Sitting of 30 January 1985

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  HIGHLAND REGION (KINLOCHBERVIE) ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Highland Region (Kinlochbervie); And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday 5 February and to be printed. [Bill 66.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Tourism (Grant-aid)
    Mr. Hicksasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is satisfied with the operation of section 4 grant-aid under the Development of Tourism Act 1969; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): The operation of the section 4 scheme is primarily a matter for the national tourist boards for England, Scotland and Wales, which have authority to approve individual offers of assistance up to £200,000. I believe that the scheme helps to stimulate investment in tourism projects which would not otherwise take place.
    Mr. Hicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a strong case for making additional funds available for this purpose; funds which not only widen and improve the quality of tourist projects in this country but help to create employment? Is he aware that whereas the average cost of creating a new job in the tourist industry is £4,500, each unemployed person costs the nation £6,000 a year?
    Mr. Butcher: There is no doubt that the tourism industry has made a magnificant contribution to job creation in the United Kingdom. In the hotel trade alone there was an increase of 14,000 jobs in the 12 months to September 1984. In that context, section 4 assistance has been cost effective. I cannot give my hon. Friend any reassurance on future spending under section 4, but he will be aware that our hon. Friend the Minister of State has said that he wants expenditure to continue over the next three years at approximately the 1983 rate.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister accept that, given the parity of the pound against the dollar, this is a particularly good time to try to attract tourists to Britain, in particular from the United States? Will he ensure that adequate
    262
    finance is available — even more finance than the expenditure limits at present allow for the Development of Tourism Act 1969—to maximise that potential?
    Mr. Butcher: There is no doubt that the current movements in exchange rates could provide a massive boost for the balance of payments through tourism. While the British Tourist Authority is doing its job very well indeed, we hope that it will take advantage, within its current funding levels, of the bonus that is being presented to it.
    Mr. John Townend: Will my hon. Friend see whether changes need to be made so that seaside towns which are outside assisted areas and are not in receipt of tourist grants are able to make application for EEC grants?
    Mr. Butcher: Section 4 is available, at the request of the tourist industry, on a national and sectoral basis, but it envisaged that the assisted area policy might result in some discrepancies which would not be wholly welcome to the industry. However, I note my hon. Friend's point on the European dimension and will convey it to my appropriate colleagues.

    Local Enterprise Agencies
    Mr. Bellinghamasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many local enterprise agencies are in existence; and how many are in the process of being set up.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. David Trippier): There are 238 local enterprise agencies and a further 38 are in the process of being set up.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that a local enterprise agency is in the process of being set up in King's Lynn, where, regrettably, the unemployment level is above the regional average? Is he further aware that, when established, it will play a crucial role in helping small buinesses, and thus will help to reduce unemployment? What Government help is available to such local enterprise agencies?
    Mr. Trippier: I am aware that an enterprise agency is in the process of being set up in west Norfolk. Having visited my hon. Friend's constituency on two occasions, I take this opportunity to pay him a warm tribute for the initiative that he has displayed in bringing forward this enterprise agency.
    The main assistance that is available for the establishment of local enterprise agencies is from the private sector. The principal assistance available from the Government is the tax relief on the contributions made by the private sector, provided that those enterprise agencies are established. In addition, pump priming funds are available at regional offices of the Department of Trade and Industry.
    Mr. Loyden: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in enterprise zones the development—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a different question. The question is about enterprise agencies.
    Mr. Loyden: I am referring to these zones in the context of small businesses. Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that the retail outlets that have been developed in enterprise zones are destroying the small businesses that lie outside those areas? Is it not a fact—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is still referring to a different subject.

    Shoes
    Mr. Freemanasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in persuading foreign countries to reduce their import tariffs on United Kingdom-manufactured shoes to levels the United Kingdom imposes through the common external tariff.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Paul Channon): Footwear, like other British exports, has benefited from reductions in duty granted by trading partners in successive GATT negotiations. But many tariffs remain far too high—and not only on shoes.
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. As he knows, footwear manufacturing is important in my constituency of Kettering. We face high and often unfair tariffs. Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to urge the European Commission, on the accession of Spain, to increase the common external tariff, as we are allowed to do under GATT, to the weighted average between the European Community as presently constituted and Spain, and to use that bargaining weapon with those other countries which so far have refused to reduce their tariffs?
    Mr. Channon: I note what my hon. Friend says. I have been much impressed by the representations that he has made to me on a number of occasions on behalf of the footwear industry. The answer to my hon. Friend's specific point is that this would depend upon negotiations between the Community and the other contracting parties to GATT. I cannot say that any great increase in tariffs is in prospect.
    Mr. Kirkwood: If the Minister is concerned about the prospects for the shoe manufacturing industry, will he, in the coming weeks, spend less time considering the important question of tariff quotas and spend more time making representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is considering imposing VAT on children's shoes?
    Mr. Channon: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend, and not for me.
    Mr. Marlow: As my right hon. Friend is well aware that the footwear industry is deeply concerned about the fact that everyone seems to be able to get into our markets, but we do not seem to be able to have the opportunity to get into other people's markets, will he tell the industry that there is nothing that he can do about the matter because he is quite powerless, and all power resides in Brussels with the European Community? The industry will then direct its complaints and attention to where something can be done about the problem.
    Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend has slightly exaggerated the position. The British Government are perfectly capable of making representations to the Community and pressing the Community to take effective action. There are many areas where the footwear industry faces difficult exporting problems, but there are certain places — for example, South Korea — where progress is being made. We shall continue to press for progress to be made.
    Mr. Williams: Is it not nonsense for the Minister to pretend that VAT is a matter for the Chancellor and not for him? After all, does not the Minister's Department represent the manufacturers? Will not the manufacturers be severely harmed if VAT is introduced? Does not the Minister's Department allegedly and purportedly represent the consumers? Will not the consumers be severely hurt if VAT is introduced?
    Mr. Channon: Surely even the hon. Gentleman does not expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget.

    Small Businesses (Assistance)
    Mr. Brandon-Bravoasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to educate professional advisers about the help available from his Department to their small business clients.
    Mr. Trippier: We are curently sponsoring seminars for professional advisers on the importance of business planning. I am confident that these will prove as popular and successful as our earlier series on Government grants and advisory services and on small firms finance.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I thank my hon. Friend and welcome his reply. Can he reassure the House that during the endeavour there will not be too great a shift of finite resources away from direct help to small businesses?
    Mr. Trippier: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I am anxious to educate, as far as we are able, the professional advisers who act as intermediaries and advise the important people—the small business men.
    Mr. MacKenzie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the best help that he can give to small firms is to ensure that they obtain orders? If our large companies, whether they are in the public or the private sector, are going bust—and many of them are—then, by definition, the number of orders placed with small firms will be reduced. The best assistance that the hon. Gentleman can give these small firms is to ensure that there is an upsurge of demand by the large companies for the products of small companies.
    Mr. Trippier: That certainly has an obvious effect. However, the right hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that the Government's record on helping small firms is of the highest order. I published some figures not so long ago which showed that there had been a net increase in the number of small firms of some 47,000 in a year — slightly more than double the figure for the year before. That shows clearly that we are on the right track.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will my hon. Friend join me in applauding the work of the small firms centres, and in particular the Nottingham one, which covers the Leicestershire area and the city of Leicester? Will he ensure that those advising and helping — to a large extent from Leicester — are properly updated about all the assistance available for small firms, which represent the future of our country and which will provide real jobs?
    Mr. Trippier: I am grateful for the compliments that my hon. Friend has paid to the small firms centres, especially the one in Nottingham. I am certain that the service provided by the inquiry officer and the small firms counsellors in that region is very much appreciated in my hon. Friend's area and in his constituency.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the Minister keen for his Department to assist producer co-operatives? Do his

    265
    officials work closely with local authorities, many of which have done good work in encouraging co-operatives in their areas?
    Mr Trippier: We have shown that we are anxious to encourage the growth of co-operatives. The Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Act was passed by Parliament in 1984, and we are keen that the co-operative sector should expand. However, we must recognise that there are little more than 1,000 co-operatives in the country at the moment — we should like to see more — compared with an overall figure of 1·3 million small firms.
    Mr. James Lamond: Is the Minister aware that the Government's loan guarantee scheme for small businesses is not working as well as it might? The scheme could be very valuable if everyone who could benefit from it was aware of its existence. Does the Minister know that in the area which he and I represent even some of the banks deny knowledge of the scheme?
    Mr. Trippier: That situation has not been brought to my attention. If it is correct, it is extremely worrying. I do not think that the Department has any difficulty in increasing awareness of the scheme. Our difficulty, and my personal embarrassment, has been that the loss rate has been far higher than we expected. I have therefore changed the terms and conditions of the scheme, thereby improving the appraisal and monitoring procedure.
    Mr. John Smith: Is not the biggest problem faced by small firms the severe decline in medium-sized and large businesses? Surely the biggest help that the Government could give the small firms would be to find a strategy for the survival and prosperity of manufacturing in this country? Is it not true that the most severe decline has taken place since the present Government took office and that a reversal of that decline is more important than all the schemes in the world?
    Mr. Trippier: The right hon. Gentleman's statement reflects the views held by his party when last in government. They took no cognisance of the fact that a greater concentration on small firms — as has been effected by the present Government — would increase employment potential in the larger firms. I find it difficult to imagine that the larger firms would increase their demand on the labour market as much as smaller firms, which have not only wealth-creating potential, but employment potential. It is a matter of balance.

