberts) after giving way to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr.
  Banks).
  Mr. Banks: It does not take much persuasion to make
  me rise to answer the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) or any other Government Member. Yes,
  there have never been more than four paid officials there. From time to time there have been a number
  of elected members who have a close interest in the matter and a more detailed knowledge of what the
  Government are trying to do.
  Mr. Stevens: That was not the answer that I had
  hoped for. I had thought that my question was precise, but clearly it has been
  avoided.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: There have been visits from
  officers and elected members of Merseyside county council. Not many officers have been present, but
  one or two elected members have come here under their own steam, paying their own expenses. The
  chief officer responsible for the waste disposal services took unpaid leave in order to attend the
  Committee.
  Mr. Stevens: The idea of ladies and gentlemen from
  Merseyside county council undertaking such work gratis in their own time is an inspiring vision. The
  House is grateful to the hon. Gentleman for telling us about it.
  Mr. John Powley (Norwich, South): The hon.
  Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was careful to say that at any one time no more than
  four GLC officers were present in the Committee. He did not say that only four had ever been present.
  Is it not possible that, through the long hours, relays of four different people at different times have
  been involved in the argument?
  Mr. Stevens: That is what is called playing the
  numbers game. I do no more than thank my hon. Friend for his kind
  intervention.
  Mr. Cowans: I am following the hon. Gentleman's
  arguments closely, which is more than I have had a chance to do in Committee. He should remember,
  first, that there is a bevy of talent in the Committee sitting by the Chairman, all of it presumably paid for
  by the taxpayer. Secondly, if the hon. Gentleman's argument is so substantial and his case so good,
  why should he worry even if there are 30,000 people in the Public Gallery?
  Mr. Stevens: I would not go so far as to say that I am
  worried. My modest comment—I have referred to only what is on the Committee's record
  — has attracted so many excited interventions from the Opposition Benches that it has
  consumed more time than I had in mind.
  Mr. Clive Soley: It
  was offensive.
  Mr. Stevens: I do not know that it was offensive. It is
  a fact.
  Mr. Soley: I can tell the hon. Gentleman why his
  comments were offensive. He has launched an attack upon people who have a proper interest in
  servicing that Committee in the same way as it is done by the civil servants, whom the hon. Gentleman
  has not attacked. He knows that they cannot answer back. He even says that they appear under false
  names. That is offensive to many people who work hard and properly.
  Mr. Stevens: The hon. Member for Hammersmith
  (Mr. Soley) has uttered a clear denial of my point. Hon. Members will no doubt take account of his
  intervention when judging the veracity of what I said.
  The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred to a remark that he said had
  come from the lips of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), whose
  seat in the Chamber I have momentarily usurped. My right hon. Friend is alleged to have said that the
  question of abolition was introduced into the Conservative party manifesto without any considerable
  discussion with Greater London Conservative Members.
  Since 1979 I have continuously been the secretary of the Greater London group of Conservative
  Members — [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]. The position is indeed not without honour. My
  right hon. Friend is a member of that group but has never attended a
  meeting.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The right hon. Gentleman is no
  fool.
  Mr. Stevens: Tempting nets are laid before our feet in
  these debates. I shall resist the temptation to dance on that trampoline.
  Mr. Banks: What an awesome
  thought.
  Mr. Stevens: In the two years leading up to the 1983
  general election it sometimes seemed that there was not a weekly meeting of the Greater London
  Conservative Members at which the issue of the GLC and its abolition was not discussed ad nauseam.
  By the time of the election there was no doubt at all — pace my hon. Friend the Member for
  Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) — that the overwhelming majority of Conservative Greater London
  Members — who then as now exceeded in number the Labour Members for Greater London
  — were in favour of abolition. On a number of occasions we sought
  88
  interviews with the leader of the party, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to make them
  aware of our views.
  That may well be the only topic on which I speak with greater authority than my right hon. Friend the
  Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. Since I can outspeak him on that one point, this may be a suitable
  moment for me to resume my seat.
  Mr. Banks: The right hon. Gentleman's
  seat.
  Mr. Stevens: My right hon. Friend's seat. Before I do
  so, I must assure my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of my full
  support.
  7.57 pm
  Mr. John Cartwright: I begin
  by congratulating the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) on a speech today that was longer than
  the total sum of his utterances in Committee. I shall not take up all the points made by the hon.
  Gentleman. I was fascinated by his fantasies of sinister GLC officers, giving false names and no doubt
  sporting false beards, controlling the affairs of the Committee.
  I was impressed by the use of creative accounting—as it is now called—by the Leader
  of the House in order to prove that the Government's record on guillotining is no worse than that of
  their Labour predecessors. However, though entertaining, the argument was not persuasive.
  I still believe that there is a powerful case for timetabling Bills from the start. However, whether Bills are
  timetabled by agreement or whether, as in this case, a guillotine is imposed, there should be adequate
  time for proper debate. The Leader of the House was not persuasive on that point in relation to this Bill.
  It is a complex piece of legislation. Those who believed that removing one tier of metropolitan
  government would be an easy operation have learnt the hard way that it is far from easy. This is not just
  a Local Government Bill. For the seven largest conurbations in the country, it is also an education,
  transport, police and fire authorities Bill.
  As the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) correctly reminded us, many
  important issues remain to be examined in Committee, and, on the basis of the timetable now before us,
  they will have to be rushed. Part III sets up a completely new body to oversee London's education.
  That will be a freestanding, one service authority. Modern local government has no experience of that
  sort of organisation—not since the days of the London School Board. This issue needs proper
  scrutiny, as does the method of electing the ILEA.
  Part IV introduces the joint boards. That has aroused considerable controversy and detailed
  criticism.
  Part V restructures the funding of voluntary organisations. Here again, there has been considerable
  criticism. Among the critics is the London Churches Group, which wrote to the Prime Minister on 9
  November detailing its criticism of that part of the Government's proposals. That letter was signed by
  some distinguished churchmen, no less than the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Southwark, the
  Methodist Chairman of London, southeastern district, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster and the
  Archbishop of Southwark. I should have thought that even this Government would have taken seriously
  a letter signed by so many distinguished churchmen. However, I do not believe that we shall have
  adequate time to debate that important part of the Bill.

  89
  Part VI contains all the complex arrangements for staff. The future allocation of staff as a result of the
  abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties will be anything but straightforward. Staff will have
  to be slotted in to successor authorities, be they joint boards or borough or district councils. That will
  be a complex operation. The staff involved are entitled to see that this part of the Bill is examined in
  detail and is treated with the seriousness that it deserves.
  Part VII sets up the residuary authority. Here again, there is more than one view. Some Conservative
  Members are clearly anxious to use the residuary body to take over many of the GLC's existing powers.
  They are surely entitled to have adequate time to develop their arguments, but that will not be available
  on the basis of the timetabling that is now proposed.
  Mr. Dykes: As time goes on, is it not becoming
  clearer that the only way to get out of the dilemma that the Government have created for themselves is
  to allow this residuary body to take over those functions and to become an elected successor
  authority?
  Mr. Cartwright: I do not believe that that is the ideal
  solution, but it is one solution. It is certainly more attractive than the one that the Government are
  putting forward. I am simply arguing that, given some measure of support for that idea among
  Conservative Members, that alone should have persuaded the Government to give ample time to enable
  it to be properly examined and discussed. I do not believe that that time will be available on the basis of
  the timetable before us.
  Part VIII deals with the principles of rate levying and precepting, the complexities of reorganising
  grant-related expenditure assessments, and all the other myriad complexities of local government
  financing which will result from abolition. Therefore, major elements in the Bill will not be properly
  examined on the basis of the timetabling that has been proposed.
  The Leader of the House was happy to remind us of the precedent established by the London
  Government Bill in 1963. That was timetabled almost from the very start. Clause 1 and schedule 1 were
  taken on the Floor of the House, but a timetable applied to the remainder. It was a similar timetable to
  the one now before us. About seven weeks were allowed for Committee stage and only two days for
  Report. Two arguments put forward by the Government in support of that timetable do not apply
  today. The late Iain Macleod argued that the Bill implemented the unanimous recommendation of a
  Royal Commission and that as a result the Government were entitled to timetable it. That does not apply
  to this Bill, which is the result of a manifesto commitment but no serious independent examination.
  Secondly, in arguing the case for a timetable based on the London Government Bill, the right hon.
  Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) said:
  "We have the support of the bulk of our hon. Friends on every part of the Bill. We have the
  support of all our hon. Friends, except, I think, for one, on the principles of the Bill as a whole".
  —[Official Report, 29 January 1963; Vol. 670, c. 893–94.]
  It is clear that that argument cannot be used in relation to this legislation, in respect of which there are
  considerable doubts among many Conservative Members.
  When we look at the 1972 legislation which reorganised local government outside Greater London and
  set up the metropolitan counties, we find a more generous allocation
  90
  of time. Second Reading took place on 16 and 17 November 1971. There was a lengthy Committee
  stage; the Bill did not come back on Report until 13 April 1972; and it did not complete Report and
  Third Reading until 21 July 1972. Debate on the Floor of the House totalled 67 hours, covering seven
  days, including two all-night sittings. That is a much more generous allocation of time than the two days
  which have been allotted for this Local Government Bill.
  I also endorse the view put forward by the Opposition, and I think accepted by Conservative Members,
  that the conduct of the Committee thus far produces no evidence of undue delay on the part of the
  Opposition. Those of us who have had experience of other local government measures have enjoyed
  the contributions of the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans). So far we have been
  disappointed in Committee because the hon. Member has substantially restricted his contributions. That
  is a great loss to the Committee and to us all. Indeed, as other hon. Members have pointed out, the hon.
  Member for Tyne Bridge has been eclipsed by some of the speeches from the Government Front
  Bench. I do not criticise the fact that Ministers have made lengthy contributions. This legislation is
  complex, and Ministers are right to seek to explain it in detail. They are right to react to our criticisms,
  because the Bill requires that sort of examination.
  So far there have been no concessions from the Government. No amendments have been accepted and
  no concessions have been even faintly suggested. This timetable is unappealing because, as well as
  getting no concessions, even the Opposition's argument will be cut short, despite the fact that, day after
  day and night after night, we have been able to refer to an overwhelming body of expert opinion which
  demonstrates that the Government's case is not supported by those who work in and are most
  intimately associated with the services concerned. We have not had from the Government any serious,
  persuasive evidence of expert opinion in support of what they are proposing.
  This Bill will have a tremendous impact on many institutions and organisations in the metropolitan areas.
  It will also have a tremendous impact on millions of people in our seven greatest conurbations. Its
  effects will be felt for many years to come. It needs the most rigorous and careful scrutiny. It should
  not be railroaded through the House by sheer force of numbers. Therefore, my hon. Friends and I will
  vote against the timetable motion tonight.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. John Powley: I am one of the most junior
  Members of the House of Commons, although I am as proud to be an hon. Member as anybody else. I
  have always believed in the traditions of the House and its historial precedents. The speeches that
  opened this debate followed the traditions of the House and there are many precedents for them. I
  suspect that those speeches could relate to all of the other measures that have had a timetable motion,
  whether it be by Labour or Conservative Governments.
  It may be presumptuous of a fairly new Member to suggest, with great respect and in all sincerity, that
  there must be a better way to conduct our business. I do not pretend to know what is going on in the
  Business Sub-Committee or in the higher echelons of Government, but a way should be found for the
  House to conduct its

  91
  business without us going through a ritual for controversial measures, and most of them are
  controversial. We have a fairly heated debate on Second Reading, and the Bill is referred to a Standing
  Committee. The first 100 to 130 hours of the Committee are taken up by speeches from the Opposition
  Members in support of amendments, while the Government Benches rightly resist those amendments
  until the Government, duty bound to get legislation through, because that is what the Government are
  about, decide that a timetable motion must be sought. We come to the appointed day and there are
  ritual speeches in the House, and the Government, again rightly — I shall be supporting the
  motion—get the timetable motion. That is put into force and the Bill goes through Committee to
  the Report stage, Third Reading and then to the other place. That process could be applied to almost
  every controversial measure that has had to be guillotined. There must be a better
  way.
  Mr. Dykes: My hon. Friend is saying things that will
  strike a chord in the hearts and minds of many hon. Members. Does he agree that there is another
  central problem of our parliamentary system? It is an increasing problem that causes increasing dismay
  and despair in the public. Governments can legislate too easily on the basis of a minority popular vote
  and get that legislation too easily through the House. There is not sufficient examination, and that
  problem will not be solved even by the latest proposals of the Procedure
  Committee.
  Mr. Powley: I do not accept that this is a minority
  measure. I think that it has a great deal of widespread support, but I suspect that my hon. Friend and I
  are agreed that there must be a better way.
  We have rightly found—again this is a bit of a ritual —that there is traditional obstruction
  to the Bill. That is what Oppositions are for. We recognise that, and if roles were reversed we would be
  doing the same. However, I suspect that never before have the Opposition taken their case to the
  lengths we have seen in respect of this measure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr.
  Stevens) said, we have witnessed the spectacle of GLC officials giving Opposition Members their
  briefs. I have not seen that before, although it may have happened.
  Mr. Cartwright: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that
  the first Standing Committee on which I sat, on the Petroleum Revenue Tax Bill, was dominated by
  Government spokesmen reading Treasury briefs and Opposition spokesmen reading oil company
  briefs? There is nothing wrong with briefs.
  Mr. Powley: I shall not dispute that, nor that it has
  happened before, but whether it has happened to this extent, I cannot say.
  Briefs have been prepared for the Opposition, and Opposition Members have used them with their
  traditional eloquence. Although I served on the Rates Bill Standing Committee, I have never experienced
  as much lobbying through my postbag as I have on this subject. There has been tremendous
  correspondence by those opposed to the measure. I suspect that those opposing the Bill have given a
  number of misleading facts and figures about the Bill. My correspondence shows that the public have
  the wrong end of the stick on a number of issues. Only this weekend,
  92
  I received a hand-written letter from someone within the GLC area about the ILEA proposals. The
  correspondent was under the impression that education was being taken over solely by an appointed
  body of officials. We all know that that is not the case. I wonder where such misleading information
  arose.
  I was interested to note that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) volunteered that
  any of his officials would be pleased to give Conservative Members any information that they desired.
  In one of the metropolitan countries, I was talking to an official of one of the councils. He told me
  — this is not secondhand information—that he had been prohibited from speaking to
  hon. Members about the abolition of the metropolitan councils.
  Mr. Cowans: Which council?
  Mr. Powley: I shall not give the name of the
  gentleman, nor the authority for which he worked, but he assured me that he had been prohibited from
  speaking to Members of Parliament. I found that sad, and I suspect that that action would not receive
  the support of Opposition Members.
  It has been said that this policy was a last-minute addition to the Conservative party's manifesto. I do
  not know when it was written into the Conservative party manifesto because I was not privileged to
  have such information, but those of us who have been involved in local government for a considerable
  time — there are Opposition Members with a longer service than mine of 12 or 14 years
  — have been unhappy. I was unhappy with the GLC and metropolitan county councils
  arrangement when it was set up, and I became increasingly unhappy with it as the years went by. Finally,
  in the three or four years before the 1983 general election it became patently obvious that there were a
  number of abuses in local government, and that the GLC and metropolitan county councils should be
  abolished. Many of us were suggesting that well before the Conservative party manifesto was written in
  1983, or whenever it was written. The Conservative party has had this policy for a long time.
  I also support the motion because, the longer this issue drags on, undoubtedly the more waste there will
  be and the more irresponsible actions will be committed by the GLC and the metropolitan county
  councils. I can give an example of the irresponsible behaviour. It is clear that this is the Government's
  policy, and one would have thought that under such a premise there would not have been any
  recruitment of staff. I do not read The Guardian, but somebody showed it to me because he
  was appalled at what was happening. In the public appointments section of the issue of 30 January
  1985—
  Mr. Tony Banks: Tell us what is in The
  Sun.
  Mr. Powley: I do not read The Sun either. I
  am only kidding the House that I can actually read. I was shown the public appointments section of
  The Guardian in which the GLC, in January 1985, knowing that it was the Government's policy
  to abolish it, was advertising for an officer for "The Women's Committee — A Voice for
  Women in London", for a "Grants Monitoring Adviser", for "Equalities Officers", and for a part-time
  research assistant in the "Police Committee Support Unit". If anyone is interested, that latter post carries
  a salary of £12,000 to £14,700 a year.

  93
  The GLC was also advertising for an officer for the "Ethnic Minorities Unit", for a "Race Relations
  Adviser", for an "Outreach and Liaison Worker for Youth", and for a "Joint Deputy Head of Grants
  Division". Those posts were advertised by the GLC at salaries of £13,000 and more a year,
  when we all know that in one way or another the GLC will be abolished—and good riddance to
  it.
  The House of Lords may make some amendments to the Bill—I hope that there will be
  none—but we all know that at the end of the day the GLC will be abolished, as will the
  metropolitan counties. In those circumstances, no responsible organisation should be appointing
  officers at large salaries. The longer we leave it, the more abuses there will be. More staff will be
  appointed and more redundancy payments will be needed.
  Mr. Roland Boyes: I am finding it difficult to
  follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. The logic of his argument is that there is no point in having
  debates in this House on any measures whatever because the Government will use their large majority to
  secure whatever they want. The logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that we should abolish not
  only the GLC and the metropolitan counties but this place, too.
  Mr. Powley: That is not the logic of my argument.
  My argument is that there is no need at the present time for the authorities to make additional staff
  appointments. They already have more than sufficient staff to do their work. The local authorities are
  deliberately attempting to appoint as many staff as they possibly can in the time left at their disposal.
  That is irresponsible behaviour.
  I suggest that the House should approve the motion, because the country cannot afford the GLC or the
  six metropolitan counties.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: I should like to comment on some
  of the general arguments just made by the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley).
  The hon. Gentleman put the worrying argument for all of us who believe in democracy and local
  government—it was brought up on many occasions by Conservative Members in the Standing
  Committee and it is the essence of Conservative party propaganda — that because
  Conservatives disagree with certain aspects of GLC and metropolitan counties' policy, and as those
  policies cannot be overturned through the ballot box, it is necessary to use the Conservative party's
  parliamentary majority to abolish a tier of local government. That is an argument which the hon.
  Gentleman has used—
  Mr. Powley rose—
  Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman has used that
  argument in regard to policy but not in regard to the structure of local government.
  It is very worrying that throughout the debates so far Conservative Members have been very keen to
  talk about policy — there are genuine disagreements about policy, and that is the essence of
  democracy—but they have not been prepared to talk about the structure of local government.
  The hon. Gentleman fell into that trap in his speech.
  Mr. Powley: If I remember my words correctly, I said
  that I was unhappy with the GLC and the six metropolitan counties when they were first set up, and that
  I became
  94
  increasingly concerned about their activities as the years went by. I am not arguing that the GLC and the
  six metropolitan counties should be abolished because of their present policies. I said that I had
  misgivings about them when they were originally set up. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Official
  Report tomorrow, he will see that that is what I said.
  Mr. Fatchett: The evidence which the hon. Gentleman
  produced to support his assumption was in relation not to structure but to policy. I believe that the
  Official Report will show that I am correct in that respect.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there must be a better way to process the legislation.
  That better way is not through the passing of a timetable motion or the use of the Government's large
  majority, but through a proper preparation for the legislation.
  We strongly object to the timetable motion because the Government have not prepared the ground for a
  major change in local government structure. The Government are afraid of having any sort of
  independent inquiry such as a Royal Commission or a Select Committee. There should have been a
  report from a Royal Commission or a Select Committee so that we could study the arguments and
  conclusions. Instead of proceeding in that way, the Government rushed into legislation without getting
  the professional advice of local government officers or of professional bodies. They have proceeded
  without the support of the electorate in the areas covered by the GLC and the metropolitan counties. I
  suspect that if this legislation were put to a referendum in the GLC area it would be heavily defeated,
  and that the same would happen in the metropolitan counties. All the available evidence supports that
  contention.
  I repeat that there should have been proper preparation before legislation was introduced. There should
  have been an independent inquiry, together with some test of opinion in the metropolitan counties and
  the GLC. The only conclusion that one can possibly draw is that the Government avoided those
  avenues of approach because they were afraid of independent opinion and afraid of the ballot
  box.
  Mr. Powley rose—
  Mr. Fatchett: I shall not give way to the hon.
  Gentleman, who made a lengthy speech.
  If the Government were not afraid, we would not be discussing a timetable motion tonight. Only a small
  part of the Bill has been debated in Standing Committee. The Bill has in no way been subject to public
  scrutiny or to any sort of democratic accountability. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there should
  have been a better way. It should have been through proper preparation rather than by introducing a
  timetable motion at this early stage.
  The proceedings of the Committee have been very important in exposing the threadbare nature of the
  Government's argument. The threadbare nature of their argument has been shown in three
  areas.
  Mr. Boyes: Does my hon. Friend find it surprising
  that the Secretary of State for the Environment has taken no part whatever in the work of the
  Committee? Does he find it surprising that he has played no part in the debate this evening, not even
  staying to listen to the arguments? Does my hon. Friend think that it is because the right hon. Gentleman
  does not understand what the Bill is about that

  95
  he does not support it, or is it that he has no satisfactory argument against the points that we have raised
  repeatedly in Committee?
  Mr. Fatchett: I am not surprised that the Secretary of
  State has taken no part in this debate or in the proceedings in Committee. If I were responsible for the
  legislation, I would also do my best to avoid any debate on it. My hon. Friend shows yet again that he
  has great faith in human nature. His hope that the Secretary of State would want to be present and put
  his argument is sincere but, I suspect, sadly misplaced in this context.
  The Committee has exposed the Government on three major points. I shall run through them briefly,
  because yet again they argue for more time, debate and investigation of the clauses in Committee.
  The Government told us that they estimate that £50 million will be saved by abolishing the six
  metropolitan counties. A similar figure has been given for the GLC. When we have asked written
  parliamentary questions and raised this issue in Committee, the Minister has been unable to provide us
  with any detailed breakdown of that figure. If the Government have a figure, they have a responsibility
  to the House and to the ratepayers in the areas involved to tell us how they arrived at it. The
  Government cannot say that they have a figure of £50 million for the metropolitan counties and
  yet be unable to tell us the figure for West Yorkshire and the other five metropolitan counties. The only
  possible conclusion is that the Government do not have figures, and that they have pulled that figure of
  £50 million out of a hat in much the same way as they pulled the legislation out of a hat in the
  first place.
  The same argument can be made about jobs. The Government say that there will be job losses. In
  Committee we have asked in which areas those jobs will be lost and what services will be involved, yet
  the Government have again given us no answers. We can only conclude once again that the Government
  do not have any hard evidence to support the assertions in the financial memorandum to the Bill.
  Therefore, on the grounds of cost and jobs alone, the Government's case is threadbare and falls
  apart.
  Another worry was expressed in Committee which I think also concerned Conservative Members. On
  occasion, Conservative Members have made very telling and useful interventions, asking whether the
  Minister can guarantee that certain services will be maintained in West Yorkshire, the other metropolitan
  counties or perhaps even in the Greater London area. Of course, they do not obtain any such
  guarantees from the Minister, because he cannot give them. I suspect that the reason is that he is not
  prepared to say, at this stage, that rate support grant will be available for the services when they are
  devolved to joint boards or committees, to the London boroughs and to the metropolitan districts. The
  Government cannot show that we shall not lose in terms of quality of service as a result of the Bill.
  Indeed, the fact that the Minister cannot give his hon. Friends any assurances leads only to the
  conclusion that he exects to make savings, not from abolishing a tier of local government or from a
  structural change, but from reducing services and the quality of services available to ratepayers in those
  areas.
  Dr. Hampson: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not
  saying that the cities and towns of West Yorkshire are incapable of operating without the West
  Yorkshire metropolitan county. Since he places such faith in grand commissions and inquiries, I should
  tell him that Redcliffe-Maud, which sat for six years, specifically said that West Yorkshire would be
  best served by five separate authorities and not by a metropolitan county. The hon. Gentleman knows
  full well that there is no logic in a small town such as Wakefield running its own education when cities
  such as Bristol, Leicester and Nottingham cannot do so.
  Mr. Fatchett: If the hon. Gentleman had read the
  report of our debates in Committee he would have been interested in the comments of the hon. Member
  for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler). Bradford metropolitan district council is considering taking legal
  action on the rate support grant settlement which the Government have given it and against that
  background the hon. Gentleman asked for certain assurances. The Government could not give those
  assurances because they are not in a position to say that the necessary RSG will in future by devolved
  to the districts. Again, the only conclusion is that the Government can reach that figure for savings only
  by reducing the number and quality of services available to ratepayers and the public in the metropolitan
  areas.
  We need more debate on the Bill in Committee, because it poses constitutional issues and is directly
  relevant to every one of the 13 million people living in the metropolitan counties. If we are not allowed
  to scrutinise and question the Bill in greater detail, the House will probably vote for a reduction in
  services and in the number of jobs in those areas without even being given the necessary information by
  the Government.
  This is a threadbare Bill, and it is an insult to the House to push through such a Bill on a timetable
  motion, because we have not been provided with the necessary information, and the Committee has not
  been provided with it either. The Bill is also an insult to all those elected members in the metropolitan
  areas and the GLC and to all those who work for those councils. If the Government had a case to make
  they would have made it in Committee and in the House, and they would have published the available
  evidence. They have not done so and have gone to the last resort of any Government defeated in
  argument and used their majority to stifle debate and to push through a Bill which has nothing to do with
  local government but much to do with the Prime Minister's vanity and, as someone has said, with the 10
  years in which the Conservative party has been hijacked from the Right. That is what the Bill is about,
  and it has nothing to do with local government.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. Timothy Wood: During
  many hours in Committee we often heard the argument that the Bill does not have sufficient support,
  has not received careful examination, and so on. That argument is nonsense. The right hon. Member for
  Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) commented on the absence of an inquiry. During the past 20
  years there have been a multitude of inquiries into local government. Consequently, we have had an
  opportunity to see the results of some of the experiments that have followed them. The results of those
  experiments demonstrate all too clearly that the metropolitan counties

  97
  and the GLC lead to duplication and extravagance that can and should be avoided. In the light of that
  experience, the Bill was rightly introduced.
  Mr. Nellist: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Bill
  is so worthy as to justify his presence here tonight, why did he not make such speeches in Committee?
  Why is it that 10 out of 19 Tory Back Benchers in Committee have not said a single word about the
  implications for jobs or for ratepayers' services and so on? Why has the hon. Gentleman been so silent
  for the past four or five weeks?
  Mr. Wood: I have listened to the wealth of argument
  put forward by Conservative Members and to the paucity of argument by the Opposition. Frankly, I
  found that the Opposition's repetition did not go anywhere towards presenting a case. As my hon.
  Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley) has said, there is a need to examine the detail of
  the Bill, but the Committee has been going through an absurd
  ritual—
  Mr. Tony Banks: It is called
  democracy.
  Mr. Wood: If only democracy were being served by
  the Opposition's actions and if only we were examining the minutiae of the Bill and considering the
  arguments in order to see how best to make the Bill effective. That is not what we have been doing. On
  every clause the Opposition have been reiterating a series of particular
  contentions.
  Mr. Dykes: Surely my right hon. Friend must be
  aware that several Conservative Members have repeatedly tabled very thoughtful amendments which are
  designed not only to improve the Bill but to provide for a successor structure. Those amendments will
  be tabled again at later stages in Committee and perhaps in the other place. The Bill is intrinsically far
  too controversial for people to accept because there has not been examination by any expert outside
  body beforehand. That was offered by the then Conservative leader of the GLC in 1976, but it was
  rejected at that stage by the party, which said that no such inquiry was necessary because the GLC was
  the jewel in the crown and it had been created in 1963 by the then Conservative
  Government.
  Mr. Wood: Some of the more lucid arguments and
  constructive suggestions in Committee were put forward by my hon. Friends. I regret that the
  arguments have tended to be somewhat repetitious. They have concentrated on the belief that the
  residuary body should be elected, and points following from that, but our argument has been expressed
  with more lucidity than the Opposition's.
  One of the Opposition's arguments is that big is beautiful. They say that the metropolitan counties and
  the GLC are better than boroughs and districts. An argument that has been repeated time and again is
  that districts and boroughs cannot and will not co-operate and that on the borders between the local
  authorities chaos will reign. It is said, for example, that roads and cycle tracks will not meet. Already
  throughout the country there are a multitude of boundaries between local authorities. Of course, some
  accommodation has to be and is made between the different authorities every day of the
  week.
  Mr. Fatchett: With the exception of the metropolitan
  areas, under the Bill there will be two-tier local government in the shire counties and shire
  districts.
  Mr. Wood: The hon. Gentleman is right. The shire
  counties have much smaller districts than the metropolitan and GLC areas. The districts in the shire
  counties do not cover education and various other aspects of local government which can adequately
  be covered by the metropolitan districts and London boroughs.
  Dr. Hampson: The Redcliffe-Maud report specifically
  prefers a variation, only it says that the shire counties should be single-tier and the metropolitan counties
  two-tier.
  Mr. Wood: That is right. There is no reason why
  different areas of the country should not be administered in modified ways.
  A further argument that has been expressed repeatedly is that money available to the metropolitan
  counties and to the GLC will not be available to the lower tiers. We want less money to be spent, but
  for it to be spent more effectively when it is. I am sure that the lower tier authorities will be as able as the
  met counties and the GLC to provide necessary services.
  I have been involved with a lower tier authority and I found it objectionable that only metropolitan
  authorities and the GLC are regarded as having the expertise to carry out a variety of tasks. The truth is
  that lower tier authorities can combine to gain the expertise when that is necessary.
  The Opposition have used the same arguments again and again in discussions on one clause after
  another. If we do not constrain the debate, they will use the same arguments ad nauseam in future hours
  in Committee. We should resist that. We should also resist the hope expressed by the hon. Member for
  Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) that we should sit for hour after hour in the Committee for the
  next few weeks. There is no need to sit in Committee night after night, week after week, to examine the
  Bill. The Bill can be examined well in the time proposed in the motion. We might then avoid some
  unnecessary repetition and get on with the task of preparing for more effective local government,
  administered by the districts and boroughs, instead of accepting the duplication and waste caused by
  the metropolitan counties and the GLC.
  8.44 pm
  Mr. Roland Boyes: I am pleased that the hon.
  Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) paid me the compliment of saying that I wanted to delve into detail
  on the Bill. I should be prepared to sit day and night, week after week to put the case for Tyne and
  Wear, the other met counties and the GLC. Our case is overwhelming.
  An important emphasis has been made tonight which I have suspected for some time. I regret that the
  hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley) is not here, because he provided the key to the
  Government's attitude towards local democracy, and, I believe, to democracy itself. He said that there
  was no point in appointing people to positions in the metropolitan counties or the GLC because, since
  the Government have a majority, the decision has already been made, despite the fact that the
  Committee is still sitting, and that the Bill has to return to the House and be considered in another place.
  The Government's assumption is that the Bill will be passed, and that it will be implemented. The
  democratic process will become meaningless because of the diktat of No. 10.

  99
  I am pleased that the hon. Member put on record what many of us have accused Government Members
  of in the past few months.
  Mr. Wood: By giving the Bill a Second Reading the
  House accepted the principle of abolishing the GLC and the metropolitan counties. The Committee is
  considering the details of that Bill, not the principle. It is irresponsible to appoint further people to those
  bodies when their time, according to the principle agreed by the House, is
  limited.
  Mr. Boyes: We dug a hole and the hon. Member for
  Stevenage (Mr. Wood) has fallen into it. The principle of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds,
  East (Mr. Healey) is that if one is in a hole one should stop digging. Earlier today we dug a hole and
  several Government Members were chucked into it. The hon. Member for Stevenage is now burying
  himself in that hole.
  My constituency is in the Tyne and Wear area. My constituents believe that the principle behind the Bill
  is a wicked act of political vindictiveness. Discussions in Committee have done nothing to allay my
  fears. It will be clear to the people whom I represent that Government Members do not want to hear the
  arguments. They do not want to know about the problems in the Tyne and Wear area. I warn the
  Minister that he will hear in Committee about the unemployment problems in the area.
  The Government are acting in an underhand manner. They cancelled elections to a body which has not
  yet been abolished. That is without precedent. The Secretary of State has tried to disclaim our
  accusation that it is without precedent, but he has not been able to produce an example in local
  government of elections to a body being cancelled before Parliament has agreed to the abolition of that
  body. I believe that democracy is about people and people expressing their wishes.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) referred to inquiries and opinion polls.
  An opinion poll about the abolition proposals conducted in the Prime Minister's constituency showed
  that the overwhelming majority were not in favour. It would be better to judge people's opinions through
  the ballot box, which is what the Opposition would have done.
  Mr. Fatchett: Why did the Prime Minister not do
  that?
  Mr. Boyes: The right hon. Lady does not believe in
  the ballot box. Indeed, there was an opportunity to hold an election this year, when the question of
  abolition would have been a major issue and the people could have made their decision. Surely such an
  election would have been a godsend to the Government—they would have had their answer
  through the ballot box.
  I have always believed that those whom the people elect are accountable for their actions. If the
  electorate is not happy with what they do, it can replace them. If the people of Tyne and Wear had not
  been happy with the services being provided, undoubtedly they would have expressed that through the
  ballot box. But they did not have an opportunity to do so because the Government are not interested in
  the democratic process.
  Not only have the Government cancelled the elections, they are now trying to cancel the discussions.
  We have dealt with only 17 clauses, but we are to be allowed only 40 minutes for each of the remaining
  clauses. That is not
  100
  sufficient to deal with six metropolitan counties and the GLC and hear the arguments of the Opposition
  and the Government on issues of vital importance to those whom each and every one of us represent in
  this House. If that is not a negation of democracy. I do not know what is.
  I am worried that we appear to be moving down the road towards dictatorship from No.
  10—No. 10 decides and the Conservative troops, like little lackeys, do as they are told. When
  democracy is being threatened and destroyed, there is danger that this House will go down the same
  road.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend has correctly
  referred to the sad retreat from democracy, where the Government are not prepared even to debate the
  issues. He said that there would be only 40 minutes discussion on each of the remaining clauses, which
  means 5 minutes discussion for each of the great county areas such as the Tyne and Wear and my area
  of Greater Manchester.
  When the Under-Secretary spoke for an hour in Committee last Thursday, he mentioned Greater
  Manchester not once. That was despite repeated questions. If, during such lengthy and important
  debates, Ministers are not prepared to answer substantive questions, what chance is there to obtain
  answers when the debate is cut to 40 minutes?
  Mr. Boyes: I agree with my hon. Friend, who made
  an important intervention. From a different viewpoint he has illustrated the way in which our questions
  have been treated in Committee—
  Mr. Tony Lloyd:
  Contemptuously.
  Mr. Boyes: I agree with my hon.
  Friend—indeed the word "contemptuous" would apply equally to this evening's debate. The
  Leader of the House made a flippant speech on a most serious issue. The hon. Member for Fulham
  (Mr. Stevens) made a long filibuster. Conservative Members accuse us of filibustering, but the House
  has had an opportunity tonight to decide which side of the House is taking the proposals
  seriously.
  Conservative Members do not have the support of Conservatives in my area. When the Tyne and Wear
  county council debated the issue of elections, one clause in the resolution called on the Government to
  "hold an immediate comprehensive and impartial inquiry before any re-organisation of local
  government takes place and this County Council pledges to abide by the findings of such an
  inquiry."
  That clause was passed by 59 votes to one—and the vote against was not from a Conservative
  member. That shows that the vast majority of Tyne and Wear Conservatives are worried for
  democracy.
  The Financial Times on 28 October quotes the leader of the Conservative group on the Tyne
  and Wear county council as saying that the Tyne and Wear county council could be run on much more
  streamlined lines and confine itself to broad strategic functions. That is something that the hon. Member
  for Stevenage has not understood. He has sat in Committee hour after hour and has obviously not
  listened to a word that has been said. Not one Opposition Member has said that district and borough
  councillors are any less able than county councillors. We have never said that district and borough
  council officers are any less able than county officers. We have said that there are certain aspects of the
  county councils' strategic functions that are essential. Even the leader of the Tyne and Wear
  Conservative group has recognised that.

  101
  The Local Councils Association for Yorkshire and Cleveland has made its views clear in a letter. I am
  sorry that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is not present. He is always telling us about the
  attitude in Cleveland. Mr. Ian Strong, the secretary of the association, said in the letter:
  "This Association representing 430 member Parish and Town Councils in North, South and
  West Yorkshire and Cleveland is very much opposed to the present legislation to abolish the
  Metropolitan County Councils. In this it is strongly supported by the National Association of Local
  Councils who represent 8000 Parish and Town Councils.
  The Association feels that the legislation is ill-conceived and unlikely to achieve any of the
  objects declared by the Government."
  The evidence against the proposals is overwhelming.
  I have said time and again in Committee that it is important that the Tyne and Wear authority is not
  demolished. One of the losses to Tyne and Wear will be section 137 and the twopenny rate. I have not
  received any answers to my questions on that point, but I ask Conservative Members to reflect on it.
  The £2 million involved for Tyne and Wear is used to protect jobs and to create further jobs in
  a region that consistently has the highest level of unemployment. Even if the grant is phased out over a
  period of time, will the Government allow the borough councils to raise an additional twopenny rate to
  enable Tyne and Wear to counter the massive levels of unemployment that it is facing?
  Perhaps I may give some figures to illustrate my remarks. Anyone who reads the Committee debates
  will know that I have quoted many figures during the past few weeks. Since 1979, 85,000 jobs have
  been lost in the Tyne and Wear area, and there have been nearly 65,000 redundancies. More than
  100,000 people are without work in the area, and the figure has doubled during the past five years.
  Unemployment at 20 per cent. is the third highest in mainland Britain. We believe that it is essential to
  have a strategic authority to help to counter the Government's monetarist policies, although it is
  extremely difficult to do so. We are running backwards, but at least we are trying to protect some jobs.
  We must have a strategic authority for economic development, job creation and the fight against
  unemployment.
  Before I conclude, I wish to ask some questions that I hope will be answered tonight. My hon. Friend
  the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) and other hon. Members have talked about costs. I have
  asked Ministers several times, but have never received an answer, for their estimate of the cost savings
  or losses to be made from the abolition to Tyne and Wear metropolitan council. What will be the cost
  advantages? I am prepared to listen carefully to what Ministers say, but the only evidence that I have,
  from reports carried out by independent consultants, is that it will cost the ratepayers of Tyne and Wear
  money if the council is abolished. I am talking not only about direct costs, but about the tremendous
  social costs. I cannot understand how the Government arrived at a figure of £50 million. I
  should have thought that the way to discover the cost of abolition of the six metropolitan counties
  would be to discover the cost of abolition of each one and then to add them together. But the Minister
  has no figures that he can substantiate. It is about time that the Government instituted a proper
  independent inquiry.
  What are the manpower implications of abolition? Will there be fewer or more people working? We
  have said all
  102
  along that abolition will lead to massive unemployment. Is that true? Again, the Government have not
  determined what the manpower implications will be.
  What will happen to the effectiveness of services? We believe that our councillors should be answerable
  to the electorate for the services that they provide, but we know that only 20 per cent. of the services
  provided by the metropolitan counties will be transferred to the boroughs. Therefore, 80 per cent. of
  services will be determined by the most centralised Government in western Europe—probably
  the most centralised in Western capitalism. The Government want less and less accountability whereas
  the Opposition—the true democrats—want more and more accountability.
  May I emphasise my point with the independent voice of Peter Hall, the respected professor of
  geography at the university of Reading. He says:
  "First, most of Europe is tending to move in the opposite direction to us: in the direction of
  greater autonomy and greater accountability for top-level metropolitan—regional authorities
  … There is overwhelming evidence that most of our neighbours have found it necessary to
  create metropolitan planning authorities for their capital city regions and for some other big urban areas
  … What they"—
  the Government—
  "should not be discussing at all, unless our European neighbours have collectively taken leave
  of their senses, is the need for some form of co-ordinated metropolitan government for our great urban
  areas. The issue is not whether, but how."
  We want to argue the issue, and we are prepared to sit there day and night to do so. We want to argue
  the Bill line by line, but the Government, being barren of argument, want to curtail discussion by using
  this timetable motion.
  9.3 pm
  Dr. Keith Hampson: It is useful to follow the hon.
  Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) because the existence of Tyne and Wear
  metropolitan council makes nonsense of the argument on which the Opposition rest their
  case—the importance of having inquiries or commissions before this sort of thing is done. No
  inquiry or commission recommended the creation of something called the Tyne and Wear metropolitan
  council. Since the creation of the councils by a Conservative Government in the 1970s, I have believed
  strongly—I put forward my views on it when I was a parliamentary private secretary at the
  Department of the Environment — that we created bodies which did not have a valid range of
  functions or a valid use of resources.
  I have obtained from the Library a background paper on local government inquiries. It states that there
  were reports on local government in the conurbations in 1947. The exercise was repeated in 1956 and a
  commission was set up in 1958 which reported in 1961. The Labour Government of Lord Wilson of
  Rievaulx, as he now is, set up the Redcliffe-Maud commission in 1966, which reported in 1972. That
  was followed by the Layfield inquiry. Unfortunately, the commissions and inquiries never agree. Indeed,
  they have not often agreed within themselves, and the Redcliffe-Maud commission was a notable
  example. Nor was there a consensus after it had reported. There is no unanimity merely because of an
  inquiry. The Government usually change a good proportion of the proposals that are contained in the
  reports.
  Nobody could have crawled over the area of local government with greater thoroughness, in more depth
  or for a longer period than the Redcliffe-Maud commission.