    EC (Manufactures)
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total surplus or deficit in trade in manufactures with the European Economic Community in 1984; and what was the comparable surplus or deficit in 1974.
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Norman Tebbit): The deficit in trade in manufactures with other members of the Community was £7¾ billion in 1984, offset by a surplus in trade in oil of £7·4 billion. In 1974, the deficit in manufacturing was £½ billion.
    Mr. Taylor: We still have a surplus in our manufacturing trade with the rest of the world. What are
    266
    The main reasons for the devastating and appalling deficit in trade with the Common Market, which must be having an appalling effect on unemployment in this country?
    Mr. Tebbit: What is important in these matters is not the particular balance in relation to one country or group of countries, or one manufacturing or trading activity as opposed to another, but the overall balance. In 1984, overall, we were in surplus, whereas in 1974, overall, we were in deficit. The position has improved in the last decade.
    Our customers come here to buy because we offer the best value for the things that they buy from us. In exactly the same way, our consumers go where they think they can find the best value.
    Mr. Crowther: Will the Secretary of State urge on the Leader of the House the need for a debate, in Government time, on the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which has demonstrated dramatically the seriousness of the problem? Despite what the right hon. Gentleman said about the need to balance one thing against another, does he agree that manufacturing is at the heart of wealth creation in Britain? What does he suggest that we live on when the oil runs out?
    Mr. Tebbit: Of course manufacturing is an important part of wealth creation, but it is not the only part. If we lived in a slightly more rational world, coal extraction would be a wealth creating activity, instead of a wealth destroying one as it is today. The hon. Gentleman's question about a debate is an appropriate one to put to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House during business questions.
    Mr. Michael Marshall: What is the latest indication that my right hon. Friend has received from the Confederation of British Industry about membership of the EEC? Does he agree that the CBI's previous assessment showed that 90 per cent. of its members thought that withdrawal from the Community would be a disaster for their business prospects?
    Mr. Tebbit: Like the great majority of the British people, the CBI favours our continued membership of the Community. The problem for some right hon. and hon. Labour Members is that they opposed membership, lost the battle and have not yet been able to reconcile themselves to our membership.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the Secretary of State agree that the most striking feature of our current trade figures is that our non-oil visible trade deficit has increased from £2·5 billion in 1982 to £11·4 billion last year, while our oil surplus has steadily increased? Does he agree that that explains why the pound has been under pressure; that it is because we are overdependent on the oil part of our economy?
    Mr. Tebbit: If the hon. Gentleman is right — I am not saying that I necessarily agree with him — the reasonable consequence of what he says is that we should try to stick the oil back in the ground and pretend that we never found it.
    Mr. Dorrell: Does my right hon. Friend agree chat EC countries still represent the largest and richest market for manufacturers in the world? How can it possibly be in our interests to cut ourselves off from that market? Does my

    267
    right hon. Friend agree that the answer lies in making our manufactures sufficiently competitive for European consumers to choose to buy them?
    Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier this week, it would be prudent for those who are engaged in wage negotiations to consider the type of wage negotiations that are going on in Germany and to contrast them with some of the absurd demands that are being made in Britain.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Do the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has just given include steel manufacturing? If so, are we not in danger of becoming over-generous compared with some of our European partners?
    Mr. Tebbit: I always try not to be over-generous with our European partners. My business is to try to be as generous as possible with Britain. I understand that the figures include steel, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, our steel industry was almost destroyed by the ravages of the Beswick review and other idiotic affairs of that type.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the demand for overall industrial protection, which is implicit in many of the supplementary questions that have been fired at him, are utterly inconsistent with Britain's need to earn its living in a competitive world?
    Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is right. It is theoretically possible for us to put up barriers and to prevent our people from buying goods in the most advantageous markets, but we cannot force the rest of the world to buy our goods against its will.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Japanese have managed to penetrate the European market, despite all the problems? Does he further agree that the lesson for British workers and management is that, if the Japanese can penetrate the market, the answer lies in their own hands?
    Mr. Tebbit: Yes, but I only wish that it were a little easier for all European manufactures to penetrate the Japanese market. That seems to be rather difficult, and the reason does not always lie in the quality or price of the goods.
    Mr. Gould: The Prime Minister professes to be puzzled by the fall in the pound's value. Do not the calamitous figures which the Secretary of State gave at least offer part of the answer? How can the Government continue to talk convincingly about economic recovery when this deficit, which is worth 1 million jobs in British industry, is allowed to continue and to grow? Can the Secretary of State tell the House whether the issue is being considered by the special working party which he set up to examine our disastrous decline in manufacturing trade? Will he assure us that, despite his public show of indifference, he, at least, is taking the matter seriously?
    Mr. Tebbit: If it were a question of our balance of trade and balance of payments, sterling would, in general, have been lower under Labour Governments than it has been under Conservative Governments.

    Child Buggy Pushchairs
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the organisations which he has consulted about his proposed new draft regulations concerning the safety of child buggy pushchairs.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alex Fletcher): The consultation documents on the proposed new safety regulations for pushchairs are available in the Library. They include a full list of those consulted.
    Mr. Chapman: Recognising the deficiencies in the existing regulations, will my hon. Friend say when he hopes to introduce the new regulations? Considering the serious, albeit few, accidents that there have been with the collapsible type child buggy pushchair, can he reiterate that that form of perambulator comes within the scope of the existing regulations?
    Mr. Fletcher: On the second point, I can confirm that the existing regulations apply to buggies, and they will be covered also in the new ones. On the first point, the regulations will come into effect later this year.
    Mr. Williams: Will the Parliamentary Under-Secretary bear in mind that when the regulations were introduced in September 1978, after the death of children, they were described as the first step? Why are we still waiting for the second step six and a half years later? Has he read Which? magazine, which carried out a survey in 1982 and found that five of the 20 pushchairs that it checked were unsafe, that half of the owners of the buggy type of pushchair, and a quarter of the owners of the traditional type of pushchair, reported that they had had accidents, and that in one in 20 of those accidents a child had been injured?
    Mr. Fletcher: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's points. We are making new regulations to BSI standards, which will be put into practice as soon as possible.

    West Midlands Initiative
    Mr. John M. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in his Department's west midlands initiative.
    Mr. Butcher: The primary object of the Department's west midlands initiative was to increase the application of new technologies and new production techniques in the industries of the region, and that was achieved. Much of the region has now been granted intermediate area status, and hence the emphasis of the Department's work there has shifted to regional assistance.
    Mr. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, but will he tell the House what hard results he has to show for his efforts for innovation, new products and new processes in companies in the west midlands?
    Mr. Butcher: I am delighted to report to my hon. Friend some of the excellent results achieved during that period. More than 1,200 companies received grants to introduce new techniques and machinery into their existing manufacturing processes, support under section 8 and under support for innovation totalled £70 million, and levered a total spend of £200 million in a cost-effective market-driven manner.
    Mr. Park: How does the Minister reconcile his reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) with the fact that money available for technology has been reduced, as he knows? The two do not add up.
    Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. If he is referring to the support for innovation programme, he will know that it was significantly increased for the current financial year. The moratorium, to which I think he is referring, was invoked because awareness of the programme arrived like an express train and the application rate consequently increased. During the first few months of this year we therefore spent what had hitherto been a total year's allocation.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that his original reply is most encouraging? Will he make further efforts and do everything that he can to encourage and help the car components industry, which in its way is even more important than the car industry?
    Mr. Butcher: The car components industry was one of the major recipients of expenditure under section 8 and, indeed, under support for innovation. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in commending the excellent work that is going on, for example, at Warwick university with BL Systems and two other key companies, which are trying to spread best practice in innovative manufacture of components throughout the British motor industry.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Is the Minister aware that for most industries in the west midlands his so-called initiative was either stillborn or died of paralysis? Is he also aware that since the Government came to power we have lost one third of industrial manufacturing capacity in the west midlands and one third of jobs in manufacturing totalling 225,000? Is he further aware that in the west midlands the phasing out of capital allowances, the massive hike in interest rates and the moratorium on regional aid amounts to nothing more than a further prolonged period of disaster for that region?
    Mr. Butcher: The Labour research department has fouled up again. The hon. Gentleman should know that section 7 assistance, the type of assistance that applies in the west midlands, is still being used in that region. There is no moratorium on that.
    The hon. Gentleman should also know from discussions on the subject that the prejudice of Government against the west midlands emanated directly from Labour Government activity, not least on industrial development certificates. They encouraged industry to leave that region wholesale. We have ended that and have produced much more equality of treatment for each of the assisted areas.

    Small Firms (Cash Flow)
    Mrs. Peacockasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to provide assistance to smaller firms to help them to cope with the problems caused by late payments of bills by large firms.
    Mr. Trippier: I share the concern about the serious difficulties which that practice can cause for small firms. I have recently invited organisations representing industry to join me in examining possible initiatives.
    Mrs. Peacock: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he consider withholding DTI grants from those firms which do not settle their accounts, or delay settling their accounts, with smaller firms?
    Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend advocates a course of action that has been suggested to me on a number of occasions. My immediate reaction to the suggestion is that that approach would be a recipe for bureaucratic complexity.
    Mr. Ashdown: Will the Minister recognise that, as well as large firms, among those most guilty of this practice are local government organisations, many of them Conservative-controlled? Will he also recognise that in a period such as the present, with ruinously high interest rates, the late payment of bills can mean the death of small firms? If legislation is not appropriate in this matter, will he give consideration to the Government backing a code of practice, which can then be operative in the field?
    Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman obviously recognises the problem that I identified in my answer to the substantive question. It is important that we should stop short of legislation, as he seems to be suggesting, because a problem may arise where small firms may not be paying the bills of other small firms on time and where small firms may not be paying the bills of large firms on time. I should prefer to see some code of practice initiated by industry rather than by the Government.
    Mr. Dickens: I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the measures that he has introduced to help small businesses in Britain, for which they are deeply grateful, but is he aware that many of the small companies in Britain are having inflicted upon them the large companies, who are dining out on the overdrafts of those small companies, and that many of those large companies are enjoying massive Government contracts? Is it at all possible that one or two of those companies could be exposed as late payers to help the small businesses?
    Mr. Trippier: I doubt whether there would have been anything wrong if my hon. Friend had chosen to expose one or two of those companies in his question to me. If there is evidence that a number of large companies are delaying the payment of bills, I shall be grateful to receive it so that we can look at it more carefully.
    Mr. O'Brien: I have noted the reply to the question from the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock). Will the Minister also have regard to the problems facing small industry and the help and protection that it needs because of water charges? Will he have a word with his colleagues—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about the late payment of bills.
    Mr. O'Brien: This is a problem, because the water authorities demand payment immediately and the increase in water charges is causing a problem for small firms. Will the Minister have a word with his colleagues to try to get some easement for small firms?
    Mr. Trippier: Certainly I am prepared to discuss the matter with my colleagues in the Department of the Environment.
    Mr. Williams: Will the Minister recognise that, disastrous enough in itself as the 4 per cent. increase in interest rates has been for small firms, that increase worsens the problems outlined in the initial question? Will he further recognise that not only does it make it massively more expensive for small firms to finance the cash gap

    271
    caused by this practice by large firms, but the higher rate of interest encourages large firms to delay payments even more?
    Mr. Trippier: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday at Question Time, it is a disappointment to see interest rates at this level. We all hope that the present level of interest rates is only temporary. As my right hon. Friend said yesterday, the effect could be worse if inflation were to rip as it did under the Labour Administration. I must take the opportunity to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that I welcome his new interest in small firms. We were appalled when in a debate on small firms on 18 January the official Opposition—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is also a bit wide of the subject of late payment of bills.

    Small Firms Service
    Mr. Macleanasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for improving publicity for the small firms service.
    Mr. Trippier: I am keen to ensure that small business men are fully aware of the advice and information available from the small firms service. We are at present advertising in the national and regional press to promote greater use of the service.
    Mr. Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Why is it thought necessary to run a Government information service through the small firms service when private initiatives are being taken in this regard?
    Mr. Trippier: The small firms service provides a national facility, which offers consistent quality. It does not seek to compete with other initiatives, which are very welcome. It is a complementary service to local initiatives. Those services offered at local level are very much appreciated.
    Mr. Cyril Smith: Will the Minister attempt to ensure not only that the small firms service is known throughout the community but that small firms are assisted to become known throughout the world? The deputation that is to go to China does not, so far as I am aware, contain any representatives of small firms. That is a great disappointment to small firms in my part of the world. What steps has his Department taken to ensure that small firms are represented on such delegations?
    Mr. Trippier: Small firms are normally well represented on delegations abroad and the British Overseas Trade Board is anxious to encourage that. I shall certainly consider seriously the particular point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he has done for the small firms service. Does he not agree that there is room for involving people apart from those who would otherwise be retired in giving advice to potential small business men on developing businesses, in that the older people tend to be slightly out of touch with current developments concerning small business advice?
    Mr. Trippier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am anxious to encourage people who are working in industry, some who are semi-retired and some who are retired, to
    272
    come forward. Many of them will have a significant contribution to make. It is important to underline that in the local enterprise agency movement mushrooming throughout the country we have a source of business counselling dealing with problems at the sharp end, which is invaluable.
    Mr. Haynes: Does the Minister recall that in the 1979 election campaign the Conservative party said that it intended to help small businesses because that was where jobs would come from? Since then, year by year, more and more small firms have fallen by the wayside. Does he appreciate that if nothing is done about that problem there will be no small businesses left to publicise?
    Mr. Trippier: If the hon. Gentleman would open his ears rather than his mouth, a whole new world might be opened up to him. As I pointed out in reply to an earlier question, a net increase in small firms in this country has led to greater employment. I am glad that he referred to the commitment to small firms in our 1979 manifesto. We have consistently continued that commitment, but it was notably absent from the Labour party manifesto in 1979 and also in 1983.

    Contributions to Political Parties
    Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to place contributions by companies to political parties or for other political purposes on the same legal footing as contributions by trade unions to political parties or for other political purposes.
    Mr. Tebbit: I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Winnick: Will the Secretary of State explain why trade unions need to have a political fund and are now required to have a ballot, but companies do not need a political fund before contributing to political parties? Does he recognise that the way in which the Government have used their majority in this Parliament can only be described as a form of political corruption?
    Mr. Tebbit: I do not recognise that at all. The hon. Gentleman fails to recognise that companies and trade unions are governed by completely different statutes and are set up for completely different purposes. He would be the last person to want standards of company law applied to trade unions. If they were so applied, I can think of at least one prominent trade unionist today who would probably have been prosecuted for the way in which he has debased the union for which he works, destroyed its power, corrupted its members and wasted its money.
    Mr. Ward: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the annual general meeting of a company allows shareholders to express their opinions each year? Does he further agree that it would be a good thing if trade union members had the same right to express an opinion in that way each year?
    Mr. Tebbit: Yes, I do. Again, however, my hon. Friend must not assume that unions and companies should be run in the same way or governed by the same kind of statute. One must also keep a sense of proportion in these matters. In 1981, for example, in respect of their political funds trade unions spent £4·8 million or 12·8 per cent. of the amount that they spent on benefits to their members. When companies donate money to political parties it is more like 0·02 per cent. of profit or turnover. [HON.