  103
  In the end, it proposed establishing only three metropolitan counties, with different functions from those
  of the present metropolitan counties. The commission proposed Greater Manchester, which for some
  strange reason it called SELNEC, Merseyside and Greater Birmingham. The Labour Government,
  including the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), considered the proposals
  and, in effect, said, "No, we do not agree with this." To the three proposed metropolitan counties they
  added West Yorkshire and South Hampshire. They said that they wanted that level of authority to be
  the primary tier in local government and they wanted the metropolitan counties to have responsibility for
  education. The Redcliffe-Maud commission did not want that to happen.
  Labour Members call for commissions of inquiry but they seem not to have read the Redcliffe-Maud
  report. It was not proposed in the Redcliffe-Maud report that responsibility for education should go to
  the metropolitan counties. However, the Labour Government in 1969–70 proposed that it
  should. The succeeding Tory Government changed the proposals once again and added South
  Yorkshire and, for some unknown reason, Tyne and Wear. They removed South Hampshire from the
  proposals and changed the powers of the metropolitan counties. They ended up without education and
  housing responsibilities. Indeed, they ended up with very little. Only a quarter of the resources which
  are spent to the benefit of the people, the customers, is spent by the metropolitan counties. That is to be
  contrasted with the shire counties' 80 per cent., and the GLC spends only one sixth. The metropolitan
  counties do not have a valid range of functions.
  We have heard many arguments about whether it is more or less democratic to have joint boards
  composed of district councillors to run transport. Are joint boards more democratic than passenger
  transport executives? No one in my constituency thinks that the passenger transport executive is
  especially democratic. Equally, no one knows how to get at or control it. That probably applies also to
  the police authority. The substance in the argument for democracy is marginal.
  Why should Wakefield, which is so far from Otley, decide which streets in Otley should have double
  yellow lines, which should have no yellow lines and which should have single yellow lines? Leeds could
  be responsible for most functions of that sort with joint boards of district councillors responsible for
  the other functions.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Greater Manchester area was
  called SELNEC because the initials represent South East Lancashire and North East Cheshire. It is a
  term that I do not like, but it is much better than "joint board". All historical precedent and all
  considered judgment led to the conclusion that there should be an authority covering the Greater
  Manchester area. Only the Government have failed to learn from the experience and reports of the early
  1970s or from the debates that ensued. Reports do not provide definitive answers, but they engage the
  nation in debate, and it is to be hoped that that allows the Government of the day to legislate with some
  credibility. Unfortunately, the present Government have proved unable to do
  so.
  Dr. Hampson: I think that the most recent exercise
  was a cock-up. Should a town such as Wakefield, or a small
  104
  part of Greater Manchester such as Tameside, have authority for education, when education is not in
  the control of Bristol, Leicester or Nottingham, for example?
  The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney as Secretary of State proposed "organic
  change." He recognised that certain things were not right. He did not embark on a great debate or set up
  a commission of inquiry before he submitted his proposals. The system that should be in place is
  certainly not the one that we have now. Therefore, the case for abolition is overwhelming. I am not
  aware of the position taken by the Labour party in Tyne and Wear, but until the Government announced
  their proposals the Labour party in every other metropolitan county was against the continuation of the
  metropolitan counties. All the Labour-controlled metropolitan districts knew only too well of the
  irritation of dealing with the metropolitan counties and they did not believe that they should continue,
  just as Mr. Livingstone took the view that the GLC should not exist.
  We are not having just a ritualistic dance. This sort of debate is a farce. The Committee stage of this
  type of legislation cannot continue in the way that it has during the time I have been a Member. We have
  all played this game. We have all run on through the night debating smaller and smaller points line after
  line. I spent 85 hours in Committee debating the Education Bill.
  The House must change its procedures. I believe that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)
  recommended in The Times that, from Second Reading onwards, all Bills should be timetabled.
  I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is present. I hope that he will confirm that point. I would like other
  Opposition Members to agree that we cannot continue with this type of debate, using hackneyed
  arguments time and again. I should like the Opposition to agree that we shall change our way of running
  this business.
  Mr. Straw rose—
  Dr. Hampson: I have
  finished.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the hon. Member
  for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) was giving way.
  Dr. Hampson: That was my last point, Mr.
  Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Front Benchers
  wish the winding-up to start at 9.40 pm. A number of hon. Members want to take part in the debate. I
  hope that hon. Members will have consideration for the claims of others.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: The Leader of the House
  treated hon. Members to a light-hearted trek through the timetabling motion. He suggested that a large
  number of people outside are waiting to throw their caps into the air when the GLC and metropolitan
  county councils are abolished. If the right hon. Gentleman peers out of the House and looks over to
  county hall on the other side of the river, he will see that valid statistic showing that 74 per cent. of
  Londoners are opposed to the GLC's abolition. Whatever the Government's support in the House,
  there is not the same support outside in the big, wide world.
  The guillotine motion is symptomatic of the Government's approach to the issue of the abolition of the
  GLC and the metropolitan county councils. No one has said that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley
  and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has misled the House in telling us that the

  105
  abolition pledge was written into the 1983 Tory election manifesto personally by the Prime Minister and
  against the advice of the Conservative party policy committee. That pledge was certainly written in
  without the Prime Minister showing the courtesy of consulting the Conservative party GLC members.
  They were as surprised by that manifesto pledge as was the Conservative party policy committee.
  The White Paper "Streamlining the Cities" attracted, as far as we know, more than 2,500 submissions,
  the overwhelming majority of which were totally opposed to the Government's proposals. Yet the
  Government have steadfastly refused to put those submissions in the Library. The Government have
  said, "If you want to find out what people have said, write to them to find out." How on earth can hon.
  Members do a proper job if they are denied access to the information sent in by a large number of
  organisations?
  We have had the measures to abolish the GLC and metropolitan county council elections, and now we
  have the guillotine when only 16 of the 98 clauses have been debated. The Opposition have not
  filibustered in Committee. We make no apology for debating in some detail and at some length the
  intricate proposals raised in the Bill. We must be clear that the Bill was based on the Prime Minister's
  party political spite. It will now be bulldozed through the House using what can be described only as the
  "zombie" vote of Members of Parliament. Most Conservative Members cannot even be bothered to
  equate themselves with the arguments involved in the abolition. Most of them absent themselves from
  the Chamber, probably because they cannot take the sight of the Secretary of State being butchered
  more than he has already been in the short Session until now.
  The Secretary of State has been staggering around like some sort of punch-drunk fighter. To bring
  some relief to the right hon. Gentleman, the Government have brought in the Minister for Local
  Government, who has scarcely done much better than the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the
  Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who knows the Minister for Local Government quite well,
  tells me that the Minister has aged 10 years since he has been in charge of the Bill. I do not know
  whether that is true, but I believe that all the Environment Ministers who are now associated with the Bill
  are likely to find themselves politically dead—never mind aged about 10 years—as
  Conservative Members of Parliament realise the electoral consequences of the Government's actions
  and realise that they will lose council seats and, at the next general election, parliamentary seats. That
  does not worry me; it encourages me greatly to persuade the Government to carry on with their crazy,
  suicidal course. However, it worries right hon. and hon. Conservative Members, particularly the right
  hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who at least has some foresight and can
  understand what is going on and what problems the Conservative party will face in future
  elections.
  The Opposition have tried to point out the implications of the Government's proposals for London and
  the metropolitan areas. We have heard nothing about the savings that the Government hope will accrue,
  about the level of likely redundancies, or about the joint boards and quangos. We have not reached any
  of those clauses, and now we shall be prevented from giving those important matters the consideration
  that they deserve.
  The Minister commented a little while ago that
  "inquiries do not allay controversy."
  106
  That comment was made in the context of Redcliffe-Maud and the Royal Commission, but the Minister
  must know that Royal Commissions and inquiries at least give some intellectual justification for the case
  that is being put by the Government. It does not mean that the Opposition will go away. Even if the
  proposal had been based upon the recommendations of a Royal Commission, there is no doubt that
  many Opposition Members would have opposed the Government. That is the Opposition's duty, but at
  least the Government's intellectual position would have been considerably stronger.
  I am trying to throw the Minister a lifeline, because when the compromise comes, and it will, and he
  knows it, perhaps in another place, that is the type of argument that he should be using. If the
  Government's proposals were based upon the recommendations of a Royal Commission or an inquiry,
  there would be a degree of intellectual justification for them even though there would still be
  disagreement, but there is no intellectual justification for what the Government are putting forward.
  It is no good Conservative Members "rubbishing" the great weight of information that has come to the
  Committee saying that the Government's proposals are wrong. How many authorities can the
  Government quote in defence of their proposals? How many independent bodies can the Government
  quote to say that they have it right? The only people on whom the Government have been so far able to
  rely have been a number of local authority Conservative leaders; and they would support the
  Government, would they not? No one from outside who has any standing, objectivity or impartiality has
  supported the Government. How can Conservative Members persist in arguing that the Government's
  case is proper, just and right in defiance of all opinion — electoral, professional and academic
  — coming from outside? It is nonsense. The Government know that. Ministers are in many
  ways prejudicing their political futures by supporting the Bill. It should be thrown out, as should this
  timetable motion.
  9.17 pm
  Dr. Ian Twinn: The
  Committee has sat through over 100 hours of repetitious speeches. Most of the speeches that we have
  heard from Opposition members of the Committee have been Second Reading speeches. One or two
  of them this evening have been Queen's Speech speeches because they have become so general and
  have ranged so widely and so often off the point of the Bill.
  On a number of occasions we have listened word for word to the same speech from different members
  of the Committee, and even from the same members. This evening the debate has been dropped even
  lower by the speech by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who has reduced the
  debate to a political jibe without any substance. To be fair to him, he has been one of the members of
  the Committee whose argument has been more detailed. He has had plenty of people to help him write
  his speeches. There has been a galaxy of 27 of them. On occasions he has been effective in putting over
  his point of view, but alas not this evening.
  Progress in Committee has been resisted by Opposition Members who have made speeches for the
  sake of making them or for the sake of the local press.
  Mr. John McWilliam: What is
  the hon. Gentleman's speech about?
  Dr. Twinn: My speech is about what I thought the
  debate was about — the progress of the Bill in Committee and whether we should have a
  timetable motion. It is not a speech in which I shall make cheap political jibes or go over the principle of
  the Bill, which was voted on at Second Reading.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) suggested that there should be a timetable for all
  Bills.
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for
  giving way. He is more courteous than his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr.
  Hampson).
  I believe in timetables for all Bills, but with the important proviso that the time taken should be under the
  control, not of the Government, but of a Committee appointed by the House and that there should be
  provision for the Standing Committee to seek more time if that became
  necessary.
  Dr. Twinn: I read the hon. Gentleman's article, which
  has much to commend it. I go along with him. However, it would be a pity if, for the sake of being a
  purist in these matters, we allowed the Bill to drift on in the aimless way in which it has been
  progressing. We can make a start, albeit in a small way, with this timetable motion. It is not perfect, and
  it is controlled by the Government, but let us hope that in future timetables will be controlled by a
  Committee of the House and that we can have sensible debates on all Bills. I would welcome that.
  It has been suggested that there has been no thought or discussion about the proposals in the Bill. That
  is an astounding statement. One expects Opposition Members to state that view as a political point, but
  the astounding aspect is that they appear to say it with a sincerity which I can hardly believe they
  feel.
  There have been countless debates in the past 20 years about the nature of local government. Virtually
  every possible combination of authorities has been proposed and discussed over the years. The House
  and the country have had plenty of time to consider the best form of local government. When the
  commitment to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties appeared in our election manifesto, the
  electorate had the good sense to see that it was a good idea. It was certainly extremely popular in
  Edmonton.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: In all these many debates over the
  years, where were joint boards at the strategic level first suggested, outside the White Paper and the
  Bill?
  Dr. Twinn: I shall not be tempted down that path,
  because other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. Joint boards are expedients, but I believe
  that the rest of the proposals are worth those expedients. Politics are partly about compromise and
  pragmatism.
  Mr. Tony Favell (Stockport): Is not one of the great
  advantages of joint boards the fact that every metropolitan district will be represented on those boards?
  At present there is no guarantee that each district will be represented on a county council
  committee.
  Dr. Twinn: My hon. Friend is right. The Bill brings
  democracy down to a smaller geographical and electoral area and will be widely welcomed for
  that.
  I am not surprised that the GLC is able to quote the figure that it got from somewhere of 74 per cent. of
  Londoners supporting the council. If I spent millions of pounds on advertising, I would expect that sort
  of support.
  108
  Otherwise, I would not spend the money. I am not surprised that there is some small support in the
  opinion polls. However, when the GLC and the metropolitan counties have gone, there will be
  widespread support for the new authorities and the old councils will not be missed.
  In fact, in London we have had electoral tests of the popularity of the GLC's proposals. In my seat in
  Edmonton, we had a GLC by-election, when the turnout halved. The arguments were ravaged by the
  electorate, who did not turn up. It was a spurious and cynical move on behalf of the GLC to use
  taxpayers' money for a test of its own opinion, and I am only pleased that it failed.
  I hope that hon. Members will support the timetable motion so that my constituents in Edmonton have a
  chance to be rid of the GLC and so that they can have elections and a local authority in Enfield which is
  at a closer level, where they will appreciate it and be able to influence it.
  9.24 pm
  Mr. Dave Nellist: Today's debate has been
  characterised by being less lighthearted than many of the Committee sittings. We have also heard for the
  first time from some Tory Members who said nothing in Committee but who seem happy to come to
  the Chamber and say why its deliberations should be shortened.
  The context of my arguments against the guillotine motion is narrow. In the explanatory and financial
  memorandum of the Bill, the Secretary of State says that the aim of the Bill is to save about
  £100 million by the abolition of the metropolitan counties and estimates a reduction in public
  service manpower in those areas by about 7,100. Setting aside the argument that the Bill will deny 18
  million people the right to vote, that first point alone justifies continuing the debate, but not at the level
  that the Leader of the House proposes in his guillotine motion of 40 minutes per clause over the next
  three and a half weeks. Not only have the central claims on manpower and services not been proven by
  the Government, but on many occasions when I have put questions to Ministers about the so-called
  savings from manpower changes or changes in specific services, I have been told to wait until debates
  on later clauses in the Bill in the expectation that those debates would be of a similar character to those
  on the first 16 clauses, with 56 hours of debate.
  The Bill proposes that responsibility for services be returned to the district councils, for example in the
  west midlands. Last year the Secretary of State said that most of the services would go back to the
  districts, but we now know that fewer than 20 per cent. will. We have yet to debate some of them fully
  in the Bill. One fact that has not yet come out of the debate, which of itself would justify extending the
  time for debate, is that the services that are presently provided by the West Midlands county council,
  according to the Secretary of State's grant-related expenditure assessment, are supposed to cost
  £270 million this year. However, the target for the county council is set at £254
  million. Therefore, through abolition the right hon. Gentleman expects the same services to be carried
  out by district bodies, joint boards, residuary bodies, and so on, yet he has already cut the amount of
  money that will go towards those services by £16 million. How will we have answers to
  questions on whether it is the same service costing the ratepayer more or the same amount of money

  109
  paid by the ratepayer for a substantially lower service unless we are allowed more than a paltry 40
  minutes for each clause remaining in the Bill?
  On many occasions in Committee we have asked what financial savings will be made on each service
  area. We have had no real answers from the Government. We have asked what manpower savings there
  will be in each service area, and we have had no real figures from the Government. In at least three
  service areas—I played a part in the debates on each one of them—the Secretary of
  State has acknowledged that there will be no savings. Those three areas are waste disposal, probation
  and archives. He has acknowledged that costs will rise in two service areas — coroners and
  trading standards. Each time he says such things he also reflects on the fact that we shall go into those
  matters in detail on later clauses. However, the fact remains that the six clauses designed to deal with the
  so-called savings from staff transfers are likely to occupy about 280 minutes if the motion is passed.
  Over 150,000 people work for the metropolitan county councils and the GLC. The Government will
  dispose of about 534 jobs a minute in the later debates in Committee. People's lives and jobs are worth
  more consideration than that.
  There is not time to go into detail, so I shall give just a few brief examples. As reported at column 862,
  when I asked the Minister in Committee about the waste disposal arrangements he said that the answers
  would be given later in the debate. I asked about the cost involved for district councils in setting up
  several different waste disposal plants and I pointed out that splitting waste disposal among seven
  authorities in the west midlands would mean at least 9,000 extra pieces of paper relating to the transport
  of hazardous waste across district boundaries, but the Minister had not costed it and had no facts or
  figures to give. We need to go into those details.
  We also asked how the Minister arrived at the figure of 7,100 lost jobs. Did he take the cuts planned for
  each service and aggregate them across the county councils or did he set targets for each council and
  then add them all together? Again, we received no answers. When I asked about planning, the
  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State specifically said, as reported at column 293, that he would reply
  to my points later in the debate. On 22 January I asked about environment and land reclamation and the
  impact on jobs. I was told to come back to that when we reached part VI of the Bill. Ministers have
  constantly said that we shall come to these things later, but if the guillotine motion goes through there
  will be no time for the answers to be given.
  Perhaps those Tory Members for whom one job is insufficient to tax their energies or support their
  lifestyles and who therefore need between two and 13 jobs can afford to be callous when discussing the
  jobs of thousands of metropolitan county council employees, but in my area one third of a million
  people are on the dole, there are 30 people chasing every vacancy and in one ward unemployment is
  more than 32 per cent. In those circumstances, there will be no jobs for the hundreds or thousands
  made redundant by the Bill. Yet the Government dismiss those people and their future at 40 minutes per
  clause. The Bill is not about saving money and improving services. It is about abolishing Labour
  councils because the Tories cannot defeat us at the ballot box. That
  110
  needs to be exposed in full debate in Committee. The jobs of 7,100 workers deserve more than
  execution by the guillotine.
  9.32 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Every time the hon. Member
  for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) speaks in the Committee he makes the same speech about job
  losses, a speech which should he made in an unemployment debate, not in a debate about the future of
  local government.
  The whole House agrees that this is an important measure. It was set out clearly in the Conservative
  manifesto. Indeed, the leader of the GLC, Mr. Ken Livingstone, at one stage supported the idea. The
  Bill is absolutely right. It will lead to less government and to more, not less, accountability because local
  people will be involved. I know from experience as a member of a London borough council that on
  planning matters one always has to wait for the GLC's comments, which turn out not to be worth
  listening to, so we proceed to deal with the matter locally.
  The Bill will also lead ultimately to reduced expenditure. That is vital if we are to provide the assistance
  that we genuinely wish to give to industry. The Opposition say that jobs will be lost as a result of the
  Bill, but jobs have already been lost as a result of high rates caused by an unnecessary tier of
  government. So far the Committee has dealt with 16 clauses out of 98, during 19 sittings covering 1,200
  columns of the Official Report. We have had to endure sitting until 5 o'clock in the morning. I
  know that Opposition Members feel strongly about the Bill. However, they know the procedures of the
  House. They know that they are responsible for making progress. During every debate on every specific
  clause, the whole team is wheeled out to repeat the same old arguments.
  The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East says that there will be only 40 minutes to debate each
  clause. I have no sympathy for the hon. Gentleman. If the Opposition had speeded up consideration of
  the clauses, we could have been well on our way through the Bill. We could have considered the ILEA,
  the police and transport—major subjects that the Opposition have prevented us from
  debating.
  I share the view of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and my hon. Friends that we are going
  through a ritual. There is the indignation of the Opposition and the self-justification of the Government. I
  should like to quote from a speech by Robert Mellish, the former right hon. Member for Bermondsey
  — a source I would not normally quote. During the debate on the timetable motion on the
  Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, he said:
  "Oppositions must be allowed to oppose, but Oppositions must be denied the complete
  freedom to do exactly what they want by filibustering, for example, in their attempts to stop Bills.
  Governments must have the right to govern and Oppositions must have the right to oppose. That is
  what democracy is all about. But when Oppositions have had their fun and games, the Government
  must be free to move in."—[Official Report, 20 July 1976; Vol. 915, c.
  1554.]
  I wholeheartedly endorse what Mr. Mellish said then, which was that each Bill should have a timetable
  motion at the start. I hope that the procedures of the House will soon be
  changed.
  9.37 pm
  Mr. Allan Roberts: I am
  horrified not just by the fact that the Government are guillotining the Bill but

  111
  by the manner in which they are doing it. They could have brought in a guillotine—I would still
  have opposed it—that allowed more time for debate than 40 minutes a clause. Each clause that
  remains to be debated covers a major service. We shall have 40 minutes in which to debate the police.
  On Merseyside, the rate capping legislation will deprive the police service of £14·4
  million. Proposals in the Bill do not help. There will be a police authority controlled by magistrates and
  nominees of the districts. There will be no directly elected representatives to account for the police
  service.
  We were just beginning to convince Conservative Members in Committee that the Bill gives more power
  not to the districts, but to quangos, joint boards and ministerial reserve powers. However, the present
  debate proves that we have not yet convinced them. They keep repeating the myths. We need more time
  in which to convince them.
  The arts have still to be debated. We need answers on each metropolitan county council area, and on
  GLC matters. What will happen to specific areas of the arts? On Merseyside, what will happen to
  Croxted hall, Speke hall and the Philharmonic hall? The people of the area want to know.
  The voluntary bodies are still bombarding us with questions that the Minister has not answered about
  the future of the voluntary sector. Government Members do nothing but reiterate their prejudices against
  blacks and women. They attack the voluntary sector to which authorities such as Merseyside county
  council and the GLC have given grants.
  The whole question of costs has yet to be fully discussed. There is a clause on redundancy payments.
  The Government say that the Bill will save money. However, there is a clause on compensation for loss
  of office and diminution of emoluments. It appears that the Government mean to pension everyone off
  and that the pensions will cost more than it costs to run the Merseyside county council.
  There are the financial arrangements for the future, the block grant situation and the fact that the joint
  bodies and quangos will be rate capped before their lives begin. We also have to debate transport and
  such questions as the future of the bus pass on Merseyside. The Government appear to want to return
  to the voucher system operated in Tory Sefton before the Labour council gave a bus pass to the elderly
  of Merseyside.
  We have not yet debated the clause on airports. We have to debate the future of Manchester and Speke
  airports. I suggest that if Merseyside county council is abolished, Speke airport will be closed. How will
  that affect jobs on Merseyside?
  We need time for the Government to make their own case. So far, they have failed to do so. We have
  continually pressed the Government for clear evidence about costs and have asked them what expert
  support exists for their proposals, but no such evidence has been forthcoming. We have also asked
  about the financial saving in each service area. Instead of producing evidence of such saving, the
  Government have admitted that there will be no savings among the services that we have so far debated.
  In at least three areas — waste disposal, probation services and archives — Ministers
  have admitted that there will be no savings. In two others—
  112
  the coroners service and the trading standards service—they have actually acknowledged that
  costs will rise. We therefore need time to debate these matters.
  The Government have made no case for their proposals. We have debated each clause fully because so
  far each has covered a major service area. The same can be said of the remaining 56 hours. We shall
  need that time to debate the remaining clauses and schedules, to put our case for each service area and
  to get some answers from the Government.
  9.40 pm
  Dr. John Cunningham: I hope
  that hon. Members on both sides of the House will forgive me if I do not reply to their speeches in
  detail in the 10 minutes available to me. However, I wish to make two general observations.
  First, the first few Conservative Members who spoke seemed more concerned with the contents of the
  Strangers Gallery than with the contents of the Bill. We then had a series of repetitious speeches
  complaining about repetition in Committee, but, as the Leader of the House made clear, there has been
  no repetition in Committee and no attempts to filibuster.
  If ever a Bill needed proper Committee scrutiny, this one certainly does. It was never based on any
  proper inquiry into the proposals. The proposals have not been subjected to any thorough public
  examination, and they will now not receive thorough parliamentary scrutiny.
  Far from being involved in repetition, the Committee has expeditiously discussed a number of important
  matters, such as technical services, strategic planning, conservation, highways, traffic management,
  economic development, waste disposal, trading standards, judicial services, support for the arts,
  promotion of equal opportunities and support for black and ethnic minority communities.
  During our deliberations the Committee has clearly demonstrated that the Government have no identified
  support for their proposals outside the Conservative party. They have been unable to identify any
  service area in which financial and manpower savings will result from abolition; nor have they identified
  an area which will be more effectively managed as a result of the Bill. That is the reality of what the
  Committee has been doing, and the Opposition demand the right and the opportunity to continue to
  discuss these issues.
  I agree with a number of hon. Members who have said that as presently organised the House of
  Commons cannot possibly deal with Bills such as this. This is a mammoth piece of legislation
  containing 98 clauses and 17 schedules. It was obvious from the beginning that it would be the subject
  of a timetable motion. Indeed, I have no doubt in my own mind that in planning its introduction and
  passage through the House the Government intended to have a guillotine at this stage of its
  parliamentary consideration.
  That decision means that a number of major policy issues in the seven authorities
  concerned—education, the police and fire services, transport, airports, museums, art galleries,
  the South Bank, and so on — will be desperately short of time for proper consideration. For
  example, part IV sets up 19 new joint boards. Clause 40 enables the Secretary of State, without inquiry,
  to break up police, fire or transport authorities. Clauses 41 to 45 transfer the London and metropolitan
  museums and the

  113
  South Bank to Government appointees. One can go on listing major policies in the Bill which will not be
  given anything like adequate consideration.
  It seems from the timetable that the Committee will have between 50 and 60 hours to deal with the
  remaining 82 clauses and nine schedules dealing with the policies which I have set out. No Committee
  can, in that time, deal properly and adequately with the issues involved, and I defy any Conservative
  Members, particularly those serving on the Committee who have sat throughout its proceedings without
  uttering a word, to say that in the remaining time the Committee will have the opportunity to scrutinise
  the Bill as it needs and deserves to be examined.
  We are here predictably. I share the view, expressed in particular by Conservative Members, that the
  House of Commons should reform the way in which it examines legislation, particularly legislation such
  as this. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), among others, asked about the views
  of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). My hon. Friend and I share identical views
  on this subject, and they are that the present procedures are demonstrably inadequate, but so are the
  arrangements whereby only the Government have any real say about the timetable of legislation. We
  feel—and the House should address itself to this—that we should reform our
  procedures so that Bills can be timetabled, but not on the basis of a decision made by the Executive,
  whichever party is forming the Executive.
  The Opposition are said to have the power to delay and have been using it in this instance, as on
  previous examinations of Government legislation. That is not true. It is clearly the case that the
  Government can override, as they are doing with this timetable motion, even the limited power of
  Opposition parties simply to delay progress on a Bill. It is also increasingly seen outside the House, by
  members of the authorities concerned, by the officers serving those authorities and by the general public
  that our procedures are not just inadequate but frankly barmy. I do not think that those who observe our
  proceedings in Committee think it sensible, leads to good legislation or good government, for close on
  50 hon. Members to be sitting up all day and night two days a week considering legislation.
  I guess that it is no accident that the Secretary of State decided to opt out of this procedure, and in
  some senses I do not blame him. It cannot be sensible for a Cabinet Minister to be kept out of bed day
  and night for two days and nights a week and thus not be able to attend effectively to the affairs of
  state. The right hon. Gentleman does a pretty bad job of it when he gets to bed, so if he were kept up
  two nights a week, goodness knows what difficulties he would be getting into.
  The reality is that reform of the House of Commons would be far more in the interests of the taxpayers
  than will the Government's proposed reforms of local councils. Taxpayers — and, indeed,
  ratepayers — would get far more benefit, a far better deal and far better legislation from the
  reform of Parliament, and the way that this kind of legislation is dealt with, than they will from any plans
  to abolish the metropolitan counties or the Greater London council. It is clear that those authorities so
  order and conduct their business that they are able to operate in a far more sane, sensible and logical
  way than we are able to here. That is the reality. In consequence, they give their ratepayers a better
  deal.
  114
  There is no case for the guillotine—at least in its present form—nor was there ever any
  case for the Bill. In the absence of the reforms that I have mentioned, I have no hesitation in urging
  everyone to oppose the motion.
  9.50 pm
  The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Kenneth
  Baker): One of the words that have been used a great deal this
  evening has been the word "ritual". The noises made against the measure by the Opposition have been
  ritualistic. They have expressed shock and horror at our attempting to curtail the debate, because they
  have said that they wanted to improve the Bill. They have never had that intention. Their whole purpose
  has been to delay and destroy the Bill and to overturn the convincing vote on Second Reading, when
  the House accepted the principle of the Bill and the Government had a majority of 135.
  The word "ritual" has been used to describe the way that we conduct ourselves in examining legislation
  in Standing Committee. I have been involved in three guillotined measures in the past three years.
  [Interruption.] I am not as expert as some, as I shall show later. They have all been very
  controversial Bills—the first two Telecommunications Bills and this Bill.
  As one of the prime players, it seems to me that this is how a ritual develops. First, the Government
  publish the Bill, and then some Opposition spokesman says that they will fight it line by line and clause
  by clause. That pleases their supporters in the country. But it immediately impales the Opposition on a
  hook, because it is not then possible for them to come to any sort of reasonable arrangement about the
  length of debate. They feel—I understand it—that they would be letting down their
  supporters in the country if they made such a deal.
  The failure of such an arrangement means that the Government are also impaled on a hook, because
  they then have to make a reasonable amount of time available for the measure to be
  debated—and so it goes on. The House knows the result — very late sittings. A tradition
  has been established that a timetable motion cannot be moved until a Committee has sat for 100 hours.
  This time the figure is about 105 hours. It is a sort of new parliamentary virility symbol.
  I listened carefully to the words of the Leader of the House this afternoon. He said that he was not
  persuaded of a need to change the procedures of the House and that he would prefer voluntary
  arrangements to prevail. I agree that for the great bulk of parliamentary business we would all welcome
  the idea that reasonable arrangements should prevail, but in regard to very controversial Bills it is
  expecting too much to think that that will occur. If the Leader of the House is not willing to consider a
  more fundamental change, perhaps he could lower the level of the virility symbol that is required before
  guillotine motions are moved from 100 hours to, say, 50 hours. I believe that that was the figure once
  agreed upon by a former Leader of the House, Mr. Chuter Ede.
  I readily agree that the Bill has not been delayed as a result of filibustering upstairs. Indeed, the hon.
  Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) has hardly ever got into second gear. But that did not prevent
  him from accusing the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State of filibustering when he introduced an
  amendment in 12 seconds flat. Upstairs in Committee we have seen a sort of filibuster by amendment.
  About 600 amendments have been tabled. I would not mind that if those amendments were designed

  115
  to improve the Bill in any detail, but instead they have all provided opportunities for Second Reading
  speeches to be made on the same principle.
  Mr. Nellist rose—
  Mr. Baker: I am sorry, but I cannot give way.
  In Committee there has really only been one debate and that has been on the question of whether the
  boroughs and districts can fulfil the duties, or whether we need county-wide authorities. The
  amendments have been directed to that. If we had not introduced this guillotine motion, the debate
  would have been very prolonged. One night, when I had little else to do, I calculated how much longer
  our debates would have taken—incidentally, I was gambling that we might just pass this
  motion—if the Committee took as long on the next lot of clauses and schedules as it had taken
  on the first grouping. I discovered that we would have come out of the Committee on I August. I see
  that the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch
  (Mr. Sedgemore) think that that is a good idea.
  If it took us as long to debate the rest of the Bill as it took us to debate clause 2—a three-line
  clause that took us an hour a line to debate—we would not have come out of Committee until
  1993.
  Mr. Nellist rose—
  Mr. Baker: I have even better news for the
  Opposition. If it took as long to debate the rest of the Bill as it took us to debate clause 8 —
  when it took us 10 hours to debate only six lines—the Bill would not have emerged from
  Committee until the end of the century.
  The guillotine motion contains one of the most generous allocations of time for more than 15 years. So
  far, we have had 118 hours in Committee and, if one includes the time spent on Second Reading, we
  have spent 133½ hours debating the Bill. After the guillotine motion is passed, another 72
  hours will be provided. There will be 14 hours on Report and Third Reading. Thus, in all, 220 hours
  will have been provided. No Bill has had such a long debate since the Housing Finance Bill in
  1971.
  That debate will allow the House and the Committee to examine in considerable detail the various
  matters that we have not yet touched upon. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood
  (Mr. Howarth) and the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said that we had not yet debated
  ILEA, the police authorities, the fire authorities, the passenger transport authorities, our policy on
  airports or the future of the South Bank. But our failure to reach those parts of the Bill is due entirely to
  the tactics developed and used by the Opposition.
  As I have made clear to the Opposition Front Bench, we have been willing to make progress. But
  instead there have been prolonged debates—all on the basic principle of the Bill. There has been
  a series of Second Reading speeches. That cannot be the right or appropriate way to deal with
  legislation.
  Mr. Nellist rose—
  Mr. Baker: I hope that the Bill will be debated
  exhaustively. I am sure that Opposition Members will be able to debate it now in a more measured way
  and will not have to sit up until 1 am, 3 am or 5 am. The only people to gain from a delay are the
  authorities. They are seeking
  116
  to subvert Parliament's intention as clearly expressed on Second Reading, because if they can delay the
  Bill, the whole process of legislation and of devolution will come to an end. That is why we must speed
  the Bill on its way to the House of Lords. We want it on the statute book in the summer so that the
  process of abolition can continue in the following nine months.
  The other word that has been used tonight is democracy. It has been said that the Bill is not democratic.
  I remember a former Labour Leader of the House standing at this Dispatch Box and moving five
  guillotine motions in one day. The tumbrils were queuing up at the scaffold as the Bills were wheeled on
  and guillotined. I am not prepared to take lectures on democracy from a Labour party that will not even
  have one man one vote for the selection of its Members of Parliament. Therefore, I hope that my right
  hon. and hon. Friends will support the motion.
  Question put: —
  The House divided: Ayes, 276 Noes, 195.

  Division No. 97]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Chope, Christopher

  Alexander, Richard

  Churchill, W. S.

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Amess, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Ancram, Michael

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Arnold, Tom

  Cockeram, Eric

  Ashby, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Conway, Derek

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Cope, John

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Couchman, James

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

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Critchley, Julian

  Baldry, Tony

  Crouch, David

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bellingham, Henry

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dover, Den

  Benyon, William

  du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Best, Keith

  Dunn, Robert

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Durant, Tony

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Blackburn, John

  Eggar, Tim

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Body, Richard

  Evennett, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Bottomley, Peter

  Fallon, Michael

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Farr, Sir John

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

  Favell, Anthony

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Forman, Nigel

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Bright, Graham

  Freeman, Roger

  Brinton, Tim

  Galley, Roy

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Gow, Ian

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Greenway, Harry

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Gregory, Conal

  Burt, Alistair

  Grist, Ian

  Butcher, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Butterfill, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Harris, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Harvey, Robert

  Cash, William

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  117

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hayes, J.

  Pollock, Alexander

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Porter, Barry

  Hayward, Robert

  Portillo, Michael

  Heddle, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Henderson, Barry

  Powley, John

  Hickmet, Richard

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Price, Sir David

  Hill, James

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Hind, Kenneth

  Raffan, Keith

  Hordern, Peter

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

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

  Renton, Tim

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Jackson, Robert

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Jessel, Toby

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rost, Peter

  Lang, Ian

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Ryder, Richard

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lightbown, David

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Lilley, Peter

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lord, Michael

  Shersby, Michael

  Luce, Richard

  Silvester, Fred

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Speller, Tony

  Maclean, David John

  Spence, John

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Spencer, Derek

  Major, John

  Squire, Robin

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Malone, Gerald

  Stanley, John

  Maples, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Marland, Paul

  Stern, Michael

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Mates, Michael

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Mather, Carol

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Stokes, John

  Mellor, David

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Merchant, Piers

  Sumberg, David

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Moate, Roger

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Moore, John

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mudd, David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Needham, Richard

  Tracey, Richard

  Nelson, Anthony

  Trippier, David

  Neubert, Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Newton, Tony

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Norris, Steven

  Viggers, Peter

  Onslow, Cranley

  Waddington, David

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Walden, George

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Parris, Matthew

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Waller, Gary

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Ward, John

  Pawsey, James

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  118

  Warren, Kenneth

  Woodcock, Michael

  Watson, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Watts, John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Whitfield, John

  Whitney, Raymond

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Mr. Archie Hamilton and

  Wolfson, Mark

  Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

  Wood, Timothy

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Foster, Derek

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Foulkes, George

  Anderson, Donald

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Ashton, Joe

  Freud, Clement

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  George, Bruce

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Barnett, Guy

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Barron, Kevin

  Golding, John

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Gould, Bryan

  Beith, A. J.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Benn, Tony

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

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

  Hardy, Peter

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Blair, Anthony

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Boyes, Roland

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Heffer, Eric S.

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

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Buchan, Norman

  Home Robertson, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Howells, Geraint

  Campbell, Ian

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cartwright, John

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  John, Brynmor

  Clarke, Thomas

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Clay, Robert

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Kennedy, Charles

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Cohen, Harry

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Coleman, Donald

  Lambie, David

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Lamond, James

  Conlan, Bernard

  Leighton, Ronald

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Litherland, Robert

  Cowans, Harry

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Craigen, J. M.

  McCartney, Hugh

  Crowther, Stan

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McGuire, Michael

  Cunningham, Dr John

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  McKelvey, William

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

  Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Deakins, Eric

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dewar, Donald

  McTaggart, Robert

  Dixon, Donald

  McWilliam, John

  Dormand, Jack

  Madden, Max

  Douglas, Dick

  Marek, Dr John

  Dubs, Alfred

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Maxton, John

  Eadie, Alex

  Meacher, Michael

  Eastham, Ken

  Meadowcroft, Michael

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

  Michie, William

  Ellis, Raymond

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Ewing, Harry

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Nellist, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Flannery, Martin

  O'Brien, William

  119

  O'Neill, Martin

  Skinner, Dennis

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

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

  Park, George

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

  Parry, Robert

  Snape, Peter

  Patchett, Terry

  Soley, Clive

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Spearing, Nigel

  Pendry, Tom

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Penhaligon, David

  Stott, Roger

  Pike, Peter

  Strang, Gavin

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

  Straw, Jack

  Prescott, John

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Radice, Giles

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Redmond, M.

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Tinn, James

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Torney, Tom

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Wainwright, R.

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Rogers, Allan

  Wareing, Robert

  Rooker, J. W.

  Welsh, Michael

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  White, James

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Rowlands, Ted

  Winnick, David

  Ryman, John

  Woodall, Alec

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Sheerman, Barry

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

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

  Mr. Sean Hughes.

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the
  Bill:—

  Committee
  1. The Standing Committee to which the Bill (except Clause 1) is allocated shall report the Bill
  (except Clause 1) to the House on or before 7th March 1985.

  Report and Third Reading
  2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be
  completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of
  those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 45 (Business Committee) this Order shall be
  taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the
  Business Committee may determine.
  (2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on
  Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings
  on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the
  Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
  (3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 45 may be varied by a further
  Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or
  not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
  (4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which
  proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

  Procedure in Standing Committee
  3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to
  be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not
  adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings
  have been brought to a conclusion.
  (2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee
  except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement
  from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the
  Question thereon.
  4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new
  Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee
  may include alterations in that order.

  Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
  5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the
  Bill (or such of its provisions as were committed or re-committed to that Committee) to the House
  without putting any Question.

  Dilatory Motions
  6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in
  the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question
  on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  Extra time on first allotted day
  7.—(1) On the first allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted
  business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
  (2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock
  under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that
  should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
  (3) If the first allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under
  Standing Order No. 10 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the
  proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

  Private business
  8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted
  day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion
  of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted
  business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the
  proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to
  the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be
  brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or
  the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the
  Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the
  case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause
  or Schedule be added to the Bill);

  (c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of
  any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

  and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put
  only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order
  relating to the sittings of the House.
  (3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing
  Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration)
  would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

  (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which,
  under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or
  before that time;

  (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a
  Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be
  postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  (4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing
  Order No. 10 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the
  Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution

  121
  of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a
  period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  Supplemental orders
  10. —(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the
  Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might
  have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not
  previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and
  paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a
  time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the
  sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting
  by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee
  shall—

  (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or
  completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or

  122

  (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day
  after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

  Re-committal
  12. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on
  Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in
  consequence of re-committal.
  (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as
  a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the
  Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Interpretation
  13. In this Order—
  "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first
  Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to
  be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that
  day;
  "the Bill" means the Local Government Bill;
  "Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business
  Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
  "Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as
  agreed to by the House.

Health and Safety
10.13 pm
Mr. John Prescott: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Control of Industrial
Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 1902), dated 4th December 1984, a copy of
which was laid before this House on 18th December, be annulled.
This important regulation deals with major issues in many parts of the country. However, before I
comment on it, I wish to say at the outset that we received two statutory instruments from the Vote
Office — one printed in December and the other printed in January. Some corrections have
been made to the statutory instrument, one of which extends the period during which organisations must
co-operate with the regulation. The Department has been especially sloppy in that respect. This should
not have been allowed to happen and I want to hear from the Minister why it did. Was there pressure
from the industry to extend the period after which the regulations will become applicable? One of our
major criticisms of the regulations is that they do not go far enough in meeting our
anxieties.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter
Bottomley): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to
intervene at such an early stage. The copy of the regulations that was signed and laid before Parliament
contained no errors. However, there was a misprint in the explanatory memorandum and the
memorandum has been reprinted for the convenience of the House. It contains the same date as the
consultative document which, no doubt, the hon. Gentleman will have read. No doubt he will forgive us
for any attempt to move the final date of implementation backwards.
Mr. Prescott: Yes. I notice that an extra six months is
allowed before it is necessary to comply with the regulations. The change to which the Minister has
referred means that there will be four and a half years before it is necessary to comply with the
regulations, instead of four years. That will not go down very well in many areas where there is extreme
concern about the concentration of hazardous materials. Many incidents are still fresh in our minds. The
terrible Bhopal tragedy is especially clear in our minds. As I come from Humberside, I recall the night
of the explosion at Flixborough. Most of those living on the north or the south bank of the Humber
heard that terrible and tragic explosion. Much of the plant was blown across the river on to the north
bank. The Flixborough disaster led to the establishment of committees to consider the regulations that
were required for explosive chemicals.
Since the Flixborough disaster of 1974, there have been fires and explosions at Barking, Stalybridge,
Manchester and Sheffield. There is the controversy in Livingston about whether Union Carbide should
be allowed to develop a plant in that area. I am sure that every hon. Member will be increasingly
concerned, as will their constituents, about the growing problems arising from the concentration of
hazardous materials and substances.
The regulations before us stem from the terrible accident and tragedy at Seveso in Italy, which led the
Community to develop regulations. The delay in the
124
implementation of the regulations arising from the Seveso incident has caused delay in action being
taken in Britain. More than three reports have come from the advisory committee since the Flixborough
explosion in 1974.
I am sure that the House will welcome any regulations that seek to improve safety and to reduce the
repetition of the tragic incidents to which I have referred. Any extra-statutory controls that are envisaged
in the regulations requiring notification, safety plans, on and off-site emergency plans and the provision
of information for local authorities, however limited, are to be welcomed. However, these improvements
represent a step forward and two steps backwards. The Opposition's criticisms of the regulations are
considerable. We are in considerable doubt whether they should be given full support. I am eager to
hear what the Minister has to say in their defence.
First, the regulations are limited in application. They do not apply to all the areas of concern where
incidents are likely to occur. Secondly, the requirement on manufacturers to provide information does
not go far enough. Thirdly, the resources required for the implementation of the regulations will not be
met adequately.
After the Flixborough incident, a study was undertaken of the advisory bodies to ascertain how many
plants should be covered by the controls as envisaged. The first report, which appeared in the
mid-1970s, showed that 5,000 such places should be subject to some form of control. It was an
identification of all the areas of concern. In 1982, the regulations which were introduced identified 1,600
plants and areas of concern. The regulations before us identify only 250 such plants, which is only 5 per
cent. of the 5,000 which were identified in 1976. That is a tremendous climb-down from the areas which
were first identified following the concern about the Flixborough incident which itself would not have
been covered by these regulations.
Under the regulations, the Health and Safety Executive has identified large inventory plants and it
believes that 250 should be required to co-operate with the regulations by providing safety plans and
taking other action. The Health and Safety Executive designates small inventory areas — those
plants and areas where the chemical concentrations are less than the minimum criteria laid down in the
legislation. There are more than 1,000 of them.
I understand that there is some controversy in one regard. The EEC Commission believes that these
regulations should apply to all large and small plants. The Opposition agree, because most of the
explosions have occurred in small plant areas. Those areas will not be covered by these regulations if
the large inventory areas interpretation is taken into account. Do the Government intend to make it clear
to the Health and Safety Executive that these requirements should apply to the 1,250 areas as a whole
and not just to the 250 plants of particular concern?
We criticise also the measures relating to accountability and information. The regulations require safety
plans to be provided by 1989, but that is a long way off. This is not satisfactory. Our criticisms relate
also to other aspects of the regulations. First, the requirements to provide information to the different
authorities — county and district — differ. I believe that that will lead to confusion. The
authorities have complained about that aspect. Secondly, there is no requirement to report to the safety
committee at the plant—to the shop stewards and

125
the workers — about dangerous chemicals and areas. Thirdly, the on-site manufacturer can
prepare a plan, but, under these regulations, he is required only to consult the person whom he thinks is
appropriate. The regulations do not specifically make it clear that, if the manufacturer cannot agree with
the local authority about the actions he wishes to take in his plant, he cannot just go to someone whom
he thinks is appropriate and fulfil his obligations under the regulations. That is not satisfactory.
Fourthly, the information to be given to the public is not required to be given directly to the public, and
that is unsatisfactory. The information may be given to the local authority and will be given to the Health
and Safety Executive but the executive is not under an obligation, according to the legislation, to give
confidential information to the public. Complaints have been made that these regulations do not enable
such essential information to be made available to anyone who inquires.
In the February 1985 edition of Health and Safety at Work Alex Crawford states in the editorial:
"those liable to be affected by a major accident have no right, under these new regulations, to
challenge the manufacturer's description of the nature of the hazard to which he is exposing them, the
safety measures he proposes, nor the behaviour he lays down for them to adopt in the event of a major
accident."
The same editorial contains a complaint by a consultant who said that the secrecy surrounding this
information should not be allowed.
Members of Parliament are asking for information on the plants in their areas that will be identified under
the regulations as containing hazardous materials. I have acquired a Health and Safety Executive
document which makes it clear that, under the old 1982 regulations, 42 plants were designated in my
area of Humberside—one of the most dangerous areas for chemical plants in the United
Kingdom — as places to be identified to the authorities as possible dangerous locations. Under
the new regulations only 12 of those 42 plants have to be identified. That is the scale of the reduction in
the requirements. Are Members of Parliament and the public entitled to know whether the areas in which
they live are designated as dangerous?
The Health and Safety Executive cannot make that information available, therefore the Government
should change the health and safety legislation so that people may obtain it, and allow Members of
Parliament to have access to it. In the Humberside region 12 plants can be identified as needing
consideration. One of them is the Ciba-Geigy chemical plant in Grimsby, which is the only plant using
the same chemicals as those at Bhopal. The House can imagine how worried are the people living in that
area, especially as the Health and Safety Executive has removed the only health and safety inspector
form that plant.
My final criticism of the regulations relates to the resources available for their implementation. The
Health and Safety Executive, which provides the factory inspectors, will have its work load increased
fivefold by the requirements of the legislation. In 1979,964 inspectors were employed by the Health and
Safety Executive. The Labour Government's plans provided for that number to increase to 1,150. By
1984, the number had fallen to 824 —a 16 per cent. fall. The greatest drop has been in the
number of field inspectors. There has been a 19 per cent., fall from 644 inspectors to 537. They are the
people who should check what manufacturers are saying and whether
126
there is a threat to surrounding communities. Their number has been reduced because of the
Government's cut in resources to the Health and Safety Executive.
When the Government have to decide between tax cuts or factory inspectors, they should opt for the
latter so as to assure people living around the plants.
There is considerable criticism of the resources available and the accountability provided under the
regulations. We hope that the Minister will say whether he is satisfied with the regulations, whether he
intends to introduce further changes under the planning regulations and whether the Government can
improve the position and reduce the growing anxiety felt in areas such as Barking, Sheffield and
Livingston. The public will begin to demand action. I predict that explosions and other incidents will
occur in plants that are not covered by the regulations. For the House to vote on regulations that may
improve the position in 250 plants but ignore a further 1,000 plants and warehouses is to ignore the
types of places where explosions and fires have taken place.
The measure is perhaps motivated by the best of intentions within the EEC, but its implementation is
conditioned by a lack of adequate resources. It omits hazardous areas from the full effects of the
controls and leaves the Opposition in serious doubt as to whether to support the regulations. We shall
listen carefully to what assurances the Minister can give us.
10.27 pm
Mr. David Crouch: I
listened to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) with great interest. He spoke
forcefully. He was somewhat critical of the regulations introduced by the Government on this important
subject. I sense that he was critical of the fact that we were dealing with the issue late at night. Many
hon. Members are worried that we are dealing with the subject of major hazards and possible major
disasters late at night. We have recently seen the horrific disaster at Bhopal. It should never have
happened. The process was well known. We are considering something which has been delivered to us
by the Commission in Brussels.
This country has always been interested in preventing major industrial disasters and hazards, whether in
the factory, through explosion, fire, or the dispersal of toxic and dangerous substances from a factory
to affect the surrounding community.
I should declare an interest. I have a long-standing interest as a director of a chemical company and I
am an adviser to the principal distributor in this country of liquefied petroleum gas, which is a
hazardous product. I am also chairman of the all-party group on the chemical industry which has,
appropriately, shown an all-party interest in the problems of an industry which deals in danger and
hazards.
Our industry has a remarkably fine record. The Flixborough disaster happened at a weekend and the
BBC rang me at home before contacting any Government spokesmen. I suppose that I was asked for
an immediate comment because of my long interest in the industry.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said that the regulations were not
demanding enough. That is a matter for debate, but they set out a great deal with which manufacturers
must comply. I am pleased that a comprehensive guide to the regulations has been

127
issued by the Government and the Health and Safety Executive to help manufacturers to comply with
the regulations.
The guide takes us through the regulations. That is helpful, because regulations are often written for
Parliament and sometimes have to be interpreted subsequently by lawyers. The guide will help
employers and employees in the industry to understand the regulations.
Regulation 7 sets out the safety case and requires manufacturers to ensure that the production, handling
and storage of hazardous products ore safe. Manufacturers also have to identify any potential danger
and confirm that they have provided appropriate safety controls at all stages, not only for those working
in a plant, but for those in the immediate vicinity who could be put in danger if anything went
wrong.
Regulation 8 is equally important, because it requires the Government and the HSE to ensure that safety
measures are kept up to date. They also have to ensure that manufacturers are kept informed of the
latest developments and information on products and manufacturing processes.
Regulation 9 gives the HSE the Dickensian opportunity of being able to ask for more if necessary. That
is belt and braces, but, heaven knows, we should be asking for belt and braces when considering any
major hazards in industry, whether inside or outside the factory. It is right that the regulations should be
tough in that regard.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Is the hon. Gentleman confident
that the regulations will dispel the real anxieties felt by communities within which such plants are
situated? The people of Livingston, despite the high unemployment in the area, have rejected
overwhelmingly Union Carbide's plans to set up a plant there. They have made their objections felt by
way of the Livingston development corporation, which, in turn, has said that those developments will go
no further.
Mr. Crouch: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for
his intervention. I shall develop a matter that he touched on — whether people outside the
professional area of knowledge have a right to say that they are concerned. I believe that they have a
right. That is why Parliament has that right this evening. That is why there is a continuing obligation on
the Government and the Health and Safety Executive to continue that right of investigation and query.
Through local authorities and Members of Parliament in the Chamber itself, the public must constantly
inquire as to the wisdom of allowing an operation to continue in any place. We must be sure; we cannot
take risks. I should like to refer to how I believe risks have sometimes been created by mistake on the
part of not only manufacturers but local authorities.
Therefore, I can say, "So far, so good" about the three regulations that I have described. I accept them.
We can be satisfied that we have satisfied Brussels, but that is not enough. Regulations, rules and codes
of practice are fine in writing; fine for the lawyers, insurance agents and assessors after the event. They
know where they stand. They are fine for the local authorities that will know whether they have made a
mistake in controlling something. They are fine even for the manufacturers who
128
will know whether they have abided by the regulations when there is a disaster or an accident. But are
they good enough for us in Parliament? Are they good enough for the public outside? Are they good
enough for the press as they watch for what might happen after any major accident and consider
whether we could have been wiser?
I say to the Minister and the whole House that it is not so much what is written in these detailed
regulations that matters, but it is how the regulations are operated and implemented that counts. We
know in the chemical industry that all the fine rules about safety are only as good as the way in which
they are operated—accurately and absolutely correctly. We know that danger exists in industry
sometimes through human error, human laxity or carelessness. We must ensure that we do not allow
laxity or carelessness to occur.
There is mention in the regulations of local authorities at both county and district level. They all have a
responsibility to ensure that the manufacturing and storage operations that take place within their areas
are satisfactory to them. Responsibility is laid on them. One responsibility is to ensure that in their
planning they do not allow the wrong type of development to occur around the manufacture of certain
products. That has happened in the past. There was housing development close to the border of
Flixborough. That was obviously a mistake. We have had such problems. In Bhopal, for example, we
saw how a great number of people were allowed to live right up to the factory perimeter, which was a
tragic mistake in planning. Therefore, the local authority, as well as the manufacturer, has responsibility
for observing the codes and regulations.
In a quite different area of activity, local authorities have allowed housing development up to the
perimeter of major airports such as Heathrow. That must not continue. The danger is not so much the
real risk of aircraft crashing as the noise and pollution caused by so much aircraft activity. There is also
the cost of double glazing to diminish the effect of what is really an industrial activity. The local
authority has a responsibility not to permit domestic housing development right up to the perimeter of
industrial operations where there is any question of a hazard of the type described in the
regulations.
I promised to be brief and this is my last word. I believe that these are good regulations. They satisfy
Brussels, but for the House to be satisfied we must be sure that the Department and the Health and
Safety Executive will be constantly vigilant to ensure that they are operated at the highest level of
efficiency.
10.41 pm
Mr. Ted Garrett: Like the
hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), I must declare an interest as an official of the all-party
group on the chemical industry. I also spent 20 years with ICI at the sharp end of industrial production
in the chemical industry, so I know of the risks involved, whether the substance be toxic or non-toxic,
inflammable or non-inflammable, explosive or non-explosive.
The regulations go as far as one can expect in the circumstances. The existing regulations have been
built up over the years, and I assure the House that they are applied with as strict a discipline as they
would be in the Armed Forces. That discipline is instilled into every employee of ICI and other large
companies. If a person fails to accept that discipline, he will not last in the chemical industry.

129
He will do no good for himself or for the employer. With the current scale of industrial production in
this country and chemical manufacture in Europe, it is essential to keep a sense of balance and to,
remember the human factor. We shall never entirely eliminate the risk of explosion or poisoning by
chemical waste.
What disturbs me about the present regulations and also the proposed regulations is the somewhat
blasé approach to cost. It costs the chemical industry a great deal of money to train people to
the present high standards. That training continues relentlessly virtually every day of the year and it
applies to all ranks, from the humble process worker to senior management. As I have said, anyone
who does not accept that strict principle should not be in the chemical industry. Nevertheless, there is
the possibility that the proposed regulations will be implemented without the necessary skills of
inspection to ensure that they are effective and are carried out to the required standards. A financial
commitment is to be imposed on an industry some sections of which are not making vast profits, on the
Health and Safety Executive and on the local authorities.
How can we expect the local authorities to monitor the implementation of the regulations when the
number of people employed in local authorities is being cut? I am thinking in particular of the fire
services. The fire services are stretched to the limit now, and there are moves to cut them further. Yet it
is the fire service in the main that will have to take the first emergency action if there is an incident. I
know that the fire service is trained to the limit, in co-operation with the companies, to deal with any
emergency at a plant. The House should not underestimate the superb quality of the training process or
the skill of the fire officers in knowing how to react in an emergency.
Mr. Peter Hardy: That
point is of real importance and relevant to south Yorkshire, where there was recently a serious fire in
consequence of which many firemen are still unwell and large quantities of asbestos were blown over
my constituency and that of Rotherham.
If an industrial establishment is inadequately supervised and inspected in the first place, the hazards
facing the fire service will be even greater.
Mr. Garrett: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. I
pay tribute to the south Yorkshire fire services, which in the past have been to the fore in co-operating
with chemical plants in the area in joint training exercises.
I hope that the Minister will accept that, before the regulations are implemented, there must be adequate
education of all parties involved to ensure that they fully understand them.
The large companies that run chemical plants tend to spend a great deal of money on education, and to
get results. The same is true of medium-sized companies. However, I have some reservations about
companies lower down the scale, especially where the storage of hazardous substances is concerned. I
would not wish to stifle initiative or to frustrate the wish of any entrepreneur to establish a business in
chemical manufacture or distribution. I believe, however, that the small operator in this sector of the
industry should be given some financial encouragement to train his staff or to enable them to acquire the
necessary knowledge of how to act in an emergency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is no longer in his place.
130
[Interruption] I am sorry. I see that my hon. Friend has merely shifted his position, as it were,
somewhat to the right. My hon. Friend expressed some concern about the shop stewards. The trade
unions in the larger companies of which I have knowledge, through the shop stewards, are fully
informed about, and fully participate in, all training matters and in the exercises and emergency drills that
take place almost every day.
The regulations are an improvement. When they are implemented, let us make sure that the three main
parties concerned are determined that they will work and that the training and education takes place. If
we do so, the British people will retain their confidence in the chemical
industry.
10.49 pm
Mr. Tony Baldry: I wish to
make five brief points. First, these regulations have been commended to Parliament by the Health and
Safety Commission, which includes not only representatives of British industry through the CBI but
also the TUC and local authorities.
Secondly, these regulations are not, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)
seemed to imply, limited to only 250 sites. They relate to many more sites because they require the
manufacturers of certain dangerous, explosive, flammable or toxic substances to provide evidence at
any time that they have identified hazards, have taken adequate precautions to minimise their occurrence
and have plans to reduce the consequences of any accidents. Therefore, the activating factor is not the
site but the manufacture of certain dangerous substances. It is right that under the regulations certain
sites with large inventories of dangerous substances have higher duties placed upon them, but to
suggest that they relate to only 250 sites is to mislead the House.
Mr. Prescott: Of course not. This is a
hand-out.
Mr. Baldry: It is not a hand-out. The hon. Gentleman
and I both read the same magazines because we study this subject assiduously. If he turns to page 9 of
this month's Health and Safety at Work, magazine, he will see that I am exactly right.
Thirdly, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) that no amount of
regulation, however strict, will ever surpass self-regulation. It is clear that at all times those involved in
the manufacture of chemicals have the highest possible self-regulation, both at company level and, as
the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) said, among individual workers.
Fourthly, one must find a balance. It is inevitable that if further regulations are imposed on industry, a
cost will have to be borne. There will be additional paperwork, and extra expenses will have to be met
for emergency planning. Resources will consequently be diverted from other more productive activity,
and at the end of the day the additional costs will be borne by the consumer. That is perfectly proper,
but a balance must be found between that and the danger which one seeks to minimise or control.
These regulations balance the sensible needs of good practice in industry in relation to on-site
emergency plans, close liaison with the local emergency authority and emergency services, the control
of major hazards and regular consultation with the local authority both on planning applications for new
products and generally.
Fifthly, it may be suggested that these regulations should be taken in isolation. That is not so. These

131
regulations and the Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances Regulations, together
with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act itself, constitute a substantial code of law for the control of
major hazard installations. Recent amendments to planning law have also meant that development
projects involving a dangerous substance now require planning permission.
Further regulations — the Dangerous Substances (Notification and Marking of Premises)
Regulations—are now under consideration. Taken as a whole they will ensure that any factory
with more than 25 tonnes of a dangerous substance will have to notify that fact to the Health and Safety
Executive. They afford substantial protection, and it is misleading to suggest that the regulations we are
now discussing must be taken in isolation.
I notice that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is now back in his place. If he looks at page
9 of this month's edition of Health and Safety at Work, he will see that it confirms my point that
these regulations apply to considerably more than 250 sites.
10.54 pm
Mr. Richard Caborn: The regulations have the wrong
title. They should be called "The Enormous Hazards Regulations" as there are no regulations for major
hazards. The vast majority of hazardous plants in urban areas will not be affected by them.
Considerable disquiet is being expressed by the emergency services at the small amount of legislation to
deal with these potentially dangerous hazards. The fire in Sheffield has already been mentioned, and this
is an example of what can be considered as a hazard to the community in and around Sheffield. On the
14 December last year, a fire broke out in the National Carriers depot in Brightside lane, where 70
tonnes of chemcials were stored. It took 26 appliances and over 400 firemen to put the fire out. Over
£10 million worth of damage was done. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) talked
about the cost of these regulations, but the cost of the damage done in that fire, which lasted for six
days, must also be taken into consideration.
I received a letter from the chief fire officer, and I shall quote it to show that the professional people are
extremely concerned about the problems that they face with the lack of regulations. He says:
"The main causes for the amount of damage by the fire and the hazards to personnel
undertaking necessary fire fighting operations are readily identified as follows.

1. (a) A delay in detection of the fire and subsequent call to the Fire Service occurred which
allowed an uncontrolled fire to develop for at least 30 minutes.

(b) The fire separation between the various units within the building could not be assessed
and could be regarded as nothing better than providing physical division between occupancies with the
exception only of a single wall beyond which the fire was prevented from spreading.

(c) The undivided area between the roof lining and the structural roof which allowed ready
passage of flames throughout the roofed area which caused its early collapse."

His next point is extremely important. He said:
"The building and the stored contents have not caused any existing legislation to be
transgressed which suggests that fires and the problems created by them are considered
reasonable."
132
He then set out a number of details that should be legislated on.
Similarly, the Sheffield council department of land and planning said:
"This building complied with the requirements of the Building Regulations and many of the
elements of the structure stood up well to a fire of this severity. However, the rapid spread of flames
created a situation which could only be controlled with great difficulty. An additional complicating
factor was that chemicals were stored throughout the building in various areas."
There were about 70 tonnes of chemicals. These regulations would not have been effective in the case
of that fire. It continues:
"In addition high risk chemicals should be stored in specially protected areas using materials
with a fire resistance of at least two hours. External signs should be provided stating the nature of the
chemicals stored in each area. These recommendations would allow for easier access to the source of
the fire, contain the spread of flame, and provide time for the Fire Service to tackle the
outbreak."
The effects of the fire have not yet been fully assessed, and we are still waiting for two further reports.
The immediate effect was the closure of 31 schools in the area, because of the spread of asbestos,
which was carried five miles downwind of the fire. The flakes of asbestos were in the main hand-sized,
but in many cases were three to four times that size.
Great problems were experienced by the firemen because of the difficulty of identifying the stored
materials. There was no inventory available to the fire service.
So far 100 firemen have been taken ill, and about 60 are still ill today. They have suffered from sore
throats, headaches, chest pains and breathing difficulties. Doctors have already told two of the firemen
that the mucus lining of their lungs has been stripped away.
Injuries have also been sustained by the public unit and planning staff. The principal building surveyor
suffered from blisters on his arms and face. The senior building supervisor complained of chest pains
and is now away from work with bronchial pneumonia. Those were the effects on the people involved
in the fire.
With regard to the effects on the community, I quote from an article in the Morning Telegraph
of 8 February:
"The number of patients visiting the doctor's surgery with throat and chest complaints
increased by 50 per cent. after the £10 million warehouse fire at the nearby Brightside lane.
The doctor who has his surgery in Upwell Street, off Brightside lane, reported up to 30 people at each
of his surgeries compared to a normal maximum of 20. He said the visits lasted for a three-week period
after the fire and patients said that the complaints were caused by the December fire in which chemicals
stored at the warehouse were swept around the area in a massive smoke cloud. The effects of the fire
have caused widespread concern, with people reporting cases of sickness, headaches and
vomiting".
I do not know what is the definition of a major hazard. But in the light of case involving £10
million worth of damage, with 65 people still ill, and with 50 per cent. more people in the surrounding
community reporting sick than would normally be expected in the period, I wonder what a major hazard
is supposed to be. It is clear that the regulations now before the House would not have affected that
situation.
Often the storage of chemicals in urban areas cannot be avoided, but where they are stored in densely
populated areas, as in Sheffield, surely some precautions must be introduced. The regulations before
the House would not cover those circumstances. I have spoken to the chief fire officer and the planning
department in Sheffield about them. They have scrutinised the regulations and their

133
professional advice is that the regulations would not affect such a warehouse as the one that I have
mentioned. I hope that the Minister will clear up the matter, in view of what is being said by the chief fire
officer and the planning department. The regulations do not, according to them, cover such a building
as the National Carriers' warehouse in Sheffield, where the damage
occurred.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: Would my
hon. Friend agree that what emerges from the regulations is a glaring anomaly in primary legislation?
Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, planning permission is not needed when a warehouse
that stores, for example, milk powder, is used for the storage of hazardous
chemicals.
Mr. Caborn: That is absolutely clear. It is confirmed
by the land and planning officer in Sheffield and by the chief fire officer and the other services.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said, the regulations will
cover only about 250 establishments, and many places within areas of high density population where
dangerous chemicals are being stored will not be covered. On 6 February I asked the Secretary of State
for Employment whether he had any information
"on the number of people downwind whose health was affected by asbestos or
chemicals—or in any other way as a result of the fire on 14 December at a warehouse in
Sheffield."
The Minister replied:
"This Department does not hold this information." — [Official Report, 6
February 1985; Vol. 72, c. 586.]
Thus, the Department apparently has no information about the biggest fire to occur in south Yorkshire
for many years.
The Government have missed an opportunity to introduce legislation which could have allayed the
genuine fears about the storage not only of chemicals but of other dangerous substances. The fire
service can have difficulties in dealing with the cocktail of chemicals that are involved in a fire. That
problem is not easy to resolve, but it would have been nice, and it would have removed some of the
anxiety, if the Government had at least consulted those affected. If they had taken their advice, they
might have proposed a much more all-embracing piece of legislation than that before us. I hope that the
Opposition Front Bench will seriously consider voting against the regulations, because unless we do so,
we shall not do justice to our people.
11.5 pm
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Until 1983 I was a health and safety at
work officer and company secretary to BP Minerals, and I had to deal at first hand with the sort of
problems that have been outlined in this interesting debate. It is unusual for me to thank the European
Assembly for any directive, but these regulations appear to be helpful and accordingly I welcome
them.
My own interest is with liquefied petroleum gas. In 1984, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State
took part in a debate with me about the installation with regard to the Trocadero Shell service station in
my constituency. Since then there have been additional fears, with a calor gas explosion at Desford,
where several people lost their lives, and a leakage at Stoney Stanton. Therefore, the problem does not
seem to be going away, and that is a matter of great concern to me.
Regulation 5 provides an excellent way of reporting exactly what has happened. Regulation 5(2)
provides an
134
ideal way of reporting on a major accident, and no one can be critical of that. Obviously any industrial
installation will worry people. Consequently, the regulations, and particularly regulation 4, must be
helpful. We know that industrial installations always involve risks. Things can go wrong with them. The
wrong people may have been consulted prior to installation. But these regulations will encourage people
to consult fully beforehand.
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said, the regulations will
apply to more than 250 sites. For example, it must always be ensured that the site location is safe. Is it
ideal, is it warranted, and is there a risk of a serious chemical leakage? Of course the storage of any
hazardous substances must be a matter of concern, and the question of whether it is a serious danger to
the surrounding community must be answered. Indeed, under these regulations it will be answered. The
plans will have to be carefully drawn up. We shall have to ensure that the operation is both viable and
safe. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that that is the purpose of the regulations.
Regulation 5 itemises what to do after an emergency, and that is very important and useful.
I pay tribute to the role of the Health and Safety Executive, which works hard to protect the community.
One hon. Member doubted whether the local authorities would be able to handle conducting the
executive if rate capping were introduced in parts of the country. That is an important matter.
Allegations that rate capping will affect the Health and Safety Executive and its co-operation with local
authorities is nonsense. We are talking about a priority and about hundreds of thousands of people in
local communities. Scare tactics are unacceptable.
Mr. Garrett: I am not sure whether the hon.
Gentleman is referring to my speech or that by my hon. Friend on the Front
Bench.
Mr. Bruinvels: I am referring to the speech by the
hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn).
Mr. Garrett: In that case, my hon. Friend can answer
for himself.
Mr. Bruinvels: I noticed that the hon. Gentleman was
not doing that. The idea in the local authorities' plan about how such emergencies should be handled is
helpful. I am reminded of the way in which the police operate at county level. The emergency rooms are
always prepared, with telephone numbers and routing, to deal with an emergency. Close co-operation
should be established with the police.
Dr. Godman: The people of Livingston have
demonstrated definitively that we are dealing with a more critical public following Flixborough and the
dreadful events there. The fears expressed in rejecting Union Carbide's plans to set up a plant are
genuine. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that such fears will be dispelled by the implementation of the
regulations.
Mr. Bruinvels: I am grateful for that intervention. If
the hon. Gentleman had been here during my Adjournment debate on petroleum gas, he would have
heard what I highlighted then. Serious anxiety existed at that time and the public need reassurance. The
Flixborough experience was another anxiety and these regulations will quell, to an extent, those natural
worries. I should not like to live beside the site decided for my constituency because of the

135
element of risk. That is of great concern to me. The guidelines will cut out that risk—at long last.
I hope that Opposition Members will join us in welcoming the regulations.
Local authorities must always be prepared. That is important. They must always consider the possibility
of a major accident. I pray that accidents will not continue to happen, but that risk is always on the
horizon.
Self-regulation is suggested as an alternative. All local authorities and local industrial concerns must do
their utmost to protect the community, not only employees. They must protect people who have no
choice but to live near an industrial site.
Canvey island is one of the most risky sites, but people choose to live there. They need protection and I
am certain that they will be protected. The Health and Safety at Work etc Act has been honoured under
the regulations—and will continue to be honoured. We need an active public education. The
police, local authorities and fire services performed well in the Leicestershire incident, as they do
throughout the country whenever a major explosion occurs. All the local services must co-operate. That
is the best way.
It is up to hon. Members to inform their constituents when they visit local installations that the
regulations will help. The guidance notes should be respected. They will make the installations and the
local communities safer places in which to live. For that reason I have no hesitation in supporting the
regulations.
11.15 pm
Mr. David Penhaligon: All
accidents are frightening, and few more than those involving chemicals. We have only to glance through
the regulations to see chemicals listed which most of us cannot even pronounce, let alone understand
their uses or what may happen if they were subjected to heat or major pressure changes. I sometimes
feel that the House is at its least adequate when discussing such technical matters. It is obvious that few
of us know enough about the subject to make valid comments.
We are all floundering to find a solution to the problem, and we sometimes come near to mistaking
bureaucracy for safety. If there is an accident, we do not need acres and acres of paper—we
require someone with the relevant knowledge to be available within minutes. He will be the most valuable
person in a disaster. That is the weakness of the regulations.
On the whole, the regulations apply to the larger installations. We know that if there was an accident on
such a site in the United Kingdom the company involved could produce someone with the relevant
knowledge. It probably employs a number of suitably qualified people. However, on the smaller sites
where the amount stored is much less—perhaps a site in one of our villages or towns—I
fear that there is a real hazard. Indeed, that has been shown during the past three or four years. In such a
case not only will the paper not be produced, but the person with the knowledge will not be produced
either.
Mr. Crouch: The hon. Gentleman's point about flying
by the seat of one's pants is not really an answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr.
Caborn) about a real disaster. A detailed professional statement about quantities of chemicals could be
kept in certain areas.
Mr. Penhaligon: I accept that, and would welcome
any regulations on that line. Whether the figures quoted are correct is beyond my competence to say. I
saw the hon. Gentleman nod when I said that what we really need is someone with the relevant
knowledge. The greatest service that the Government could offer to encourage confidence in our
communities would be to ensure that within the Government there are a considerable number of
independent people who have the knowledge, and are seen to have the knowledge. It is true that the
Government cannot employ the number of chemists and experts employed by industry. However,
anything that reduces the number of inspectors or their qualifications — which must be high to
deal with some of the problems—would erode confidence, and confidence is as important as
any other factor.
Does the Minister really believe that the regulations cover the small storage sites, and are the
Government willing to invest enough in the Health and Safety Executive to produce sufficient people in
every area of the country to know what to do when an accident occurs? There is no substitute for that
skill when a disaster happens.
11.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter
Bottomley): I recognise that it was impossible for all those who
wished to speak in this debate to do so, and I am sure that the hon. Members for Gower (Mr. Wardell),
for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) and for Barking (Ms. Richardson) would have contributed well
to the debate.
In the light of today's tragedy in Germany, when 18 members of the band of RAF Germany died in a
road accident caused by a spillage of aviation fuel, we must recognise that there are constant dangers
around, not only on site but on roads. The House will wish to join me in expressing heartfelt sympathy
to the families and colleagues of those who died.
As a matter of public interest, I should say that we take seriously the matter of safety on roads, taking
the advice of the Health and Safety Commission. For example, the transport of dangerous substances in
bulk by road is controlled by the Dangerous Substances (Conveyance by Road in Road Tankers and
Tank Containers) Regulations 1981, which deal with such matters as the design and construction of
vehicles, labelling, driver training, information to be carried and parking. Other regulations are in the
pipeline, and I hope that the Health and Safety Commission will accept the recommendations of the
advisory committee. It has set up a sub-committee on dangerous substances to study and report on
such matters.
We are looking at a hierarchy of controls and trying to ensure that hazards and risks are reduced. I
greatly welcome the comments of those hon. Members who have direct experience, including the hon.
Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels),
who spoke with expertise not only of the industry but of the Health and Safety Executive. In
considering the positive benefits from present arrangements on health and safety at work, in which the
regulations will play a part, I place much emphasis on the close involvement of the Factory Inspectorate
and other Health and Safety Executive inspectorates in giving guidance and advice to industry. There is
a great fund of expertise in the Factory

137
Inspectorate; and 95 per cent. of inspectors' time when visiting factories is spent giving advice,
information and guidance to employers. They should be seen as people whose expertise is of immense
advantage to industry in ensuring that processes are safe and without risk to health.
I do not wish to fall out with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) —
[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because I suspect that I shall be having debates with him for
several years, I hope with me remaining on the Government side of the House, and him remaining on the
other side. But whatever our position in the House, we share a concern which has been well expressed
today. If I cannot answer every point in detail, I shall write to hon. Members and ensure that the
information they requested is passed on.
I shall spend no more than a moment on the July versus January point and the December edition. I have
written to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East about it, and I draw his attention to the
Official Journal of the European Communities of 5 August 1982, which gives the date of 8 July
1989. That date has been around for three years, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that there
was no intent—
Mr. Prescott: It is just that the Department was
sloppy.
Mr. Bottomley: As the Minister responsible, I accept
the blame, but it may have been the fault of Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
The hon. Gentleman talked about disclosure of information. The Health and Safety Commission is to
issue a discussion document in March on the possible changes in the law on disclosure information, in
response to a direct request from Ministers to review the law in this area. The hon. Gentleman seemed
to imply that the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazardouss Regulations overtake and replace the
Notification of Installations Handling Hazards Substances Regulations, which were introduced a few
years ago, because there was doubt about whether the European Community would introduce its
directive in time. They do not replace those regulations; they add to them.
Perhaps this could be a general answer to hon. Members who asked whether the CIMAH regulations
cover small plants. The answer is that, in general, they do not. The regulations are designed to cover the
most hazardous sites, where the consequences of disaster would be the worst. My hon. Friend the
Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) was right to say—he corrected the hon. Member for
Kingston upon Hull, East on this—that the CIMAH regulations are not a substitute for the other
regulations in place, which may have been the flavour of what the hon. Gentleman
said—
Mr. Prescott: They are not safety
plans.
Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will realise that
these regulations cover only the 250 most dangerous sites, and that the other 1,600 sites will be covered
by the NIHHS regulations as a second tier of sites. Other sites are covered by the normal Health and
Safety at Work etc. Act provisions.
Mr. Robert Litherland: How do the Government define a
dangerous site? At the Anchor Chemicals plant in Manchester, only the expertise of the fire brigade
averted a disaster. Under the Minister's criteria, that is a small site.
Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious
matter. I shall deal later with how the regulations and their implementation will be reviewed. We must
always learn from disasters, accidents and incidents, whether at Manchester or Sheffield. No one is
claiming that the regulations are the end of everything. However, it is important to recognise that they
have come through from the Health and Safety Commission, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for
Banbury has reminded the House, is a tripartite body which has the advice—I take up a point
made by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon)—of advisory groups which bring
together expertise. The regulations have, as far as possible, benefited from the advice of those who are
the greatest experts. We have tried to put them in a form that will be understood by those who come
new to an industry and by those who are confronted by circumstances that endanger those at work and
their neighbours. That is the way in which the regulations have come before the House for consideration
and, I hope, for approval. The role of safety committees is laid down in health and safety at work
legislation and there is no need to add to that in the regulations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) spoke with direct expertise of matters
underlying the regulations. The circular issued by the Department of the Environment gave guidance to
local authorities on the need to consult the Health and Safety Executive about developments near
hazardous sites.
The hon. Member for Wallsend has direct experience from ICI. He asked for a sense of balance and
reinforced the importance of the human factor.
Under the regulations, local authorities will be able to charge for the work that they undertake in
developing off-site plans. This will be a major new responsibility for the authorities. The Health and
Safety Executive will give high priority to their work in that area. Industry may be under pressure in
terms of cost, but it is its responsibility to achieve safety and I am sure that it will discharge it. The role
of trade unions is a valuable one, through safety representatives, and it is well known that the
Government, like their predecessors, devote considerable resources to this matter.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury for reinforcing the point that the regulations
are not to be taken in isolation. He advanced a vivid argument in saying that no amount of imposed
regulations will surpass self-regulation. I hope that both forms of regulation will work together.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) spoke about the fire at Sheffield and experience
in the area. I hope that he will forgive me if I respond to his comments by writing to him. We are
determined to learn lessons from the fire. I am sure that the Home Office and the fire service will pay
serious attention to the remarks of the chief fire officer.
Mr. Martin Flannery: When the inquiry takes place,
is there any possibility of testing the long-term hazards of such a fire? It is obvious that some firemen
have been exposed to asbestos and it is more than likely that some in the area will die from asbestosis.
An inquiry into the long-term hazards needs to be undertaken.
Mr. Bottomley: I shall write to the hon.
Gentleman.
Mr. Hardy: And to all south Yorkshire Members?
Mr. Bottomley: To all south Yorkshire Members, if I
can. Many issues have been raised that are not covered directly by the regulations. In trying to reply to
the debate I have had to omit some of the points that I wanted to make overall.
The hon. Member for Truro, with his usual robust good sense, made sure that we would not try to
substitute bureaucracy for safety. The guide to the regulations and the consultation paper show that our
aim is to create greater safety by getting individuals to anticipate the worst thing that may happen to
them, to look for the safety approach and to try to ensure that it does not happen. Nothing is
perfect—
Dr. Godman: As in
Livingston.
Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman has intervened
twice on Livingston, but I do not think that it is for me to say much about the issue that concerns him,
especially given the recent news about Livingston and the proposed plant.
I am pleased that the House has had the opportunity to debate these important regulations, which in my
view and that of the Health and Safety Commission, as well as that of the Community, mark a major
step forward in the development of a comprehensive system in Britain for the control of hazards at
industrial plants. It is an important subject and recent events have concentrated our minds on the terrible
hazards that exist.
We have in the regulations and in the wider system of controls of which they are a part of a powerful
armoury of weapons to ensure not only that the consequences of an incident are as small as possible
but that the chances of an incident occurring are minimised. For many reasons, the world, including the
Third world, needs the products of the chemical industry. Without those products our quality of life
and expectation of life would be much less. Without such products we would have less clean water and
vastly reduced food supplies, and we would be at the mercy of the many illnesses and diseases which
can be controlled by the use of pharmaceuticals. It is important to realise that there is a need for the
chemical industry and that we cannot just wish away many of that industry's developments, although we
can do our best to eliminate avoidable risks and, when there is a disaster, to ensure that the
consequences are reduced as much as possible.
This has been a good debate. It has been illuminated by the many shared objectives. I hope that we shall
be able to ensure that the chemical sites make good neighbours. The CIMAH regulations help towards
meeting that objective.
It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant
to Standing Order No. 4 (Prayers against Statutory Instruments, &c. (negative
procedure)).
The House divided: Ayes 40, Noes 140.

Division No. 98]

[11.30 pm

AYES

Boyes, Roland

Flannery, Martin

Caborn, Richard

Foulkes, George

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Garrett, W. E.

Cowans, Harry

Godman, Dr Norman

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Hardy, Peter

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Dewar, Donald

Hughes, Simon (Southward)

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Kennedy, Charles

Ewing, Harry

Kirkwood, Archy

140

Leadbitter, Ted

Pike, Peter

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Prescott, John

Litherland, Robert

Richardson, Ms Jo

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Skinner, Dennis

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Snape, Peter

Maxton, John

Strang, Gavin

Meadowcroft, Michael

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Michie, William

Nellist, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Parry, Robert

Mr. Don Dixon and

Penhaligon, David

Mr. Gareth Wardell.

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Lyell, Nicholas

Amess, David

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Ancram, Michael

Macfarlane, Neil

Ashby, David

Maclean, David John

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Major, John

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Malins, Humfrey

Baldry, Tony

Malone, Gerald

Batiste, Spencer

Marland, Paul

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Mates, Michael

Bellingham, Henry

Mather, Carol

Benyon, William

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Merchant, Piers

Bottomley, Peter

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Moynihan, Hon C.

Bright, Graham

Mudd, David

Brinton, Tim

Neale, Gerrard

Brooke, Hon Peter

Nelson, Anthony

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Neubert, Michael

Bruinvels, Peter

Newton, Tony

Burt, Alistair

Nicholls, Patrick

Butler, Hon Adam

Norris, Steven

Butterfill, John

Onslow, Cranley

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Carttiss, Michael

Patten, John (Oxford)

Cash, William

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Chope, Christopher

Pollock, Alexander

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Portillo, Michael

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Powell, William (Corby)

Clegg, Sir Walter

Powley, John

Conway, Derek

Proctor, K. Harvey

Cope, John

Raffan, Keith

Couchman, James

Rhodes James, Robert

Crouch, David

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Dorrell, Stephen

Roe, Mrs Marion

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Rowe, Andrew

Dover, Den

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Dunn, Robert

Sayeed, Jonathan

Durant, Tony

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Eggar, Tim

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Evennett, David

Spence, John

Fallon, Michael

Spencer, Derek

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Galley, Roy

Steen, Anthony

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Stern, Michael

Gummer, John Selwyn

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Harris, David

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Hayward, Robert

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Henderson, Barry

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Hickmet, Richard

Stradling Thomas, J.

Hill, James

Sumberg, David

Hind, Kenneth

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Jackson, Robert

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Lang, Ian

Thurnham, Peter

Lawrence, Ivan

Tracey, Richard

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Lightbown, David

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Lilley, Peter

Waddington, David

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Waldegrave, Hon William

Lord, Michael

Waller, Gary

Luce, Richard

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

141

Warren, Kenneth

Wood, Timothy

Watson, John

Woodcock, Michael

Watts, John

Yeo, Tim

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

Whitfield, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Wiggin, Jerry

Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and

Wolfson, Mark

Mr. Archie Hamilton.

Question accordingly negatived.

Teachers (Scotland)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.
Lang.]
11.42 pm
Mr. Gavin Strang: I make no apology for prefacing my
speech with a criticism of the Secretary of State for failing to take this opportunity to make a statement
to Parliament on an issue of such gravity to Scotland.
I do not doubt the Under-Secretary's ability to put the Government's case, but it is a tradition that the
Secretary of State replies to Adjournment debates on issues of major national significance. I hope that
the Under-Secretary will explain the reasons for the Secretary of State's absence, so that we can judge
whether he has treated the teachers, Scotland and Parliament with contempt.
The crisis in Scotland's schools is the outcome of years of frustration in the teaching profession at the
Government's educational policies. Successive years of cuts in spending on Scotland's schools are now
having a serious effect on the quality of education. Falling school rolls should have enabled us to
improve the range of opportunities for our children. Instead, we have had the three blackest years in
Scottish education.
National and local spokespersons for the Conservative party may convince some people with their
propaganda that we cannot afford a decent state education system, but teachers and others know that
the Government found thousands of millions of pounds for the Falklands campaign, are finding
thousands of millions of pounds in their struggle against the National Union of Mineworkers, and plan
to spend over £10,000 million on a new nuclear weapons system. It is a question of priorities;
if the Government wanted to do so, they could find the £100 million or so that is needed for
Scotland's schools.
The vast majority of our teachers are dedicated to their work. They want the best for our children. It is
no use the Government harping on about pupil-teacher ratios. Even the Under-Secretary's predecessor
acknowledged that making cuts in teacher numbers proportionate to falling rolls would necessitate a
decline in standards. I say, "Even the hon. Gentleman's predecessor" because the hon. Member for
Edinburgh, North, as he was then, now Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher), used to make speeches that
attracted the headlines, "Lothian a disgrace". When one read the report, one found that Lothian was a
disgrace because it was spending more per pupil than any other authority in Scotland. It had the best
pupil-teacher ratio. Things have changed with a vengeance in Lothian. We are suffering a massive cut in
education opportunities in our schools as a consequence of the policies of the Lothian regional council.
The position throughout Scotland is severe as a result of the lack of resources, especially a lack of the
additional resources that are required for the new standard grade curricula.
Teachers' salaries have now fallen well behind the standards set by the Houghton committee. Any
objective comparison of the movement of teachers' earnings with average earnings in general or the
average earnings of non-manual workers puts that beyond dispute. To compare teachers with other
public sector groups that have suffered under the Government or to take as the base year for
comparison the position immediately prior to the Clegg committee award is specious, and Ministers
know it.