    273
    MEMBERS: "What is the total?"] According to The Economist, the total is about £2·5 million. Moreover, the figure that I gave for trade unions excludes spending such as the £1 million campaign to "Kill the Bill" — a Bill which is now in good health as an Act of Parliament and helping to democratise trade unions. My figure also excluded £1 million spending by NALGO on another fruitless exercise against the interests of its members.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: If the Secretary of State is ever tempted to go down that road, will he stop the nonsense of having ballots on the existence of political funds and instead introduce ballots for the party to which the funds should be donated? Is he aware that that would prevent the current attempt by the Labour party to camouflage the fact that 80 per cent. of the political funds of the trade union movement go straight into Labour party coffers?
    Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but I wish there was more consistency in these matters. Perhaps he will tell us at some time whether the president of the SDP, Mrs. Shirley Williams, asked for ballots of members of APEX when it was giving money to the Labour party, and whether the SDP has sought and obtained donations from companies without requiring the companies to ask their shareholders.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Accepting the Secretary of State's point about the need for a sense of proportion on the matter and the fact that the laws for trade unions and companies are different, would it not be a good idea to consider this from the point of view of the House? If it is right to control political expenditure by trade unions, surely it is equally right to control it by companies. If he considered it that way, could we not have an interesting argument and dialogue and come to a conclusion that accepts both sides and is not based on party dogma?
    Mr. Tebbit: It is always a sign of a pretty rocky case in the House when an hon. Member says, "Let us decide this without reference to party dogma". One knows that the hon. Member is trying to slip a quick one in somewhere.
    There are no controls on the amount that trade unions may spend on politics. Much of the money that they spent on what the man in the street would see as a political campaign, such as "Kill the Bill" was not regarded as political spending. Equally, when a company's board of directors decides that money should be spent in the interests of the shareholders, it is surely reasonable that they should be able to do so, and that is done against the background of the Companies Acts and the requirement for a meeting of shareholders.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is nothing wrong in any company giving a political donation? If Opposition Members care to read any annual report, they will realise that all declarations in excess of £500 are already declared.
    Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is right. Once again one has to look at these things in the round. I am indebted to the New Statesman of 30 November 1984, in which I read that part of the Labour party's jobs and industry campaign for this year includes a strong recommendation that the Labour party should approach companies for political donations. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) should speak to his own party about these matters.
    Mr. John Smith: Despite all the attempts by the Secretary of State to cloud the issue, is it not crystal clear to any fair-minded person that what the Government want to see is special controls on the political funds operated by trade unions but none whatsoever on the companies and corporate forces that support the Conservative party? Is that not blatantly and grossly unfair from any standpoint?
    Mr. Tebbit: No. There are controls in each case, but because of the different natures of the organisations they are different controls. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the 1908 Act, which first arranged the compact, as one might call it—
    Mr. Smith: 1913.
    Mr. Tebbit: I think that the 1908 Act was the first. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may well be right on the date. The Act in question provided that the union had to have a ballot of its members to authorise the setting-up of a fund. Whether those ballots were held just after 1908 or 1913, there cannot be many of that electorate who are still left around and it is about time there was another ballot.

    Anglo-Soviet Trade
    Mr. Cockeramasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what prospects for increased Anglo-Soviet trade resulted from the recent visit of Mr. Gorbachev.
    Mr. Channon: When I met Mr. Gorbachev last month we agreed that trade between our two countries should be developed on a long-term basis. Mr. Gorbachev said that he hoped for an increase in trade of 40 to 50 per cent. in the short term and we discussed a number of opportunities that would help us to achieve this objective. These are now being actively pursued by the companies concerned.
    Mr. Cockeram: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Russian promises to ease restrictions on mutual trade are borne out in practice, and further ensure that when Russian cruise ships, which offer lower grade cruises than Britian's luxury cruise ships, use British ports they receive fair and equal treatment?
    Mr. Channon: I shall be delighted to look at the point raised by my hon. Friend.

    Bankruptcies
    Mr. Ron Brownasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many firms went bankrupt in 1984; and what is the total number of bankruptcies since 1979.
    Mr. Fletcher: Provisional 1984 figures for Great Britain are 8,509 bankruptcies and 14,210 company liquidations. In the six years 1979 to 1984 there were 34,862 bankruptcies and 61,785 company liquidations. The bankruptcy figures include deeds of arrangement, and cover all individuals and partnerships.
    Mr. Brown: Does the Minister agree that the figures are a terrible indictment of his Government? How many more firms will go bust as the pound declines and interest rates reach record level, s? Will he tell us the truth for a change?
    Mr. Fletcher: I shall tell the hon. Member another truth — the number of new company starts is also at a

    275
    record level with almost 100,000 new starts in 1984 alone. In other major industrial countries the number of bankruptcies and insolvencies in the last few years has been very high. Perhaps the next time that the hon. Gentleman visits the Red Army in Afghanistan he will stop off at one or two countries and find out for himself.
    Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Is my hon. Friend aware that many bankruptcies are caused by poor management, but that occasionally companies run into difficulties because of unfair trade barriers set up by other countries? Is my hon. Friend aware that Siemens sell telex machines and telecommunications equipment on the British market and that other companies, such as Olivetti, have telex equipment on sale and approved in this market but that British telex and telcommunications manufacturers are not allowed to sell in Italy, Germany, Japan, France and most other countries?
    Mr. Fletcher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If he can provide details I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will look into that.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Will the Minister be realistic and rectify what is happening in my constituency, where virtually every week, without fail, bankruptcies occur? Is the Minister aware that the construction company for which I worked, which is now over 100 years old, will close its doors on 1 February? Is he also aware that, because of Government policy, that company has gone out of commission? Does the Minister remember the 1979 Conservative manifesto in which promises were made to smaller companies and to industrialists in general? Finally is he aware that companies are now sadly disillusioned with the Government? Pray God that they will vote Labour at the next general election.
    Mr. Fletcher: I am interested in the fact that the hon. Gentleman seeks aid from yet another place. The point is that manufacturing investment in companies in the market today amounted to £6 billion in the year to September 1984. That was up 16 per cent. on the year before. Retail sales were up 4·5 per cent. in real terms in 1984 compared with 1983. There is no shortage of demand in the market. The challenge is for British companies to meet that demand.
    Mr. Spencer: Does my hon. Friend agree that a number of firms in the city of Leicester went bankrupt because they were crucified by a monstrous rate bill imposed by the city council?
    Mr. Fletcher: I am sure that that is correct. It applies to many companies, especially small companies, throughout the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Gould: Is the Minister aware that because the deposit on a debtor's petition and the minimum debt to support a creditor's petition were increased by 100 per cent. and 120 per cent. respectively in October last year, the figures which he has just given the House do not fully reflect the full severity of this immense and record surge in business failures? Is the Minister further aware that if the figures are disaggregated they cast a yet more unflattering light on Government policy because they show that, following the imposition of VAT on home improvements, business failures among glazing firms have doubled and that even in high technolgy — computer manufacturers and distributors — so much touted as a success by the Government, the failures have doubled?
    Mr. Fletcher: Even taking into account the increase in the debtor's petition, the monthly figures show a levelling off in the number of bankruptcies.