143
Perhaps the main reason for the teachers' anger is the deterioration in their conditions of work. Last
November, the Secretary of State received the Scottish joint negotiating committee working party report
on teachers' workload. Let me quote some of the important conclusions in that report.
[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) scoffs, but the report was
agreed by both teaching union and management representatives. I should like to quote some of the
conclusions which, I emphasise, the Secretary of State received last November. The first conclusion
that I should like to quote is:
"a significant change in the nature and extent of teachers' work content and workload has taken
place and continues to take place".
The second conclusion that I should like to quote is:
"the changes are fundamental, progressive and … once complete, they will result in a
higher level of workload than before".
Another conclusion is:
"the effect of these changes, in circumstances of limited resources in terms of teaching staff,
support staff, equipment and materials, has been to place increasing demands upon the personal
contribution, personal commitment and personal time of teaching staff".
And another conclusion is:
"the cumulative effect of the changes, pressures of work and lack of recognition is undermining
the morale of the teaching workforce".
In preparation for today's debate, I visited Portobello secondary, the largest secondary school in my
constituency. I was very impressed by the stance taken by the teachers, but I was particularly impressed
by the enormity of the additional hours of work that teachers have had to cope with to prepare the new
curricula for the standard grade courses.
In view of the teachers' concern about the deterioration in their conditions of work as documented by
the working party report, it was disgraceful that the Secretary of State put forward a proposal in
December that the Scottish joint negotiating committee should carry out an internal pay and conditions
review with a remit to reduce rather than improve conditions of service. I hope that Ministers are under
no illusions about the depth of feeling among our teachers in Scotland at this time. Surely the result of
the most recent ballot by the Educational Institute for Scotland, when there was an overwhelming vote
in favour of boycotting documentation and procedures connected with the Scottish Certificate of
Education examinations in 1985, made some impact on Ministers.
Like most hon. Members here today, I attended last week's meeting of teachers' representatives from all
over Scotland. These people were not EIS activists but teachers from parts of Scotland where there is
no tradition of militancy and certainly none in the teaching profession. The reality is that thousands of
teachers who would hardly have contemplated this kind of action a few years ago are now doing so
because they believe that the Government are influenced only by this type of action. Year in and year
out their representatives have campaigned and made representations but the Government have totally
failed to respond.
Teachers are concerned about their salaries and conditions of work, but they are also frustrated at the
lack of resources and the conditions now prevailing in the schools. I hope that the Government realise
that their
144
present stance will not succeed. They will not be able to ride this out on the basis of what is currently
on the table. It is not a matter of the leadership of the EIS or the other unions out in front leading their
members into action. It is the opposite. The leaders are responding to massive and still growing
pressure for action to halt the attack on Scotland's teaching profession and on standards in our schools.
The anger and despair among teachers is probably more widespread now than ever before. Individuals
for whom industrial action was anathema a few years ago are now convinced that it is the only way to
influence the Government.
The halting of curriculum development for third-year pupils following courses for the new standard
grade certificate is now seriously damaging their future prospects. I hope that the Minister will comment
on that, because although there has been a great deal of publicity about the action in Ministers'
constituencies the most serious aspect of the industrial action is the threat to pupils who have embarked
on phase 1 of the new certificate. Most schools have run out of materials and there is no authentication
of new materials. Those pupils are in a no man's land, not knowing whether they are to press ahead with
the new curriculum to be assessed for examination in the fourth year or whether they are to revert to
O-levels.
It is not just a matter of the damage to children's education. There is widespread anxiety among pupils
and parents that the grade and qualification that they will obtain will be seriously impaired as a result of
the present situation. [Interruption.] Conservative Members seem to regard that as some kind of
indictment of the teachers' case, but it is nothing of the kind. It is a reflection of the strength of feeling
of professional teachers who have been driven to this action.
The Secretary of State has always known that his suggestion of an internal review with a remit to reduce
teachers' conditions of service is utterly unacceptable. The teachers' request for an independent pay
review has overwhelming support, and it is fair and reasonable. It is high time that the Government made
a positive response.
11.53 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan
Stewart): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr.
Strang) for making it clear that he intended no personal criticism of me in his opening remarks, but I
found his comments about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State both spurious and bogus. [HON.
MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] This Adjournment debate is being handled in entirely the normal way. I
assure the House that my right hon. Friend is deeply concerned, as is the whole House, about the
situation in Scottish education. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State personally met
the unions and the management side before he reached a decision on the request for a review. That is
why, immediately there was a request from the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee, he agreed to
another meeting. That meeting took place on 28 January.
I note that the hon. Members for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) and Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar),
who represent the Scottish Opposition on education matters, are in their places. The hon. Member for
Edinburgh, East has referred purely to pay. It is important to clarify the

145
position. Opposition Members originally signed an early-day motion on pay and conditions of service.
The teacher unions have never asked for an independent review of pay and conditions of
service.
Mr. Strang: It is true that the title of the debate refers
to the teachers' claim for an independent pay review, but I made it obvious in my speech that I was
talking about pay and conditions.
Mr. Stewart: That is an important point. I understand
that that view is shared by the Opposition Front Bench. The point is crucial at this stage of the
negotiations with the SJNC.
Mr. Harry Ewing: The Minister is seeking to make clear
the Government's position on pay and conditions. The Secretary of State has said to the teacher unions
that he is prepared to discuss conditions provided that the outcome, in terms of pay, is within the
Government's economic policy. In other words, the Secretary of State will make teachers' conditions
worse, in exchange for a pay increase of, say, 3 per cent. That is simply not
acceptable.
Mr. Stewart: No, that is not the position at all. We are
not insisting on any absolute conditions, as I hope to make clear.
As always, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East made a calm speech. However, it is important to
distinguish between two key issues—sympathy with the desire of teachers for better pay, and
the attitude of hon. Gentlemen towards the current action by teachers.
I can, of course, understand the first concern. I am myself the son of a teacher. However, it is a
distortion of reality to reserve sympathy for teachers prepared to take extreme action rather than for
their victims. The action is unprecedented in a number of important respects, notably in relation to
examinations and certainly in the fact that sustained action has been taken against the education of
pupils who happen to live in the constituencies represented by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of
State and by my hon. Friends who are members of the Government. On a sustained basis, such action
is unprecedented in the history of the trade union movement in Britain or
elsewhere.
Mr. George Foulkes rose—
Mr. Stewart: Not only is it immensely damaging, but it
has the most serious implications, because it is action that can in theory be repeated at will by the
teachers or by any other trade union.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East raised a number of general questions about expenditure on
education. That is not strictly the subject of the debate. However, expenditure per pupil in Scotland, in
money terms and in real terms, is higher than ever before. It is also true that pupil-teacher ratios are
better than ever before.
Mr. John Maxton rose—
Mr. Stewart: Let me set out the current position of the
respective parties. The teachers believe they have a grievance which they want to be resolved only by an
independent pay review. My right hon. Friend did not turn down that request out of hand. On the
contrary, he made the reasonable and constructive suggestion that the Scottish joint negotiating
committee for teaching staff in school education should itself carry out a review of pay and conditions
of service together.
Mr. Foulkes rose—
Mr. Stewart: This body, set up by Parliament, was
established in 1982 with the statutory responsibility for precisely those
areas.
Mr. Foulkes rose—
Mr. Stewart: I have already given way twice
— [Interruption.]
Mr. Barry Henderson: On a point of order, Mr.
Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members, during an Adjournment debate, to heckle the Minister
in the way that some hon. Members are doing now?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): It is very clear
that the Minister is not giving way.
Mr. Foulkes rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon.
Gentleman to resume his seat. It is clear that the Minister is not giving way.
Mr. Stewart: I have, Mr. Deputy Speaker, already
given way twice.
The Scottish joint negotiating committee has both teachers and employers among its members. It
therefore has the necessary experience and expertise to undertake a review. There is no case for passing
the responsibility for making recommendations to a body with no responsibility for implementing
them.
The SJNC was established recently by Parliament, and its remit covered both pay and conditions of
service, but so far it has not conducted the kind of review which is now suggested.
My right hon. Friend and I met both sides of the Committee on 28 January at their request. At that
meeting we stressed that we would be prepared to consider a pay and conditions of service package on
its merits. If it were sufficiently attractive, we agreed to undertake the very difficult task of re-ordering
our existing spending priorities to provide additional finance. We would, of course, expect education
authorities to make their contribution, too, and I do not pretend for a moment that any such re-ordering
of priorities would be other than extremely difficult.
At that meeting the management side accepted the good faith of the Government's intentions and agreed
that a review of the kind that we suggested represented a reasonable way forward. It appreciated, I
think, that a guarantee in advance that the outcome would be funded in full was not feasible. Obviously,
my right hon. Friend could not give such an undertaking before he knew what any package
contained.
Subsequently, I was heartened—as I hope all hon. Members were—by the news that the
teachers' side was willing to consider the proposals for a review of pay and conditions of service
outlined by the management side at the last SJNC meeting on Thursday. I hope that that expression is
widely shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that at the further meeting this
Friday the teachers' side will come back with a constructive response from its membershipa to what the
management side proposed. I am sure that it offers an acceptable way forward.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East mentioned the teachers' perception of the heavy demands made
by the job, and no one has ever sought to deny these perceptions,

147
although the report to which he referred had an absence of quantification of burdens. Nobody denies
the pressures that effective and worthwhile curriculum development can bring, at least in the critical
stages. Equally, I hope that nobody denies the facts of a 32½ hour working week and 12
weeks' holiday a year, which represents some acknowledgement of the strains of the job.
This brings me to the real stumbling block between the parties—conditions of service. Recently,
and here I am answering specifically the point put to me by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East, certain
duties which were always regarded as part and parcel of a teacher's job have come to be regarded more
as optional extras than indispensable elements. The Government want to achieve much greater clarity of
definition about the work of the modern teacher. For example, parents have a right to know whether
attendance at parents' evenings is purely voluntary or a firm commitment.
We are not insisting on any absolute conditions. We have simply pointed out the main uncertainties,
which we think should be clarified, and the points which need to be covered. I am convinced that we
need to move as quickly as possible to a state of affairs where all parties know exactly what is expected
of them. That must be in everybody's interest—parents, pupils and, not least, the teachers
themselves. It is surely a reasonable expectation of an established negotiating body that these areas
should be clarified in conjunction with any consideration of pay.
I hope that I have demonstrated to the House that the Government have responded in a genuinely
constructive way. Against that background, it saddens me to see how the trade unions are exacting a
savage penalty from pupils who have committed no conceivable offence.
Mr. Foulkes: The Minister referred to pupils who are
innocent in this dispute. My son is one of them—he is affected on three days a week at the Kyle
academy. The Minister knows that I have written to the Secretary of State suggesting a possible way
forward, but I have had no reply. Is it not about time that the Secretary of State looked at possible ways
of conciliation in this dispute, because there are ways in which the dispute can be resolved? The
Secretary of State should not be digging in as he is, and seeing the teachers unions digging in on the
other side. As there are ways forward, will the Secretary of State and the Minister seriously consider
them?
Mr. Stewart: We have suggested a way forward. I
have read the hon. Gentleman's letter, and he will shortly receive a reply to it from my right hon.
Friend.
Let us look at some of the actions which the EIS is taking, which go way beyond its response in
previous disputes. The action in the constituencies of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are members
of the Government is not the action of a professional body. I hope that there will
148
be an early return to professional pride and scruples before the damage inflicted on these pupils is
irretrievable. That kind of action, apart from being damaging, is completely pointless.
I was asked about the attack on the standard grade examinations for 14 to 16 year-olds—an
attack which strikes at our attempts, fully supported by the education profession, to provide better and
more relevant teaching which will help positively to equip youngsters of all abilities for adult life. It is
particularly damaging for those pupils who are now being taught the four phase 1 standard grade
subjects — English, mathematics, science and social and vocational skills. We have made it
clear that those courses should continue. I have asked the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to
make a careful assessment of the situation and to advise us urgently on what further measures might be
taken to ensure satisfactory provision for third-year pupils who are being affected by the action.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East referred to the threatened disruption of examination procedures
— for example, the withholding of the forms putting candidates forward for SCE examinations
or the orders of merit which provide a ranking of candidates' expected abilities. The absence of the
orders of merit is particularly unfair; without them candidates who do not perform to their true ability
for compassionate, health or other reasons may not have enough evidence for an appeal against their
mark. I am happy to be able to report to the House that on the latest figures there is evidence that many
teachers are showing a sense of personal responsibility by not boycotting the examination procedures. I
am told that by today about 80 per cent. —120,000 out of 150,000—of the forms for
putting candidates forward for the exams had come to the board, and that two thirds of the marks for
modern languages oral examinations had been received by the Scottish Examination Board.
The board is also discussing with the Scottish Universities Council on Entrance what account
universities can take of lower performance than expected by candidates for entrance.
My message to hon. Members in all parts of the House is to think long and hard about the fundamental
issues at stake in the dispute. I hope that all hon. Members will use their influence to press teachers in
their own constituency to give the management side proposals within the SJNC a fair chance. I do not
ask Labour Members necessarily to support the Government, but these proposals from the management
side represent a reasonable way forward. I hope that we get a package to consider and that we shall get
it as soon as possible. We shall consider it on its merits in the interests of everyone concerned with
Scottish education.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Twelve o' clock.

ENERGY
  Electricity and Gas
  Electricity and Gas
  Severn Barrage
  Severn Barrage
  Culham Laboratory
  Culham Laboratory
  Coal Industry (Apprenticeships)
  Coal Industry (Apprenticeships)
  Electricity Boards (Pricing Policy)
  Electricity Boards (Pricing Policy)
PRIME MINISTER
  Public Sector Employment (Costs)
  Public Sector Employment (Costs)
  Milk
  Milk
  Payments to Farmers
  Payments to Farmers
  Northern Ireland (Security)
  Northern Ireland (Security)
  Guatemala
  Guatemala
  Belize
  Belize
  Wintex—Cimex '85 Exercise
  Wintex—Cimex '85 Exercise
  Security Vetting (Northern Ireland)
  Security Vetting (Northern Ireland)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Administration Costs
  Administration Costs
  Education and Training Board
  Education and Training Board
  Teaching Shortages
  Teaching Shortages
  Physics Teaching
  Physics Teaching
  School Closures
  School Closures
  Universities (Recurrent Costs)
  Universities (Recurrent Costs)
  A and O-level Passes
  A and O-level Passes
  Comprehensive and Selective Systems
  Comprehensive and Selective Systems
  VAT (Books)
  VAT (Books)
SCOTLAND
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Buses
  Buses
  Private Health Insurance
  Private Health Insurance
  Draft Deer (Firearms Etc.) (Scotland) Order 1984
  Draft Deer (Firearms Etc.) (Scotland) Order 1984
  Salmon and Sea Trout
  Salmon and Sea Trout
  Roads (Safety Barriers)
  Roads (Safety Barriers)
  Corporal Punishment
  Corporal Punishment
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  In Camera Proceedings
  In Camera Proceedings
  Gipsies (Hampstead Heath)
  Gipsies (Hampstead Heath)
  Small Claims
  Small Claims
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prison Building
  Prison Building
  Prisoners (Suicides)
  Prisoners (Suicides)
  Royal Prerogative of Mercy
  Royal Prerogative of Mercy
  Probation Service (North Wales)
  Probation Service (North Wales)
  Extradition (Spain)
  Extradition (Spain)
  Mr. and Mrs. Mahmoud
  Mr. and Mrs. Mahmoud
  M25 (Accident)
  M25 (Accident)
  Prevention of Terrorism (Amendments)
  Prevention of Terrorism (Amendments)
  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  Fire Service Regulations
  Fire Service Regulations
  Voluntary After-care Scheme
  Voluntary After-care Scheme
  Fire Service (Funding)
  Fire Service (Funding)
  Police Service (Funding)
  Police Service (Funding)
  Wintex-Cimex '85 Exercise
  Wintex-Cimex '85 Exercise
  Hospitals (Assaults on Staff)
  Hospitals (Assaults on Staff)
  Ex-Pc I. M. McQuarrie (Criminal Injuries Claim)
  Ex-Pc I. M. McQuarrie (Criminal Injuries Claim)
  Overseas Visitors and Immigrants
  Overseas Visitors and Immigrants
  Exercise Brave Defender
  Exercise Brave Defender
  Lowdham Grange Youth Custody Centre
  Lowdham Grange Youth Custody Centre
  Winson Green Prison
  Winson Green Prison
  Nitroglycerine (Greiss Test)
  Nitroglycerine (Greiss Test)
  Prevention of Terrorism (Arrest)
  Prevention of Terrorism (Arrest)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  EC (Imports and Exports)
  EC (Imports and Exports)
  British Standards Institution (Exhibition)
  British Standards Institution (Exhibition)
  Certification Marks
  Certification Marks
  Accredited Certification Bodies
  Accredited Certification Bodies
  "Standards, Quality and Inter-nation Competitiveness"
  "Standards, Quality and Inter-nation Competitiveness"
  British Safety Council
  British Safety Council
  Church Services (Broadcasting)
  Church Services (Broadcasting)
  Riding Hats
  Riding Hats
  Telephones (BT Approval)
  Telephones (BT Approval)
  Micro-electronics
  Micro-electronics
  EC (Insurance)
  EC (Insurance)
  Companies Acts (Consolidation)
  Companies Acts (Consolidation)
TRANSPORT
  Departmental Administration
  Departmental Administration
  Bypasses (Trees and Shrubs)
  Bypasses (Trees and Shrubs)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Railways (Accident Statistics)
  Railways (Accident Statistics)
  Buses
  Buses
  Speed Limits
  Speed Limits
  Traffic Statistics
  Traffic Statistics
  Road Transport (Statistics)
  Road Transport (Statistics)
  M25 (Accident)
  M25 (Accident)
  Railway Accidents (Reports)
  Railway Accidents (Reports)
  Railway Accident (Rugby)
  Railway Accident (Rugby)
  Roads (Safety Barriers)
  Roads (Safety Barriers)
  Trinity House
  Trinity House
  Coal Imports
  Coal Imports
EMPLOYMENT
  Earnings
  Earnings
  Doctors
  Doctors
  South-West Region
  South-West Region
  Collective Agreements
  Collective Agreements
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Labour Statistics (Burnley)
  Labour Statistics (Burnley)
  EC Funds
  EC Funds
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Helsinki Accord (Monitoring)
  Helsinki Accord (Monitoring)
  Extradition (Spain)
  Extradition (Spain)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Adam Fergusson
  Mr. Adam Fergusson
  Margaret Hicks
  Margaret Hicks
  Syrian Nationals (Deportation)
  Syrian Nationals (Deportation)
  Kampuchea
  Kampuchea
THE ARTS
  Taxation (Acceptance in Lieu)
  Taxation (Acceptance in Lieu)
  Riverside Studios and London Orchestral Concert Board
  Riverside Studios and London Orchestral Concert Board
  Libraries (Privatisation)
  Libraries (Privatisation)
  British Empire (Museum)
  British Empire (Museum)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid
  Aid
  Sub-Sahara Africa (Special Facility)
  Sub-Sahara Africa (Special Facility)
  International Fund for Agricultural Development
  International Fund for Agricultural Development
LORD PRIVY SEAL
  Magistrates (Lancashire)
  Magistrates (Lancashire)
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Disabled and Elderly Persons
  Disabled and Elderly Persons
  Sewage Waste
  Sewage Waste
  Wintex-Cimex '85 Exercise
  Wintex-Cimex '85 Exercise
  North Eastern Regional Emergency Committee.
  North Eastern Regional Emergency Committee.
  Archaeological and Historic Artefacts (Whitehall)
  Archaeological and Historic Artefacts (Whitehall)
  Rates Revaluation
  Rates Revaluation
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  South Yorkshire (Asbestos)
  South Yorkshire (Asbestos)
  Merseyside (Ministerial Visit)
  Merseyside (Ministerial Visit)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Plastic Bullets
  Plastic Bullets
  Non-scheduled Offences
  Non-scheduled Offences
  Beef
  Beef
  Dairy Farmers
  Dairy Farmers
  Sewage Disposal
  Sewage Disposal
  Road Accidents (Statistics)
  Road Accidents (Statistics)
  Scheduled Offences
  Scheduled Offences
  Security Statistics
  Security Statistics
WALES
  Regional Development Grant
  Regional Development Grant
  A55 (Roadworks)
  A55 (Roadworks)
  Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Aberystwyth
  Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Aberystwyth
  Statutory Bodies (Confidential Statements)
  Statutory Bodies (Confidential Statements)
  Wintex Cimex '85 Exercises
  Wintex Cimex '85 Exercises
  Milk Quotas
  Milk Quotas
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Buses (Revenue Support)
  Buses (Revenue Support)
  Public Bodies (Appointments)
  Public Bodies (Appointments)
  Polytechnics
  Polytechnics
  Roads (Safety Barriers)
  Roads (Safety Barriers)
  A483 (Lighting)
  A483 (Lighting)
  University Hospital of Wales
  University Hospital of Wales
  Unlit Roads
  Unlit Roads
  Roads
  Roads
  S. W. Milburn and Partners
  S. W. Milburn and Partners
  Private Educational Establishments
  Private Educational Establishments
  Cefn Mably Hospital
  Cefn Mably Hospital
DEFENCE
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Cruise Missiles
  Cruise Missiles
  AST 404
  AST 404
  First-strike Weapons
  First-strike Weapons
  Wintex-Cimex '85 Exercise
  Wintex-Cimex '85 Exercise
  Departmental Purchases
  Departmental Purchases
  Royal Navy Stores
  Royal Navy Stores
  Brave Defender Exercise
  Brave Defender Exercise
  HMS Starling (Logbook)
  HMS Starling (Logbook)
  Mr. Peter Levene
  Mr. Peter Levene
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Economic Statistics
  Economic Statistics
  European Community (Competitiveness)
  European Community (Competitiveness)
  European Community (Expenditure)
  European Community (Expenditure)
  European Community (Economic Comparison)
  European Community (Economic Comparison)
  Exchange Rate
  Exchange Rate
  Wage and Labour Statistics
  Wage and Labour Statistics
  Administration Costs
  Administration Costs
  Civil Service
  Civil Service
  Customs and Excise (Drug Seizures)
  Customs and Excise (Drug Seizures)
  Customs and Excise (Establishment)
  Customs and Excise (Establishment)
  Drug Smuggling
  Drug Smuggling
  Taxation and National Insurance Contributions
  Taxation and National Insurance Contributions
  Tax Revenue
  Tax Revenue
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  "Nationalised Industries Legislation"
  "Nationalised Industries Legislation"
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Income Tax and National Insurance Contributions
  Income Tax and National Insurance Contributions
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  Taxation
  Taxation
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Hill Farmers
  Hill Farmers
  Lupin Grain
  Lupin Grain
  Sugar
  Sugar
  Goats' Milk
  Goats' Milk
  EC Expenditure
  EC Expenditure
  Conservation
  Conservation
SOCIAL SERVICES
  EC (Poverty Definition)
  EC (Poverty Definition)
  Acute Beds
  Acute Beds
  Health Authorities (Appointees)
  Health Authorities (Appointees)
  Steroids
  Steroids
  Post Neonatal Mortality
  Post Neonatal Mortality
  Board and Lodging
  Board and Lodging
  Benefits (Overpayments)
  Benefits (Overpayments)
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Health Authorities (General Managers)
  Health Authorities (General Managers)
  Winterton General Practice Partnership South Humberside
  Winterton General Practice Partnership South Humberside
  Doctors (Consultation Times)
  Doctors (Consultation Times)
  Limited List Prescribing
  Limited List Prescribing
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Nursing Staff (Back Injuries)
  Nursing Staff (Back Injuries)
  Nursing Homes
  Nursing Homes
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  "Counter Benefits"
  "Counter Benefits"
  Severe Weather Payments
  Severe Weather Payments
  Head and Neck Injuries
  Head and Neck Injuries
  Venereal Disease
  Venereal Disease
  Children (Sexual and Physical Abuse)
  Children (Sexual and Physical Abuse)
  Heart Replacement Surgery
  Heart Replacement Surgery
  Drug Addicts
  Drug Addicts
  Girocheque Frauds
  Girocheque Frauds
  Ketoconazole
  Ketoconazole
  Doctors (Prescriptions)
  Doctors (Prescriptions)
  Prescriptions (Costs)
  Prescriptions (Costs)
  Advisory Bodies
  Advisory Bodies
  Ambulance Service
  Ambulance Service
  Doctors (Medical Certificates)
  Doctors (Medical Certificates)
  Rampton Hospital (Nurses)
  Rampton Hospital (Nurses)
  Specialist Claims Control
  Specialist Claims Control
  DHSS Statistics
  DHSS Statistics
  General Practitioner (Dispensing)
  General Practitioner (Dispensing)
Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chichester): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Water Authorities: Classification
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when, and for what purpose, the decision was taken to classify the regional water authorities as nationalised industries.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, since the water authorities were established in 1974 their financial framework has been akin to that of other nationalised industries. They have been treated as nationalised industries for purposes of public expenditure control and financial monitoring since March 1982. This accorded with the Government's statement at the time in another place of their plans to improve the nationalised industries' efficiency and performance.
More recently the Water Act 1983 reconstituted the water authorities by establishing on 1st October 1983 small executive style boards to run along nationalised industry lines.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, has the Minister not omitted one important point from this change of status, and that is the question of asset ownership? I believe that he forgot to mention that. Does he recall that Mr. Roy Watts has said that the cash surplus demanded by Mr. Gow is unacceptable to his board in a monopoly supply of a vital commodity? Does the Minister not realise that most people in this
2
country now regard the nationalised industries of gas, electricity and, more recently, water as tax collecting agencies for the Government?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, so far as assets are concerned, in 1974 the water authorities took over the assets under the old local government arrangements at nil value. In reply to the last part of the supplementary question of the noble Baroness, the water authorities are being asked to produce a real rate of return on current cost accounting principles which compares with the electricity supply industry of 2.75 per cent. and with 4 per cent. for British Gas.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that water is an inflammatory subject in Wales? He may well have added to the flames. Will he clarify the position in relation to the Principality—that it has always been understood that the Welsh Water Authority has a special relationship with the Welsh Office; that is to say, with the noble Lord's right honourable friend? Notwithstanding what he has said about the principle of nationalisation in relation to water undertakings generally, will the noble Lord confirm that the relationship between the Secretary of State for Wales and the Welsh Water Board remains a special one?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, water may be an inflammatory subject in Wales, but it is certainly not an inflammatory commodity. I can confirm the special relationship between the Welsh Water Authority and the Secretary of State, but the Government are united that it is one policy.

Houses in Multiple Occupation
2.34 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any further proposals in mind to protect people living in houses in multiple occupation.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, local authorities have wide powers to protect those living in houses in multiple occupation. These should be used in the light of local knowledge. The Department of the Environment is currently carrying out research into the condition of these houses and local authorities' use of legislation. The need for further measures will be examined in the light of the outcome of that research.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. But as a matter of urgency will he ask the Government to make mandatory those powers which at present are optional for local authorities? He must know that since 1978, 600 people have died in houses in multiple occupation or properties that could be described as such, some of them in quite horrendous circumstances. Is the Minister also aware that most of the national organisations of repute which deal with housing are firmly of the opinion that it is now time to introduce mandatory legislation?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, while I would not rule out future legislation on this issue, the Government would not be justified in considering the need for it until we have a clear picture after the research project to which I referred has been completed.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, can we have an assurance that action resulting from the research project will not be delayed because of any possible financial implications that may fall upon local authorities in carrying out any recommendations contained therein? Surely the Minister is aware that when legislation dealing with homeless persons has gone through both Houses there has clearly been a marked reluctance on the part of local authorities to carry out what they genuinely want to do, particularly in respect of fire precautions, safety and hygiene. Is the Minister aware that local authorities are reluctant to take on those responsibilities because of financial implications? Can the Minister assure us that any delay in the report will not be due to any financial restrictions?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I should say that the research to which I have just referred is in two parts: the first part is a postal survey which will provide information about the number, type and condition of HMOs and about the local authorities' use of their powers. The second part involves visiting a range of HMOs. This will provide detailed information about conditions, the possible costs and the rehousing implications in dealing with those conditions where it is necessary, as well as information about the residents.
With regard to the existing arrangements, which I believe confused the noble Lord's thinking, the position of the homeless is heavily weighted in the generalised need index.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend how many houses in multiple occupation have been inspected to see whether they conform to the fire regulations?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am afraid I must tell my noble friend that those statistics are not available to me at the moment. I doubt that they are available centrally because this is the responsibility of the local authority.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Government's fire statistics show that people living in houses of multiple occupation in the circumstances which have been mentioned face a risk of death eight times greater than those who live in normal circumstances? Does that not point to the need for some more urgency in dealing with this situation? How can the Government continue to maintain that local powers give people adequate safeguards when report after report into the tragic fires that have occurred in the last couple of years point to confusion, irresponsibility, uncertainty and very often the failure of local authorities to use their powers? Can the Minister not inject some urgency into the actions of his friends elsewhere on the reviews?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, of course, I accept the tragic figures which the noble Lord has underlined in the first part of his supplementary question. The second part of his supplementary question referred to extending the Housing (Means of Escape from Fire in Houses in Multiple Occupation) Order 1981, No. 1576. We considered this very carefully. We concluded that local authorities can exercise existing powers whenever they consider it appropriate to do so. Extending the order would have imposed an unnecessary burden on local authorities to use those powers in respect of HMOs which they had already decided did not merit action under Schedule 24 to the Housing Act 1980.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, do not the national housing surveys reveal the number of houses in multiple occupation? When was the last national housing survey?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I must confess that I am bowled by both those supplementary questions. So far as I know, the English national housing survey does not give details of houses in multiple occupation. I shall have to let the noble Lord know the answer to his second supplementary question.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, will not the Minister agree that while there are no plans to ensure that there is value for money in board and lodgings, then, provided that the accommodation is within the limits set down, it will be supported by the Department of Health and Social Security, however bad are the standards? Will he not agree that that is a very unsatisfactory situation?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there are afoot discussions as to what might be done in regard to health and social security in this area, but I do not think that I ought to anticipate any outcome.

Trade with Canada
2.41 p.m.
Lord Moran: 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 opportunities there are at present for British firms to increase the business they do with the Atlantic provinces of Canada.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, the growth in the Canadian economy offers significant opportunities for British industry to increase their sales throughout Canada, including in the Atlantic provinces.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for that reply. Bearing in mind that there are now significant developments in the field of oil and natural gas offshore of Atlantic Canada and that it was described recently by the chairman of Shell (Canada) as a new and rapidly rising area of activity in which potential opportunities are abundant, and also bearing in mind that the rate of exchange has now made opportunities for British exporters much better and that there are many firms in this country which have expertise and experience in relation to the North Sea which are particularly relevant to these opportunities, will the noble Lord ask his right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary to reconsider the decision to close the small and highly cost-effective consulate at Halifax, which was announced at the end of last year?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I very much regret that I have to tell the noble Lord that I am not really prepared to do as he asks since the British High Commission in Ottawa, which pays close attention to the oil industry, including offshore, will assume responsibility for commercial coverage of the Atlantic provinces. The consul in Halifax is being transferred to Ottawa, and we see no diminution in the opportunities available to our industries by virtue of that closure.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, would the Government not consider a drive to improve trade generally with the Commonwealth as a whole?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, we are continuing through a number of offices to support our drive to export more of our manufactured invisibles.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say whether any help is being given to invisible exports to Canada? Can he say that, in the event of any delegation sponsored by the Government going out to these provinces, it will include representatives of the invisible export industries, such as insurance and banking?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the British Overseas Trade Board, an arm of my own department, gives assistance to a number of overseas missions that
6
help both invisible industries and manufacturing industries.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is it not the case that the Institute of Marketing have already emphasised that there are serious deficiencies in the way in which many sections of British industry market their products abroad, and that a very considerable effort is required not only in marketing techniques by the firms involved but also in providing a far better after-sales service?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I believe that British manufacturing industry is aware of some deficiencies that have occurred in recent years and is making great strides to close the gap between effectiveness and opportunity.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the noble Lord be prepared to consider that it might very well be worthwhile producing some form of informative document showing how British businessmen, industrialists and those in commerce might be able to contact our high commissioners directly and, indeed, for that matter, our ambassadors overseas, and where they could receive the sort of guidance and help for which the noble Lord, Lord Moran, asked in his supplementary question?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, that information is available through the British Overseas Trade Board and other agencies.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would be kind enough to reconsider his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and also to discuss the matter with his right honourable and learned friend. Is he aware that the noble Lord speaks with considerable authority in this particular field and in relation to this particular country, and that when he asks that the commercial representation on the eastern seaboard of Canada should be strengthened he does so with great authority? Is the noble Lord further aware that there is a considerable potential, as Mr. Desmond Watkins, the Shell manager in Canada, said in his article, for British manufacturers at a time when British manufacturers could very well do with jobs in view of the high unemployment in this country? I realise that the noble Lord is limited in what he can say today, but will he be kind enough to tell the House that he will discuss this very carefully with his right honourable and learned friend?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right honourable and learned friend the comments that the noble Lord makes, but I have to remind him that Halifax is but one and a half hours away from Ottawa, where there is adequate coverage. The inclusion of the consul from Halifax in the commission at Ottawa will certainly strengthen that representation. I find it odd that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition should talk in this vein when my right honourable and learned friend has announced the closure of ten of the smaller missions whereas his own Administration closed 22 in a shorter period.

The Theatre Museum
2.47 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Theatre Museum will be opened next year as planned, in view of reports that the 1985–86 grant is insufficient to assemble and display the collection.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, the opening date for the Theatre Museum in its new premises is a matter for the Trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum. I understand that they have not yet decided how they will use their allocation of resources for running costs in 1985–86, which included special additional provison towards the Theatre Museum's preparatory costs. The building work itself should be completed next year as planned.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that reply, may I ask him whether sufficient funds have been earmarked for the Theatre Museum to assemble and set up its collection for display in the building which is nearing completion?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, as I have said, how the funds are distributed is a matter not for me but for the Victoria and Albert Museum. However, the museum's allocation for running costs, which includes allowance for the Theatre Museum, for 1985–86 is nearly £9½ million, excluding receipts. This is 5.5 per cent. higher than the figure for the current financial year and compares very well, I think, with the overall settlement for the national museums of 4.6 per cent.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Victoria and Albert Museum needs a certain programme of refurbishing and repair to its fabric, which is essential work, will the Government confirm that sufficient money will be made available for this necessary work and also for the Theatre Museum?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, this is precisely what I have done, as I said in my previous supplementary answer. I do not control—and I know that the noble Lord would not wish me to control—how the Victoria and Albert Museum spends its money; but it has a generous comparative settlement this year.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while I hope that the Theatre Museum at Covent Garden will open as soon as possible, we are hoping to open, around Whitsun, a modest exhibition from the museum at Stansted in Sussex. This will be in conjunction with the Chichester Festival Theatre.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on his interesting domestic initiative; and I understand that he has already approached the Victoria and Albert Museum.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it true that commercial breaks are now allowable in your Lordships' House?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, only if, like recent events at the Chichester Festival, they are eligible for my own business sponsorship incentive scheme!
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, remaining in the theatre context, is the noble Earl able to give some explanation of the deplorable decision to close the Cottlesloe Theatre? Did he have anything to do with that?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, a generous settlement was made, as always, to the National Theatre. But that question is extremely wide of the one on the Order Paper. I shall be delighted to deal with this matter if a Question is put down in the ordinary way.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, while admitting the fact that it is very wide of the main Question, may I say that the answer to it is exactly the same as the noble Earl has given for the main Question. Is the noble Earl aware that the worrying aspect to us is that the Theatre Museum has been gradually brought up over the past eight years, and it is just at the point of taking-off, as it were, when now there seems to be a real threat that there will not be enough money for it to do so? The noble Earl cannot satisfy us by saying that he has given a generous amount of money to somebody else. What we want to know is whether he can influence those people to see that the Theatre Museum is opened.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, the building work on the Theatre Museum should be completed next year as planned. Even as I am dealing with this question, work is taking place on the project; and while funding it is for the Victoria and Albert Museum and not for me, the museum's allocation for running costs this year has included budgeting for the Theatre Museum.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, do I take it from that answer that the noble Earl is saying that so far as he is concerned the Theatre Museum will open?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, so far as I am concerned, it certainly will. However, as I say, it is not in my power to confirm that: it is a matter for the Victoria and Albert Museum.

Business
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Avon will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer given to a Private Notice Question in another place on the finances of Haringey Borough Council.
This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin, who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat two Statements that will be made in another place on Sleipner Gas and on the Atomic Energy Authority.

Airport Inquiries 1981–83: Inspector's Report
2.52 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne) rose to move, That this House takes note of the Inspector's Report on The Airport Inquiries 1981–83.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is almost four years since I last stood to address your Lordships' House on the subject of airports policy. On that occasion I was replying to a debate which had been initiated by my noble friend Lord Kimberley about whether Stansted was the right choice for a third London airport. The public inquiries into this question had not yet begun, and in my speech I said that the Government expected to be in a position to take decisions some time in 1982 or 1983. Although my assessment of the timescale has turned out to be a shade optimistic, I am pleased to be opening a further debate on this important issue now that the public inquiries have been completed and the Inspector's Report received.
In the intervening years, interest in airports and the aviation industry has not diminished at all. The many distinguished noble Lords present today are proof of that, if proof were needed, and I look forward to hearing their views, and in particular those of the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, who is to address us today for the first time.
One of the great strengths of your Lordships' House is the ability to look at issues, however controversial, in a balanced way and with a sense of perspective. Many of your Lordships are able to draw upon first-hand knowledge and long years of experience of the problem in hand, and I am confident that the views expressed today will be both pertinent and instructive.
It would be appropriate for me to remind your Lordships of the policies which led the Government into the inquiries. Your Lordships will recall that in December 1979 the Government received the reports of the Advisory Committee on Airports Policy, of which my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford was such a distinguished member, and the Study Group on South-East Airports. These reports concluded that in the light of forecasts then available, further airports capacity would be needed in the South-East before 1990 and that development of the regional airports would not obviate the need to meet demand in the South-East. The conclusions were substantially the same as those reached in the previous Labour Government's airport strategy consultations in the mid-1970s and in their White Paper on Airports Policy of 1978.
The Government accepted these conclusions and announced in 1979 that they were inviting the British Airports Authority to bring forward proposals to develop Stansted (one of the solutions proposed in the 1978 White Paper) to meet the expected growth in demand in the South-East by the early 1990s, and that a wide-ranging public inquiry would be held.
In the Statement of the then Secretary of State for Trade, Sir John Nott, which I repeated in your
10
Lordships' House in December 1979, it was made clear that the inquiries were intended to give the widest possible opportunities for objectors to the Stansted proposals to expand upon their objections in detail, to question the need for airport expansion and to put forward alternative sites. The many interested parties took the Government at their word, and consequently the inquiries ran for 258 days, brought forth around 4,000 written representations and took oral evidence from some 250 witnesses. It has been the longest planning inquiry held to date. Alternative sites were proposed: Uttlesford District Council made planning applications for the development of a fifth terminal at Heathrow, others argued the case for expansion of regional airports, and some advocated green field sites—including Maplin, Severnside and Yardley Chase—for new airports.
The evidence and the arguments were sifted, examined and considered by the Inspector, Mr. Graham Eyre, QC and his two assessors. The Government and your Lordships now have the benefit of their labours in the shape of the Inspector's Report, which provides the focus for our debate today. I want to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Eyre and his assessors for the valuable work they have done. I am sure your Lordships will join me in that tribute.
I have said a little about the various views put forward at the inquiries but I should like to expand on the Government's airports policy since it is connected with the matters with which the inquiries were concerned. The Government's airports policy, as presented to the Inspector, had two main objectives: first, to encourage the development of regional airports; and, secondly, to provide additional airports capacity to meet demand where and when it arises.
So far as the first objective is concerned, this Government's record is something of which they can be proud. Authorised investment at regional airports has run at unprecedented high levels over the last few years, amounting to some £200 million in total since 1980/81. This commitment has enabled many worthwhile improvements to be made to the facilities offered by regional airports. There have been capital expenditure approvals for extensions to terminals—some of which I myself authorised when I was responsible for these matters—at Manchester International, East Midlands, Newcastle and Luton; new terminals at Birmingham, Norwich and Liverpool; runway extensions at Leeds/Bradford and Cardiff, and for a host of other improvements at various airports to navigational and safety facilities.
The Government have also made efforts to encourage new services. They were instrumental in securing the adoption of the directive liberalising interregional services within the European Community and, although it is too early to judge its effectiveness, the Government are ready to look favourably on all applications falling within the basic requirements of the directive. In addition, more competition on United Kingdom domestic routes was introduced after the 1980 Civil Aviation Act and this has led to increased frequencies and a wider choice of services for the consumer.
The CAA's recent proposals to liberalise controls over domestic services should further encourage

11
regional traffic. We expect continued growth at regional airports. British Airways have announced plans to start flights from Manchester to Hong Kong as part of their development of a northern air routes hub. BA are also expanding their Manchester flights to Europe from the summer and, for the longer term, are considering plans for flights to the Middle East and other long-haul destinations.
The Government's second objective was to meet demand where it arises. In the light of the forecasts then available, there appeared to be a need for additional airports capacity in the South-East. Hence the invitation to the BAA to put forward proposals for the expansion of Stansted Airport and the resulting public inquiry.
The inquiry, of course, examined all these matters in some detail and it was made clear to the Inspector that he was not bound within the confines of Government policy. Just as objectors to Stansted were free to range as widely as they wished, so the Inspector, in framing his conclusions, was free to recommend whatever changes to Government policy seemed appropriate in the light of the evidence that he examined.
The Inspector's task ended with the submission of his report, but the Government's task has by no means ended. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, the latter acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Environment, have now to reach decisions on the Inspector's main recommendations on the development of Stansted and a fifth terminal at Heathrow and on the 18 separate interrelated planning recommendations which deal with highways, listed buildings and other matters. In addition, because the Inspector's report goes rather wider than the planning applications themselves, there are other recommendations in the report which need consideration and decision, including the question of access to Stansted and Heathrow, monitoring of aircraft noise and the proposal for a ban on night flights at London's airports.
Of course, any major airport development, wherever it took place, would have an effect upon the amenity of neighbouring communities. It would provide employment and would have implications for housing and urban development in the more immediate vicinity. These issues, which are covered in the Inspector's report, will be given full consideration before a decision is made.
I should like to say a few words about the conduct of this debate. Normally, an Inspector's report on a public inquiry is only published when the decisions have been taken and announced. In this case, however, the Government decided to publish the whole report in advance. This debate is therefore taking place before the planning applications have been determined. As your Lordships will know, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction have a quasi-judicial role in relation to the planning applications. They are still considering the issues and have not reached any conclusions. In the circumstances, it would be wrong for any members of
12
the Government to make statements which might be held to prejudice their position.
This debate provides an opportunity for your Lordships to express your views on the issues raised by the Inspector's report, but because of the considerations I have just outlined I shall not be able to respond to points touching on the Inspector's report which your Lordships might raise. I hope that your Lordships will acquit me of any discourtesy, but it is essential that the decision-making process established by Parliament in the Town and Country Planning Acts should not be prejudiced in any way. My task here today will be to listen carefully to everything that is said so that my right honourable friends can bear those views in mind in reaching their decisions.
I do not wish to minimise the importance or the difficulty of those decisions. Airports policy, by its very nature, tends to be controversial. There are many conflicting interests which need to be balanced and reconciled, and this creates the dilemmas with which successive administrations have had to wrestle over the whole history of modern aviation. The issue of a third airport for London has created uncertainty for the last 20 years. To prolong that situation would be in no one's interests and the Government therefore intend to dispel the uncertainties as soon as practicable. Your Lordships' views will, I am sure, contribute towards that aim. My task today, therefore, is not to expound the Government's policy but to listen to your Lordships, as part of the process of clarifying what our approach to this subject should be. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Inspector's Report on The Airport Inquiries 1981–83 —(Lord Trefgarne.)
3.4 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am certain that all noble Lords will welcome the opportunity to debate this very important report, and will accept the lines on which the debate must be conducted as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. As the noble Lord has said, we look forward with great interest to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chapple. The fact that 27 noble Lords have been sufficiently interested to want to take part in this debate indicates its importance. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has said about the work of Mr. Graham Eyre and his assessors, even though we do not necessarily accept the conclusions of his report.
Noble Lords will have received briefings from many bodies, and these, and many sections of the report, show the various conflicting interests that there are on the proposals. We must not consider this matter without adequate attention to the interests of people who live in the areas affected—and I was pleased to note that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, emphasised that these will be considered with great care by the Government—and also to national economic factors. Noble Lords will be fully aware of the considerable opposition to the proposals that were expressed in the other place, including that by many Members on the Government side.
Although the inquiry is nominally into the planning applications, but expanded into other related issues,

13
there is one thing it is not; it is clearly not the report of an inquiry into aviation and airports policy and that is what is clearly needed. What the noble Lord told us in his opening speech was rather vague as to the real policy for airports. We know, quite definitely, the decision of the Government to dispose of as many airports as possible to the private sector. We regard the British Aviation Authority as an efficient organisation, but the Government's intention is to sell off the three London system airports—Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. We do not know what will be the eventual position of the five local authority airports owned by the metropolitan county councils. These will be affected by the abolition proposals and they include the two international regional airports of Manchester and Birmingham.
We still await the Government's review of the Scottish lowland airports—Glasgow, Edinburgh, Prestwick and Aberdeen—and also of the British Airports Authority airports. It should not be overlooked that the authority has no airports between the south-east region and the Scottish border. It has none in the Midlands or in the north of England. We note that recently the Civil Aviation Authority has rejected offers to purchase its Highlands and Islands aerodromes, which provide vital social links, and I note from a recent press notice issued on 1st February this year by the CAA that the long-term future of these aerodromes is being considered by the Government in the context of their airports policy generally. It is understood that that review will be completed very soon. Perhaps we can be told about the nature of this review which the Government are undertaking.
Of course, there must be future planning and an assessment of future passenger levels, runway capacities and air transport movements. The question of assessments is dealt with in numerous chapters of the report. They show clearly that many organisations give varying, and sometimes conflicting, estimates of future demand. The Inspector himself referred to the vagueness of forecasting and said that the methods used are unsatisfactory. Mr. Eyre said that forecasting the size of aircraft and the number of passengers generated gives room for considerable caution. In fact, he warned that all estimates should be treated with caution and said that apparently precise figures should be treated as no more than tools to be used in forming general judgments.
There is no disagreement on the importance of the London Airport system and of Heathrow in particular. This is recognised even by the Northern Consortium and also by the Birmingham Airports Authority. The Inspector states that the fifth terminal is absolutely essential in order to make use of runway capacity at Heathrow and to meet the demands of the mid-1990s. So he wants early action on the removal of the Perry Oaks sludge works which, it is argued, is the best location for airport development. It all sounds reasonable and sensible, but the removal of Perry Oaks will take some time. Even the report indicates that it may be 12 to 15 years before it is removed and a fifth terminal is constructed and brought into operation. Where will the sludge works go? It would appear that people no more want on their doorstep a large sewage works than they want a large airport.
14
A fifth terminal will increase Heathrow's capacity to some 52 million passengers per annum. The Inspector states that this will require,
"a substantial increase in the limit imposed on air transport movements".
The Inspector is highly critical of the Government's definite statement on the limit of 275,000 movements when Terminal 4 comes into operation. He says that it is,
"ill advised, misconceived and must be abandoned".
We shall await with great interest the review of the limit of 275,000 movements which the Secretary of State has been conducting.
Can the needs and rights of many people in the wide area around Heathrow be ignored? The Inspector himself says that noise is the most abhorred consequence. Who can deny that, even if there is the railway link, there will not be the possibility of increased road congestion? People who go to Heathrow now, even before Terminal 4, even before a possible Terminal 5, will recognise that there is a great road surface problem.
The Government have made repeated statements rejecting the proposal for a fifth terminal, and in a recent debate in the other place various Members, including a number of the Minister's honourable friends, quoted no fewer that 10 occasions since December 1979 when statements have been made rejecting completely a fifth terminal at Heathrow. The latest such declaration was made on 31st November 1984. There was an earlier statement to that effect by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, which, no doubt, the noble Lord will recognise.
The Inspector makes it clear that no participant raised objections to proposals for Heathrow and Stansted on the grounds that Gatwick should also make a contribution beyond the 25 million passengers per annum when Terminal 2 at Gatwick comes into operation. The Inspector emphasises that the undertaking given to the West Sussex County Council that a second runway shall not be constructed must be observed. It is strange that the Inspector does not take the same view about the 10 declarations made over recent years rejecting Terminal 5 at Heathrow. Those declarations can be set on one side, but apparently that relating to Gatwick—I am not saying that it should be ignored—must be honoured and observed.
Mr. Eyre states that the implications of a second runway were not investigated in depth because it would be an environmental disaster. Many believe that a fifth terminal at Heathrow would also be an environmental disaster. Because of the time that would be required before a fifth terminal at Heathrow could come into operation and because of the rejection of the second runway at Gatwick, the Inspector states that only Stansted can provide the capacity needed to meet the demand in the early and mid-1990s. So he puts forward a proposal to develop Stansted to the capacity of 15 million passengers per annum as soon as possible. But the Inspector also makes it absolutely clear that from the outset Stansted should be planned so as to be capable of providing capacity for 25 million passengers. A great deal of argument appears in the Inspector's report for the possible development up to