    Regional Aid
    Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many recent representations he has received on his decision to alter the criteria governing regional aid.
    Mr. Butcher: About 120 written submissions on the changes in regional industrial policy have been received since my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry announced them on 28 November. Ministers in the Department have also had a number of discussions with right hon. and hon. Members and others about local and general industrial development questions against the background of the new policy.
    Mr. Fisher: Will the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State concede that the five or six criteria in the new policy for regional aid are adequate to respond neither to the underlying unemployment trends, such as job vacancies or youth or long-term unemployment, nor to the inherent industrial problems of an area such as mine in north Staffordshire? Will he recognise that his plans leave an area such as north Staffordshire in a worse position, sandwiched as it is between two areas to which he has given aid? Will he therefore reconsider his plans?
    Mr. Butcher: I fully understand the reasons for the hon. Gentleman's question, particularly in the light of the pending early redundancies. However, I hope he will agree with me that there was no other way for the Government to proceed but upon objective criteria, impartially applied, and paying due cognisance to the core factor, which was the absolute level of unemployment and the level of long-term unemployment. On that basis, and on the travel-to-work-area basis, unfortunately — or perhaps one should say fortunately — Stoke was not sufficiently disadvantaged to qualify.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will my hon. Friend accept that the west midlands welcomes the modest change in regional aid in our area, but could he help us about what the effect will be upon BL, a company which is owned in the majority by the taxpayer? Although in the past BL needed aid to save it from bankruptcy, it has now become a successful company. Are the Government, as the major shareholder, willing to invest further in its success so as to secure the jobs that are most desperately needed by the motor industry and the west midlands.
    Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend referred to the new changes as modest, but I am bound to say that industrialists in the Birmingham area do not see it in that light. I would cite as evidence the fact that 2,000 companies have already made inquiries about the workings of the system, of which 10 are from the inner city area of Birmingham, with which I know my hon. Friend has some preoccupation. As for BL, we look at its applications for various forms of assistance on their merits, but at the moment there is no application, either formal or informal, before us. We are also anxious to continue the support that we give to the BL component suppliers, which BL regards as a very important part of the industry.
    Mr. Wilson: On top of the Government's recent discriminatory refusal to give to Scottish old-age

    277
    pensioners the heating allowances that they are dishing out in the south of England and in the midlands, does the hon. Gentleman not understand that in Scotland we feel that we are also being discriminated against on industrial aid—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I find it difficult to relate the hon. Member's question to regional aid.
    Mr. Wilson: I did, Mr. Speaker, refer to industrial aid. What proposals do the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend have for restoring to the Scottish economy the £100 million that they have embezzled from it?
    Mr. Butcher: I find that a most incredible assertion. Scotland has received significant aid,, from this Administration and from many other Administrations during the last two or three decades. Not only has Scotland received significant aid, but the Scots were not discriminated against during the last evaluation of assisted area status. Scotland has been subjected to exactly the same criteria as the rest of the country.

    Small Firms Service
    Mr. Tim Smithasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many inquiries the small firms service answered during 1984.
    Mr. Trippier: During 1984 the small firms service dealt with 279,201 inquiries in Great Britain.
    Mr. Smith: Is this not a most encouraging figure? Does it not demonstrate quite clearly the resurgence of interest in the starting up of new businesses? Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the quality of the advice that is being given as well as with the quantity?
    Mr. Trippier: I agree with my hon. Friend that the figure is encouraging. For counselling cases it seems to improve year on year. I am very proud of the small firms service. Nevertheless, it should be reviewed. I am concentrating upon a review of that service right now.

    GATT
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisleasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether Her Majesty's Government favour a new round of negotiations on the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
    Mr. Channon: Yes, provided the preparatory discussions show good prospects of success.
    Mr. Carlisle: When are these talks likely to take place? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom depends very heavily upon trade and that we must aim further to reduce barriers? Therefore, when these talks take place will my right hon. Friend insist that those countries to which we experience difficulty in exporting freely, such as Spain and Japan, significantly reduce their trade barriers?
    Mr. Channon: It would be a prime aim during the talks and in other fora to ensure a genuine opening-up of the Japanese market. With Spain coming into the European Community, there will be free trade between Spain and the rest of the Community in a comparatively short time. No one can yet tell whether there will be a round of talks on the GATT, but I think that there will preliminary talks this year and every likelihood of substantive talks towards the end of the year.

    Cheese (Exports)
    Mr. Wigleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total volume of cheese exported from the United Kingdom in 1984.
    Mr. Channon: Thirty-two thousand tonnes of cheese and curd were exported in 1984.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that producers in my constituency have been advised that they should expect a cut in the exports of cheese to markets such as Japan, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and the Caribbean? Are the Government taking any steps to impose such an artificial restriction? If so, what is the reason for that?
    Mr. Channon: Some of those points are probably matters for my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Wales. I know of no plans deliberately to limit exports. We export a great deal of cheese, not only to the countries mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but to Algeria. A great deal of Cheddar cheese is exported all over the world.

Foreign Affairs Council
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker I should like to make a statement about the Foreign Affairs Council that met in Brussels on 28 and 29 January 1985. I represented the United Kingdom. Ministerial conferences with Spain and Portugal were held within the margins of the Council.
Ministers discussed outstanding points in the negotiations with both Spain and Portugal on agriculture, fisheries and social affairs. We remain determined to conclude the negotiations to allow the date of 1 January 1986 for Spanish and Portuguese accession to be met.
The Council discussed the financing of the 1985 budget and the text of the new own-resources decision. More detailed work will now be done. The Council will return to this subject in February.
The Council considered the new Canadian restrictions on Community beef exports. I urged others to work for a satisfactory negotiated outcome.
Ministers of the Ten, in political co-operation, issued a short statement regretting the failure of the New York high-level meeting on Cyprus and calling for the resumption of negotiations. Copies of the statement have been deposited in the Library of the House.
At an intergovernmental conference in the margins of the Council, Foreign Ministers appointed the Vice-Presidents of the new Commission.
Mr. George Robertson: I thank the Foreign Secretary for making his statement so generously. It is important that the House has the chance to seek information on progress or, equally important, lack of progress made in these crucial meetings—all the more so since it seems that the failure of the Council means that the Community is yet again steering complacently towards paralysis.
Is it not true that the failure to make progress at the Foreign Affairs Council seriously endangers any chance of resolving the chronic and almost perpetual calendar of EEC financial crises? No progress was made on a new budget to replace the one rejected by the European Parliament; no progress is being made to resolve demands on the integrated Mediterranean programmes, which threatens a Greek veto on Spanish and Portuguese accession; no progress was made on the accession negotiations themselves, which must be completed urgently if they are to be ratified in 10 countries on time; as a consequence, no progress can be made on increasing own resources, which will be necessary to pay the Prime Minister's much trumpeted rebate.
Is not this sad and sorry mess proof positive of the emptiness of the fine words at Fontainebleau? Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether the new budget Commissioner, Henning Christopherson, did warn Foreign Ministers yesterday that agriculture expenditure will exceed income by over £1 billion—nearly 2 billion ecus? If so, precisely where will Britain's rebate now come from? Secondly, will the Foreign Secretary consider reducing our monthly payments to the EEC by one twelfth of our expected rebate, in the light of the accounting nightmare that is yet to come? Thirdly, when does the Foreign Secretary expect ratification of Spanish and Portuguese accession to be before this Parliament?
280
Will the Foreign Secretary give the elusive guarantee that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office failed to give during last week's debate, that no more special payments will be demanded of this House this year to fund the endemic inability of the Community to control farm spending?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I must begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) on his accession to the position of principal spokesman on European Community affairs on the Opposition Front Bench. I encourage him to avoid the somewhat histrionic attempt at dramatisation which characterised his intervention this afternoon.
There was a routine meeting yesterday at which discussion took place on all the matters that I have identified. The suggestion that we are steering complacently towards paralysis, and all other fanciful language of that sort, is beside the point and remote from the truth. We discussed the matters that I have identified. We do not accept the warning of the new vice-president in charge of the budget of an overrun of the estimated expenditure on agriculture. We were not given any justification for the figures yesterday, and we shall want to challenge them and examine them most closely. It is worth reminding the hon. Gentleman that in 1984 the original Commission figure of 2·3 billion ecu was in the end reduced to 1 billion ecu.
It is universally acknowledged that provision must be made by the conclusion of discussions for the United Kingdom abatement to be made on the revenue side in accordance with the Fontainebleau conclusions.
As I said in my statement, we expect the accession and enlargement negotiations to be completed to enable ratification of enlargement to be presented and to take place on 1 January 1986.
As for any other matters being brought before the House, the object of the exercise is to secure a conclusion that will cover the overrun already established in the 1985 budget and to secure implementation of the Fontainebleau summit agreement on our own resources.
Mr. Eric Forth: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, no matter how desirable he may consider the political aims of enlargement, there is nothing particularly magical about January 1986 and that it is much more important to get the negotiations correct than to conclude them early and on the wrong terms? The overriding importance is to get the negotiations right in terms of United Kingdom interests and those of existing Community members rather than to let in two new members on the wrong terms.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree with the importance of the objectives that my hon. Friend has described. It is important also to seek to achieve them in accordance with the foreshadowed timetable. We shall seek to achieve both.
Dr. David Owen: Although the Foreign Secretary has spoken of a routine meeting, are we being led to believe that, with the unprecedented instability of oil prices and exchange markets, the Council did not discuss, at least on the margin, the problems that this presents to the Community of 10? What was the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attitude in any such discussion, especially as we are now producing 2·5 million