15
25 million. The Inspector says that there must be an undertaking not to construct a second runway.
Noble Lords, will have received the briefing from the National Farmers' Union; and I have echoed the contrast between the promise of no second runway at Gatwick and the putting on one side of all the declarations about a fifth terminal at Heathrow. The National Farmers' Union, in a briefing sent to noble Lords, queries the value of an undertaking that a second runway must not be constructed in view of the Inspector's willingness, indeed readiness, to set on one side all the statements made about a fifth terminal at Heathrow.
The Inspector states that expansion up to 25 million passengers at Stansted would not have critical consequences, but beyond that limit would present unmanageable problems. Clearly the Inspector envisages the possibility of Stansted developing up to 25 million passengers. He claims—I shall abbreviate this—that expansion to 15 million could be accommodated,
"without causing undue damage to … strategic planning".
What is "undue"? Presumably, expansion beyond 15 million up to 25 million would cause some damage, but that is not elaborated upon in the report. The Inspector says that the necessary urban growth could be accommodated,
"by relatively modest increments to existing towns and villages".
What are "relatively modest increments"? I would challenge the view that it can be done without affecting the character of the area; the Inspector says that it would not affect the character of the area. This is the only interest I can declare. I have walked, cycled and motored in the Rodings and the Easters in this vicinity for some 50 years and, frankly, I just do not accept that we could go up to 25 million passengers if necessary without it affecting the character of the area. When one considers that Heathrow now has 28 million passengers, can one picture a massive airport similar to Heathrow being placed in that part of Essex without it having any effect upon the area?
There would also be the problem of green belt policy, as well as the problem of road congestion, despite the fact that nearby there are a railway and a motorway. The Inspector says:
"There is no easy route for national airports policy to follow and any decision will be perceived as unacceptable by a large number of reasonable people".
I think that everybody would accept the truth of that statement. It would, of course, be better if there were a national airports policy; but there is not. The conflict is evident. We have the consortium of the 30 local authorities, which includes Surrey, Hants, and Buckinghamshire County Councils, which are all opposed to the fifth terminal proposal at Heathrow and claim that Stansted is the answer. We have my county of Essex, as well as Hertfordshire, supported by some 246 local voluntary bodies, which say that development at Heathrow will meet the demand and that Stansted must be opposed. So whether you will or will not oppose a particular development depends on the area where you live.
We cannot ignore the massive sums that will be involved in the proposals for Stansted and
16
Heathrow—massive sums to be expended in the South-East region. We know that there are unemployment problems in the South-East, but they are nowhere near as great as the problems that exist in the Midlands and the North. The estimates, with highways and rail development, vary between £750 million and £1.25 billion. In addition to that, the urbanisation cost at Stansted could amount to another £500 million.
Noble Lords will ask, "How shall we meet the estimated demand, which may not be accurate?" First, there will be the early possibility—not possibility, but definite position—of the fourth terminal coming into operation very shortly at Heathrow. There will be the second terminal coming into operation at Gatwick, which will include capacity of up to 25 million. There will be a small amount of slack at Luton. Frankly, we envisage that there could be reasonable development at Stansted; but when I say "reasonable" I am not thinking of anything in the realm of 15 million or possibly 25 million passengers, as proposed in the Inspector's report.
More importantly, the Inspector makes it abundantly clear that there is considerable surplus capacity at the main regional airports, and we all know of the development that has taken place, particularly at Birmingham and Manchester. Surely we should be considering, in the light of an effective aviation and air policy, how best we could use that available regional capacity to meet the present demand. As I said, we agree that the London airport system must retain its pre-eminent position, but surely this cannot mean expansion and yet further expansion regardless. The time must come when people say, "Enough is enough", especially when there is, as is admitted by the Inspector, plenty of available capacity in the regions.
The national wellbeing requires that there should be a good regional balance. We cannot consider this matter without looking at the balance between the regions, and we cannot consider this matter in the absence of any consideration of national economic policies. That, surely, must come into it. It cannot just be looked at solely as an aviation problem. It is argued that passengers must not be compelled to use the regions when they fly to or from London. Likewise, people should not be compelled to use London when they wish to fly from a regional airport.
We must look at these proposals with considerable concern. As the Minister said, we must look at them on strong environmental grounds, and such consideration must not be dismissed as unimportant. We are dealing with people's amenities and living conditions. We must look at the implications of economic policies and regional development, and the best possible use of the available airport capacity which exists in the regions.
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I am glad that today's debate is taking place on a Motion that the House "takes note". I understand that in another place the Government gave an undertaking that when they have reached a final decision an opportunity for further debate will be given. If I am correct in that I assume that a similar undertaking will be given to this

17
House. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that point when he replies to this debate.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I was glad to hear two points that he made: one, that he was such a strong supporter of regional development; and, secondly, that we must meet demand where it arises. I assume that the whole House agrees that it is very dangerous to forecast passenger growth because in the past very many well-informed people have proved to be very wrong. I hope that the demand will be proved before we actually meet it. I note that the Minister said he could not give any indications as to policy today. During the course of my remarks I have four questions to put to him, none of them concerned with policy. Three of them concern finance, and doubtless the Minister will answer them when he comes to them. I listened also, obviously with equal care, to what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said. We on these Benches are in considerable agreement with much of what he said, and are in some disagreement with other points. I think that we both oppose the Government on various other points that we can deal with later. Today, we on these Benches want to put forward proposals that we hope will be taken into consideration when the Government come to look at this whole policy. I found it difficult to get my remarks down to manageable proportions and, equally, to make them helpful in view of the tangle into which we have all been thrown by the misjudgment and ineptitude of the Government—and I shall come to that aspect later.
Apart from any other considerations, and apart altogether from its content, it seems to me that this major report that we are discussing today brings into issue the credibility of the public planning inquiry procedure in the United Kingdom for settling major development issues. However, coupled with that remark I wish to pay tribute to the Inspector, Mr. Graham Eyre, QC, whose patience, skill and impartiality seem to have been inexhaustible. I will only say that I, from a much less learned position, feel as he does over the lessons we should learn from the consequences of the past. Mr. Eyre says:
"The history and development of airports policy on the part of administration after administration of whatever political colour has been characterised by ad hoc expediency, unacceptable and ill-judged procedures, ineptness, vacillation, uncertainty and ill-advised and precipitate judgments. Hopes of a wide sector of the regional population have been frequently raised and dashed. A strong public cynicism has inexorably grown. Political decisions in this field are no longer trusted. The consequences are grave. There will now never be a consensus."
Those remarks are really the basis of my speech today, and I shall, of course, offer my contribution to what would seem to be the best way forward.
First, I should like to come to this question of public planning procedures for settling major development issues and Mr. Eyre's feeling that strong public cynicism has inexorably grown, with the result that political decisions in this field are no longer trusted. I believe that we have somewhere what I term "a highly-placed bureaucracy" in favour of Stansted expansion and determined to persevere until this comes about. To me, this seems to negate public opinion and to bring into question the present system of public inquiries.
18
Concerning Stansted and the third London airport, we have had three public inquiries. The first opened on 6th December 1965 and closed on 11th February 1966. The Inspector reported to the Government in 1966, but the report was not published until May 1967. The second inquiry, known as the Roskill Commission, commenced on 25th June 1968 and closed on 12th August 1970. This report was published on 21st January 1971 at a reputed cost of £1,131,000. The third inquiry, which we are discussing today, commenced on 29th September 1981 and closed on 5th July 1983. The report was published on 10th December 1984 at a cost (estimated in March 1982) of £988,000. Will the Minister give the House the final figure when he replies to the debate? The figure I have given is that at March 1982.
I first met (if that is the right word) Stansted in 1967–68 as chairman of the Council on Tribunals. The procedure followed in connection with the Government's proposals for the development of Stansted airport as the third London Airport was the subject of many complaints and eventually became the subject of a Special Report to the Lord Chancellor. I mentioned this to the House in a debate on 29th June 1981, and I remember warning the House, saying (at col. 621 of Hansard):
"Stansted has now reared its head again, and I would warn the House that we are by no means through that battle".
Unfortunately, that warning has come true.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, mentioned the Earl of Kimberley, and I shall also mention him but with a slightly different quotation. The Earl of Kimberley on 1st April 1981, as Lord Trefgarne said, in a debate initiated by him on London's third airport said at col. 278:
"Stansted has already had two inquiries, both verdicts going against its development, but still costing its opposers a not inconsiderable sum of money".
He wanted to know:
"Why should local inhabitants have to fork out, yet again, … for another inquiry?".
Lastly in these actual quotes, I come to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on 30th October 1984 in our debate on airline competition policy, when he said (at col. 486):
"Finally, relating to Stansted, I should say this. I think the Stansted inquiry merits the description once given by a learned judge of certain proceedings which went beyond time and encroached upon eternity".
So it is my contention that the British Airports Authority has been determined that Stansted shall be London's third airport, that any findings to the contrary shall be ignored, and that what I earlier termed, "a highly placed bureaucracy", should continue to raise the matter until it gets Stansted, quite irrespective of public opinion. The House will hardly be surprised that I find this not a dispassionate background for consideration, but I shall do my best.
I am not in favour of development at Stansted, but I shall come back to that later. In common with many others, I believe that the proposed limitation of air traffic movements at Heathrow has been pressed by the Government in an effort to ensure selection of Stansted. It has of course been roundly condemned by the Inspector who said at Chapter 47, paragraph 3.3:

19
"The imposition of the proposed atm limit at Heathrow has the gravest consequences for the airport's future, the London system and the nation as a whole. The proposal was ill-advised and misconceived and should be unequivocally abandoned".
This suggested limitation and its announcement have been entirely counter-productive in so far as Members of another place are concerned.
We are, of course, hopelessly tied up in all this by the ineptitude of the Government in trying to deal piecemeal with these major problems instead of restructuring the airline industry as was recommended in the report of the Civil Aviation Authority. But looking further into the tangle that the Government made for themselves, the House will recall that the Civil Aviation Bill, dealing primarily with these air traffic movements, which is supposed to be on its way through Parliament, has been held up indefinitely by the Standing Committee concerned because Members believed that the Bill was an attempt by the Government to railroad Stansted through the House by a back-door, and the House was not having it.
This Civil Aviation Bill was, or is, a shocking Bill, both ill-drafted and produced in such a hurry that, had it reached our House, I hope that we should have rejected it, even on Second Reading. In view of the condemnation received, I am assuming that this proposed limitation will be unequivocally abandoned or at least raised to a higher figure, and I have suggested 330,000. Personally, though, I would favour unequivocal abandonment.
The arguments dealing with aircraft noise have been considerably deployed and do not require repetition here. Although it is obviously an interested party, it seems to me that the facts as set out by British Airways at Appendix D in its position paper of 17th January summarise this aspect adequately and fairly.
I should like now to move to the question of costs. Quite apart from the merits or demerits of either development—Stansted or Heathrow—it would be useful to have an actual financial comparison. Any major development at Stansted will require housing and other urban development, plus a new rail link from London. British Airways estimates that that will cost about £1 billion in addition to the cost of the new terminal building itself. By contrast, so it says, British Airways estimates development costs at Heathrow as around £125 million. I should think that in common with many others I certainly am in no position to agree or disagree with those figures. The Inspector himself in Chapter 10, paragraph 3.9, was unable to accept an estimate of £750 million concerning Stansted.
So I come to my second question to the Minister, if I could have his attention. Will he give us the estimated cost for development at Stansted as recommended by Mr. Eyre; namely, limited to one runway and a capacity number of 15 million passengers per annum? Presumably a rail link will be required. While actually on this capacity point, I think that we should note that actual traffic at Stansted is just over half a million and that its present capacity is around 2 million. I recall that the Government have said that they wish to hear the views of Parliament before reaching any decision on these matters, but that does not preclude giving the financial figures for which I have asked.
20
Bearing in mind that at the moment Stansted has capacity for a further 1½ million passengers per annum, I now move to Gatwick. I have no desire to weary the House on this aspect, but we must accept that the refusal to lay down a second runway there is a political decision related neither to the interests of the industry nor to the needs of its customers. Obviously I have noted what the Inspector has to say, but of course the question of a second runway at Gatwick was not included in his remit. Mr. Eyre took as his base on this matter the:
"Government's firm and long-standing decision not to countenance a two-runway airport at Gatwick".
He went on to add:
"the clear statement that a second runway will not be developed effectively limits development at Gatwick to a two-terminal airport with a capability of approximately 25 million passengers per annum".
He further went on to declare that statement of policy as immutable.
I looked up the word "immutable" in the dictionary and found that it meant unchangeable. I still hope that benefit to the airline industry and its passengers may change the political decision made by the Government. The House knows my views. I do not believe that Gatwick can be developed to its full potential without a second runway. Indeed, paragraph 17 of the Government's White Paper, Airline Competition Policy, mentions Gatwick as the development of a major centre of international operations, and certainly there is space at Gatwick for this.
It is so much wasted breath to talk about developing Gatwick as a hub and spoke airport of the future and to deny what is obviously necessary. Also it is dishonest. Members may recall that in the House on 23rd of May last I was told in answer to a Question that:
"the present Government were not consulted about the agreement and are not parties to it. That being the case, the Government cannot be bound by its terms".
The agreement of course was that entered into by the British Airports Authority with the West Sussex County Council.
A considerable body of opinion is now coming to believe that this agreement entered into by the British Airports Authority was a mistake. I suggest that we cannot live for ever with mistakes, especially when these can be rectified. Too many planners' mistakes are with us today. There must be every reason for changing them when circumstances are altered.
What I think the House may not know, and perhaps the Minister himself may be unaware of, is what happened at Gatwick on 3rd January last. The Times of 4th January carried this paragraph under the heading, "Gatwick halted":
"Gatwick airport was brought to a standstill for an hour and a half last night after a hole was discovered in its single runway. More than a thousand passengers from 10 flights were diverted to Bournemouth, Heathrow and Luton, while repairs were carried out".
My information is that only The Times, among the national papers, carried the brief reference to the hole in the runway.

21
The following week, on 11th January, the Gatwick News, under the headline, "Hole halts airport", carried the following:
"Gatwick was closed for 90 minutes last week when a hole appeared in the runway.
The damage to the porous surface, covering an area five feet long, 18 inches wide, and about an inch deep, was spotted at 1900 [hours] on Thursday.
The runway was instantly closed to traffic while an emergency team began temporary repairs. Forty minutes later a shortened strip was opened, allowing business and light aircraft to touch down".
The concluding paragraph was:
"A spokesman for the BAA said it wasn't unusual for damage to be caused to the runway. 'It doesn't usually cause problems like this. But this hole was near the centre line, about half-way down the runway length.'"
Even to the least suspicious mind it looks as though efforts were made to suppress this story. Will the Minister look into the matter and write to me about it? Perhaps his reply could be included in Hansard so that all Members could know what actually transpired. Doubtless he will bear in mind his many replies to me on this particular aspect, or risk, of having a single runway.
We are all aware of the substantial demand for charter seats which is satisfied from Gatwick. I believe that if Gatwick is not developed to its full potential, charters will be squeezed out. Paragraph 18 of the Civil Aviation Authority report said:
"If the price of developing the scheduled service network at Gatwick was progressively to squeeze charters out, this would be to render a major disservice to a substantial category of public demand."
I think that we should not allow this to happen. Could the Minister give us an approximate cost of providing a second runway? I was given an approximate figure in June last of £50 million. Whether or not this be correct, there is no doubt that the cost would fall far short of any figure estimated for Stansted.
Surely there can be no doubt that there must be development in the regions. I believe very strongly that the spin-off effect, if Stansted should be developed, would be to the disadvantage of the northern regions. Honestly, I think the Inspector was less than fair to the regional argument. Obviously, passengers cannot be forced to use regional airports but I think it must be accepted as reasonable to satisfy the regional demand if it naturally arises in the regions. Perhaps I might recommend the speech of Mr. Alfred Morris in another place who, with many others, set out the case for regional, and Manchester, development.
I hope that the Government have taken on board the strength of the remarks made about Luton, and that they intend to do something about it. There is no doubt that the British Airports Authority has used its monopoly at Heathrow and Gatwick to squeeze out competition from Luton. Heavily subsidised facilities and charges at Stansted—may I have the Minister's attention on Luton? It does happen to be important. There is no doubt that the British Airports Authority has used its monopoly at Heathrow and Gatwick to squeeze out competition from Luton. Heavily subsidised facilities and charges at Stansted are designed to attract charter traffic away from Luton. It was stressed in another place that Luton has 2 million passengers a year now, a capacity to take up to 5 million, plus excellent motorway connections and an
22
adjoining railway line to London. I have given these details about Luton because I feel that the drive for Stansted by the British Airports Authority and the Government has omitted to mention such relevant factors for ultimate decision.
I believe that a fifth terminal at Heathrow should be made available as soon as possible. I have been a long time coming to that point of view—in fact, some several years. But I now accept the comment of the Inspector that,
"any other course would jeopardise the national interest".
However, I think that some for whom I speak today, while supporting the improvement of facilities at Heathrow and the immediate removal of the sewage works at Perry Oaks, do not wish to commit themselves now to Terminal 5—preferring to keep options open until we all see how accurate the current forecasts are on traffic movements.
In conclusion—and I am sorry both to have kept the House so long and to be deprived of the pleasure of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, on his maiden speech—perhaps I may just summarise the recommendations that I have put forward. The withdrawal of the suggested atm limit at Heathrow. The laying of a second runway at Gatwick. The extension of regional airports, particularly Manchester. The utilisation of the present capacity at Stansted; namely, 2 million passengers per annum, and only such minor development of this capacity should the need emerge, bearing in mind that Stansted is now receiving and would continue to demand cross-subsidy from the operators at Gatwick and Heathrow already resulting in unfair competition so far as Luton is concerned. And priority for the fifth terminal at Heathrow.
We on these Benches trust that the Government are in earnest in declaring that they wish to hear the views of Parliament before reaching a decision, and we submit ours for consideration.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Chapple: My Lords, this is the first time that I have addressed a forum from a position to which I was not elected. It is rather an unusual experience for me in that I am not now answerable to an electorate or an executive, or even to the general council. However, at the same time I have to accept full responsibility for any comments that I make, although on this occasion, in keeping with the traditions of this House on maiden speeches, I shall not allow them full rein.
I was, in a previous existence, the general secretary of the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union—that will be a revelation to most of your Lordships—which has a major membership in both airlines and airports, as well as in aircraft manufacturing. Consequently, I have always had a concern about these industries. They are also, of course, part of the technological future upon which much of Britain's industrial revival depends.
Perhaps, however, your Lordships will forgive me for digressing briefly from the particulars of the inquiry to speak of a more general matter that arises from it. I have been concerned for many years about the way in which we go about our decision-making or, may I say, the way in which the Government go about

23
their decision-making. I once spent a year, along with some other noble Lords, conducting an inquiry into the structure of the electricity supply industry. We took evidence from all and sundry. Indeed, a list of those giving evidence takes up five pages of the 73-page report. A lot of time and a lot of money went into that effort. And what have we to show for it? Well, the members of the committee have a morocco-bound copy of the report and nothing else. Perhaps there is justice, after all, in that, since morocco is made from the skin of sheep or goats.
It appears that, in a number of cases—too many—the process has become a substitute rather than an aid to rational procedures leading to decisions. It is often too prolonged and always too costly. Furthermore, the elapse of time that occurs very often closes off credible options, preventing incremental progress. That is seen in the inquiry report before us in relation to Maplin. So we have a situation, made worse, if not created, by a long period of examination and inaction. We are then faced with a crisis that can only be resolved by crash programmes. Such a response is driven more often by political rather than economic, social or humanist considerations. This has been particularly true in the energy sphere, with which I have been deeply concerned. However, if I am to remain unprovocative, I had better let the matter rest there on this occasion. It is a theme to which I hope to return on future occasions.
I come now to the Eyre report. I have great sympathy for anyone living near large airports. I must confess here and now that, if I had my way, I would not build another single airport anywhere. In fact, I do not suppose that I would build a chemical plant or a power station either. But we are locked into a technological future from which there is no escape if we wish to maintain the living style to which we have all become accustomed. Anyone living near a large airport has something to groan about. But none of us can escape the consequences of the collective demands made on society by modern living. Just as vegetarians are fond of advising us that we cannot eat meat without killing animals, so we must also have motorways, chemical plants, power stations and airports—and they are always in someone's back garden. The report makes clear that, whatever the Government's decision is to be, it will not make them many friends. Nor will further lengthy debate cause many, or significant, changes of mind or enlightenment on the matter. Nor will it provide a universally acceptable solution to the problem.
We are told that this has been the longest planning inquiry to date. Further procrastination can help no one. It can only cause the eventual costs in exasperation as well as in money to rise disproportionately to the benefits. One comment that I read called the report, "a high price for slow justice". The trouble with the high price is that it is paid by those who have no objections. The Government must heed the Inspector's conclusion that decisive action must be taken on his findings to end the uncertainty and to provide a coherent strategy for our airports' future.
I would, finally, make a single criticism. It coincides with what other noble Lords have said. I cannot see how the overall strategy outlined in the report can
24
work in the long run without the simultaneous development of at least the major regional airports and, in particular, Manchester. There simply must be a limit on the development of airports in the south of this country.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, it falls to me to have the pleasure of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, on his maiden speech, which was admirable both in content and in brevity, which is always appreciated here where sometimes speeches become a little long. All of us know, of course, of his outstanding career in the trade union movement and, if I may say so, of his remarkably courageous and enlightened approach to meet the industrial and economic problems of today. This is something that bodes well for our country. On all sides, it is greatly appreciated. We look forward to hearing the noble Lord on many occasions in the future both for the substance of what he has to say and for the wit with which he says it.
I turn now to the substance of the debate. First, I should address a word to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who, I am sorry to see is just going out, because I am not going to be entirely complimentary to him. He spoke with interest and in a well informed manner on many important points made by the Inspector. In the main, however, he was pretty heavily critical of the Government's action, or inaction, on this or that aspect. The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, went even further in criticising the Government for their misjudgment and ineptitude. The noble Baroness weighed in heavily on several points, although I was glad to find myself in agreement on at least one of them.
I must, however, put to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and, indeed, to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, who was a member of the Labour Party at the time: would it not have saved both of them an awful lot of trouble if they had not cancelled the building of Maplin? After all, Maplin airport was being built in 1974 when Labour came into government. They proceeded to cancel it and to throw out my noble friend Lord Marshall. I do not see my noble friend in his place; he was a splendid chairman of the authority. Had they left all alone, Maplin airport would now be going full steam ahead. We would have no problem about Stansted. What a lot of trouble we would all have saved ourselves! There were a few other little problems certainly, but the decision was taken. Does the noble Baroness wish to intervene?
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I have had my innings, but I have said in this House that I think we should always have had Maplin. It was a great mistake of the Government in 1974 to cancel it.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her gracious observation. So often, I find myself in agreement with her. However, the Conservative Government must be given credit for taking a major decision then and actually going to work on it. The fact that we still have the major problem of the third London airport today is due to the fact that the decision was undone by noble Lords

25
opposite, and their right honourable and honourable friends, in 1974. So let us not have too much criticism about what the Government have not done at any particular time!
I turn to the report itself. I join with others in congratulating Mr. Graham Eyre on his tremendous report. It really is a most comprehensive and remarkable report. The burden of it is, of course, that the Government must take a decision now without delay on the two principal issues; one, the development of Stansted and the other, the further development of Heathrow. Personally, I find his treatment of the figures of growth of traffic convincing. It is always difficult to be precise, looking four, five or ten years ahead. But, so far as any trends can show, it seems to me that he took a fairly conservative view. It therefore appears that by 1990 the existing capacity of Heathrow and Gatwick and the tiny capacity of Stansted and Luton, as of now, will be swamped, and that therefore we need the extra capacity right now. Of course we all well understand the inevitably long lead time which is involved in making provision, and we have got to take a view now. The penalty for failure is that traffic which might have come here will go to the European airports, particularly Schipol at Amsterdam, which are just longing to take traffic from us any time they can get it; and once they have got it they will jolly well hold on to it and we shall lose it altogether.
This is against the background, which has been referred to already to some extent, that the British civil aviation industry is one of our outstanding successes. Partly through the good fortune of our geography, but also through good management, we have a civil aviation activity where we fly more passenger miles on international routes than any other country except the United States. In 1983 our civil aviation industry earned a profit, with the rest of the world, of some £430 million; so it is clear that there is a great deal at stake here in providing that this very profitable industry should continue to grow.
Before I come to the Inspector's report I should say a word about the very important alternative solution which is now put forward by the North of England Regional Consortium, which is obviously quite a weighty political factor in the other House. I was glad to hear that in his speech my noble friend referred to the Government's very generous provision of help in recent years to the regional airports; I am sure that is absolutely right. I think all Governments have seen that the development of regional airports should proceed with all speed and that they should be encouraged to take all the traffic they can. But, even so, it is not going to relieve the problem. Of course the attraction of getting some pressure off the South-East and providing extra employment where it is so desperately, so badly needed is quite obvious to me, and I well understand it. But the Inspector's report is emphatic that this policy could not provide a solution.
I had some personal experience of the problem which my noble friend referred to during his speech when I was a member of the Advisory Committee on Airports Policy, set up by the Labour Govenment in 1978, on the basis of their White Paper of 1978. Our membership included what one might describe as Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all. There was someone
26
from everywhere; so we were a very representative body. I felt some sympathy for the deputy secretary for the department, who had to try to keep us all in order. The fact is that we all looked at these problems from every different point of view. Our task was to find a site for a third London airport and report on the relative merits. We did a prodigious job. We produced six possible alternatives in the range around London. We caused a great deal of local disturbance and we were cordially loathed by everybody we referred to in these different places. But at the end of it we produced our report. We included Maplin—we put that in again—of course Stansted, and Yardley Chase; I think that was Cublington before, but we did not want to raise their hackles too much and so it got a new name.
About halfway through our deliberations the Secretary of State asked us to examine the possibility of a solution based on the capacity of the regional airports outside the South-East. We were also asked to look at the hypothetical Severnside airport solution which was then floated. We looked at this with the aid of the experts, who produced the necessary evidence for us, and we all concluded that a solution could not be found this way. We certainly expressed the view that every encouragement should be given to the regional airports to expand and develop as much as they could. But the real, basic problem is that the majority of the traffic coming to Britain wants to go to London or that area; the ratio is something like two to one. It cannot be diverted by manipulating the tariffs or in any other way without the danger of losing that traffic. Thus it was we came to the conclusion that although this would help to some extent—and to any extent that it could help it should be encouraged—it would not give the answer; so I am sure the Inspector is right in his recommendation on that point.
I now turn to the actual merits of the two major factors: that is, the development of Stansted and the development of Heathrow. As the noble Baroness said, at present Stansted is carrying half a million passengers and could increase this number to 2 million. It is also carrying an increasing amount of freight. The existing runway is adequate to carry the additional number of passengers to get up to the 15 million forecast for the later 1990s. That is the major factor about Stansted: the international measured runway is there, existing, and planes are flying from it. Of course the temporary terminal complex will not do and must be replaced by a modern permanent building. Transport links with London must also be provided, to the best possible quality. The road problem is not difficult or expensive; Stansted is adjacent to the M.11 and can be connected directly to it. The express rail link, which must be comparable in quality with the Gatwick rail link, will be expensive, but it is essential so that there is a comparable amenity and attraction about the airport compared with Gatwick and, as far as it can, with Heathrow.
I would say to the very powerful local opposition of constituency Members of Parliament, all of whom, or most of whom, I suppose are my right honourable and honourable friends, that I well understand the strength of opposition, almost the professionalism of opposition, because on this issue the local people have been involved in it now for 20 years. But they must be asked to recognise that a major national interest is at

27
stake and that this airfield alone can provide the solution; and so I hope that they will come to accept it.
Turning now to Heathrow, I would point out that the Inspector advises that the limit of 275,000 should be lifted as soon as possible. I agree entirely with that, and I was delighted that the noble Baroness did, too. Although of course every extra plane makes a bit more noise, it has been rightly said that the new planes are making less noise, and there is no doubt at all, in terms of the operation of the airport, that that limit should go as soon as possible. Perhaps it can be done with the final phasing out of noisy aircraft which we still have.
In regard to the fifth terminal, which the noble Baroness also spoke about, this means of course relocating the Perry Oaks sludge processing beds. That is a major physical job which will take several years to do and cost quite a lot of money. It disposes of the sludge which is pumped up from the Mulgan works. They are very extensive beds and the new location will have to be in a position where the sludge can still be pumped up there and disposed of; so it is going to be quite an expensive job. Even assuming that it does not run into planning difficulties, it will take several years. I agree with the Inspector and the noble Baroness that it should be got on with and that plans should be made for the fifth terminal.
I conclude by supporting the report and asking my noble friends who feel otherwise about some aspects of it to recognise that the great importance to our economy of taking the right decision now is really of overwhelming significance. We should give the Inspector's report our support.

Haringey Borough Council Finances
4.9 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer that is being given in another place to a Private Notice Question. The Question was as follows:
"To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a Statement about meetings and other contacts between officials of his department and Councillor Salinger or other councillors of Haringey Borough Council and the disclosure to Councillor Salinger of the Secretary of State's assumption about the finances of a borough council".
The Answer was as follows:
"There has been no impropriety. The Guardian headlines are flatly wrong in suggesting either that Councillor Salinger has been given information refused to councils or that I misled the House. The majority parties of the rate limited authorities are refusing to negotiate with the Government about their rate limits. I have made it absolutely clear that in these circumstances I am prepared—indeed, legally bound—to take account of information from elsewhere including, of course, from elected councillors of whatever party. It was in that context that one of my officials telephoned Councillor
28
Salinger on 5th February because he understood that the councillor might have relevant factual information to provide. In Haringey's case I have not needed to make any assumptions since all the figures required to calculate their rate limit have been supplied to me at various times by Haringey Council themselves.
"Therefore, the suggestion that I have privately revealed assumptions made in calculating Haringey's rate limit is entirely false. There have been meetings between Ministers or their special advisers and Conservative members of Haringey Council, one of which officials attended. In accordance with the normal conventions for such meetings they recorded factual information and commented on its technical relevance".
That concludes the reply.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement that was made in another place. But does not the Minister understand that the Statement will be viewed as adding nothing less than insult to injury? Why does the Secretary of State choose to treat rate-capped authorities with such contempt?
In the Statement the Minister went out of his way to point out that there had been no impropriety. Does not the Minister accept that there is a direct conflict between what the Secretary of State has said in another place and what has been said by Councillor Salinger? Is it seriously denied that not only this Tory councillor in Haringey, but other Tory councillors in similar minority positions, have been supplied with information refused to Parliament? The Minister must be aware that the Secretary of State has refused to give to Parliament the assumptions that apparently have been discussed by Councillor Salinger and his officials. Will we now be told in how many of the other rate-capped authorities there have been leaks of information to Tory minority councillors, while the council has been denied the selfsame information?
Is the Minister aware that Councillor Salinger is reported in today's Guardian to have told John Carvel that this was not his first meeting with Department of the Environment officials? How can this be squared with the statement by the Secretary of State last Wednesday, 6th February, at column 990 of the Official Report that:
"There is no truth in any suggestion that I have made available details of the assumptions. It would have been improper for officials to have had meetings of that sort with minority members of the council".
How does the Secretary of State square that statement with statements that were made by Councillor Salinger at a meeting of Haringey Council last week when he said:
"All I know is that I keep in touch with Ministers and their officials and they give me the answers"?
At a later stage he said:
"During the course of conversations I had with Mr. Dunabin…."
There is a direct conflict. Either the Secretary of State has been misleading the House, or Councillor Salinger has been misleading not only his council but also the House as well. Can the Minister comment on the part being played by Mr. Peter Davis, the political adviser

29
to the Minister of State, Mr. Kenneth Baker, in contacting and co-ordinating Tory opposition group activities in Labour-controlled rate-capped authorities?
Does the Minister understand that we have a situation here in which there is grave disquiet that there is a conflict of evidence that has been given to the House between Councillor Salinger and the Secretary of State? Does this not indicate the nature of the vendetta being carried out by the Secretary of State against local government in general and rate-capped councillors in particular? Is this the type of activity that the Secretary of State had in mind when last week he set up his committee to investigate standards in public life and in councils? Will the Secretary of State now make serious endeavours to understand the burden that his legislation is placing upon councils with enormous burdens, like Haringey, which I know very well, and treat rate-capped councillors with the respect and honesty they deserve and which has been missing so far?
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for repeating the Answer to the Private Notice Question. We on these Benches take the view that a Minister acts with ministerial propriety until the contrary is proved. But there does seem to be a certain amount of conflict of evidence here which causes some questionmarks. It is not absolutely clear from the noble Earl's repetition of the Statement whether the Government are saying that there was no ministerial impropriety or whether they are saying that there was no official impropriety. I should be grateful for clarification of that point.
What I really want to ask the Government is whether they think that the facts are sufficiently clear to allow the matter to rest, or whether they think that some kind of further clarification, some kind of further independent examination of the contrary allegations, is justified.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and I hope to help him in my responses to the noble Lord, Lord Graham. I hope that at the end of my remarks he will conclude, as I have concluded, that there is no need to pursue this matter any further.
The opening sentence of the reply was:
"There has been no impropriety",
and that is at all levels. Where I think that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is going wrong is when he says that the Tory councillors have been given information. It is quite the other way round. It is the Government who are seeking information from them. That is the basic difference between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Graham. What we are seeking from them is nothing improper and nothing improper has occurred. What we are looking for is facts which, as a result, can help our own figures.
My right honourable friend has always made it clear that he was happy to discuss with any council the calculation of its rate limit if it comes with a proposal for a different limit in the light of its own individual circumstances. To put it simply: we propose and they may counter-propose. The Secretary of State met Councillor Salinger at a meeting at Conservative
30
Central Office on 1st February, and there is surely nothing odd about that. At that meeting the councillor expressed concern about Haringey's position. The Secretary of State took due note of his concern and did not divulge any information about the calculations of their RL. It was that meeting, at which Mr Peter Davis was present, which led to the telephone call—and, incidentally, it was a telepone call—last Tuesday.
Has any civil servant initiated discussions with minority councillors? At no points have civil servants entered into negotiations with minority councillors about rate capping. Where information has been provided by such councillors, civil servants have, of course, checked its factual accuracy so far as possible—for example, in respect of Haringey's Alexandra Palace Fund, on which the initial notification to my department came from minority councillors and not from a majority group or council officials.
I have said that I have said nothing to Convervative members on Haringey Council which justifies an accusation that I told them of assumptions made in calculating Haringey's rate limit. That statement is correct. I also said that it would be improper for officials to have had meetings of that sort—that is, in which assumptions were divulged with minority council members. That has not happened. My right honourable friend has not misled the House.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I may be forgiven for being tempted to ask specific questions about what is, after all, my home town. I shall resist that temptation except to say that I know Councillor Salinger, I know Councillor Meehan, the Leader of the Council, and I also know Mr. Gale—and I know them all to be honourable men. It appears to me that there is a conflict of evidence between what they say and what the Secretary of State says. I shall read with great attention the wording of the particular denials which the noble Earl has read out on behalf of his right honourable friend.
Is not the real issue that only for Haringey, and only as a result of the article in today's Guardian, can the calculations be made on which the rate-capping has been based? We can make that sort of calculation for no other rate-capped authority than Haringey, and for Haringey only as a result of the revelations in today's Guardian. Will the noble Earl not agree that, if those calculations can be made for Haringey, some special information must have been available to Haringey and not to other boroughs, and should not that information be available to all rate-capped authorities?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as far as I understand it, Haringey still does not know the assumptions. What Haringey has managed to do is to work out the figures. Mr. Gale telephoned in December and produced a very good projection of £2.175 million. He actually said at that time that the figure might be between £2.170 million and £2.180 million. On being told that that was about right, he went even further and produced his figures. However, he still does not have the assumptions behind the Secretary of State's workings.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Why not, my Lords?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think I touched on that. I said earlier that it was we who proposed, and we are waiting for the counter-proposals.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his frankness, but he has left me very uneasy. He will recall that the charge we made was that the Minister was seeking information from Conservative councillors. The Minister has said that Conservative councillors have gone out of their way to make information available to the Minister upon which certain assumptions can be made. I think that one needs to be very careful before any Government decide to treat with individuals or the whole of a minority group on a council. The majority group on a council represents the council, and I am very disturbed to learn that this Minister and his department see nothing wrong in seeking information which is refused by the majority—that is, the council—from a member of the minority party.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord says about information, but at one stage he used the word "treat", and with that I cannot agree—we do not "treat". Nothing improper has occurred. Some minority groups are rightly disturbed about the effects of a majority group's policies. Where the minority group provides information, the Secretary of State has a legal duty to take account of that information, and that is what has happened.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, if the Secretary of State has a legal duty, would it not have been more prudent if the Secretary of State had seen these councillors at the department and not at Conservative Central Office?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, on these occasions I think it is normal practice not to have political meetings within one's department. I think it was absolutely right to have the meeting at Conservative Central Office.

Sleipner Gas
4.24 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the proposed purchase of gas from the Norwegian Sleipner field.
"As the House is aware, major negotiations have been in progress for some time between the British Gas Corporation and the licensees of this gasfield, which has reserves of some 7 trillion cubic feet, for supply of gas to the British market. Any deal resulting from the negotiations required the endorsement of Her Majesty's Government and I had made this clear to the parties concerned.
"The British Gas Corporation approached me during 1984 with the terms of a provisional agreement under which delivery of gas would start
32
in the early 1990s, reaching a plateau in the mid-1990s at a rate which would be sufficient to meet up to 30 per cent. of United Kingdom requirements and continuing at that level well into the 21st century. The Government immediately examined the details of the contract from the point of view of the broader national interest and thereafter entered into discussions with the Norwegian Government. We explained to the Norwegians that at the rate of delivery proposed, there was a serious risk that prospective development of gasfields on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf would be held up. We accordingly sought agreement that the rate of delivery provided for in the draft contract should be reduced. Discussions with the Norwegians on this and other matters continued throughout the remainder of 1984 and good progress was made.
"The Government have now reviewed the proposed purchase in the light of the situation which has developed during the period of these discussions. In particular the Government have been impressed by the results of the recent record levels of exploration and appraisal activity. As a result, the estimates of proven and probable gas reserves remaining in the United Kingdom Continental Shelf, as shown in the Brown Book published in April 1984, have increased by 6·2 trillion cubic feet. As a consequence the Government have concluded that it will no longer be necessary to import gas in the 1990s on the scale anticipated even last summer. Accordingly, the Government have decided not to endorse the draft contract negotiated by the British Gas Corporation for the purchase of gas from the Sleipner field. The Norwegian Government and the British Gas Corporation have been informed of this decision. We recognise that the Government's decision will cause disappointment to our Norwegian friends. I emphasise that we shall continue to value the relationship which has developed between our two countries through our common interest in oil and gas matters.
"The Government welcome the fact that current and prospective developments on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf now seem likely to provide sufficient gas to meet the needs of the British market well into the 1990s. However, they recognise that the British Gas Corporation has clear obligations in regard to the security of gas supply. The Government, in consultation with the corporation, will therefore keep under review the likely availability of supplies to meet demand in the coming decades.
"The improved prospects for the development of our own offshore gasfields over the next few years will have important and welcome implications for the generation of additional orders and employment in the offshore supplies industry as well as reducing expenditure on imports in the 1990s".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating that Statement in this House. Will he not agree that the Statement begs as many questions as it answers? Above all, does he realise that I find it astonishing that the Secretary of

33
State has made no mention of the issue of price in the Statement? What was the price around which negotiations took place—can the noble Lord tell us that?
The Secretary of State has based his decision on a major revision of North Sea gas reserves, but the question is not just the size of reserves but whether they can be developed to meet gas supplies in the 1990s. The noble Lord will of course know that in recent reviews it was assessed that 45 new fields could be developed between now and the year 2000. But that would still leave a significant gap between supply and demand. Indeed, the latest figures that I have seen indicate that the gap between supply and demand in the year 2000 will be 1.2 billion cubic feet per day, and it was this gap that Sleipner was intended to fill. Can the noble Lord tell us which additional fields he is identifying to fill this gap now that Sleipner has been ruled out?
In view of the potential demand for gas in the 1990s, will the noble Lord at least confirm that British Gas will be allowed to consider future imports of gas if they then find that they have insufficient supplies? Will the Minister make it absolutely clear that now there will be no question of exporting North Sea gas from Britain? I hope that he will take particular notice of that last question.
Turning to the question of the future price of gas, will he indicate whether supplies from the North Sea will he significantly cheaper than those offered under the Sleipner contract? Will he also tell us what role the collapse of the pound had played in the Government decision? Is the present depressed state of the pound relevant, bearing in mind that payments for Sleipner gas would not have to be made until 1992?
I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State has taken a risk and a calculated gamble on the nation's future gas supply. I believe that Parliament deserves a much fuller assessment than he has included in his Statement. Will the noble Lord prevail upon his right honourable friend to provide this assessment as urgently as possible so that Parliament as a whole can make a proper judgment on just how much of a gamble he has taken?
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for repeating the Statement, I, too, should like to express some apprehensions about the subject notified to this House. In the first place, it would be helpful if the noble Lord were to tell us what is the opinion of the British Gas Corporation of the Government's decision? According to press reports, the Gas Corporation, which must presumably contain the leading experts in this field in the country, was keen for reasons of security of future gas supplies to proceed with this negotiation. It would appear, therefore, that it has been overruled. If that is the case, I feel we ought to know about it.
Secondly, there is the position of the Norwegian Government, a very friendly power. They have been in negotiation for some time for the supply of a large part of their gas reserves. They can be justified in having thought that there was some prospect of achieving a successful conclusion, although it is true that Her Majesty's Government reserved their position. This
34
would particularly have been the case after the Government intervened, according to the Statement, to ask that the off-take should be reduced, which implied that if it were reduced there would be the prospect of making a contract. Will not the Norwegians now be in serious difficulty in finding alternative uses for the gas which they had, over a considerable period, reserved for this country?
Thirdly, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, in expressing concern about the basis on which this contract has been overruled, namely, the risk taken on so far unproven reserves in the North Sea. These are prospective reserves and we are by no means certain that they are there. Even on the Government's own Statement, before we reach the end of the 1990s we are likely to be in a situation of deficiency.
It appears that we are progressively closing all alternative options. There was the option of the gas-gathering pipeline, which was under negotiation for some time by a consortium of oil companies and the British Gas Corporation, and that was negatived. Now we have the Sleipner deal having been set aside as well. There seems to be no prospect opening up for imports from other sources, although these take some time to negotiate.
I should like to conclude by expressing grave apprehension as to the way this matter appears to have been handled, contrary to the professional views of the British Gas Corporation, as far as one can determine from press reports; and to express further concern about the way in which major issues of energy policy seem to be dealt with on a purely ad hoc basis without reference to any overall energy strategy.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart of Swindon and Lord Ezra, for their comments on the Statement I have just repeated. I shall try to deal with as many of the points as I can. First, Lord Stoddart asked me about price—what price was negotiated or on what price base did discussions take place. I am sure he will appreciate that price is a matter of commercial confidentiality and a matter for the British Gas Corporation and the Norwegians.
Concerning the development of possible reserves in the 1990s, it is not only the Department of Energy which has made new forecasts. The Statement mentioned that, as shown in the Brown Book published in April 1984, the reserves have increased by 6.2 trillion cubic feet. In addition, other sources have all indicated a revision in their estimates for both oil and gas. This is a continuing process. It is not uncommon to find changes in the estimates from one Brown Book to another.
The estimate of Shell, for example, is similar to that of the Department of Energy, while the estimate by BP is rather more and by Esso rather less. There is little doubt that everybody has had a revision, including the British Gas Corporation itself. In its forecasts it has increased substantially the quantities of gas available.
The noble Lord also asked me about imported gas. I can confirm that the Government do not intend to

35
ban the importation of gas. The situation will be treated on a year-to-year basis, and if the time comes that the British Gas Corporation finds it requires additional imported gas to meet its contract commitments, of course the Government would not rule that out.
On future price, we believe that the availability of gas in the United Kingdom continental shelf is such that it can be made available at a price which would be commercially competitive with the price which was being negotiated with the Norwegians for the Sleipner field. Indeed, some sources feel that it probably could be even more competitive.
The question of the depressed state of the pound was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. It would be very unusual if the present state of the pound was not a factor which was considered in these negotiations, but I assure him absolutely that the scales were undoubtedly tipped by the latest forecasts which have been made all round concerning the potential of the continental shelf.
There is a final point on that. There is no doubt that the concessions given by the Government in the 1983 Budget have made it abundantly clear that oil companies are now prepared to explore in the North Sea for gas. The result of this exploration is there for everybody to see in the increase in forecasts which have been made. We now hope that companies will go ahead and produce the gas which will be required.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned the Norwegians and that over the years we had built up a good relationship with them. We have no reason to believe that that relationship will be impaired in any way. The Norwegians will obviously be disappointed that the negotiations failed to be concluded and that their sale of these very large quantities of Sleipner gas will not now take place.
But they are realists and they are practical people. My right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Department of Energy returned from Norway only last night having seen his opposite number over there and explained in great detail what our position was. He found that the Norwegians, while disappointed, fully accepted our position. The noble Lord also mentioned the question of the view of the British Gas Corporation. The British Gas Corporation have spent a very considerable time negotiating, and I have no doubt that those who were directly responsible for the negotiations will obviously feel a degree of sadness, too, that we are not going ahead with this. But they, too, are realistic, and they will now concentrate their attention on finding alternative sources of supply when they are needed. But this is some distance ahead. The British Gas Corporation are not in short supply at the present moment. We are confident that any deficiency that may appear can be accommodated from the United Kingdom continental shelf.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that the upgrading of gas reserves in the continental shelf is a cause for great rejoicing: that an extra seven trillion cubic feet is not to be sneezed at although it was forecast (I think three years ago) by some of the North Sea companies, notably Phillips, to the surprise of the Select Committee of this House, on
36
which I sat? But, having said that, will my noble friend not agree that the loss to the BGC of some 30 per cent. of the supplies which they hoped they had contracted for the period after 1991—and that after two years of negotiations and a further year of Government deliberation—is a very serious blow to the Norwegian Government, however staid and brave a face they put on it? Is it not a case that Norway's loss in this matter may well prove in the years ahead to have been the Soviet Union's gain?
Could my noble friend first of all assure us that this is not in fact going to lead to the BGC having to cut hack on supplies, particularly to the customers on interruptable contracts? Secondly, could my noble friend not take back to the Secretary of State the thought that it would be much better in the long run to allow the export of British gas but at the same time to accept the contract with Norway for a definite, positive supply guaranteed over a period of years?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I take the point made by my noble friend but I would suggest to him that in fact there would be a much greater danger of the potential of the United Kingdom continental shelf (as far as the supply of gas is concerned) not being achieved if the Sleipner deal were to go ahead than is likely to be the case now that the Sleipner deal is not to go ahead. I would suggest to him also that the BGC are not likely to have to cut back. Indeed, there has been no suggestion of any likelihood of a cutback. For some considerable period ahead the BGC source of supply is secured, and it is probable that from our own continental shelf they would be able to make good any deficiency which occurs. I believe that the decision not to go ahead will not in any way impair our relationships with the Norwegian Government. It may well be that in the years ahead a further deal from some other Norwegian gasfield may be mooted, and that will be looked at and considered on its merits at the time.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, if I may take up one further point to which my noble friend referred, there would be no danger to further development of the gas fields on the United Kingdom continental shelf if our producers were given the assurance that they could export.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend. In no way did I try to avoid this question; I merely omitted to mention the question of export. As my noble friend knows, the landing requirement is still in existence and at the present moment there are no immediate plans to waive that; but in the course of time, as more gas is developed on the United Kingdom continental shelf, the situation regarding the question of export will be kept in mind. But there are no plans at the moment to waive the landing requirement.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, when one contemplates the consequences of the last deal, the Frigg field deal, which British Gas carried out—which, as my noble friend knows, has always obliged us to maintain artificially high taxation on fuel oils—are the Government not greatly to be congratulated on finally deciding that it is wiser not to encourage the British Gas Corporation to make these kind of deals? Further-

37
more, would not my noble friend agree that the huge and very desirable growth in estimated reserves of gas reflects what happens when the British Gas Corporation is gradually obliged to pay something more nearly approaching commercial prices for its gas supplies? In that context will my noble friend therefore think very hard about the desirability of waiving the present rules governing landing requirements in regard to gas so as to allow greater exploitation and to ensure that in future the gas corporation pays a genuine market price for its supplies?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. If I may take the last one first, I would merely repeat what I said earlier: that there is no plan at the moment to waive the landing requirement. I explained that this is something which will be considered in the light of circumstances as more gas becomes available; but there are no plans at the moment to waive that requirement.
I thank my noble friend for his congratulations to the Government. He is perfectly correct. It is more beneficial to this country for us to explore and develop our own gas resources on the United Kingdom continental shelf than it is to import gas. There is a further advantage and that will be seen in due course with the orders which will accrue to our yards for the platform building and all the other bits and pieces which go along with the development of a gas field and an oil field. This means that our own companies will have the opportunity to prove themselves competitive in the world market for the various requirements of the development of these fields.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will be aware of Statoil's opinion that by the 1990s there will not be enough oil and wet gas going through the pipelines from Ekofisk alone. Perhaps I may quote:
"If we don't get new products that can go through the pipeline, we may have to close down the pipeline system as well as the terminal installations in Teesside and instead buoy-load the oil on the Ekofisk field."
Can my noble friend say what the timescale of this present decision is likely to extend to? Is he fully aware that if Ekofisk gas is not piped in, this will lead to a further 600 jobs being lost in Teesside, where we already have 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. unemployment?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I appreciate the concern of my noble friend. I respect the technical competence of Statoil, but I am not prepared completely to accept its predictions without having them checked. I am sure that my noble friend will accept that. As for the timescale of the development of gas fields on the United Kingdom continental shelf, these could start being developed almost at any time. As I indicated, exploration has been extremely successful. In 1983 a record number of wells was drilled. That record was beaten in 1984, and this augurs for the development of these fields. The lead-in time for the development of a gas field is not particularly long. From the time that the discovery is made we should begin to see orders from such developments fairly quickly.
38
With regard to the capacity of the pipelines, I do not think that there is on our continental shelf any gas field which is in danger of not being developed because capacity cannot be found on the Ekofisk line. As these developments take place so companies will join one with the other, as they have done in the past, and find facilities to bring the gas ashore.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I have just two very short supplementaries—
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, if the noble Lord will not mind giving way, I should say that we have had 26 minutes "gassing" on this subject. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked a great many questions at the beginning and had quite a lot of time. Perhaps in view of the fact that we have, first, another Statement and, secondly, a great many speakers still to come on the Eyre Report—and, if that were not enough, an unstarred Question at the end of the day—it might be considered convenient to move on to the next Statement.

Atomic Energy Authority
4.51 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the future of the Atomic Energy Authority. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy told Parliament on 28th March that he had set in hand a wide-ranging review of the role and activities of the authority. On 3rd October he placed in the Library of the House a press statement which summarised the recommendations of this review. Following consultations with the interested parties I can now inform the House of the conclusions reached by the Government.
"Since the authority was established in 1954 as a vote-funded body with a high degree of statutory independence it has made a crucial contribution to the development of the civil uses of nuclear power in this country. Today civil nuclear power is an essential and established part of our national life. Last year more than 18 per cent. of electricity supplied in the United Kingdom was nuclear. The proportion will reach 21 per cent. when the three nuclear stations most recently linked to the national grid reach full power, with a further increase when stations now under construction are completed. The civil nuclear industry in the widest sense now provides about 100,000 jobs. All this has been achieved with an excellent safety record. The authority's work is held in high regard and it will continue to have a major role to play in both the nuclear and non-nuclear field.
"The review had two guiding principles: firstly, that the authority should move further towards a commercial basis of operation; secondly, that a defined customer-contractor relationship should be applied as far as possible to its work. The Government fully endorse these principles.

39
"The review recommended, and the Government accept, that the activities of the authority should be placed on a trading fund basis. The authority will be required to account for its activities in a fully commercial manner, within financial objectives set by the Secretary of State. We intend to provide the authority with a capital structure and powers to borrow as required so as to enable it to operate as a trading fund from April 1986, and will introduce legislation as soon as possible for this purpose.
"I have considered carefully, in consultation with the authority and with its customers in the nuclear industry, how the principles of the review should apply to the funding of particular programmes at present financed by my department. A balance is required between the application of the customer-contractor principle, which is valuable for financial discipline and a more commercial approach, and the retention of an independent capability for safety and underlying research in the authority. The electricity industry, like the Government, attaches importance to that independent capability. Although the generating boards will increase the amount of work which they pay for on a customer-contractor basis, my department will continue to fund a substantial authority programme of thermal reactor and general safety research. The Government broadly endorse a recommendation of the Review Group that there should be an element in the authority's charges to customers, including the department, in respect of underlying research. I am discussing the application of this recommendation with those principally concerned.
"The effect of these proposals will be to carry further the development of recent years under which the funding of the authority's expenditure has become more broadly based and proportionately less dependent on Department of Energy votes. In particular there will be a further increase in funding by the CEGB. With other changes, I expect this to result in a reduction of £5 million in my departmental vote in 1985–86, compared with previous plans.
"I have already mentioned the Atomic Energy Authority's contribution to the development of civil nuclear power in this country. It continues to give valuable support to the nuclear industry in both the public and the private sectors. It is diversifying its services in the non-nuclear field, and has made an important contribution to technology relevant to North Sea development.
"The evolutionary changes I have just announced will put the authority on an increasingly commercial footing and will give its staff a new incentive. I am confident that these changes will enable the authority further to develop its role and contribution to the economy on both a national and international basis. I am also confident that all those concerned will join in taking full advantage of this new opportunity".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement that was made in another place? Is he aware that the Statement
40
gives the Opposition the utmost cause for concern, for what the Government are proposing amounts to a prelude to the virtual privatisation of the Atomic Energy Authority and nuclear research and development? That certainly gives the Opposition grave cause for concern.
Will the noble Lord accept that such policies are quite unacceptable to the Opposition and indeed, we believe, to the public generally? Will he confirm that the proposals for placing the Atomic Energy Authority on a trading fund basis will remove the authority from any kind of parliamentary control? Will he confirm that it will no longer be possible for Members of this House or of another place to raise questions about the Atomic Energy Authority once its activities are placed on a trading fund basis? Can he say what possible advantages the commercialisation of atomic energy research can have for the public and the nation? Is he aware that already there is grave concern over nuclear safety standards, and is it not likely that such fears will be heightened as a result of these particular proposals?
What firm assurances can the noble Lord give that nuclear safety will not be adversely affected by this Statement, which is clearly a forerunner to the full-scale privatisation of the Atomic Energy Authority in due course? Also, since the CEGB is to carry a greater share of nuclear generation research costs, can be say how that is likely to affect the prices paid by consumers and what effect is it likely to have on the comparative costs between nuclear power stations and coal-fired stations?
As the Statement says, 100,000 jobs are dependent on the nuclear industry but, arising from the Statement, is it envisaged that by placing the Atomic Energy Authority's activities on a trading fund basis there will be significant redundancies within the authority? If that is so, have any consultations been undertaken with the staff concerned?
Lord Ezra: My Lords, we from these Benches welcome the decision to retain the AEA. We feel that a great deal of expertise has been built up in that organisation and we are glad that it is the firm intention of the Government that it should continue in existence. We also think it is right that organisations such as this should be reviewed from time to time as to their financial operations, and we would support some degree of a commercial structure so long as it is very clearly defined.
The Minister in the Statement indicated that the line would have to be drawn between the contractual activities and the basic activities and safety. We think it is very important that we in this House should be very clear as to how that line will be drawn, and no doubt that will emerge in the proposed legislation. We think it right, in important areas of energy such as the nuclear sector, that basic research and safety should be subject to a degree of Government funding and control.
A more general point that I should like to raise is whether this approach should equally be applied to other energy sectors. I have reason to believe that a certain amount of long-term basic research in some of the other sectors has been jeopardised by the fact that there is not a similar arrangement, and that the enterprises running them, whether in the public or the

41
private sectors, having been constrained by commercial considerations, have tended to put virtually the whole of their research emphasis on short and medium term objectives and the longer term research has accordingly suffered. So I should like to suggest that the solution now being found in the nuclear industry might be looked at in relation to other energy sectors as well.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am again grateful to both noble Lords for the comments which they have made on the Statement. I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said when he expressed the concern and the reservations which the Opposition have over what is happening. But I am sure he will agree with me that there has not yet been very much time for them to consider the details of what is happening, and I feel quite sure that when they have considered those details they will feel substantially more reassured.
I think that I can give him a negative answer to almost all the points which he raised with me. The first is that this in no way prohibits debate. Indeed, it has no effect whatever on the present status which the authority enjoys. This is purely a financial matter. It is the creation of a trading fund the advantages of which will be that all the authority's work will be undertaken on a fully commercial basis, that further encouragement will be given to a rigorous attitude to costs and to using both staff and capital assets to the best effect and that there will be greater flexibility in the use of those funds. The authority will have a revised capital structure, it will have powers to borrow, it will have an operating account, with surpluses and deficits carried forward from one year to another, and it will have financial objectives set by the Secretary of State and agreed with the Treasury.
The question of redundancies does not apply in this case, so I can give a negative answer there again. The concern over nuclear standards is not affected either. We must bear in mind that, despite the new method of funding, the department will still be funding directly a great deal of work and this applies very largely in the safety area, which I think is causing concern to the noble Lord. The nuclear industry can be proud of a safety record which is probably quite outstanding in industry in this country, and this is something which the Government are determined to preserve.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra—not surprisingly, from his previous interests—takes a very strong view on the financial affairs of nationalised industries and I am grateful to him for his indication of support in what we are seeking to do. He said he agrees that nationalised industries should from time to time have their financial matters looked at and updated, and I shall certainly pass on to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy the noble Lord's comment that he feels that this principle should perhaps be applied elsewhere. He will not expect me to comment further at this stage. I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments on the Statement.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that many thoughtful people will wish to congratulate the Government on the purpose of this Statement, not least since the Atomic Energy
42
Authority has been trading for years: first, in isotopes and, secondly, through the sale or hire of research facilities at Harwell? Also, is it not the case that safety is protected by the statutory Nuclear Safety Inspectorate, which has the highest standards anywhere in the world—far more exacting than anything in Europe or America? Can my noble friend give one assurance? Can we be certain that the effect of this will not in any way be to impair the collaboration with France and Germany on research and development of the fast reactor?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, while I answered the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in the negative, I am happy to be able to answer my noble friend Lord Lauderdale in the affirmative. There is nothing in what we are doing which would in any way prejudice the very good relations which we have developed with our European partners in this matter. I can confirm that to hint.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what are the implications of this change of policy for the important research and other work done at Dounreay in Scotland?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, there are no implications so far as the status of Dounreay is concerned. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has proposed that the United Kingdom should bid for the location of a fuel reprocessing plant at Dounreay and a Government Statement will be made on this in due course. No detailed comment can be made at the moment, because the Secretary of State's role is also as a planning Minister, but, to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marncck, this will have no effect on the work at Dounreay.

Airport Inquiries 1981–83: Inspector's Report
5.7 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I am glad to be able to make this intervention in the Statements. From this side, I should like to add our congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, on his maiden speech. Had he found it possible to remain in his seat, I should have had pleasure in telling him that I admired his practical approach and that I agreed with a good deal of what he had to say. I was particularly pleased to be able to support what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, because I always prefer, if possible, to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and I am going to disagree with him when I come to the substance of this report.
I had another aviation engagement this evening which I much wanted to keep, but recently I have detected a tendency when commenting on these debates to count heads for and against a particular proposition and to quote that as some evidence in support of a given opinion. In that context, I should like to offer my head in support of the recommendation that we should make an early start in the development of Stansted Airport.

43
I have certain other views not in line with the inquiry recommendations, but before I express them maybe I may be permitted to make two general observations. First, I believe that we should give thanks and praise to all those who have had responsibility over the post-war years for the actual administration and operation of Britain's airport and allied services. Their record is second to none, and I have had some experience with airport facilities in most parts of the world. Since Sir Norman Payne and his team currently have the greatest responsibility, I offer special tribute to them.
Secondly, I believe that we owe something less than thanks and different from praise to those who have contributed to the confusion in these same post-war years in the making or the frustration of a national strategy for our airports. There have been, as has already been stated, debates galore, departmental committees, public inquiries, decisions made and unmade; and the arguments today are more strident than ever they were before. Even the Town and Country Planning Association, I noted today, is moved to write of a "dirty tricks department" in this business and it makes some reference to the "extraordinary self-deception" of the Inspector who had the responsibility of carrying out the inquiry.
I do not believe that we would be fair in blaming any one Government for this confusion, and certainly not the civil servants, whose judgment in my view in these matters has always been fair and clear. It has not been the civil servants; it has been the political pressures brought to bear when any decision was being arrived at. But the issues have been bedevilled by the quite special ability with which individuals, authorities and operators have been able to persuade themselves that what was good for them was good for the country as a whole. General Motors has absolutely nothing on some of these people. When their respective and conflicting views are amplified and exaggerated by all the extravagant machinations of modern public relations then I fear that they confuse themselves as well as others.
If palms could be awarded for damage done in all this frustrating lobbying, the first should go, I think, to those lobbyists who were responsible for reversing the original decision to develop Gatwick eventually as a major two-runway airport. That was a much more damaging upsetting of decision-making than was the cancellation of the offshore airport at Maplin, the only advantage of which was that there were no voters around it.
We all share the same interest of wanting the convenience of air travel without the nuisance of having an aircraft fly over our own garden, but in all this rather sorry story there was no instance more saddening than when the residents, or some of the residents, of Surrey prevailed over the interests of Britain as a whole and secured the abandonment of the proper development of the Gatwick second airport for London. Even now I suggest—and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, in this—that we should look again at the Gatwick situation before any further building takes place in the area once sterilised, and we should see whether the original planning cannot be carried out. If against all the operational and economic
44
sense it is still decided that a second major runway is not now feasible at Gatwick, I hope that the idea of an emergency strip will be developed to the point that permits parallel operation of lighter aircraft and the possibility of future STOL operations.
I am afraid that the North of England Consortium lobby is another case of restricted reasoning, but the background there is completely different from that of residential Surrey. I was born and bred north of Watford and my heart and instincts still turn to there. I understand and share the bitterness which some feel at the assurances given by the comfortable people in the South that everything one day will work out all right for the North. I feel strongly about that, but I really cannot persuade myself that it will help the development and industrial regeneration of the Midlands and the North if traffic is turned away from the South-East because of lack of capacity at airports.
Of course there is another lobby against the Stansted development. Understandably there are in Essex residents—not all of them according to a recent poll—who, when they need to go abroad, would prefer to drive to Heathrow and fly over the people of Richmond or Twickenham rather than disturb the amenity of the Essex countryside. I had a most formidable array of such noble residents lined up against me in this very Chamber when we debated the merits of the Stansted recommendation back in 1967. Incidentally, I believe I am right in saying that had Stansted gone ahead then and we had not had that opposition at that time in 1967, the cost of the airport in those days would have been some £50 million. If we have to have another public inquiry into this matter, the cost of it will not be far short of a figure for which we would have got a developed Stansted in those days.
If I may turn to that 1967 debate, one argument I recall was that if we went to Stansted, it would upset the Americans at Wethersfield. Technology moves ahead. We do not have the aircraft at Wethersfield, but we have the nuclear bases at Greenham and Molesworth. It was also argued that surface access was inadequate; but of course now we have the M.11. A most powerful case was made by the late Lord Butler and others that building facilities at Stansted would mean the loss of £1 million of agricultural produce each year, and now we contemplate many, many more millions of pounds of such products being wasted in those CAP intervention stores, and scarcely a murmur from those Essex residents.
There was also the argument—I believe that it has been put forward again—supported by eminent authorities that aircraft over Stansted would drive away the birds, and I tried then to assure people so concerned. I told them what my dear wife had reported, that in Richmond Park, over which far more aircraft fly than will ever been seen at Stansted, there had been seen the Great-crested Grebe, the Red-breasted Merganser, Brent geese, sparrowhawks, kestrels and stock doves; and, unfrightened by the noisy Boeings of the day, barn owls had been seen breeding. Of course, there will be genuine grievances in Essex if more aircraft overfly, and we should give consideration to those grievances, but why should not the same consideration be given to the people who live around Heathrow?

45
This brings me to the recommendation that the Perry Oaks sewage works be moved to some other, unspecified location, at an unstated cost, in order to make way for the fifth terminal and thus enable the Government to break a specific promise, as my noble friend Lord Underhill said, given on many occasions, that 275,000 movements a year at Heathrow would be the absolute limit.
Somewhere in this report, I believe, the inquiry Inspector criticised earlier policy making as inept, ill-judged ad hoc expediency. I believe that I have said much the same thing. But I do like to be consistent. If we try to buy off opposition to Stansted by agreeing to get another terminal at Heathrow, then I would detect more than another touch of expediency. Naturally, if British Airways wants a fifth terminal, it will produce figures to show that it is by far the best solution. British Airways can always produce figures to prove a case which suits it. No doubt it will soon be proving that its shares are worth much more than the price which the Government propose to charge for them. Its predecessors proved conclusively that huge savings would be made if BOAC and BEA were merged. Going further back, I recall the certainly with which it said that it would be cheaper to keep the maintenance base at Montreal, rather than London.
One cannot blame British Airways in this case. Any operator would benefit from having more business concentrated around the home base; but it is only right that against their savings there should be offset all the other costs. including, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, reminded us, the cost of road traffic congestion. The social costs are difficult to quantify, but clearly they must be much more in the areas that are more densely populated than either in Essex or around Gatwick.
The argument that Twickenham suffers now and will not notice additional suffering seems to be quite unworthy. Aircraft noise at source is less now than it was, and I think that it must be brought down even further; but that should be some expectation of relief for the people around Heathrow and not an excuse for breaking promises about traffic limits and further increasing the burden on them.
There is one other paragraph of the Inspector's report, which seems to come very near to qualifying for the criticism he makes about expediency in policy making. I refer to the declaration that a second runway at Stansted should not be built "under any circumstances". I should have thought that "under any circumstances" is a phrase that lawyers would be very reluctant to use. Technology in this matter changes considerably. I made my maiden speech as a Member of Parliament in 1945, very nearly 40 years ago. The burden of that speech was that we should get on with the development at Heathrow as a matter of urgency. Looking back, I fear that my eagerness to get a move on with a proper airport for London was not unconnected with the fact that I disliked landing in gusty weather over the buildings on the Croydon tarmac; and I liked even less the problem of lifting an aircraft over the houses on take-off over the further end of the Croydon field. So I do understand that we may all be considering too closely our own convenience.
46
However, in the present situation I hope that I am being reasonably objective when I offer the following views. I believe that we should press ahead as quickly as possible with the development of Stansted Airport. I think that we should seriously look again at all the possibilities of maximising the use of Gatwick. It was the best available site for a second major airport for London when we fixed upon it in the early 1950s, and it still is the best site for a second major airport. I add that a major airport with only one runway is a contradiction in terms.
We should make an extra effort to see what can be done to encourage the use of regional airports; and when it can be shown that growth is prevented at those airports by limited capacity I should certainly be happy to join the lobby for extra development. The prior need now for the Midlands and the North is, surely, more industrial development, and that will bring with it the extra air traffic. I am, as I have said, against the fifth terminal and I believe that it would be unwise at this point to promise a limit on future development at Stansted in any circumstances.
I have not used any figures to support my views because it seems to me that we can pick and choose between the welter of figures to prove almost any argument; but I should like to make a final comment on the estimates of saturation point in the South-East. The estimates in the early 1960s were faulted by the increased use of larger aircraft. More people were carried in fewer planes. The tendency today is towards the greater use of smaller aircraft. I should like to see an international agreement putting an upper limit on aircraft size. If we go towards the 1,000 or 1,500-seat aircraft, we may well have, on paper, lower seat-mile costs, but I can see one day an air tragedy of Bhopal proportions. Therefore, I would have a limit on size.
Apart from that aspect, the tendency today seems to be for higher frequency and regional services, using smaller aircraft. It is significant that Boeing, according to an announcement made last week, is about to copy British Aerospace with a 100-seater aircraft. This trend may mean that saturation will be reached earlier rather than later, which means that an early decision is all the more important.
I have much sympathy with the Minister who will have to make this decision. I cannot see that he will be able to please everybody. I wish him well, and I only hope that in 40 years' time he will have cause to think that the decision he took was the right one.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: My Lords, I add my voice to those of the noble Lords, Lord Nugent of Guildford and Lord Beswick, in offering congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, on a truly sparkling maiden speech.
I have only one personal interest to declare in this debate. Mr. Graham Eyre, the Inspector whose report we are debating, has for over 30 years been not only a professional colleague but a personal friend of mine for whose ability and judgment I have the profoundest admiration. But it is not on that account, of course, that I commend his report and its conclusions to your Lordships. He and his assessors, as the noble Lord the Minister told us, spent 258 days hearing arguments

47
and evidence. We, thank goodness, did not. He, as I know, spent the best part of the ensuing 18 months labouring under a mountain of papers and in that period he devoted practically the entirety of his time and energy to producing this masterly report. The findings of fact and the conclusions expressed in the report all enjoy the unanimous endorsement of his distinguished aviation and planning assessors. What is perhaps more important is that various sections of the civil aviation and air transport industries presented somewhat divergent cases at the inquiries but since the Inspector's report was published have almost to a man endorsed its conclusions.
All those are important factors but even they are not the essential grounds on which I venture to commend this report to your Lordships. I commend it on the ground that the intrinsic excellence and good sense of this report and its conclusions are abundantly apparent and will be recognised anybody who is prepared to read it with an open mind. The report presents a penetrating, fairminded and comprehensive analysis of the problem. To my mind it presents a totally convincing case for the view that the only practical solution to the problem lies in the full development of Stansted to its potential as a single-runway airport, coupled with the full realisation of the possibilities of expanding Heathrow to a five-terminal airport after the long time that must necessarily elapse before that monstrosity, the Perry Oaks sludgeworks, is removed elsewhere.
Two questions arise. If this combined solution of the problem is to be rejected, what is the alternative? Two speakers today have mentioned the possibility of a second runway at Gatwick. If the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, will forgive me for correcting her, it is not accurate to say that the second runway at Gatwick was not considered by Mr. Eyre in the course of these inquiries because it was not within his remit. His remit was as wide as it could possibly be. But the solution to the problem of providing a second runway at Gatwick was not considered in detail because not a single party—not even the bitterest opponents of development at Stansted—put it forward as a practicable solution. If they had, of course, the inquiry would have lasted a lot longer than 258 days. Both the proponents and the opponents of the development of a second runway at Gatwick—and they would have been just as vociferous as the proponents and the opponents of the development at Stansted—would also have had to be heard.
The other critical question that arises out of this report—
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I heard what the noble Lord was saying. I venture to say that I think he is not correct and that this was certainly not within the remit of the Inspector. The Inspector took as an absolute fact that the Government would not allow a second runway to be developed at Gatwick, and the Inspector went from there and based his recommendation on that.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: My Lords, I have read the report and I have not discovered that any party
48
canvassed the possibility of a second runway at Gatwick as a practical solution to the problem.
The second critical question which arises from the report is, how many of those who in the course of the democratic process will influence the result have read or are prepared to read the report with an open mind? This airports question is not, or certainly ought not to be, a matter of party political controversy. If I thought it were, I should not be speaking upon it. What it is, of course, is a question which has aroused intensely strong local and regional feelings and which has generated, call them lobbies, pressure groups or what you will. The Essex pressure group, as I shall call it for short, is bitterly opposed to any development at Stansted. That is understandable. How could it be otherwise? The West London pressure group, if I may call it that, is bitterly opposed to any further expansion at Heathrow. Again, how could it be otherwise?
But what disturbs me, particularly reading the debate on this subject on 30th January in another place, is to discover how vociferous is the pressure group whose case at the inquiries was put forward by the body calling itself the North of England Regional Consortium. That pressure group, in my respectful submission to your Lordships' House, is misguided in its premises. A vote against Stansted, or a vote against Heathrow, will not be of the smallest value in promoting the economic well being and prosperity of the north of England. If anybody thinks that it is, I beg of him to read with an open mind paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Chapter 10 of the report, which is headed,
"The regions and their airports".
There is no question but that the Inspector approached the regional case with a more than open mind—indeed, with sympathy. I quote paragraph 1.32 of Chapter 10:
"The generality of the case for the regions has a number of cogent and attractive characteristics",
and he proceeds to list them in 13 sub-paragraphs. Paragraph 1.33 states:
"There is no doubt that the characteristics I have identified have attracted widespread support for the case for the regions".
In a nutshell, the case put forward by the North of England Regional Consortium was that there was no need until 1995 or well beyond to provide any additional airport capacity in south-east England because the whole of the additional demand could and should be met by the airports in the north of England. Indeed, the contention was advanced that it would be positively detrimental to the proper realisation of the northern airports' potential to provide any additional capacity in the south-east of England.
Confronted with that case, what a temptation it must have been to the Inspector simply to accept it; to recommend to the Government that they do nothing; to leave everybody happy—everybody, that is, except the civil aviation and air transport industries and those thinking members of the public who can see beyond the point of view of local and regional bias. Instead, in paragraphs 3.1 to 3.85—if anybody will trouble to read them—the Inspector totally demolishes the case for the North of England Regional Consortium. I quote two short passages from paragraph 3.72:
"The case for the North of England Regional Consortium would involve putting the whole problem back into the melting pot. Such

49
a course would introduce appalling uncertainties as to the future and assuredly would not create the period of stability regarded as essential".
A little later in the same paragraph he states:
"I have to record with some considerable regret that upon scrutiny the North of England Regional Consortium case offered the Government no remotely realistic alternative strategy. Furthermore, although the inquiries presented a unique opportunity for regional authorities to demonstrate that further expansion in the South-East would have deleterious consequences for the regional airports and air services in the furure, such an opportunity was not taken and no cogent evidence to this effect was even proffered".
A question of vital national interest is at stake. Are we going to realise the unique potential for the benefit of the civil aviation and air transport industries which the geographical situation of our island offers in the 1990s and into the 21st century, or are we, on the other hand, for want of suitable airport capacity available at the right time and in the right place, going to hand that asset on a plate to our continental European neighbours? Truly, in my submission, it will be a tragedy if, after more than 20 years of vacillation, a combination of political opportunism and the operation of pressure groups renders it impossible for Her Majesty's Government to take the decision which, having studied this report, they must recognise as the only sensible decision and implement the Eyre recommendations. Incidentally, that outcome would demonstrate that public inquiries of the kind we are discussing are a monumental waste of time and money.
5.40 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I, too, welcome this debate as an opportunity to allow opinions to be stated in our House before decisions are made by the Governmment in this important and difficult matter. I should also like to join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, on his interesting and realistic maiden speech.
I rise today as a member of Essex County Council to support our long-standing campaign against Stansted becoming the third London airport. Essex is in many parts an urban county but this part of our county is one of its few rural beauty spots, not at all suitable for the urbanisation brought about by such a monster development. Anyone who has had the privilege of driving North from Dunmow to Thaxted will have caught his breath at the beauty of Thaxted spire as first seen as one comes over the brow of the hill. Its finger points eternally to heaven. It is surrounded by the lovely small rural town with its 15th century guildhall and old houses. It is a great attraction to tourists from all over the world. Thaxted Church is on the flight path from Stansted. Goodness knows if it would survive the noise and vibration of a third London airport.
The people in this part of the world are against the major development of Stansted airport. They include Essex and Hertfordshire County Councils, the district councils and that magnificent example of local devotion to their beautiful countryside, the North West Essex and East Hertfordshire Preservation Society, who untiringly over the years have raised more than a quarter of a million pounds to support their cause. They are supported by many affiliated associations, including the National Trust, the CPRE and the Town and County Planning Association. The
50
members are farmers and local people who rightly feel a sense of injustice as their towns and villages have been overshadowed by the threat of the great airport on so many occasions over a period of over 20 years, during which they have had to fight so many inquiries.
Essex has supported them unswervingly but we have not been dog in the manger. In the early 1970s we actively supported the development of Maplin Airport in Essex, with its safe take-off over the sea and its promise of employment in the more urban parts of Essex, already developed and with schools, hospitals and the services people need. I am not suggesting a return to Maplin. That opportunity was not grasped and one cannot turn the clock back. But I felt I must demonstrate we are not against airports as such. Indeed, even now, we would accept some expansion at Stansted which would be convenient to local people and provide employment commensurate with the size of the present local population. At present, Stansted is operating at around half a million passengers per annum. As my honourable friend Mr. Alan Haselhurst, the Member of Parliament for the area, recently said:
"Even the local pressure group opposed to Stansted becoming the third London airport would accept expansion to 4 million passengers per annum".
We are reasonable people, and the Chief Executive of the County Council has said that the Council would willingly meet the Secretary of State to discuss that kind of level of development.
Sadly, I am not often in your Lordships' House these days because I work part of each week in Manchester. I normally travel by train but have on a number of occasions used Manchester Airport. I can understand vividly why people living there and in other northern cities do not want to travel to London for their business and holiday travel. It is time-wasting and further snarls up London's traffic congestion. I have every sympathy with the millions of people living in the North wishing to develop their own airports with the associated much-needed employment. No wonder the North of England Regional Consortium is campaigning so strongly for the development of the region's airports. They should be encouraged to the full, for their own convenience and prosperity. In each case they are pressing for the development of existing major airports.
Finally, I come to Heathrow. Your Lordships will have noticed, as you take off from the airport, that, thrusting into the perimeter of the world's premier airport is—guess what?—the Perry Oaks sludge works. It should have been moved to a more suitable site years ago. I quote from a Royal Society of Arts lecture which was chaired by Sir Peter Masefield in June 1977, who said:
"A proposition to move the sludge works to a more suitable place was first made, I remember, in 1943. Perry Oaks is an ideal place for a new terminal area between the runways, with good access, and I hope"—
sadly, this was not achieved—
"that by 1983 it may be achieved as the most sensible solution to shortage of space for handling both aircraft and passengers at Heathrow".
Now, its removal is of paramount importance to provide new land for development at Heathrow so that the fifth terminal can be built, as the Inspector himself

51
recommends. It will bring the M.25 very close to Heathrow. The existing railway line to Heathrow Central I understand was designed with a possible future extension to Perry Oaks in mind. Therefore, existing capital investment will be more fully used. All the infrastructure of schools, roads, hospitals, etc., already exists. The skilled workforce already lives there.
So far as the major international airlines are concerned, they do not want to split their operations in a fundamental way. They know how expensive that would be. The provision of new maintenance depots splitting a highly-skilled workforce is extremely expensive. In their evidence prepared for the inquiry, British Airways calculated that if they had to split their operations they would need a 24 per cent. increase in the number of aircraft, with a resultant minimum increase in direct operating costs of between £150 and £200 million per annum at 1980 prices. By now, that figure would be much higher. Such a move would also add to the costs of other airlines forced to split their operations.
Clearly, it is far more economical to allow them to develop with Heathrow as their major base of operation. It should mean the reconsideration of the present arbitrary limit of 275,000 aircraft movements per annum. But, in their evidence at the inquiry, British Airways looked far more to increasing the size of aircraft to provide the increased capacity and felt the resultant required increase in size of aircraft was in line with past projections. It is not only the number of aircraft movements in the air that is the problem but also the efficient handling of passengers on the ground.
A proportion of Heathrow's prosperity comes from transfer passengers. We shall lose them to a European airport if they cannot change flights conveniently and have perhaps to change airports. Their payments form a useful contribution to our invisible exports. The fifth terminal at Heathrow, if properly designed, could add to the comfort and convenience of their transfer and form an added attraction to the advantage of United Kingdom prosperity.
The new International Civil Aviation Organisation regulations limiting aircraft noise, will, as the Inspector says,
"ensure there is no perceptible effect on existing noise".
That is an important matter to the people at present living round Heathrow. As our aircraft noise consultant said during the inquiry,
"The noise lobby has won but as yet they do not know it",
because the ICAO regulations will take the remainder of this decade for the full effect to be clear. However, during that period the noise levels at Heathrow will reduce dramatically, even with the building of Terminal 5, which is a very important part of the whole strategy.
The development of a short take-off airport in Dockland could make a contribution to the situation. The benefits of air travel on short-haul routes are often considerably reduced because of the length of time it takes to travel out of the city to the airport—a journey which on short flights is often of comparable length to the actual flight itself. It will be interesting to see how the use of that airport so near the City of London
52
develops for short-haul flights, and how it fulfils the air travel needs of London if it is developed.
The Inspector comes down firmly in favour of the development of Heathrow 5, but is anxious about the length of time it may take to develop and whether it will be ready in time. A number of experts, including those of Essex and Hertfordshire, question the high growth assumed—much higher than past growth. I was taught as a young engineer the dangers of extrapolation. However, we have to rely on the best forecasts, although forecasting is notoriously difficult in this field. Experts disagree and the forecasts themselves are very vulnerable to major movements in the price of oil, a highly volatile variable in itself.
To sum up, my suggestion is that the Government should put their full weight behind the development of Heathrow through the building of Terminal 5 so that it remains the major London airport, taking the fullest advantage of its runways but with much better passenger traffic handling facilities. That should be carried out as soon as possible so as to overcome the consequences of successive past Governments' lack of action—"the years that the locusts have eaten", as Sir Peter Masefield said in a letter to The Times. In that way, Heathrow will retain its status as one of the premier airports of the world, to the benefit of the future prosperity of the United Kingdom.
Full use should be made of Gatwick and Luton airports and the potential of short take-off aircraft should be exploited. The Government's financial strategy should include support for as much provision of air transport as possible from the northern regional airports for the convenience of people living there, the reduction of London's traffic congestion and the provision of employment opportunities where they are badly needed. It is generally accepted that Stansted, too, must take its share of expansion—up to about four million passengers a year—but not that it should become the third London airport, which I submit would be an expensive environmental disaster.
5.52 p.m.
Earl Amherst: My Lords, I, too, offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, on his maiden speech. I rise briefly to support entirely what was said so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. I wish to make special reference to what she said about the second runway at Gatwick. Gatwick has now developed into a fine and efficient airport. It has a remarkable rail connection with the centre of London. There is a non-stop train leaving Victoria four times an hour for Gatwick, and vice versa. This service caters for all traffic, including baggage. It is a good deal ahead of what is now offered through the extension of the Piccadilly tube line to Heathrow. That service has a good frequency and a journey time of about 45 minutes from Piccadilly Circus. However, it can cater only for those passengers with no, or very light, baggage.
It is unlikely, I believe, that British Rail will be able to establish anything comparable to connect Stansted with St. Pancras, Kings Cross or Liverpool Street. It is obvious that, without a second runway, Gatwick cannot achieve its full potential for handling air passengers, freight and mail. Working at full potential and with the provision of a fifth terminal at Heathrow,

53
we should go a long way to meet the problem of the expected traffic in the immediate future, even if not the whole way.
Your Lordships will recall that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, has repeatedly asked about the provision of a second runway at Gatwick. She has never received anything like a convincing reply. Usually, the reply is something to the effect that it does not really fit in with Government policy. Noble Lords may know that some years ago the British Airports Authority entered into a legal contract with the West Sussex County Council not to develop a second runway at Gatwick for the surprising period of 40 years. However, last year—I think it was on 23rd May—in reply to a question, the Government stated categorically that they were not bound by this undertaking. I presume that they are still not bound by it. One wonders, therefore, whether the undertaking is really the basis of the Government's refusal to consider a second runway at Gatwick. If not, we can perhaps now be told what is the real reason for the Government's refusal to consider it. I believe that the House is due for a fairly full answer.
5.55 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ardwick and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, are not in the Chamber. Those noble Lords and myself have perhaps used Stansted more often than most people, because it was the airport from which we travelled to the European Parliament in its plenary sessions. The greatest activity that we saw there during the four-and-a-half years that we used the airport was the sight of Idi Amin's aircraft being filled with the goodies that helped to support his regime. That seemed the busiest activity going on at the airport whenever we were there. No doubt matters have improved since direct elections. To us, it felt like a place in the wilderness. I had to travel from the Midlands. It was a hectic journey, taking, normally, between four-and-a-half and five hours. If people in the regions are expected to put up with that in the future, heaven help them!
I accept that airports in the South-East will continue to act as the major worldwide gateways for the United Kingdom. However, a substantial part of the growth in demand will obviously come from the regions. It must. If the proposal to develop Stansted to cater for 15 million passengers a year is accepted, there is a real danger, in my view, that increased demand from the regions will be met solely by increased capacity in the South-East. In other words, the travel operators will automatically move to Stansted as a subsidised airport. We in the regions consider that it is most wasteful even to be considering Stansted when the facilities already exist or can be easily made available in the regions to cope with any increased regional demand. Not only that: heavy investment in Stansted does not really make economic sense for the Government, especially when resources are needed for economic regeneration in the regions.
I wish to concentrate my remarks upon Birmingham International Airport, which I know quite well. The airport has been developed into a major category B regional airport at a cost of something like £62 million; and, of course, we were
54
honoured by Her Majesty the Queen opening the airport two years ago. It is a very fine airport. Its passenger throughput was 1.75 million in 1984; and because there has been built into its expansion the need to consider the future it will be no problem in the 1990s for that airport to handle three million passengers.
The catchment area of Birmingham International Airport covers not only the population of the West Midlands, which is over five million, but also a much wider field. It is easy, for instance, to travel from as far south as Milton Keynes to Birmingham by direct rail link. Not only that, but the Birmingham International Airport is situated virtually in the centre of England. It is surrounded by an excellent network of motorways from all directions—north, south, east and west—and obviously will be better served when the M.40 is built. That will allow London area traffic to reach this airport in about 1 hour and 40 minutes.
Immediately adjacent to the airport is the big new international railway station where there are trains leaving for London Euston every half-an-hour for practically the whole of the day except after 9 o'clock at night. This journey takes 1 hour and 15 minutes. There is no need for anybody travelling up by train from Euston to Birmingham International Airport to go out of the station and be in the cold, or anything like that. The Maglev—an electric magnet which needs nobody to operate it—operates from inside the station to inside the airport in 90 seconds. so there is no problem about carrying your bags from one side of the station to the other, or on to the Underground, or anything like that; you go directly from the railway station into the airport in 90 seconds.
Birmingham International Airport is of course a diversion airport, and with those good links because of the motorway system and the good links because of the train service one would have thought there could be more diversions to it. I have listened this afternoon to many noble Lords who have spoken about lobbying. I would say to them that the National Exhibition Centre which is adjacent to Birmingham Airport was another case of lobbying against the West Midlands. I was a member of the Birmingham local authority when the idea of the National Exhibition Centre was first put forward. I became a Member of Parliament while it was still being discussed. The lobbying which came from the South-East, and which had to be counteracted, was nobody's business. It was said that Birmingham would never be able to run an exhibition centre, that they did not know how to do these things. What have we got? In the National Exhibition Centre we have a conference centre, an exhibition centre, a trade centre and an entertainment facility which are now most certainly the best in Europe, far surpassing anything at Earl's Court or at Olympia, which were the protagonists of the South-East; so do not let us write off people in the regions.
People are travelling from all over the world to exhibit at the Birmingham National Exhibition Centre. Why should those people have to take off at certain airports and be diverted to the South-East? We say that with that facility there is a greater need to use Birmingham International Airport. There is a major and interesting development taking place now because of the Government's decision to designate

55
Birmingham International Airport as a freeport. That work has already started and the initial phase will be in operation by the end of this year.
I listened intently to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, when he spoke about pressure groups. I have had two communications from pressure groups. I think one was from Essex; but I do not know who sent the other one. One had a red square on one side—almost like asking if you had anything to declare—and green on the other. I do not know where it came from. The largest amount of pressure I have received during the last three weeks has been from the Civil Aviation Authority. Of course the Civil Aviation Authority is, as my noble friend Lord Underhill said, a commercial undertaking. The British Airports Authority is a commercial undertaking. I am glad that one person on the Front Bench is agreeing with me, even if the Minister is looking a bit sceptical about it.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will forgive me for interrupting her most interesting speech, I would point out that she was confusing for a moment the Civil Aviation Authority and the British Airports Authority. I think she is referring to the British Airports Authority, which is indeed run on commercial lines.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, that is what I said. I have it written down on my sheet of paper, so it must be what I said. I hope Hansard have it right, anyway. As my noble friend Lord Underhill said, the British Airports Authority is a commercial undertaking. While it pays lip service to the need to expand the operations of the regional airports, we know very well that that is only because of its being a commercial undertaking. Obviously it wants to make Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted the most profitable ones.
The other point that I want to raise has already been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, and my noble friend Lord Underhill; that is, the argument that if you live in the South-East you should not travel to a regional airport, but if you live in Birmingham, Nottingham, Leicester, Stoke or Wolverhampton you have to travel to Heathrow, Gatwick, or, in the future, Stansted. One wonders why this has to happen. The tour operators work in great collaboration with the authorities, and it means that tour operators will be encouraged to use Stansted if it is expanded. The tour operators quite obviously are those who are in the main running the charter aircraft which most people from the regions will want to use. If you are going to be compelled, because you live in the North, to travel to what is a regional airport at Stansted, why should it not work the other way round and why should not people travel up to Luton, Birmingham or Manchester? The West Midlands has a strong regional voice. Support for the expansion of the traffic through Birmingham International Airport has come from the local authorities in the West Midlands, the regional CBI, the regional Chamber of Commerce and the regional TUC, which act together as the West Midlands Regional Economic Consortium.
Long-term unemployment is a very serious problem in the West Midlands, where in October of last year
56
almost half the unemployed had been out of work for more than a year and some 28 per cent. of them for more than two years. These are the worst figures in the country, and the prospect of finding work is slim with an unemployment vacancy ratio of 28 to 1. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in his opening remarks, said, quite honestly, that there are opportunities for employment when you are considering the location of an airport. The situation means that if you live in the West Midlands and its chances of expansion are nil an unemployed person in the West Midlands has only half the chance of getting a new job as he would have if he lived in the South-East. The West Midlands has undergone massive changes in the past 10 years, with its industrial base being devastated in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The region has now been given assisted status, and for the first time has access to Government and EEC funds.
Birmingham Airport is located at the centre of England and it stands the West Midlands in good stead when attracting new investment. But it can only do that effectively if the drawing power of the South-East is not fuelled by giving it even greater influence and dominance. I have concentrated my remarks on Birmingham International Airport with which, as I have said, I am most familiar. However, I wish to emphasise that Birmingham is not seeking to become London's third airport. The case for Birmingham International Airport is part of the regional case. My concluding remarks are that the Government have to consider the economics; they have to consider the resources; and they have to consider the public expenditure which will be necessary if they go ahead with expanding Stansted. That will be a waste of money when the facilities are already available in the regions.
6.11 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsey and Abingdon: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for initiating this debate this afternoon, and I should also like to take the opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, on his maiden speech.
My interest in this debate is that the report of the Inspector—Mr. Graham Eyre, QC—is the third such report since I first came to your Lordships' House. The Stansted affair has always interested me because for 15 years up to 1979 I followed the proposed development on environmental and communication grounds. I followed it in that way because I used to live within 10 miles of the runway. I spoke in the debates on the two previous reports and I felt that I could not miss another opportunity to speak this afternoon. However, I trust that this will be my last contribution before Her Majesty's Government take their final decision on this very important national requirement because next time round it will be too late and London and the South-East will lose their position as the major crossroads of international air traffic this side of the Atlantic. We shall lose that position to our competitors on the continent, and air traffic will move away to Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris and the result will be the danger that London's airports will go the same way as its docks unless Her Majesty's Government make the right decision now.