281
barrels a day while Saudi Arabian production is down to 3·5 million barrels? The United Kingdom is therefore a significant factor in oil prices. Was the question of British membership of the exchange rate part of the EMS discussed, and, if not, why not?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Neither of those questions was raised. It was a meeting neither of the Energy Council nor of the Finance Ministers' Council. We were addressing ourselves to the agenda before us.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Surely my right hon. and learned Friend is seized of the importance of not entering into a new and heavy financial commitment until he knows that the EEC is in a position to meet its existing financial commitments as well as the additional ones. Must this not control any putative date of enlarging the EEC if it cannot meet its existing financial commitments with its existing resources? Until that conundrum is resolved, how can we contemplate increasing the liabilities of the EEC?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is precisely why all these issues are being addressed together. We are covering the 1985 budget overrun, the completion of the enlargement negotiations and the establishment of the own resources position. These issues were discussed yesterday.
Mr. David Winnick: Did the Foreign Affairs Council discuss, or does it intend discussing, the question of having some celebration of the fortieth anniversary of the victory over Nazism and the liberation of Europe from Nazi tyranny? Is it intended to make a protest to the Austrian authorities over the way in which a senior Austrian Minister went out of his way personally to welcome back a notorious Nazi mass murderer who had just been released by the Italian authorities?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand why the hon. Gentleman has some interest in that topic, but it was not one to which the Community addressed itself yesterday. Nor would it have been appropriate to have done so, it being a matter arising within the Government of a state which is not a member of the Community. The question of the commemoration of the conclusion of hostilities in Europe is being considered substantially as a matter for national Governments.
Sir Anthony Meyer: In view of the proper concern that is being expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the financial cost of the entry of Spain and Portugal to the Community, is it not more than ever essential to emphasise the paramount political importance of ensuring that those two countries, recently returned to democratic Government, are firmly anchored in the Western community?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Did the Foreign Affairs Council consider the important problem of famine in the sub-Sahara? If so, was it recalled that in September there was a promise that 250,000 tonnes of grain would be delivered, as against the reality of 13,000 tonnes delivered, despite the fact that the grain mountains are still growing?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That was not discussed yesterday — [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] — because the Community's conclusions about the supply of grain to meet the needs identified by the hon. Member for
282
Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) were agreed at the Dublin summit, on a commitment to supply 1·2 million tonnes of grain, and the substantial food aid commitments made by the Community in November are being delivered now.
Sir Dudley Smith: My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned the vexed question of Cyprus. Will he encourage his European colleagues to put some moral pressure on the Greek Cypriots to negotiate more meaningfully with the Turkish Cypriots to try to reach a reasonable conclusion?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: In the course of the discussions yesterday, and in the course of the discussions I had last week with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, we made clear our expectation and hope that both sides would continue to negotiate with the utmost seriousness in the context of the initiative taken by the Secretary-General.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Was there a report before the Council of those states which had ratified the intergovernmental agreement which raised a loan for the EEC's 1984 budget? In the opinion of the Council, what article of the Treaty of Rome authorises the EEC to spend over its own resources, for 1984 or in any subsequent year when it needs to do so?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There was no discussion of that subject in the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the intergovernmental agreement has been before this House in relation to the position that arose last year.
Mr. Geraint Howells: I welcome the prospect of Spain and Portugal becoming full members of the Community. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree, however, that the administrative costs of the EEC are increasing at a colossal rate? Is he aware that the expenditure by the intervention board for agricultural produce last year was more than £1,300 million? Does he and his colleagues have any plans to change the system, for better or for worse?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is important that every effort is made to reduce and control those costs, and that will, no doubt, be a question to which the new Commission will be addressing itself.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many hon. Members believe that these meetings are extremely valuable and take great pleasure in the knowledge that the accession talks are going well? How long will the transition arrangements last for the fishing agreement in respect of Spain?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the value of these meetings. It is important to understand that, although they do not give rise to high drama, they are important. The discussion yesterday enabled substantial advantages to be made in securing agreement on all these questions.

As for the fisheries regime for Spain, the main issues are still under negotiation, and that concerns the length of the transition arrangement and its possible extension, in the event of no agreement being reached in the original period.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: On the breakdown of the talks on Cyprus, how on earth can the Foreign Secretary or Mr. Pérez de Cuellar expect progress

283
to be made if Mr. Denktash, the Turkish Cypriot representative, under instructions from General Evren of the Turkish Government, was not allowed to discuss the following issues: first, the withdrawal of Turkish troops from Cyprus; secondly, the free movement of Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots; and, thirdly, the unification of a single currency? In those circumstances, will the Foreign Secretary make further representations to the Turkish Government to ensure that next time they meet there is an open agenda on the table allowing full discussion of those items?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to offer the House his view of the present state of the negotiations. His view contrasts with that offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith). Both sides need to be urged to make every effort to bridge the gap between them. Before the last round of talks, the Secretary-General made an assessment that the gap between them had never been so narrow. I know that the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) attaches importance to closing the gap. I assure him that we shall continue to give every support and encouragement to the parties concerned, the other countries interested and the Secretary-General. I should not like to express a judgment about the two views that have been offered on both sides of the House.
Mr. Anthony Marlow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain to a puzzled public why when we joined the Community we had to pay through the nose for the privilege, whereas when the Spanish and Portuguese seek to join the Community the Community has to pay through the nose for the privilege?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: At the time we joined the Community we were subject to a substantial transitional period which was designed to meet our particular circumstances. There will be negotiations about the transitional arrangements for the two new countries applying for membership. The negotiations must take account of the relative poverty of those countries.
Mr. Allan Roberts: When the Foreign Secretary last reported what happened at a Foreign Affairs Council he claimed that arrangements had been made to ensure that, when Spain and Portugal joined the Common Market, an olive oil lake would not be created. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also gave assurances at that time that action would be taken to reduce the beef and butter mountains and the wine lake. Although I have recently enjoyed cheap butter from the EEC, I point out that the butter mountain has not been reduced significantly and the wine lake is still growing. How confident can we be that an olive oil lake will not be created when Spain and Portugal join the Common Market? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that if there is an olive oil lake it will not be mixed in with the wine lake?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct to draw attention to the importance of maintaining strict discipline in the control of agricultural policy. For that reason, we are insisting upon a tight price regime for decisions in accordance with the financial guidelines that have been adopted and for the effective application of
284
guaranteed thresholds to the commodities already covered by them. It is important that that regime should apply to olive oil as to other products.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Although many of us welcome the accession date and hope that this time it will be adhered to, will the Foreign Secretary explain the budgetary arrangements for Portugal, which is one of the poorest countries? The Treaty of Rome mentions the need to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that Portugal will not be a net contributor and that the accession arrangements affecting the budget are satisfactory?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Lady is correct in drawing attention to that matter as being important to Portugal. In that context I drew attention yesterday to the need for the Commission to bring forward proposals to deal with the own resources chapter of the enlargement negotiations.
Mr. Roland Boyes: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that my political friends in Portugal were very disappointed when the 1984 date for entry was not achieved and that, after 50 years of brutal dictatorship, they are anxious to join the Common Market and will be extremely distressed if the January 1986 date is not achieved? I welcome the Foreign Secretary's determination, but what are the specific issues involved and which countries are likely to cause a hold-up at this stage?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Questions of some difficulty still remain, especially in relation to fisheries and some parts of the agriculture dossier. Establishing a fair balance of interests within the Community and with the applicant countries is bound to take some time, but I recognise the importance of what the hon. Gentleman says about Portugal's view of accession to the community.
Mr. George Foulkes: At a time of great and mounting crisis within the Community, the Foreign Secretary has given a picture of two days of total inaction. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has said, we consider it a disgrace that there was no discussion about aid to Ethiopia. The reality is quite different from the picture drawn by the Foreign Secretary. A written reply that I have received revealed that only 13,000 tonnes of grain have arrived in sub-Saharan Africa, whereas 1·2 million tonnes had been promised and there are now 12 million tonnes in store.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman admit that time is running out for a decision on the accession of Spain and Portugal and the consequent decision about increasing VAT and own resources, both of which have to be ratified independently by the 10 sovereign Parliaments, and the delay to which jeopardises our abatement? What contingency plans does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have for dealing with that?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman admit that the Government's policy on Europe now appears to be as big a shambles as their economic policy?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I caution the hon. Gentleman against over-excitement about the alleged mounting crisis that he perceives. The Community is addressing itself to the business of completing the necessary instruments to cover the overrun on the budget this year, to provide for

285
The own resources decision that is necessary to fulfil Fontainebleau and to complete the enlargement negotiations.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must not allow time to run out. We are pressing ahead with the urgency that I consider necessary. The hon. Gentleman must not believe that, because I do not report to the House each month a series of either conflicts or dramatic conclusions, no progress is being made. Progress was made on the matters discussed yesterday, and that is a good thing.