57
I have never been a supporter of Stansted being developed as a major international airport. As I have already said, this has been mainly on environmental and communication grounds. In fact, I am going to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, right down her road; but I shall possibly be not quite so harsh about Stansted.
I have read the extracts from the Inspector's Report with great interest, and I agree with a great deal of what he has proposed. However, I beg to differ about the priorities. As I see it, airports should be located where major international airlines, especially our own, want them, and it should not be for those responsible for airports—such as the BAA—to tell the airlines where they should be located. It is therefore important to get the sequence right.
Top of my list comes Heathrow with its fifth air terminal and with the removal of the Perry Oaks sludge works and the making available of further land to the west as soon as possible. Also, there should be the abandonment of the limitations on air transport movements. Next, I would move to Gatwick for a renegotiation on the present limitation of one runway and put in motion the construction of runway No. 2 as soon as possible. Thirdly, but reluctantly, I would go to Stansted in order to cope with the projected increase in aircraft movements between now and the turn of the century. I go along with the Inspector in part when he suggests an increase in capacity up to 15 million passengers per annum and limiting development to the existing one runway. However, I should like to see the increase in passenger capacity carried out in steps of 5 million each five years up to the year 2000. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, I am suspicous of forecasts and would like to see any major development at Stansted geared to more accurate assessments.
In conclusion, I should not like to see established carriers fragmented and forced to go to Stansted from their established positions at Heathrow and Gatwick. Rather, I would welcome Stansted to be developed for local needs and for new and smaller airlines. Transit passengers on major scheduled airline flights are not going to take kindly to being "bussed" from one airport to another along a fog-bound M.25. On a final note, I believe that there is a case for still further development at some of our provincial airports, especially Manchester and Birmingham (as the previous speaker pointed out) catering for local needs, but not in the context of London as a major crossroads of international air traffic.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Plowden: My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, on his maiden speech. I was the chairman of the committee of which he was a member and about which he spoke, and I can assure your Lordships that he was both provocative and constructive and I am quite sure that when he speaks in your Lordships' House he will be both provocative and constructive. I hope that he will speak often.
I must begin by declaring an interest, because for part of the week I live within a few miles of Stansted, but, fortunately, for me I live in such a position that
58
any development at Stansted is unlikely to cause me much trouble. It is very difficult at this stage of the debate, and after two previous debates over the years, to say anything that has not already been said. We have been treated in the various reports, to a wealth of statistics showing that the growth of aircraft movements in the South-East will go on for ever and ever. I must share the doubts of some speakers about the validity of aeronautical forecasts. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, that extrapolation in anything, but particularly in aircraft movements, is extremely dangerous.
Nonetheless, the Inspector appeared to assume that demand should be met and that it could best be met by expansion at Heathrow, but that as the growth was so rapid it would have to be supplemented by expansion at Stansted. He went on to say that before any planning permission was given for Stansted, the Government should make an unequivocal declaration that there would be a second runway at Stansted. I do not need to remind your Lordships that no Government can bind their successors.
However, the basic assumption in all speeches this afternoon, except in that of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, has been that demand must be met. I question that assumption. The assumption is that if it is not met, the aircraft movements will depart to Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt, and that London will lose its position as a major international airport. Surely that cannot be true, because in view of its geographical position people will still want to use it.
No doubt the money can be found to develop Stansted. But there is another cost, and that is the social cost—the destruction of a rural area; and, in deference to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who brushed aside the idea that land in that area was of no consequence, I point out that it is, in fact, the highest yielding wheat land in the world, with the exception of a small quantity in New Zealand. The Inspector himself says:
"In the ordinary course of events loss of such land for the purposes of development would not be countenanced".
If development at Stansted goes ahead on the lines suggested, it would entail building hundreds of houses with their infrastructure of roads and for sewage, water and schools, because it is a rural area with very little unemployment. The numbers required would be very large, and various estimates have been given. However, one can only confine oneself to saying that numbers would be large.
For part of the week I live in Kensington, which has become an area of huge hotels. If you walk down Kensington High Street you probably hear as many people speaking foreign languages as you hear people speaking English. Do we really want to go on turning a large part of the centre of London into a tourist centre of the kind to be found in Florence and Venice at the height of the tourist season? After all, it is our city and we do live here.
But there is a much deeper aspect than that, and it is the question of the North-South division. The people of the North have pressed, quite understandably, for the development of the northern regional airports. The Inspector says that this will only marginally help the traffic problems of the South-East.

59
Others argue differently. But the country is already deeply divided between North and South. In the North, unemployment is much higher, more deep-seated, and of much longer duration. We are told that what is to be spent on developing airports in the South is not available to be spent on developing the infrastructure of the North. We are all familiar with the condition of the Manchester sewers, which nonetheless must be repaired at some time.
If there is to be any hope of further industrial development in the North and in the West Midlands, something must be done about the infrastructure. What will the unemployed man or woman in the North or in the West Midlands think when he or she sees hundreds of millions of pounds being spent in the prosperous South-East and when there is no money available for carrying out the necessities in his or her area? It will be no consolation to them to be told that this development will increase the employment of waiters in Soho, of baggage handlers at Heathrow and Stansted or even of a few pilots in the airlines. This is something that they will not forget, and those of us who read the reports of another place realise that there are people there who understand this problem.
We have been told, and I expect we shall be told again, that the market decides, that the market dictates that we should do this or that. As a businessman, I believe in the market and its discipline. But I also believe in its regulation. The market used to decide that women and children should work in coalmines, that men should work a 60-hour week, that factories should be built wherever people wanted to build them and should pour out smoke into the surrounding district, irrespective of regulation. We do not allow such things today.
There are some businesses for which the social cost is too high. I submit that the uncontrolled growth of air traffic in the South-East, together with the accompanying increase of tourist development in the South-East, is one of these. Its social cost is too high. However, by that I do not mean that nothing should be done about the growth of air traffic in the South-East. We should get away from the assumption that the demand must be met irrespective of other matters. If further development is possible at Heathrow—and the Inspector has suggested a fifth terminal—so be it. If something further can be done at Gatwick, so be it. More can be done at Luton. Something should be done at Stansted, but I believe that it should be strictly limited to something of the order of three or four million passengers. However, if as a result traffic moves to the Provinces, which would be a good thing, and if it moves to the continent, do we really mind?
6.27 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I listened with a great deal of appreciation to the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Plowden. I followed substantially everything he said and the thrust of his speech, which was that, even after 20 years, this approach of unseemly haste comes through time and time again—if we do not do it now, it might be too late; if we do not do it this way, there may be financial or commercial considerations. The noble Lord's speech
60
serves a very valuable purpose in outlining one of the dilemmas that face us—a dilemma which was so pertinently underlined by my noble friend Lord Underhill on the Labour Front Bench.
Time and time again in matters relating to airlines and airport policy we try to determine on a fragmented, ad hoc basis a little piece of a large jigsaw. We are attempting to solve the problem of the third London airport or the problem of undercapacity at Heathrow. Yet we know that if we look at these matters in a national context, as we should, we need to determine one aspect of national policy bearing in mind the consequences on another.
I do not have the experience and certainly I do not have the expertise in the airline or airport field which has been demonstrated by so many excellent speakers this afternoon. In looking through the literature that I have received on this matter, I see that reference is made to pressure groups. Pressure groups serve a most useful purpose. I accept without reservation their sincerity. They have a vested interest which may be commercial, professional, environmental or regional. I try to attach some importance to every representation that I receive.
I have received a representation from the BAA which includes some correspondence. Among that correspondence is a news release telling me that most of the residents around Stansted support the airport's expansion. The release listed the people who had helped to form that view. They came from Cambridgeshire, Suffolk, Essex, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and the London boroughs of Barking, Dagenham, Barnet, Enfield, where I live, Hackney, Haringey, Havering, Redbridge and Waltham Forest. Those were the people who had taken part in this survey. In the view of those who had conducted the survey, those who lived within 30 miles of Stansted had a right to be consulted, as they were consulted in the survey. I live in Enfield and apparently I am entitled to have a view because other Enfield residents have had their views sought and fed into this machinery.
As the Member for Stansted said in another place recently, the village of Stansted Mountfitchet has 6,000 to 7,000 inhabitants who live literally on top. I should have thought that their views should have more weight attached to them than those who live further afield. The flight path for Stansted will come over Enfield, and therefore I have an interest in that way.
I was interested in the documentation I received from BAA because it draws my attention to some parts of some recommendations—we are all selective when we want to make our case—but time and time again there is this attempt to convey urgency. The recommendations in respect of Stansted which have been drawn to my attention are:
"Only Stansted can provide additional capacity to meet demand in the early to mid-1990s,"
and that:
"Additional capacity at Heathrow cannot be available in time to meet demand in the early 1990s".
We are being invited, in so many of the submissions, to hurry before it is too late. A decision must be made in 1985 or 1986; otherwise, we shall miss the boat or the plane.

61
We know the history of forecasting capacities that we need to be considering. When the Roskill Commission was forecasting capacity it talked in terms of 84 million in 1985. Successively over the last 15 years that has been whittled down until we know the reality in 1985, which is 45 million. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, was wise in cautioning the use of extrapolation from statistics. We are not yet capable of being quite precise in that art. I accept completely that there is determination by the Government to get this matter right.
The Minister who is to answer the debate tonight has no easy task. He and his colleagues are advised on all sides by sincere people with good cases. At the end of the day the Minister will have to take note of what has been said.
We are reminded that in another place there is substantial opposition, as demonstrated by the margin (in the way in which procedure allowed it) saying to the Minister that this report, couched in these terms, is not acceptable to the House of Commons. The vote was not taken in precise terms, but the Minister and his colleagues can read as well as I can that anything remotely like recommendations in terms such as those put forward in the other place are not likely to make progress. It is rather sad that the Government have been found wanting by way of being less than open with Parliament in this matter. There is an air of an attempt to smuggle something through. As the Minister was taken to task in another place, that will not be very easy.
I am a native of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Naturally, I have read carefully the case that has been made by the North of England Regional Consortium. I am to be followed by my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick, who speaks from a wealth of experience, particularly of Manchester, where he has lived and where he has served the community so well for so many years. My honourable friend Alf Morris made an impressive if not a devasting case as to why one should pay more attention to the needs of the North.
The noble Lord, Lord Plowden, quite rightly used the argument that, whatever other case is made on what one might call airport and aviation policy, the Government ought to stop and think what a solution along those lines might do to the spirit and the morale of millions of people. We are talking of 12 or 13 million people who may be advantaged in this part of the world: we are talking in terms of 27 million around the northern airports that could be developed. In the northern region we can see an unemployment record of 17.8 per cent. That is twice the level of that in the South. We are talking in terms of 27 people out of work looking for each notified vacancy in the North as opposed to 12 in the South-East.
These are matters which ought to be taken fully into account. They can be justified if we are looking for a national policy.
To develop Stansted in the way recommended poses a real threat. The environmental case can be made. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, is in his place as usual nodding his head. He has far more experience of the area than I have. Besides looking at other factors we need to consider the damage that can be done nationally to the well-being of the North.
62
Reference was made by a number of noble Lords to damage. Over £1,000 million is likely to be spent on urbanisation, rail links and airport facilities. The argument is that if that kind of money is to be pumped in somewhere, why not into the North? I noted, understood and approved the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, when she said that there seems to be a feeling in the Stansted lobby that they are determined to bring this about no matter what is recommended or what is the raison d'être for the matter. There is a great deal in that.
I am conscious of the time and of others who wish to speak. I have listened carefully to the views of the Essex County Council. That county, together with Hertfordshire, produced the document referred to by my noble friend Lady Fisher. In one of the red squares that she referred to—not in Moscow, but a red square in Essex and Hertfordshire—there is summarised the cost of developing Stansted: new road and rail links, extensive urbanisation, loss of top quality agricultural land, noise intrusion in a rural area and massive public expenditure. I believe those factors are worth weighing.
I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, refer to the North West Essex and East Herts Preservation Association. I looked with pleasure at the association's notepaper and saw that the chairman is Mr. John Lukies, J.P., and that his daughter, Mrs. Jane Clarke, is also involved. They have been constant successful lobbyists on behalf of their area, raising a quarter of a million pounds. We know that there must have been real spirit and emotion in the campaign that they waged.
I believe that there are solutions for the real problems which the Government have to solve that would not involve this country in all the detriments that have been listed. I think that the solutions might go along the lines of a fifth terminal at Heathrow; a commitment to the regions to do some of the things I have pointed out; and a boost to Luton, which is a South-East airport and which could do a job. There is also a role for Stansted and a job to be done in ensuring the best use of the existing facilities at Heathrow. I believe that the Government would be well advised to recognise, without any feeling of defeat and without any feeling that they have been rebuffed, that, although there is a lot of value in the report, there are other ways of carrying out their remit on behalf of the nation.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I think that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is one that ought to be listened to and one that, I hope, will be taken into account. I think it was a pity that he spoiled it with just one sentence. Why did he talk about the Government trying to smuggle something through, as though somebody had made a wrong decision and was deliberately wanting to pursue it to the end because they had some special interest in doing so. I see no evidence of the Government wanting to smuggle anything through. However, I hope that they will take into account the excellent points that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and, indeed, by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, who comes from the same part of England as I do. The speeches are full of

63
good evidence that ought to be put in the balance. The fact that we have had a debate in the other place and the fact that we have got a debate here now is a very clear indication, I should have thought, that the Government are doing their duty. They have a report in front of them which is expert. It has all the evidence properly presented and reported upon; and they are now wanting to throw it open to see what Parliament has to say on it.
I was very interested when the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said that it goes back 40 years since first, as a Member of Parliament he had to pay attention to this sort of thing. I sat with him in another place for 25 years and we seemed to do nothing else but talk about reports having to do with extra airport facilities and all of that. The Eyre Report, which is now before us and is the basis of our present discussion, is the third one, and it is not all that different in terms of its expertise from the other two. But there have been quite a lot of contradictions in between. I was rather interested when one of the honourable and learned Members of another place was talking last week about the Eyre Report. He said that it was clever, it was polite, it was arrogant, it was logical and it was wrong.
My Lords, I think that one could have said that about pretty well all the reports in terms of making a case and putting forward things that, taken separately, would seem to be the right answer. If we had a virgin United Kingdom and were thinking of wanting to set up new airport facilities, this report, and two of the others, would have been all right. But we are not in that position. We are in the situation where, for good or ill, we have gone a certain way along the road. I was reminded of that old story about the chap in the motor car who stopped and asked a local how to get to somewhere. The local said: "I should go along and take the second turning to the left—no, no. If you go along and take the first to the right … Oh, well, as a matter of fact, I wouldn't start from here to get to that place." We are in that position. We are in a certain situation. We have got Heathrow, we have got Gatwick, we have got Stansted, we have got Birmingham, we have got Manchester, we have got Luton and we have got Newcastle.
Our duty, as I see it now, is to try to find the answer from the situation as we find it. So many of the reports—and I do not think the one which is the basis of this present debate is any different from the other two—do not seem to start from the situation which we are faced with now. When you get to a situation where the experts, with their expertise, cannot give an unarguable answer to a particular problem, then, I should have thought that it would not be a bad thing for normal, commonsense judgment to be taken into account when you come to the final decision.
And, my Lords, where better to try to find that sort of judgment—because this is no party matter, there are no party divisions, no ideologies which should divide us—than the two Houses of Parliament?
The reason I put my name on the list of speakers was not that I have anything new to say in terms of the actual detail of the argument. It was that I wanted to let my noble friend see the strength of feeling for wanting to make the fullest possible use of the regional
64
airports that are already in existence. Although I shall say nothing new—and there is no doubt about that on this occasion—the more my noble friend and his colleagues in Government know of the strength of feeling on this, the better. I certainly wanted to add my voice to let that strength of feeling be known.
What is the commonsense judgment that I am talking about, that should be brought into play? I should have thought it common sense to see that London and the area which would be covered by Stansted are already overcrowded with this sort of service. When you go to use Heathrow, it is now an endurance test to do so. I can say that to my cost. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, said that prior to 1979 she had been going to the European Parliament. For the last five years, I have been a Member of the European Parliament. I found—and I did not enjoy it very much—that I was spending 20 to 25 hours a week sitting in an aeroplane or sitting in an airport lounge, wasting time. It was an absolutely frustrating situation.
The crowded situation at Heathrow and the general position there ought to show that if we can spread the services and facilities out to other parts of the country, it seems to be common sense to do it. I should have much preferred to fly from Birmingham or from Manchester. I happen to live between the two. But the circumstances of the choice of flights were such that one virtually had to come to London. I should have thought, in anticipating the increased traffic of the future (and we have to accept the evidence on that) that the best way to deal with that would be to extend Heathrow within the limits of its present plan. I should have thought that it seems good sense to give extra thought to extending Stansted to some extent. I should have thought that to encourage Gatwick to do what they have in mind was sensible.
Then, I should have thought that it was absolutely self-evident, bearing in mind the amount of traffic, both freight and passenger, that comes from the North, that we ought to extend both Birmingham Airport and Manchester Airport. They are there on the spot. We now find that a large percentage of people who want to fly to various parts of the world come from the North—that is a general term, but it means that it is easier to get to Manchester or Birmingham than it is to London—and they represent a good half of the traffic, both freight and personnel, that has to be serviced. So, instead of opening up more traffic to where you are already overcrowded, it seems to me common sense to make full use of the facilities that are already in existence, and any guidance one can give as to extending the existing airports which are spread round the country is more likely to meet the needs of the country.
It is not only a matter of meeting the needs within the country. The last five or six days have shown that, however important we may think we are in Parliament, we have not much control over the weather. I found, particularly in the five years when I was having to fly around the world as a consequence of the work of the European Parliament, that the number of occasions when the hazards of fog and ice and general weather conditions meant that one had to be diverted to other airports, were too frequent to be ignored. When we get to a situation where you are wanting to pile all of your airport facilities in the one

65
area—which means that, if you have fog and weather problems there, you risk driving traffic out of the country in order to be able to get it down on the ground, and then having to travel back across the Channel in other ways—that is rather stupid. We ought to arrange matters so that the regional airports are integrated as part of a general airport facility, and in doing that we should be using what I should call sensible judgment on facing the needs of the future.
I do not really want to say any more than that. I just wanted to make an appeal to my noble friend to show how wrong the noble Lord, Lord Graham, was when he said that the Government wanted to smuggle it through. I hope that my noble friend, when he replies to this debate, will be able to say, with the full authority of his department behind him, that the Government have not committed themselves yet and that they will take properly into account the evidence of the report but that they do take into account in addition the commonsense judgments that will come from this debate and from the debate in another place. I should like him to say that that is going to be done.
As regards the siting of the new extension because of bringing employment and work to a part of the country which very badly needs it, I should like to say this. I do not think we ought to give our decision on the siting of this new airport extension, wherever it is, on the basis of its being an answer to another economic problem which has brought about unemployment. I do not think we ought to say that we shall do this just for the one reason that it will help our unemployment. But I do believe in the strong arguments based on sensible airport facilities, and, if the decision has been made on the basis of what is good from that point of view—a very important ingredient which could give the benefit of the doubt if the arguments for and against are evenly matched—then I would hope that the extra, compelling argument for taking this industry to a part of the country which really needs it would be fully and properly taken into account. But we should not foist upon the country an airport system which is not the best one in order to try to solve a completely separate problem which ought to be tackled in other ways.
Therefore my contribution is merely to add my voice to what I would call the regional lobby: not to be fascinated by the expertise set out in these reports—as I have said, arrogant, clever, attractive—but they can be wrong. I would rather see the commonsense judgment of people who have taken into account the expertise in the report but who can also apply their ordinary commonsense judgment. I hope that that will be taken into account. If that is done, I do believe that regional development will have a bigger shout than it could possibly have if the report is accepted in toto without any sort of amendment.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I, for one, among many others, am grateful to the Government for this debate taking place. I take part in the debate, as I think other noble Lords do, on the basis that the Government will take note of what is being said. Noble Lords and Members of another place (where this subject was debated extensively some weeks ago) may take the view that this debate is just about the alterna-
66
tive airport policy of the Government—Stansted, or a variety of Stansted, with a regional input to various schemes. I do not intend to go into those tonight because they have been very well ventilated in another place and here, and a mass of detail is available regarding the various schemes.
However, that is not how this debate will look in the North of England. They do not think it is a debate which is just concerned with whether there is a bigger airport at Stansted or whether you develop Manchester, Birmingham or other places. They look upon it as once again—and increasingly so, in view of some of the policies that have been enacted over the past few years—as North versus South. But I can say that if the option goes for the total option at Stansted, people in the North will quite rightly think that they have been written off, and their economic recovery has no starting point for taking off.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, has left his place, because I rather thought he shot my fox, and I think that he shot it a little better than I am going to do. He put the case quite succinctly. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, mentioned my associations with Manchester, and as a Member of another place I had 10 years' association with that other great northern city, Leeds, where I now live, and with the county of West Yorkshire. There is a unanimity of points of view of people from those areas. They are getting the idea that somebody has a map somewhere in the Government with a line drawn across it just below Birmingham and that nothing north of that counts: it has to be the south all the time.
My interest in this debate is because I was born and bred in Manchester and I speak for the North in general. Your Lordships will know that the Northern Consortium was created in 1981 to oppose the development of Stansted into London's third airport and the consortium promoted another alternative—commonly described as the regional solution. The consortium represents an unprecedented coming together of major local authorities throughout the North of England and it commands political support from all parties. The consortium is also supported by organisations in Scotland, Wales and the Midlands, and by chambers of commerce up and down the country.
The backcloth to the creation of the consortium is the economic and social division of our country; and I have already referred to that. It is an issue which has rightly generated much concern among many noble Lords in the past. Here I should like to give just a few statistics to illustrate some of the differences. Since 1979 the North of England, with 30 per cent. of English employment, has suffered 49 per cent. of national job losses. In the manufacturing sector, the scale of job decline has been just as severe. Since 1979 England has lost 1.3 million jobs and of this total the North of England has lost 560,000 manufacturing jobs—nearly half of those, and nearly a quarter of those which had existed in 1979. Long-term unemployment, another aspect of regional economic disparity, causes considerable concern there also. There are regions in the North with 44 per cent. of their unemployed who have continuously claimed benefit for more than one year. Of equal significance is the fact that an unemployed person in the North of

67
England has nearly two-and-a-half less chances of getting a job than an unemployed person in the South-East.
These scales of problems represent the major issue facing us as a nation at the present time. This, I must emphasise as a north countryman, is not a political point. The economic and social divisions of this country burn in the minds of people of all political parties, I believe; and the development of Stansted airport has rightly become a symbol of this division. People in the North find it repugnant that it is proposed, or could be proposed, that something like £1 billion of public resources should be channelled to the South-East again. There is also deep concern at the effect that a massively developed and subsidised Stansted airport will have on other regional airports.
Manchester Airport, for example, which is the airport I know most about, performs a vital role in the economic functioning of the North-West region. It employs over 5,500 people directly and a further 15,000 people owe their livelihoods to its existence. The future prospects of the region and the development of our industrial base increasingly depend on the continued growth of the airport; and that is as true for the airports in Leeds, Newcastle and Birmingham, as it is for Manchester.
There I have to take a different view from my noble friend and colleague Lord Beswick because I think he put the argument the wrong way round when he said that what the North wants is more industrial input from the Government, a pumping in of money, to create more industry and then the airport will follow. I do not think there is the slightest chance of an industrial resurgence in the North, unless the airport and the facilities are provided in advance. In an age when air transport is increasing progressively, not to have the airport to start with, or an increased capacity for the airport, would have a tremendously adverse effect on the possibilities of an industrial or commercial renaissance in the North.
The maximisation of the potential of the regional airports must represent the highest priority in any aviation policy. Unfortunately, this is a matter that was given scant attention in the report which we are discussing. The Inspector's "man of destiny" approach is more concerned with established guidelines than with establishing a new imaginative policy. If adopted, it would seriously distort the economic priorities of the nation: resources for new houses in Essex would obviously mean fewer resources for houses elsewhere. Other facilities could be put in the same category. It would also perpetuate the need for millions of regional travellers to be forced to use London for their air services. Noble Lords may ask themselves: for what purpose? The answer is provided by the Inspector himself. He says that between 1990 and 1995 a gap may emerge between demand and capacity in the London system; a gap which in his view must be filled by a massive and subsidised development at Stansted Airport.
This is simply not so. The regional airports are more than capable of meeting regionally generated demand to a far greater extent than they do today. This is not to say that the regional airports can solve the nation's
68
airport capacity problems for all time. But if their potential was better exploited, any need for a further expansion of the London airports system before the mid-1990s—the maximum period within which sensible and reasonable planning decisions can be taken—would be avoided.
A positive policy for regional airport development does not mean a distortion of market forces. Forces are being distorted now and will continue to be distorted if Stansted goes ahead. As the Inspector points out in paragraphs 7.9/7.12 of Chapter 53 of his report:
"Differential airport charges, the lower costs of carrying leisure traffic … the benefits of the early establishment of 'grandfather' rights … the renegotiation of bilateral agreements … the forced transfer of services operated by UK or foreign airlines from one airport to another … would be necessary … to ensure the success of Stansted".
If this is free market forces at work, I would not hesitate to guess what "intervention" means.
Also, a regional airport policy does not mean that traffic will be lost to the nation. The fact of the matter is that Schiphol and Frankfurt are profiting already from the over-centralised air transport system in this country. Why should they be allowed to profit even more? There would be no net loss to the nation if some of the millions of inward tourists—and 62 per cent. of all nights spent in the United Kingdom by overseas visitors are spent outside London—arrived in Scotland, Wales, Manchester or Birmingham, instead of the vast majority of them—97 per cent.—having to pass through London and further overload an already congested system.
What the regions of this country are asking for is a coherent national airports strategy: one that embraces the airlines, the airports and the consumer. Such a policy must promote the regional airports and not seek to constrain their development. The issues are, in my submission, clearly plain. A massive development of Stansted must be rejected. I can acknowledge a case for Stansted becoming a regional airport; but let market forces determine that role. Cross-subsidies should be eliminated so that the regional airports can compete on equal terms.
Foreign airlines should be positively encouraged to use regional airports like Manchester and Birmingham. It is a scandal that Manchester is not designated as an airport under the Bermuda 2 agreement. It is equally wrong that Singapore Airlines' application for a new service should have been refused. The nation's tourist policies must be reviewed so that they become an integral feature of the need to maximise the use of our regional airports and ensure that tourists can fly where they want to go.
These are the ingredients of the imaginative policy for which the other House called when they debated the Inspector's report on 30th January. We should look forward to such a strategy emerging when the Government produce the promised White Paper later this year, and in doing so give hope to the people of the North that their aspirations and needs are understood. It would be remiss of the Government not to take note of and not to be aware of the strength of feeling in the North of England on this issue.
7.6 p.m.
Lord O'Neill of the Maine: My Lords, as usual in a debate of this kind I find myself in complete, or very nearly complete, agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Burton. Nobody in your Lordships' House knows more about these matters than she does, and I am sure that the noble Lord the Minister will take note of what she said. To an ordinary person who is not an expert, it seems that the expansion of Heathrow and the second runway at Gatwick would be the main ways of dealing with the problems which lie ahead. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is not here, because I have frequently heard him in the past few years advocating a second runway at Gatwick.
I remember that on one occasion about 10 years ago when we were debating this matter, after I had come out in favour of the second runway, a noble Lord from the Sussex area—not, I assure your Lordships, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, but another noble Lord from the Sussex area—came up to me and said, "O'Neill, you may have been in danger when you were in Northern Ireland, but I want you to know that if you ever set foot in Sussex, we will know how to deal with you." I am afraid that that just shows what local feelings there are on this subject.
If Stansted is to become the next major airport, we will become a nation of one-runway airports, which seems to me quite crazy. May I here make an observation? Terminal 3 and its car park are not things to be proud of. A few weeks ago my wife came to meet me coming back from America. Luckily, I was able to get a trolley. Of course, in the old days one could not get a trolley, but owing to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, going on and on about it year after year it is now possible to get a trolley. I was pushing the trolley towards the multi-storey car park, where the first lift was out of order. The other one was up at the top and for some reason would not come down. Eventually, it did come down, and it was quite filthy. I asked myself: What on earth do tourists think when they see Terminal 3 and its associated car park?
Why can we not be in the forefront of innovation? Dulles Airport, outside Washington, has had mobile lounges for very nearly 20 years, and I was in one not long ago. Some of the airports in North America have automatic trains for people and luggage, but so far as I know, we do not yet have one of those. Also, of course, there are the individual air terminals at Kennedy—British Airways has one—where you can he processed without waiting in a vast queue, as when the jumbo jets all happen to land together at Heathrow. We have a lot to learn. That is perhaps an observation on the side, but I think it is pertinent.
Coming, as I do, from a region, I am of course in favour of the expansion of regional airports. Manchester International Airport—I have not been there often, but I have been there—could provide a wonderful service if money was spent on it. I am not saying that it does not provide a good service now, but it could provide a better service if money was spent on it. We must not forget the regions; we must not think the whole time of the South. In addition to the regions, one would naturally be in favour of a reasonable expansion at Stansted and Luton.
70
What about the future? If President Reagan continues with his present economic policies, it could be that in two or three years' time there will be a world slump, with all the consequences that that entails for air traffic. I hope that that has already been taken into consideration. Noble Lords have shown how wrong forecasts have been in the past. They might be equally wrong in the future—not, I hope, for the reason I have just mentioned; but they might be equally wrong in the future.
Finally, I found a very interesting statement with regard to Gatwick on page 110 of this very heavy tome through which all of us have been ploughing. It says:
"An emergency runway will be constructed with all expedition".
That is very interesting. It may of course be to deal with matters such as the hole about which the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, was telling us earlier, but if it is necessary to build an emergency runway at Gatwick, are we then going to say that we cannot have a second runway at Gatwick? It seems to me to be totally uneconomic; and we come back, my Lords. to the little story which I told you at the beginning, of the infuriated Sussex Peer who told me what would happen to me if I came to Sussex.
So with reason I believe that we can face the future; but like the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, I hope that the Government will not accept this report, however able it is, without taking into consideration the strong feelings that exist about it.
7.12 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I intend this evening to be even briefer than usual. I want to make what amounts to just one major point and give my views on a fifth terminal at Heathrow. We have been talking about a new airport, or at least increased capacity, for about 20 years. Always there has been fierce opposition to and lobbies against any possible solution. The opposition arises because there is no ideal solution, and anything that we might do hurts someone or does not meet someone's aspirations. In such circumstances a decision means weighting the pros and cons impartially. This, I believe, is to a great extent what this House can do. Judging from the speeches this evening, I am not sure that we have not had too many partisans. Personally, I believe that in his report the Inspector did weight these pros and cons impartially. Another place did not do so. It really is absurd that we should waste quite substantial funds and time on an inquiry and then seem to go back to the first square.
When I was in the Army we were taught that in many situations there might be, say, five possible alternatives; after investigation two or three could be eliminated as unsatisfactory; of the remainder the important thing was to decide on one of them. With hindsight the decision might well be proved not to be the best possible one, but nevertheless it should be pursued, unless some unforeseen and new factor arose.
We have got ourselves into an intolerable situation with inquiries which are wasting time and money and being manipulated by lobbies and sometimes just extremists. The inquiry procedure is justified on democratic principles, but democracy as we know it does not mean giving everyone—and "everyone" are

71
usually activists—a chance to delay or prevent decisions being made. If this Athenian viewpoint was adopted, the first and relatively minor step would of course be proportional representation. We really must do something about our inquiry procedure. It could just conceivably be that the Opposition will one day become the Government, or at least part of the Government. It follows that they ought to take a more long-term view and not just oppose everything for the sake of doing so. As the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said recently, we want a more united nation. I have not studied all the relevant papers in detail, but I wonder also how many other people have in fact done so.
I should like to make two further points. First, in my view a fifth terminal at Heathrow is not a logical option. It has the gravest objections. These are on environmental grounds, which include noise effect, road congestion and the difficulty of moving the sewage plant. But in my view the further stacking of aircraft over a wide area—Windsor is already suffering badly—and the further delays to aircraft when timetables do not go to plan is quite unacceptable.
Furthermore, let us remember that the Government, when approving the fourth terminal at Heathrow, gave a promise that the annual number of air transport movements would be limited to 275,000, and in December 1984 Mr. Nicholas Ridley, the Secretary of State for Transport, gave a promise that an increase in this limit would not be agreed. Without such an increase a fifth terminal is not viable. What has changed since then? What about further delays on yet another inquiry if a fifth terminal at Heathrow is proposed as a solution?
I consider that in any decision Stansted must play its part. Whether or not some further development in the North is reasonable is another question. I incline to think that the answer in our national interest, and of course the North shares in it, is that northern development must be only on a limited scale. For goodness sake, let us respect the findings of an impartial investigation in a report which is clearly unbiased by political or other considerations, The Inspector has heard all the evidence and is surely impartial. This is more than can be said for most people who put forward their views.
7.19 p.m.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, in this debate we are faced with the difficult task of making short speeches on what is a very long report. I must say that I am somewhat daunted, not to say surprised, by the length and weight of the report. After all, if the Commandments could be reduced to 10 verses in the twentieth chapter of Exodus and St. Matthew could record the Sermon on the Mount in 10 verses in the fifth chapter of his Gospel, I would be tempted to hope that my greatly respected friend and erstwhile formidable forensic opponent, Graham Eyre, could perhaps have managed to compress his report into something less than 62 chapters with a great array of supporting appendices, figures and diagrams. Nevertheless, I pay tribute to his monumental work. I congratulate him on the clarity, cogency and comprehensiveness of his report, and I salute the diligence, devotion and dedication which has gone
72
into its compilation. That does not mean that I agree with it, but it does mean that I respect it.
Mr. Eyre states in his report that he is conscious of the opprobrium that his judgment will attract. It will certainly attract no opprobrium from me: only that my admiration for his work stops short of acceptance of his conclusions. I am particularly diffident in venturing to differ from my eminent and learned friend because I am conscious that he is much more objective in this matter than I can claim to be. I do not claim to be objective. Although the site of the airport is not actually in my former constituency, many of the adjacent towns and villages are. I represented them in another place, over the years. I have known them long and loved them well. I know the feelings and apprehensions of those who live there, and I have had many reminders in the past few weeks from individuals and from organisations representative of them, like the Hertfordshire County Council and the Hertfordshire Society. To many of these people and those they represent, an expansion of Stansted on the scale proposed would involve a capital sentence on their way of life. I therefore declare this interest; I no longer speak for them as constituents, but I hope that my arguments will not be the less acceptable because I no longer depend upon them for their votes.
I do not say that this matter can be dealt with solely by reference to environmental injury or local sentiment. If there were to be established an overwhelming case in the national interest for the scale of expansion proposed at Stansted, then, regretfully, that injury would have to be accepted in the national interest: but it does mean that there is a heavy onus on those who assert the necessity of expansion at Stansted on the scale proposed. And what a scale it is: from two million passengers per annum to 15 million—an increase, if my arithmetic is, unusually, correct, of 750 per cent.! Therefore, I submit that despite the vast volume of paper this heavy onus is not discharged.
There are three separate but related issues here. First, does the expectation of increased traffic require with reasonable certainty the scale of expansion suggested? Secondly, if so, should it be accommodated in the South-East or in the regions? Thirdly, if in the South-East, should it be accommodated by major expansion at Stansted or by a fifth terminal at Heathrow?
On the first of these issues, Mr. Eyre's estimate for the London area airports is 61 million passengers per annum by 1990, growing to 89 million by the year 2000. As my former constituency neighbour, Alan Haselhurst, pointed out in an admirable speech in the House of Commons, the past efforts at forecasting should make us extermely wary of such figures. He quoted official and quasi-official forecasts for the London area airports for the year 1985 varying from 55 million passengers per annum to no fewer than 84 million. We have now reached 1985 and there are only 47 million passengers per annum. It is a clear case (is it not?) of: why peer into the crystal when you can read the book?
Two of the forecasts derived from the Gatwick and Roskill inquiries, in both of which I was professionally concerned. Therefore, I know the difficulties of forecasting in these matters: the calculations and

73
corrections, the assessments and challenges, the elements of assumption and hypothesis. Surely it is right to say that we must treat such forecasts with reserve. They form but a slender foundation on which to build an argument for so massive an expansion with such catastrophic environmental consequences as would be entailed.
Therefore, I come to the second question, which, of course, arises only if the answer to the first question, contrary to my submission, is in the affirmative. Should the expansion then be in the South-East or in the regions? It is a commonplace of planning inquiries—as none will know better than my noble and learned friend Lord Bridge, who made such an admirable speech albeit with the wrong conclusion—that people stress the desirability of siting public developments anywhere other than near their own homes; but it is not always the case. It is not the case here. Here we have the paradox of an airport being thrust on those who do not want it and denied to those who do. I suggest that that is a sad irony.
Members of the other place for constituencies in and around Manchester have made clear their views. They have expressed an emphatic desire for an expanded airport. According to the Member for Wythenshawe, a highly respected Member in another place, the Stansted project excites not only total opposition but downright anger among his constituents. One can understand why, with 17 per cent. unemployed in the North-West contrasted with the need to import labour for the construction of an expanded Stansted Airport and the consequence of large and unwanted urbanisation. Therefore, on that aspect I submit that if, doubtfully, the forecast is sufficiently reliable to require this scale of expansion at all, better to site it in the North-West than at Stansted.
Again, the third question arises only if the answers to the first two are in the affirmative. If it does arise it is a hard choice. A fifth terminal at Heathrow would be objectionable to adjoining residents, whose views are entitled to receive respect. The injury to amentities, agriculture and the environment in general would be less—as confirmed, for example, by the Countryside Commission, recorded in Chapter 51 of the Eyre Report. There is also the consideration, not conclusive but surely material, that a major airport already exists at Heathrow and it is, therefore, a natural site for expansion. If, therefore, expansion on the scale suggested is thought to be required in the South-East at all, then it should be at Heathrow, and the opportunity should be seized, in Mr. Eyre's words,
"to cure important ills, shortcomings and defects at Heathrow".
I make it clear that I do not suggest that there should be no expansion at all at Stansted, only no major expansion. An expansion of 4 million to 5 million passengers per annum would be a useful and feasible contribution to meeting the needs of the South-East, and would, I believe, be acceptable to local opinion.
Finally, I say a brief word on the proposed condition and safeguard in Mr. Eyre's report. His report states that his recommendation of the grant of outline planning permission for the expansion of Stansted is,
"wholly contingent upon Government making an unequivocal declaration that a second main runway will not be constructed at Stansted airport in the future".
74
This condition necessarily relegates the Stansted project to the Greek Kalends. Such a declaration, if given, and albeit given in good faith, would have no efficacy and would be unenforceable. As every schoolboy is supposed to know, and as your Lordships certainly know, Parliament cannot bind its successors; still less can a Government. To seek to do so would be to fly in the face of our basic constitutional principle—the sovereignty of Parliament—to which there are at any rate at present no exceptions or limitations, except of course those that we find in the Treaty of Rome.
We have no entrenched provisions in our constitution, and therefore there is no possibility of effective safeguards on the lines suggested. Therefore, we must conclude that the basic condition precedent which the report stipulates to major expansion at Stansted is not satisfied and cannot be satisfied, and so the case founders in limine. Even on the basis of the report it would not be possible to meet that condition, and it would therefore not be possible to embark on this expansion at Stansted—a result to be welcomed because of the weight and balance of the material considerations which point away from Stansted and negative that choice. I certainly welcome this; and though to some extent, as I indicated at the beginning, my approach is conditioned by my heart, I believe that here the dictates of reason support and reinforce the promptings of the heart.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in welcoming this opportunity to debate the Eyre Report and its recommendations that work should quickly commence on the expansion of Stansted and, in the medium term, on the development of Terminal 5 at Heathrow. We are asked to discuss these recommendations against the background of a quite outstandingly wide-ranging and lucid report and also of the Government's policy, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, reminded us in his opening remarks, of meeting demand as and when it arises. In the context of his opening remarks, we should not overlook the encouragement which the present Government have already given to the provincial airports.
We should also consider the strength which the British aviation industry presently enjoys. It is highly profitable and a substantial creator of jobs. It makes a major direct contribution to our export earnings, as well as enabling our visible and invisible export earners to make their own contribution to our national profit and loss account. I doubt whether our insurance or banking industries could be as successful as they are were it not for London's pre-eminence as an international aviation centre. Banking and financial services—the industries of the future, rather than perhaps the industries of our industrial past—earn us over £3 billion per annum, while foreign tourists arriving at the British Airports Authority's three South-Eastern airports alone are estimated to contribute a similar sum to our economy.
I urge the Government to encourage this national earnings potential by taking steps to develop South-Eastern airport capacity, not by adding to the over-provision of that capacity in the provinces. Heathrow

75
with Terminal 4, I believe, will reach saturation in 1990 and Gatwick in 1995. We should therefore take steps, and take them quickly, to anticipate the demand that is foreseen even on the basis of conservative estimates.
In opting for an expanded Stansted and for Terminal 5, I am aware of the arguments advanced by the provincial airports in general and by the North of England consortium in particular. But I am not convinced by these arguments. The provincial airports have the capacity, but they lack the international scheduled services. There are licences for these services—perhaps 100, if one accepts a low estimate, and up to 1,500, if one takes another and very much higher estimate. If the truth lies somewhere in between, and there are perhaps 400 licences, of which only 100 are actively being flown, I must conclude that either the airlines cannot be persuaded that the demand exists for the services governed by the licences, or, more probably, that they realise that they cannot fly the routes concerned at fares which the customer will be prepared to pay.
Scheduled services from provincial airports will develop, as charter services already are. But in the meantime I stick to the economic fare argument and its implication that short-term traffic growth from the provincial airports will be by means of interlining over London and not by direct service.
It is alleged that yet further increase in regional capacity creates jobs. That argument, too, I find unconvincing. In some respects I find that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, pre-empted it in his opening remarks. If I understood him correctly, some £200 million of expenditure has already been authorised on provincial airports, including among others, Manchester, Birmingham, Teesside, Liverpool and Newcastle, and some of that money was authorised some time ago; yet where are the jobs that we are promised? I can conclude only that they are on the airports themselves.
No, my Lords, the Inspector's report makes the case for developments which will meet the capacity problems that we shall face 10 years hence. It also summarises the problems which South-Eastern expansion brings in its train, and in particular the problem of access to the South-Eastern airports. Those of your Lordships who take an interest in railway topics when they are discussed in your Lordships' House will wonder how British Rail will finance the railway extensions which are an essential corollary of expanding Stansted and, indeed, Heathrow. I should like to ask the noble Lord the Minister whether there is any possibility of EC funding either for these rail developments or for the airport expansions themselves, if such expansion were proceeded with.
There have been many references to the noise factor and some to the size of aircraft. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he sees changing patterns of aircraft size as having any bearing on the equations which we are discussing this evening. May I also ask him not to comment on the eventual decision which Her Majesty's Government will have to take, but to tell us what the Government's timetable for taking these decisions will be?
76
Lastly, I would suggest that to follow the regional option is like trying to tell a customer ordering steak that instead you will give him the best possible salmon. We must prepare for the meat eaters, and we must quickly decide what and where we are going to offer them. I favour the meat of the Inspector's report before us tonight. I urge the Government to decide quickly on its merits, in fact in its favour. Neither the airlines nor we, their customers, can tolerate another period of indecision. Nor can we as taxpayers afford the financial cost of a further delay in meeting this country's future airport requirements.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, the reports which are before us today do not stand by themselves. They are linked in a chain. That is a chain of White Papers, committee reports, and parliamentary debates. They were all outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in his opening speech earlier on today. Perhaps these reports represent the closing links of this chain which will lead to a decision. It is a decision which I hope the Government will take very soon.
I was surprised when my noble friend Lord Graham spoke of unseemly haste. Surely, in the chain of the debate, with the committee, and consideration of the report—and this goes back at least to 1978; and that is leaving out the earlier adventures—progress has been stately rather than unseemlily hasty. The time has come for a decision. There is no sense in putting it off any longer. I think that the decision should be to accept much of the report but not quite all of it.
At this point I want to say just a little about what my various noble friends from the regions have been saying. I think that they have the stick very, very firmly grasped by the wrong end. What they have overlooked is this. The decision is not really about regional policy—although I daresay that touches it—the decision is really about how the British Airports Authority is to spend its money on a project which it wants to put forward to meet a certain demand which it sees from passengers and from the airlines which provide them.
With the best will in the world, the British Airports Authority cannot spend its money at Manchester Airport, the West Midlands, Newcastle or anywhere else. It can spend its money at the three airports in London which it runs or at the four in Scotland which it runs (which are entirely outside this debate). If people in Manchester believe that development of their airport will help their authority, there is nothing to prevent them spending their money on the airport. The British Airports Authority cannot help them at all.
I think that the previous speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, grasped hold of the real dilemma which faces my friends and my noble friends in the regions. This is that although there is capacity there and although there are routes already licensed, these routes are not being used. That means in effect that the demand about which my noble friends talk does not exist. When my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick talks about building the airport first in order to create the demand, I must point out that Manchester Airport is already there.