Early-Day Motions
3.54 pm
Mr. Roland Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that this morning you were personally involved in refusing an early-day motion that I wished to table. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) has today tabled an early-day motion condemning the University of Oxford for not giving an award to the Prime Minister. My early-day motion would have pointed out that Droylesden Littlemoss boys' county secondary modern school has not recognised its own favourite and most distinguished son, my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts).
Is it a sign of the class nature of the present Parliament that it is in order to table an early-day motion about the University of Oxford, but not in order to table an early-day motion about a secondary modern school? If you have turned down my request, Mr. Speaker, would you reconsider that decision? Many Labour Members who attended secondary modern schools find it offensive that those schools are not recognised in the same way as the University of Oxford.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was deeply honoured when my colleagues came to me and suggested that my secondary modern school should be honouring me as it is suggested that the Prime Minister should be honoured by Oxford and Cambridge. It is suggested that the failure to honour me was a slight and it now appears that, as the early-day motion has been refused, there is an insult to my school as well. It gave me a good education — far better than the type of class education that is given at Oxford and Cambridge.
I am worried because the Clerk told me that the early-day motion would not be allowed because it was designed to annoy. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that any early-day motion that suggests that there is something wonderful about honorary degrees from Oxford and Cambridge when there are no honours from Droylesden Littlemoss boys' county secondary modern school, which educated me, is not designed to annoy anyone except me, because that school gave me a very good education. I therefore hope that you will allow the early-day motion.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While you are ruling on the point of order raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) and for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), will you say whether it is in order to table a motion congratulating Oxford university on showing such good sense and making a decision that will be welcomed by most people?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member's point is a hypothetical question at the moment.
As for the first point of order, if the hon. Members for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) and for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) study "Erskine May", as I am sure they do, they will find that on page 382 it states clearly that an early-day motion of this type has been turned down by my predecessors because it is
"tendered in a spirit of mockery".
Mr. Boyes rose—
Mr. Allan Roberts rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have ruled, and in accordance with precedent. There is nothing more to be said.
Mr. Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it a new point of order?
Mr. Boyes: Yes. I now have to clear my own name. I study "Erskine May" every night before I go to sleep. There was no intention of directing mockery towards the Prime Minister but rather a desire to recognise the role of secondary modern schools. Would it be possible to have an audience of you, Mr. Speaker, to see whether there is any way around "Erskine May"?
Mr. Speaker: It would be a pleasure.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether, in the discussions, we could take account of how many Clerks and Officers of the House went to Oxford and Cambridge.
Mr. Speaker: I should be very happy if the hon. Member for Bootle joined the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington.

Pensioners' Right to Fuel and Communications
3.57 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish standing charges for gas, electricity and water and to abolish rental charges for telephones and television licences for pensioners.
Several Bills on this subject have been introduced previously, but we are now in the midst of a severe winter during which many pensioners are not eating properly, are going to bed early and are suffering badly from hypothermia because they cannot afford to pay heating bills and therefore keep themselves warm and in health.
I present the Bill with a sense of urgency and hope that the House will take serious note of it. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have been asked during election campaigns whether they support the principle of standing charges being applied to pensioners and have answered that they do not.
The House should be aware that pensioners are treated badly. I should be happy if the Government presented proposals for a serious and real increase in the old-age pension. The real problem for pensioners is poverty. Although my Bill would help to alleviate that poverty, the real problem is the low level of the state pension. Many pensioners organisations are fed up with the patronising attitude of political leaders and newspapers at festive times, especially as they are forgotten for the rest of the year. I hope that the Bill will be widely supported.
I propose the abolition of standing charges for gas and electricity for pensioners, and that there should not be an immediate increase in the unit cost of gas and electricity. The cost of abolition, which was estimated at £300 million in a recent parliamentary answer to me from the Department of Energy, should be borne by the Government only, so that the real cost of gas and electricity will be lower for pensioners than for other people.
At present a rebate scheme on standing charges is in operation. If a standing charge is less than half the total bill for gas or electricity, it is reduced accordingly. Surely that shows acceptance of the principle that the standing charge is wrong because it is a tax on those who consume least. An example of how the rebate principle does not help pensioners is the fact that more than half the people who benefit from it are not old-age pensioners, nor necessarily small consumers, but owners of second homes who leave the heating on to prevent their second homes from freezing up in winter. As the Government accepts the principle of the rebate scheme, they must accept the principle that standing charges are fundamentally wrong.
In 1976, in a report on the issue of standing charges, the Department of Energy said:
"We are satisfied that there is a sound case in economic principle for a tariff structure under which standing charges are maintained separate from the unit consumption charge."
I do not understand what the Department means by that, but I know that there is no social case for it. It is a penalty on the poorest people to continue making standing charges on them.
After I tabled a similar Bill in July 1984, I received a great deal of correspondence from pensioners' groups throughout the country and from some fuel boards which were interested in the thinking behind the proposals. They

289
said that we had exaggerated the position, but I am not sure that we have. Since last July the standing charge on gas credit consumers has been £9·90. Information available as of that date shows that the average standing charge for an average household has been 0·54 per cent. of its total income, and that for a single pensioner it has been 2·24 per cent. In other words, it costs pensioners 4·5 times as much as anyone else. At that time the pension was £34·05, which meant that pensioners were paying 76p a week in gas standing charges alone. A reduction of 76p a week from the gas bill would help many pensioners. The same applies to electricity and other bills. The water standing charge, which should also be abolished, operates on the same principle.
I include in the Bill the abolition of the television licence fee for pensioners. A television is a basic and necessary form of communication for many people, especially single elderly people. We live in a highly mobile society. In my constituency and many others, many elderly people have no young relatives living near them. Often the young relatives have gone to live in the new town areas. That adds to pensioners' sense of isolation. A television licence fee of £46 is a monstrous charge on pensioners for their basic form of communication. It is not a luxury. The abolition of that fee for pensioners is a small price to pay to help them.
The same applies to telephone rentals for the elderly. Telephones are a basic necessity for many elderly people. The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 recognises that principle. Some chronically sick, elderly people can get telephones, but only with great difficulty. Under the Government's rate-capping proposals many local authorities will no longer be able to meet that need. Although many people are not chronically sick within the exact terms of the Act, they desperately need and rely on a telephone. They tend to be small users, and use it when they are in trouble to call friends, neighbours or the emergency services, or to receive calls from relatives who live far away. Often the rental for the phone is the major part of the Bill, and in some cases it is virtually the entire bill.
With this Bill I am asking the House to take note of the tremendous poverty among elderly people. If the Government are prepared, as they apparently are, to spend £5·2 billion of public money to break the miners' strike, why do they not spend the same sum on making real improvements to the living standards of our poorest elderly people? The Government should seek to do that, rather than take £1 from the heating allowance of elderly people as they did in November.
They are many dreadful stories about pensioners who have been extremely badly treated by the fuel boards, and who have been threatened with disconnection or been disconnected because they could not pay their bills. The
290
Citizens Advice Bureaux in London produced a report entitled, "Cold Comfort For The Poor." One of the examples that it gives is as follows:
"Pensioner (73 years) receiving retirement pension and occupational pension. In debt to both LEB and NTG. Gas bill of £96 on which the CAB is trying to negotiate fuel direct, which is finally refused since the client is ineligible for supplementary benefit due to income. By this time the debt is £208. Client offers £10 per week, NTG demand £96 (the amount brought forward) before they will accept weekly amount. Client cannot afford this. LEB bill of £66 — negotiated with Board to pay off £3 per week. Gas disconnected."
Imagine what that pensioner is going through without gas for cooking or heating during these cold winter nights. That is the kind of poverty that we face.
There is a great deal of misunderstanding about whether special help is available for pensioners. There is not. A large number of charities do their best to help, but a pensioner is not eligible for special help unless he is eligible for supplementary benefit, as is the case with everyone else. Pensioners need warmer rooms than the rest of us, and warm food. They are in their homes for longer than the rest of us and tend not to go out, especially during the winter. Therefore, their fuel bills are of major concern to them, as is the payment of their telephone bills and the television licence fee.
I hope that my Bill will help those people. While disconnections of gas and electricity supplies continue this winter, and while old people are frightened to turn on the gas fire, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that 84 per cent. of disconnections—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has now spoken for 10 minutes.
Mr. Corbyn: I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker. Eighty-four per cent. of people about to be disconnected draw state benefits, 80 per cent. receive less than £70 a week, and 60 per cent. have debts in addition to fuel debts. The matter is serious and urgent. The Bill will help elderly people to achieve decency in retirement. The House should recognise that need immediately and support the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Ms. Jo Richardson, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Robert N. Wareing, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Frank Dobson, Mr. Ron Davies and Mr. Tom Clarke.