77
Let me remind your Lordships of what the report says. It says that experience has demonstrated that massive investment in regional airports does not in itself generate traffic for which there is otherwise insufficient demand. If anyone doubts that truism (as it is) let them look at Prestwick. Prestwick must be one of the best airports in Europe. It has every facility that an international airport needs. It is fog-free. It was for a while an international gateway. That was in the days of the propeller-driven aircraft. It is no longer a gateway; it is bypassed now. It was a great international airport. What it lacks is passengers. The lesson of Prestwick is clear. It underlines the remark of the Inspector that massive investment does not produce the traffic: the traffic is created by the demand. If the demand is in Manchester, Birmingham and elsewhere, it is up to the authorities there to provide the capacity to deal with it.
In making these remarks I do not wish to deny the economic problems of the regions. I am perfectly sure that my noble friends would not expect me to do that. Much of what they said in their speeches was correct. In general economic terms I should support them entirely but much of what they said was irrelevant to this particular debate and to this specific question. Therefore up to a point I agree with the report that the regional argument has been shredded beyond repair by Chapter 10 and it should not be raised again.
However, I must dissent from the proposal that Terminal 5 should be developed at Heathrow instead of there being a full expansion at Stansted. First of all, the Government are pledged against the building of a fifth terminal at Heathrow. They are pledged not once but many, many times. We know that governments are sometimes obliged to change their tune and to go back on pledges which they have already made. They must not always be blamed for that. However, the Government must remember that they are pledged in this case. What is more, it was because of the pledge not to go ahead with Terminal 5 that Terminal 4 went ahead.
Secondly, I think more important than the pledge is this point. A new terminal at Heathrow is rather more than a big, elaborate shed, such as Terminal 4 appears to be. A new terminal is a small, new town with a population of its own: a population of employees and a transient population of passengers. As such, it generates its own traffic to deal with the transport of the employees and of the passengers to and from central London or wherever they happen to want to go. It generates its own traffic to bring materials into the shops, for catering, for essential supplies, and so on. It is a small town, and another small town is the last thing which West London needs. Virtually all the witnesses agreed that the general road system around West London in the vicinity of Heathrow is not good enough to cope with Terminal 4, let alone with Terminal 5.
At that point, the Inspector, for all his undoubted cleverness, seemed to me to do something very curious. He said that he proposed Terminal 5—I am not quoting him here—because it made the intolerable situation which Terminal 4 will create only marginally worse. He based that on some figures which were before him. I find this a totally amazing argument. It
78
is as though, when St. Sebastian was standing with 10 or 11 arrows in him, they just fired in another two for luck. The margin about which we are talking here was estimated by British Airways to be something like 18 per cent. The figures are contested in various parts of the report; but the margin is not an insignificant one. The fact that everyone agrees about, that the situation in the road system around Heathrow is already intolerable, will be made worse by Terminal 4 and it should not therefore be made even worse by Terminal 5.
I think that the Inspector was probably misled by the availability of the Perry Oaks site, which is an attractive site on which to build and expand. The truth of the matter is that Terminal 4 should have been built there instead of in its present remote and inaccessible position; but of course that cannot be done. If the Perry Oaks site is to be used for building on at Heathrow, it should be used either to re-site one of the three terminals on the already heavily overcrowded central island or alternatively to remove some of the office or car park accommodation from the central island in order to relieve some of the congestion there; that is if the Perry Oaks site is ever to be used at all.
Let me sound one further note of dissent from the report. It was mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, when he referred to the report's stating that, in relation to Stansted, the Government should make an unequivocal declaration of intention that a second runway will not be built and that no planning permission should be granted in the absence of, or prior to, the making of such a declaration. I believe that the Government should ignore that proposition totally, not for the constitutional reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, put forward, although these are strong, but because I believe that enough damage has been done already by BAA's undertaking not to proceed with a second runway at Gatwick. The Government, who I believe are not committed to that proposal, should look at it again.
The only effect of the declaration not to have a second runway at Stansted would be to make Terminal 5 inevitable. That should be avoided, not quite at all costs but if at all possible. As the Inspector says:
"Heathrow is a second-rate airport in a number of important respects and, in consequence, is an unworthy gateway for the millions of visitors to London and the United Kingdom and an inadequate facility for the seasoned air traveller".
There is no need to make it worse. The Government should go ahead with the expansion of Stansted, certainly to 15 million. They should not be afraid to sanction an expansion to 25 million. I would remind my noble friend Lord Underhill and the Front Bench that there is a great deal of strong and firmly expressed trade union support in the South of England for that very proposal.
Secondly, the Government should keep open their options on any expansion beyond that. They should forget about Terminal 5. They should think hard about the second runway at Gatwick regardless of the BAA undertaking. Lastly, they should continue to encourage expansion in the regions, They should join me in reminding noble friends on this side of the House or, as the case may be, noble Lords opposite that no one at all in any part of the House objects to expansion

79
in the regions. But let them expand with their own money and not imagine that they can possibly do it with the British Airports Authority's money.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have been presented with an admirable collection of confectionery, some items of which taste more palatable than others. Without being cynical, it seems to a layman like myself, who occasionally uses one airport or the other, that they are in a no-win situation. The other place debated this matter fully, and we have had a very full debate today. There does not remain very much to be said. There are, of course, debits and credits in respect of all the locations for the third London airport which have been mentioned. The Government have the unenviable task of trying to unravel a very awkward ball of wool and selecting one solution that is in all respects the most suitable. We are faced with a process of elimination.
The first elimination that I would make is Heathrow. Of course, Heathrow is the major airport of the world; there is no doubt about that. However, when we talk about the fifth terminal at Heathrow it has to be remembered that the fourth terminal has not yet been completed. I recall, a year or so ago, visiting the fourth terminal. I pay a warm tribute to those constructing what is a major terminal. I have done so in a previous debate. It seems that a fifth terminal, whatever merits it may possess, is, at the moment, very premature. There are already heinous traffic problems in getting to and from Heathrow, particularly in bad weather.
There are some distinct advantages about Stansted. It has an existing runway. Despite the fact that construction of a rail link and a road link on the M.11 would be extremely expensive, there is the important point that once the rail link is completed into Liverpool Street it will provide ready access to the City of London, the hub of commerce. In the expectation that business people will be using Stansted, if it is the airport that is chosen, this seems a major point in its favour.
On the other hand, this Government, or any Government, have one major difficulty to face: the report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, in the 1960s, which went carefully into Stansted and decided against. So any Government adopting Stansted could be placed in the difficult situation of going back on a recommendation that has already been turned down. The other problem about Stansted, located on flat land in Essex, is the weather. Although there is now much improved technology, fog and frost in that area could present a major problem.
I live not far from Gatwick Airport. Of course, Gatwick has one very major advantage—its excellent non-stop rail service into Victoria—whereas the Piccadilly line serving Heathrow, although a great improvement, can present problems for those with heavy luggage or, in fact, with any luggage, especially old people and disabled people. There is also the interminable walking that is involved. Really and truly, it must be faced that those travelling to Scotland would do it very much more quickly and more comfortably by rail. It is difficult to see what improvements can be made.
80
We come back to the original question. I pay a very real tribute to Mr. Graham Eyre, QC, for his admirable report. He has obviously gone into the matter very carefully. I believe that the decision, in the long run, is between Gatwick and Stansted. There are obviously serious environmental problems at Gatwick, particularly as it is located near the newly-built and thriving new town of Crawley. The Government are in a very difficult and unenviable situation. But they cannot delay a decision much longer. We have had inquiries in your Lordships' House, to my knowledge, for 20 years. We cannot have the same inquiries over the next 20 years. With a gun in my back and told to make a decision now, I think, with all its reservations, I would plump for Stansted.
8 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I am concerned about reaction so far. Had I not been, I might very well have "scratched"; however, I am concerned, so I I am speaking. I am concerned that another expert has so rapidly come in for a great deal of criticism. It seems that indeed we are faced with a hard and difficult issue.
I should like to start with one smaller matter which I think might reduce resistance by the public and might do something towards defusing the situation. I should like to commend to my noble friend the Minister three points on pages 169 and 170 of the Extracts from the Report. I shall quote the first one; it is in paragraph 2.11, which says:
"As a matter of great urgency, Government should make legislative provision for the introduction of purchase notice machinery for the benefit of those few cases in which wholly intolerable and unjustifiable air noise is imposed on residents who had no reason to suppose that such conditions would be inflicted upon them when they first occupied a property".
I am aware that at Gatwick there are still some hard cases of that kind, and there may well be some elsewhere. Paragraph 2.12 mentions extension of vortex damage insurance schemes, and paragraph 2.16, on page 170, mentions noise insulation grants and says that we should do more about that matter. I believe that we have really been extremely mean about it. I could say a lot also about compensation and all those things which I think make the passions even worse. I am not sure that the British sense of justice and fair play over these matters has been too evident.
Unless the passenger traffic growth figures are wrong, I think that the report deserves more respect than it seems to be getting. I tend to support it. I think I must, because the report might be right. Our economic climate, if I may touch on it for a moment, is very definitely post-Maplin as regards both time and money, and I think that this country must retain the air traffic business that it has and try to attract more. I am quite sure that is vital, in view of our economic problems, with exports still disappointing, despite a lower pound, with unemployment, and with difficulties over creating new business. It is not the climate in which we should miss out on a thing such as this. If we do nothing about it, we are going to lose this traffic, probably to the Continent. As has been mentioned, there is a very big risk indeed, though I should hasten to say that every plane-load that can be persuaded commercially to go to the North will be given a universal welcome by the South-East.

81
Hertfordshire and Essex have just lately fought their corner very well. I am a little anxious about fighting corners, because if the report is right and one fights against the report, one could well be fighting against the nation; and it is important not to do that. But if we accept that there is to be no Stansted and the report is right about the traffic, what happens next? Expert advice remains that, apart from opposition which might delay matters still futher, Heathrow expansion cannot but come too late. From what the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, among others, said, pressure will again grow inevitably upon Gatwick. I do not, as a Sussex resident, want to fight my corner against the nation unduly, but I feel that nationally we are entitled to mitigate environmental cost and to try to do the least overall environmental damage.
There are certain very big differences between a two-runway Gatwick and expanding Stansted with one, as proposed. You would be committing Gatwick to becoming virtually as big as Heathrow; in other words, that would be twice what would happen at Stansted, and possibly three times. Is Gatwick really in the right place, down there to the south of London? My recollection is that after the war—around 1946—it was decided, after Croydon, not to go down to Gatwick, but to go to Heathrow as being more suitable. Gatwick is on the London Brighton corridor, where there is what I think is about the lowest level of unemployment in the South-East. It is an area which, as things improve—or even if things do not improve—could easily become overheated. If that happened, other important industries which have been established there would suffer very considerably.
Conservation-wise, I think that there is a very considerable amount to watch out for in the Gatwick area, as doubtless there is at Stansted. I should not like to belittle another area, but I think that conservation-wise there is much similarity. One has to remember that a two-runway Gatwick might cause three times the amount of damage that would be the case in the Stansted area. The Gatwick area is also more closely populated.
For these well-established reasons the British Airports Authority undertook in 1980 not to build a second runway for 40 years, as the House knows. I am quite sure that there is no way the Government can dodge a firm decision about Stansted without abrogating the Gatwick agreement if the United Kingdom is to retain this air traffic. It would inevitably involve further public inquiry to abrogate that agreement. It would inevitably involve resistance and would not alter the overwhelming facts which have already been established; so I find it difficult to conclude other than that the Government should take a firm line over Stansted. I feel that Sussex and Surrey have accepted their share of the burden, and it should be recognised that they have behaved most reasonably. It would be wrong to trespass further, both from a national point of view and in fairness to the area.
It has been said that one-runway airports are no good. The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, mentioned a pothole. As far as I know, there is as yet no emergency runway; it is being built. I trust the House will understand the concept of this emergency runway. It is similar to an additional width of concrete. There is an alternative area of concrete upon which planes can
82
land, but it is not an area that can be used at the same time as the existing runway. I notice that the report was not critical of the possibility of working single runway airports and I trust, therefore, that the idea that they must be abandoned will not grow.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I do not think that there is any argument about the enormous value to our currency of our airport system. Therefore, it is of vital importance to maintain the commercial advantage which we possess, and that advantage could be lost if the airports become unable to cope with the traffic increase. There are foreign airports—for example, Schiphol—which are only too willing and anxious to take over our traffic. It is prophesied that our traffic will double by the year 2,000, and some estimates show that it will treble. There is already overcrowding at some of our terminals, and the airports should long ago have expanded along the lines of the plans that we are looking at now. However, we look back on wrangling since 1953, since when it has always been difficult to decide which airport should be developed next. Now there is an urgent demand for expansion within five years and it has been shown by the Inspector that that demand can be met in that timescale only by developing Stansted.
We all know that whenever anything is proposed—whether it be a motorway or, if we are talking about Scotland, a ski lift—there are always objections. Every proposal would be subject to a public inquiry if the public could have one. Whether the proposal now is for development at Gatwick, Heathrow, Maplin, Stansted or whatever, or for a fifth terminal at Heathrow, those who wish to oppose it will do so with equal vehemence, If it is to be Heathrow, then wherever the sewerage farm is to go will be equally opposed. So there will never be any form of agreement. We have seen how Members in another place have spoken up loudly for the minorities that they represent near Stansted. Yet there has been a poll by MORI which has shown that in and around the Hertfordshire area people are no less than three to one in favour of development at Stansted. Of those living near the airport, no fewer than a third would like to see a second runway at Stansted.
The Inspector said that the growth of passenger demand will continue into the foreseeable future. So even if Stansted were to be increased with new terminals, there would still be a shortfall within 20 or 30 years. Indeed, if the fifth terminal at Heathrow were to be built, there would be a shortfall before it was even finished. By the middle of next century I can see that there will be full need for the second runway at Gatwick; a fifth terminal at Heathrow; the various terminals and another runway at Stansted; and probably other needs as well. Therefore, not only should Stansted be chosen, but there should be no obstacle put in the way of it eventually being able to deal with up to 25 million people per annum—certainly up to 15 million. A second runway will be needed later, if not sooner. It would be very silly now for the Government to develop Stansted and not reserve a site for the second runway. It would be very silly to make a promise and to make themselves

83
hostage to fortune, as they have been with the Gatwick guarantee of one runway only.
As regards infrastructure, Stansted already has its own road—the A.11—which is under-used, whereas Heathrow already has the M.4, which is swamped. The tube is already over-full. In my view Heathrow will have difficulty servicing the fourth terminal, without even talking about the fifth. However, Stansted will need a new railway. I ask my noble friend to inquire whether it would be possible for this to be a mono-rail, so that new technology can be developed and perhaps exported. Such a system would be very much quicker and could be of more long-term benefit.
Those who live in the North and who come to airfields in the South inevitably have to go through London. When the railway is being built from Stansted to London I ask that the service should continue perhaps up to Peterborough, so that those coming from the North could go there direct. Another small point is that perhaps the baggage access could be better than the awful procedure at Gatwick and Heathrow, where one has to struggle up from the platform to the next level in order to get a trolley.
As regards the fifth terminal, it has been made clear by the Inspector that if it were to be built, it would be too late. It would take 12 years to re-locate the Perry Oaks sewerage works, apart from the time taken by the pubic inquiries. Anyhow, it would not be viable if the limit of 275,000 movements per annum were to be adhered to.
As regards noise, we shall have quieter planes, but I point out that there are living around Heathrow 80,000 people who will be affected and who are already over-stressed by noise, whereas the number of people at Stansted will be only some 11,000. Almost everybody shares the inconvenience of noise, whether they live near an ordinary airport, a military airport, or a civilian airport and, of course, it is bad luck. But we must remember that those who live near Stansted and who do not wish to be subject to extra noise will quite happily go down to Heathrow and fly from there, quite oblivious of the noise that their flight causes to the people living in that area. Regrettably, we live in a modern world and we all have to take our share of noise. We cannot opt out of a little bit of noise of inconvenience.
A great deal is said about regional airports. I live near such an airport and I use it a great deal. Indeed, I wish that it could be an international airport. But we cannot make airlines fly there and we cannot make passengers travel from regional airports. It is a fact of life that 80 per cent. of the people who arrive at the South-Eastern airports have destinations either interlining onwards or in the South-East. Furthermore, regional airports actually depend on the airports in the South-East for their viability and for interlining.
A great deal has been said about increasing the facilities of regional airports. I think that the Minister said that £200 million had been poured into them since 1981, and that is a very good thing. But there is a limit to how much you can encourage people to travel from them. I wonder whether the Government can continue to try to create the conditions to encourage cheaper fares from regional airports. I have
84
the honour to represent the House skiing every year and we go off to Zurich. But it is a terrible situation when it is actually cheaper for me to go from Teesside to London and from London to Zurich, than it is for me to go from Manchester to Zurich because there are not the cheap fares. If there were to be cheap fares from Manchester and from other places in the North, I am sure that many people would go from those areas.
Having said that, I must point out that cheap fares have been tried from the regional airports, and they failed because, while there has been the will by the operators to operate cheap fares and to run services and so on, the demand for them has not been enough. Therefore, they have had to be taken off. It is difficult to see how the Government can help in this. Perhaps these cheap fares and more flights will develop naturally. Perhaps there is a case for privatisation of some of the airports if it leads to greater efficiency and lower costs and encourages air charter firms to operate. The Inspector said that regional firms should not and cannot make so large a contribution as to reduce the need for airports in the South-East. Both the Minister and the Inspector have said that decisive action must be taken. It must be speedy; the decision must be unequivocal and must be implemented with resolution. The decision cannot be delayed any longer.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging and long debate and it has been interesting that, as is right and proper, no clear party lines have emerged in it. As has happened on other Benches, it will perhaps be detected that there are slight differences of emphasis in what I have to say and what my noble friends behind me said earlier in the debate. On a subject such as this, I believe that that is very right and proper.
We have had a most interesting debate with many good contributions, but I think that for me the palm must go to the noble Lord, Lord Plowden. He was one of the few speakers who indulged in a little bit of lateral thinking. The noble Lord questioned the premise as to whether we should automatically accept that this traffic should come our way, and that is something we should all think about and which the Government should bear in mind. It is very easy to assume that, because the market will be there and because the passengers will be there, we should necessarily accept the enormous cost to the environment which accepting those passengers will cost our nation. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, raised that particular matter tonight.
The noble Lord also mentioned the question of economic forecasting. As someone who for many years was engaged in the petroleum-chemical industry, I learnt to have grave suspicion about forecasts, particularly numerical forecasts. Eventually we were fortunate enough to have a director of planning who came out with the alarming statement for a person in that job that it is impossible to forecast the future. The point he was making was that for too many years we had been looking at numbers and extrapolating those numbers and drawing conclusions from that. This did not obviate the need for planning, but planning and forecasting were two separate matters. We went very deeply into what has now become known as "scenario

85
planning". If I have doubts about the report that we are dealing with tonight, it is about the way in which the numbers have been accepted at their face value.
It seems to me that no sensitivity has been applied to these numbers. By "sensitivity" I mean someone asking, "What would happen if …?" What would happen if the microchip was developed to the level where businessmen did not need to cross the Atlantic quite so frequently as they do today in order to attend meetings? What would happen if the dollar and the pound were to reach parity? What would happen if, as someone has already suggested, the American economy collapsed?
From working on those kinds of questions you begin to produce a range of scenarios which give you widely differing answers to the total numbers of passengers likely to wish to come to the South-East in the next 10, 15 or 20 years. Some of the timescales in the document I must say frighten me, and I do not believe that you can forecast that far ahead. That does not mean to say that you do not have to make decisions and, frankly, I do not envy the Government their task in making the investment decisions for the nation which are required at this time. There are times when I wish I was sitting on that Front Bench over there, but honestly this is not one of them. I believe that it is in that spirit that the debate has been carried on tonight. As I said before, I do not think that anyone is trying to take party advantage.
It is right that we should commend the learned gentleman who produced this report. It is right that we should take great note of what he said. But, as we have seen elsewhere today, you do not always have to do as learned lawyers tell you, as a jury in a case which was determined today has shown the nation. When the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, talks about the application of common sense, I believe there is a certain amount of truth in what he says. However, we must be careful not to go too far down that track and get into the position of saying, "Don't blind me with the facts".
We have to recognise the genuine facts which exist in the situation. But we also have to recognise the political facts, and it seems to me that, following the debate in another place recently, one of the political facts is that it is very unlikely that Stansted will be expanded to the level which the report suggests. Whether that is right or wrong is perhaps not something on which I wish to comment, but it is a fact of political life that, because of the political pressures upon them, the Government will find it extremely difficult to accept the report as it stands.
One of the weaknesses of the Stansted expansion beyond, say, 5 million passengers is the question of the road and rail links. Certainly the M.11 is under-used but, for heaven's sake, it is not under-used when you reach this end of it, and trying to get from this end of the M.11 into London is not something that I would wish on a learner driver on a bad Monday morning. The cost of the rail link, of course, is something with which someone has to conjure. It is interesting how often in this debate the question of rail links come into the argument, and I shall return to that in a minute or two.
86
Therefore, I think that Stansted will be expanded to take 5 million passengers, or perhaps a little more, so that it becomes a regional airport. That seems to me to be a proper function for it. From that point on, I think the danger is that the Government will then take the next easiest option, which is Terminal 5. For nearly 10 years I lived in Teddington and every summer when the sun came out and we went into the garden the wind changed and the aircraft came our way. Admittedly we only got one in three, but it did truncate our conversation. We would just get to the interesting part of the chat when Concorde, a BAC 1–11 or a Trident flew over. So let no one imagine that it is pleasant living under the flight path of Heathrow. We were some distance away from the airport; the people living in Hounslow, nearer the airport, obviously had a much more difficult time.
However, I acknowledge that during those 10 years the aircraft became significantly quieter and towards the end of my period there, which was just over a year ago, it was possible to carry on conversations when aircraft flew over. Therefore, if the Government were to go down that road, I believe that it should only be done on the basis of much quieter aircraft, with the so-called "chapter 3 aircraft" being brought into existence. Not until those are available should that expansion take place, and certainly what the report says about night flying must be observed absolutely. There must be no serious night flying in and out of Heathrow, other than in emergencies.
Therefore, my objection to the fifth terminal is not so much on noise grounds, but in terms of activity on the ground. People have said that the M.25 will provide considerable relief when it is completed and that Terminal 5 will be up against the M.25 with good access. Of course it will, but bear in mind that much traffic will already be coming round the M.25 anyway, particularly if (and perhaps I may diverge slightly from the subject) the Government persist in having tolls on the Dartford Tunnel. When people come down the M.1, they will turn right instead of turning left to get to Dover because it is cheaper that way. But, more importantly, the roads into London down the Cromwell Road and the Hammersmith Flyover are simply not capable of taking the increased traffic which Terminal 5 will put on to them. I would not contemplate supporting the Government in any move towards Terminal 5 if there is not a British Rail link put into Heathrow.
Here we come back to rail links again, It is, as we know possible from Feltham or even from north of the airport to connect Heathrow with the North through a rail link. But the situation demands a commitment from the Government to make sure that those rail links are available. Unless and until that happens I would not contemplate the possibility of Terminal 5, and even then I should be very doubtful about it.
So we come to the question of regional airports. For a number of years I was the Liberal candidate for the Knutsford division at a time when my noble friend Lord Winstanley was at the other end of Manchester Airport as Member of Parliament for Cheadle division. Together we struggled for a long time to ensure that people in that area were able to get soundproofing grants for houses as they were not

87
available in Manchester because it was a regional airport.
I do not go along wholly with the consortium, but I believe it has a point and that noble Lords on the Labour Party Bench also have a point, in that we must increase the emphasis on our regional airports. By that, we mean Manchester, because that is the best regional airport in the country, with the possible exception of Prestwick, with due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, although it is in a peculiar place. Manchester serves a tremendous hinterland. The whole of the West Riding and, as the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, said, even people from Teeside can, with the motorway network as it is, find their way to Manchester Airport quite quickly.
It is depressing, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, suggested, when one reads that Singapore Airlines had been prevented from flying international flights from Manchester. There may be good and sufficient reasons in terms of getting landing rights in other parts of the world, but surely on occasions such as this we should snap up those opportunities to improve the viability of our regional airports. I do not believe that much more is required in the way of investment in Manchester at the moment. There is quite a lot of capacity there, but again there is a need for a rail link. To be able to link Manchester to the west coastline at Wilmslow or further south at Crewe would make a tremendous difference to the usefulness of Manchester as an international airport serving a wide hinterland.
Like everybody else in this debate, I shall not come to any firm conclusion tonight. I have spelt out our general attitude. My noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry has gone much more positively in favour of a second runway at Gatwick than I have, partly because I do not believe the Government will change their mind. It would perhaps be foolish to base one's assumptions on the possibility that they will. If they are prepared to do so, the whole equation becomes quite different. Gatwick is a very good airport. The rail and road communications are excellent. I greatly prefer travelling to Gatwick than I do to Heathrow. If the Government are prepared to change their minds, the equation becomes different.
I am saying that I believe that Stansted should be raised only to the size of a regional airport; that the fifth terminal at Heathrow should not be contemplated until many other things have been done; and that, with a modest amount of investment and a certain amount of will to improve not just the airport but investment in the North to get some more jobs there, the traffic will follow. We should give people encouragement to base their airline there. Are the Government prepared to suggest to British Midland that it might move its base to Manchester? This would be similar to the way in which Caledonian has moved to Gatwick and British Airways is now based at Heathrow. A major airline like British Midland operating out of Manchester would make a significant difference to the whole attitude of the airline industry to that area.
We wait with interest to hear what the Government have to say on this subject when they are able to say it.
88
We all understand that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is in a difficult position tonight. I hope he can answer some of the questions that have been asked, particularly by my noble friend Lady Burton. But we wait with great interest for their definitive answer and, like everybody else, we hope that the answer will come soon.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the first thing I must do is to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chapple (who was unable to stay for the end of the debate), on his maiden speech. Knowing his reputation, as the House will, I think I can say that he managed to be, for him, perhaps, mildly provocative by scepticism about Government inquiries. He gave an example of an inquiry on which he had served when he had received a beautiful leather-bound book after spending many hours on that committee. He was also sceptical about the Government's decision-making process. I was particularly pleased because he is a real Londoner: he was born in London, he has spent his whole life in London, and most of his experience has been in London. Yet he was conscious of the importance of developing regional airports, which is something one does not always hear to quite the same extent from people who have moved into London from the regions. This is one of those contradictions.
The Minister will agree that this has not been a debate in which politics has played an important part. It has certainly not been overriding or obtrusive; but that is not to say that politics are not involved and that people do not speak occasionally of the politics of it. The obvious example is that the privatisation of the airports, which is likely to arise soon, is a factor that must be considered. The question of regional policy is another factor; but I do not think that politics obtruded in this debate at all.
Both in this House and in the other place the cross-party concern about the regions has been very marked and unusual. For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, suggested that he disagreed with some of the people on his own side about the interpretation of the report. Although I have immense respect for him, I disagreed with one or two of the observations made by my noble friend Lord Beswick. That is very unusual, because I usually consider him to be my guru: that is perhaps putting it too high, but someone I have a very great respect for.
The spirit of the debate has been a real desire to find a solution to what we all accept is a very difficult problem. We should be grateful to the Minister and the Government for having published the whole report before a decision was made. In the light of the debate we have had here today and of that in another place at the end of January, it was wise that the report was published so that we could consider it and the Government could collect voices on the subject. When the Minister opened the debate he made it clear that he was here to listen. We all understand that, because of the nature of the Minister's role and that of his right honourable friend, and because of the quasi-judicial function they have to perform, he could not make any firm statements about the report at this stage.
I think that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, who, when he was winding up for the Liberals

89
tonight, said that he wondered whether the debate was really more than academic. I went very carefully through the debate in the other place and I wonder whether it is likely that the Government, or any government, could get total acceptance of this report in both Houses of Parliament. Again, this is not a political point particularly since the debate in the other place was on the adjournment and so a certain number of Members would perhaps decide not to vote; but the spectrum of voting cannot be ignored. I think that the Government would have to decide whether it would be possible to get such a Bill through. My noble friend Lord Graham and many others said that they did not envy Ministers the problem of making the decision.
We have listened today and received all the representations. Seldom have I been involved in this House or in any other place in any subject where I have had put to me more representations and more brochures and very persuasive arguments than I have on this subject. Surely we must all feel very much the same about the difficulty of making a decision. The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, who is always extremely knowledgeable and active in these matters, spoke about the highly-placed bureaucracy which she said seemingly favours the whole idea of Stansted. In fact, I think that Sir John Knott, when he suggested the Stansted inquiry back in 1979, slipped in saying that Stansted really chooses itself. I do not think that there is a conspiracy about this. I believe it is part of the whole South-East thinking.
It is so easy to fall into this kind of thing—the orientation towards the South-East and the belief that all solutions are best looked at from the viewpoint of Greater London. Everything is looked at in terms of Greater London. Reverting to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, that is one of the reasons I thought that his speech was refreshing. Myself I am certainly not in any way anti-London. I think that London is perhaps about the third or the fourth of my favourite cities after Glasgow. I hasten to say that Edinburgh is not the second. But I am not anti-London and I do not believe that the regions are anti-London. They are not being anti-London, I think that there is a great love-hate relationship, but I do not think that you can call it anti-London.
It is a question of whether you look from London to the rest of Britain or from the rest of Britain towards London. I remember when the old Manchester Guardian decided to print in London. Alastair Hetherington, who was then the editor, was asked whether it would not lose some of its characteristics. "No, no", he replied, "we will have just as many people in the regions as we had before." It was pointed out to him that there is a difference and, while the Guardian in many ways is a great newspaper, I think there is a difference between the present Guardian and the old Manchester Guardian. One sees the world from London, from where all the other papers see it, while the old Manchester Guardian saw it from—and I hate the word—the "provinces" There is a great difference there. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, made a point when she said that it is assumed, perfectly reasonably, that to go anywhere everyone travels from Manchester or Newcastle to London, but never the other way. You do not go from London to
90
Manchester to fly to any place or to go to any place. This is a not unimportant point.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, with respect to all the rest of us, was the one to which I think applied the expression "lateral thinking" used by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. It was extremely important. I think it will bear re-reading. I missed some of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, but I heard part of it when he was discussing the reliability of figures. He talked about the possibility of a slump, much as he disliked the idea. But there is a possibility, and all the forecasts—not just about airports, but also about so many other things—have not been reliable; because everyone imagines that the graph will go on and on, whereas periodically, for reasons very difficult to forecast, there is a dip in the graph. It may go on after that, but it still has all that leeway to catch up on.
The noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, made an interesting and, as usual, humorous and powerful speech. He spoke about the figures that had been discussed 10 years ago and about how we have now reached these figures. There are many other examples. I remember when, the first time in the other place, I was told, on the greatest authority, that the absolute maximum cost of Concorde would be £295 million. It was not said to be £300 million; it was £295 million—and that was with the very best computerised accountancy. I am sure that the people involved were perfectly honest and were not trying to be clever; they genuinely believed this.
I wondered about the argument—and I have looked at it and until recently I wanted to believe it myself—that if anything happened to the three airports in the South-East, the traffic would all go to Schiphol and not to any other airport in Britain. I wondered about that. I can understand people going to Schiphol if there were a sudden strike at Heathrow. But if it were not that, if it were necessary to go to Manchester because we had decided the rail routes and the route policy in that way, I think people would find it much easier to go to Manchester, even if they were going back to London, than to to to Schiphol and then back to London. It is almost a chicken-and-egg situation.
The assumption is that everyone wants to come to London and so almost all international flights are through London. This leaves the regional traffic with no alternative but to travel to London. I believe that people will always use the mode of transport and the route which suits them best personally in terms of speed, convenience and price. But we are entitled to ask, as from the regions, whether people really have had a chance. What we need to look at, as well as this report, is the whole question of an airline policy. One of the points which is probably in many ways as accurate as some of the other statistics that we get is this. You need travel only weekly on the Glasgow shuttle to see the number of people carrying duty-free goods to realise that the traffic from the Continent going to Glasgow is rather high. It may be a rule-of-thumb way, but it is very obvious.
I agree with my noble friend who was the first speaker on this side when he suggested that we should be content at present with the fourth terminal at Heathrow, although, again, this will mean extra

91
connections to Heathrow. At present at certain times of the day it is not uncommon to stand all the way in the Tube to Heathrow. I have done it several times myself. For that reason I think that we need to find a lot of new ways of getting to our airports before we even dream of thinking in terms of a fifth terminal at Heathrow, despite all the other difficulties.
The second terminal at Gatwick will possibly result in a big increase in the traffic that can be handled there. Luton can be increased. It is interesting that the people of Essex and the county council there were said by a number of people who know the area better than I do not to be opposed to a modest increase in the size of Stansted. What they feel worried about is the argument that an entire Heathrow can be put down in Stansted and still not affect the area. I think that that is a flight of fancy. I believe that the more modest improvements that have been suggested by many people as a solution to an incredibly difficult problem—and I think we all recognise the difficulties faced by the Government—could go a long way towards solving it for a long time to come, according to all the figures we have had.
With great respect to the report—and I must admit that I did not go through this huge report, but I certainly went through the main report—and to the figures given there, from past experience and making all due allowances for the fears expressed today I believe that these modest improvements would solve the airport problem in the South-East of England and perhaps make us move towards the other airports in the country. I think that in this way the problem could be solved for a very long time to come.
8.51 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I was not mistaken when I said earlier this afternoon that I was anticipating a debate that would reflect the deep knowledge and interest in airports policy and the aviation industry that reside in your Lordships' House. Many different views have been cogently expressed, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, whose maiden speech was so much appreciated.
Some noble Lords have suggested that Stansted should not be expanded, or that any development should be strictly limited. Some noble Lords have suggested that capacity should be increased at Heathrow by the provision of a fifth terminal, although others have noted that it might not be available in time to meet the demand and avoid congestion. The case for an expansion of the regional airports has been strongly argued—as it was in the other place—by noble Lords from both sides of the House. Some have favoured a combination of policies broadly in line with the recommendations of the inquiry inspector; others have placed greater emphasis on the scope for expanding the regional airports' contribution.
Finally, no airport debate would be complete without some mention being made of green field and coastal sites. The Inspector has covered them in his report, but I think it is right to say that he was not persuaded by the cases presented to him in their support. I make no comment on that, except perhaps to mourn the absence of my noble friend Lord Cork
92
and Orrery from this debate, when his contributions have been such a feature of others in your Lordships' House.
Having listened to the many views expressed in the course of this debate, your Lordships may perhaps share with me a sense of "déjà vu". It is not, of course, the first time that this House has debated the provision of airports capacity for the South-East, but I think it is right to say that since the oil crisis of the early 1970s, which led to a substantial fall in air traffic demand and the abandonment of the Maplin Airport project, the problem has been approached with a good deal more realism in every quarter. Our predecessors in office searched for a consensus by means of extended consultations with all those concerned. But perhaps they misjudged the extent to which a consensus could be found when there are so many conflicting interests. This Government took the process one stage further by announcing their preliminary views and instituting a wide-ranging public inquiry where all the relevant issues and alternative solutions could be examined in detail. The inquiries are over, and the decisions must now be taken.
Difficult though these decisions may be, they cannot now be postponed. As I hope your Lordships will agree, the recent inquiries provided an opportunity for the fullest participation of all the parties concerned. The volume and detail of the evidence presented attests to this. The Inspector's report has now been published. The other place has but recently debated the issues raised, and we have been productively engaged in doing the same today. The process of consultation must now give way to a period of decision and action, so that the uncertainty of recent years can be removed.
The next steps rest with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction. They must consider the Inspector's report and his recommendations—an awesome task, as I am sure your Lordships will agree. They must form a view on the proposals before them. In reaching their decisions they will, of course, have regard not only to the Inspector's report and the evidence contained therein, but to all other material considerations. They will no doubt bear in mind the views so eloquently expressed by your Lordships today. When they have reached their decisions, they will issue decision letters for the formal applications which are before them, in accordance with the procedures laid down in the planning acts.
The decision letters are not, however, an appropriate medium for dealing with a range of recommendations made by the Inspector on wider issues of policy. For this reason, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport intends to publish proposals on airports policy when the decisions on the planning applications are taken and announced, as the Inspector has urged the Government to do.
I should also like to refer to the undertaking given by the Government that when the decisions have been announced there would be a further opportunity for the other place to debate and, if it wished, to vote on the Government's airports policy. In this House we decide these matters through the usual channels, and I will certainly undertake to convey the views of your

93
Lordships, and in particular the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, to my noble friends the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip. I hope that will be satisfactory to the noble Baroness.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way and for the clarification. When the decisions have been taken by the Government and announced, and when the Minister then says that they will be reported to the House and that the House will have an opportunity of expressing a view, does that mean that if the House, in a vote, however managed or marshalled, were to vote contrary to the views of the Government, it would be the end of the matter, or would the Government merely take into account the views of the House?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have not given the noble Lord any such undertaking so far as your Lordships' House is concerned. As regards the position of another place, that again is not a matter for me and I would invite the noble Lord to study the words of my honourable friend when he gave that undertaking recently.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord has said, and this question is for my own enlightenment, if not for the rest of the House. Is it not possible, in a Parliament which consists of two Houses, that when the Government give an assurance of a debate that assurance should cover both Houses?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not in a position to give any assurances about debates in another place; and, indeed, Ministers in the other place would not wish to give assurances about debates in your Lordships' House. The machinery for establishing the timetable of debates in another place is a different machinery from that whch establishes debates in your Lordships' House. I hope the noble Baroness will accept that the undertaking I have given to draw this matter to the attention of the usual channels is as far as I can go this evening.
I fear that because of the quasi-judicial role of my right honourable and honourable friends I cannot deal (as I would normally wish to do) with the many substantive points made by your Lordships. However, I will turn briefly to some of the specific points of fact that have been raised by some noble Lords, on which I am able to comment. I will turn first to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill who asked me particularly about BAA privatisation and especially about Scottish airports. As I said earlier, my right honourable friend is currently considering the wider policy issues and will publish his proposals on airports policy when the planning decisions are taken and announced, but I certainly take note of what the noble Lord has said in that regard.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, put a number of questions to me, and I will deal with as many of them as I can. She asked, first, about the final cost of the Stansted and the Heathrow Terminal 5 inquiry. I am advised that the provisional figure is £960,829, but I am also informed that there are some bills still to be received, though these are likely to be small. So the
94
figure in round terms is therefore of the order of £1 million.
The noble Baroness went on to ask me about the cost of developing Stansted with a single terminal capable of, say, 15 million passengers per annum. I am afraid that I cannot add to what the Inspector has said in his report, but I believe that he had before him the latest estimate of costs. The noble Baroness again asked me about the cost of a second runway at Gatwick. I fear that there is no up-to-date information on what a second runway at Gatwick might cost, because it is not being considered. As for the difficulties caused by the hole in Gatwick's runway to which she referred, I am not fully informed on that matter, but I will most certainly look into and write to the noble Baroness, if I may.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, asked me whether there was any possibility of European Community funding for airport development and for a rail link to Stansted. I would not wish to raise any false hopes on that matter. I believe that the criteria for such funding are very strict. As for the possibility of changing patterns of aircraft size to alter the equations of demand and capacity, aircraft size is an important factor to be taken into account in balancing terminal and runway capacity. The Inspector examined this matter in some depth in reaching his conclusions and I fear that I cannot therefore comment any further. As for the timetable for taking decisions on these matters—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, on the question of EEC funding for any of this, does my noble friend take into account that the evidence so far seems to indicate that there would be a better chance of getting EEC money to help regional development than there would be for a central project such as this?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I certainly take note of what my noble friend says on that matter. But, of course, my noble friend will understand that I have to be very carefully about what I say for fear of anticipating anything that my right honourable and honourable friends may wish to decide.
Just to finish what the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, asked me—and I think that this was much in the minds of other noble Lords as well—about the timetable for taking decisions on this matter, the decisions before us are difficult, as many noble Lords have recognised, and clearly require the most careful consideration. I can assure your Lordships that these decisions will be taken as soon as practicable, but I fear that I cannot give a precise timetable.
The noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Dean of Beswick, and one or two other noble Lords referred to Manchester Airport. In general, Manchester Airport is very much a success story. Traffic growth there has more than doubled in the last seven or eight years. The average growth rate in the five years up to 1983 was 9½ per cent. and, indeed, growth in 1984 was about 16 per cent., up to about 6 million passengers per annum. Furthermore, I am told that the aerodrome is a very profitable one. Indeed, a substantial proportion of the total £200 million of investment since 1981 at regional airports to which I referred earlier has been authorised

95
for Manchester. Recent projects include a terminal extension, a cargo centre, apron and taxiway improvements and an operational control centre.
On the question of route permits, to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred, particularly to Singapore, we are doing all we can to resolve our air services problems with Singapore. The air services agreement with them attempts to relate capacity to traffic, so as to ensure that our airlines have a fair opportunity to compete on equal terms for the business available. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport is looking at the scope for encouraging the growth of a successful network of international services at regional airports and he therefore, has this matter very much in mind.
I conclude my remarks by reminding your Lordships that almost every decision on airport development, wherever it may be, gives rise to debate and controversy, bitterness and resentment. It is no easy task to reach decisions on these issues. But I have no doubt that, in seeking the right answer, my right honourable friends will be grateful for the valuable
96
advice proffered in your Lordships' House today.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Highland Region (Kinlochbervie) Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read a second time, and reported from the Committee.

Associated British Ports (Hull Fish Docks) Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill; ordered that the Bill be withdrawn.
House adjourned at five minutes past nine o'clock.

  QUEENSWAY SITE, GIBRALTAR
  QUEENSWAY SITE, GIBRALTAR
  WASTE DISPOSAL AUTHORITIES
  WASTE DISPOSAL AUTHORITIES
  PUBLIC SECTOR PURCHASING
  PUBLIC SECTOR PURCHASING
  SKILLCENTRE CLOSURES
  SKILLCENTRE CLOSURES
  "PETRO-CURRENCY" DESIGNATION
  "PETRO-CURRENCY" DESIGNATION
  PUBLIC SECTOR DEBT
  PUBLIC SECTOR DEBT
  THE NATION'S ASSETS: DEPRECIATION
  THE NATION'S ASSETS: DEPRECIATION