Pensioners' Right to Fuel and Communications
  PENSIONERS' RIGHT TO FUEL AND COMMUNICATIONS
  Mr. Jeremy Corbynaccordingly presented a Bill to bring in a Bill to abolish standing charges for gas, electricity and water and to abolish rental charges for telephones and television licences for pensioners: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 February and to be printed. [Bill 67.]

Airports Inquiries 1981–1983 (Inspector's Report)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Major.]
Mr. Speaker: Before we start on this important debate, may I tell the House that so far I have had applications by letter from no fewer than 44 right hon. and hon. Members. I propose to adopt the 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 o'clock and 8.50 pm, but I hope that in view of the large number of hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate all speeches will be reasonably brief, please.
4.9 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): In opening this debate we are honouring the commitment that we gave during the Second Reading of the Civil Aviation Bill that the House would have an opportunity to express its views on airports policy in the light of the inspector's report on the Stansted and Heathrow terminal 5 public inquiries before final decisions were reached.
I shall say a few words on the history of the matter and then on the procedures that we intend to follow.
Airports policy has exercised the minds of all Administrations, of whatever political persuasion, over a number of years. I shall not go back further into history than 1975–76, when the foundations of current airports policy were laid.
Following the decision to abandon the Maplin project, the then Labour Government published, in November 1975, part 1 of the "Airport Strategy for Great Britain", as a basis for further consultation. This set out a strategy for accommodating air traffic demand in the London area for the 1980s and identified several options to handle further growth in traffic in the longer term. Those included a fifth terminal at Heathrow, a second terminal at Gatwick, expansion of Stansted to a capacity of 16 million passengers per annum and further development at Luton.
In June 1976 the Government published the second part of that strategy, which dealt with the regional airports. This considered the way in which regional airports might be developed in the future and the possibilities of diverting traffic away from London to the regions. After extensive consultations on the basis of those documents, the then Labour Government announced their decisions in the airports policy White Paper in 1978.
Let me paraphrase the conclusions that were reached in that White Paper. It said that there was no case, in transport terms, for diverting traffic which had origins and destinations in the south-east to regional airports, and no case for the damage to the air transport industry which a policy of forced diversion would cause; that although some switch in traffic to the regions would occur naturally, this would not avoid the need for additional capacity in the south-east after 1990; that up to 1990, the growth in demand in the south-east should be accommodated by the provision of a fourth terminal at Heathrow, a second terminal at Gatwick, and the development of capacity at Luton and Stansted up to 5 million and 4 million passengers a year respectively; and that the Government would consider how demand might best be met beyond 1990. The possible solutions might be a major expansion
292
at Stansted, the development of an existing military airfield as a civil airport, or the construction of a new airport.
Following the White Paper, the then Secretary of State for Trade announced, in August 1978, the establishment of an Advisory Committee on Airports Policy and a Study Group on South-East Airports, in which the main interests concerned were represented. Their immediate task was to give detailed consideration to the options for accommodating air transport demand in the London area in the longer term.
When the Government took office in 1979, those two committees were part way through their work and we therefore awaited their reports before making any decisions on airports policy. The reports were published in December 1979 and their conclusions, which were broadly the same as those expressed in the 1978 White Paper, were accepted—that the development of regional airports could not obviate the need to meet demand in the south-east and that in the light of the forecasts then available further airports capacity would be needed in the south-east before 1990.
In line with this assessment, the then Secretary of State for Trade, Sir John Nott, as he later became, while giving the Government's support to the fullest possible use of regional airports, announced that the British Airports Authority would be invited to bring forward proposals for the development of Stansted to meet the expected growth in demand in the south-east; and that because this raised issues of considerable national and local importance, the proposals and the wider social and environmental implications would be thoroughly examined by means of a public inquiry. In accordance with this undertaking, the airports inquiries were opened in 1981 and ran through until well into 1983.
By any standards, the inspector's report is a colossal piece of work. In 1980 the then Secretary of State for Trade, Sir John Nott, said:
"We intend the public inquiry to be wide-ranging and to give objectors an opportunity not only to expand on their objections to the Stansted proposal but also to question the need for a major airport expansion anywhere and to put forward alternative sites."—[Official Report, 21 February 1980; Vol. 979, c. 701.]
No one could doubt that that remit has been fulfilled. The inquiries lasted for 258 days, brought forth around 4,000 written representations, and took oral evidence from some 250 witnesses. It is appropriate at this point for me to record my thanks and those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the inspector, Mr. Graham Eyre, Q.C. and his two assessors, for the conscientious and efficient way in which they tackled and discharged their formidable task.
However, before Ministers now is the equally formidable—some would say more formidable—task of reaching decisions on the 20 formal recommendations made by the inspector. I am sure that I need not summarise the terms of the inspector's recommendations. I am sure also that the House, like my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself, will have read every word carefully over the Christmas recess.
The issues before us are complex. Hon. Members have read the inspector's report and the reasons which led to those recommendations. Therefore, I hope that this debate will provide the opportunity for hon. Members to express their views on all these issues.

293
On the procedural side, the debate is taking place on the Adjournment. I should say why, and also amplify what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said on Thursday about the future parliamentary handling of this matter.
Normally, the inspector's report is published at the same time as the decision is issued. Although this is not the first time that there has been a debate in the House on a planning application before that application was determined, the holding of a debate in these particular circumstances presents certain difficulties.
Parliament has laid down in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 a system for determining planning applications by the local planning authorities, and, in the event of an appeal or a calling-in of the application, by the Secretary of State. Members of the public have an opportunity to make objections, or other representations, to the local planning authority or to the Secretary of State, as the case may be. If the case comes before the Secretary of State, a public inquiry may be held.
There is no provision in the planning Acts for Parliament to play any role in determining planning appeals or called-in applications. The duty of making a decision in such cases has been placed, by Parliament, by the Act, on the Secretary of State, and he must, in discharging his duty, base his decision on the evidence before him, taking account of Government policy.
By holding a debate on a substantive motion and voting on it, the House could be held to be seriously prejudicing the proper exercise of our quasi-judicial function of determining the applications. While my right hon. Friend and I have the applications before us for decision we are unable to express any views on the issues covered in the inspector's report. To do so could prejudice our consideration of it. I know that the House understands and accepts that.
Dr. Alan Glyn rose—
Mr. Ridley: In view of the extreme delicacy of my position in relation to not prejudicing that position, it would be better if I were not to respond to interventions. I know my hon. Friend will agree that on every other occasion I have always, I hope, been courteous to hon. Members who wish to intervene.
Thai would also mean that Ministers may not be able to vote — so as not to prejudice the decisions that my right hon. Friend and I will have to take — depriving about one sixth of the members of this House of the right to express their opinions.
Secondly, we have to consider what would be the effect of a vote on a substantive motion. Let us suppose that the House voted to reject the inspector's recommendations. If Ministers decided then to accept the recommendations, they would be disregarding the will of the House. But if they rejected the recommendations simply because that was the will of the House, rather than on the merits of the case, they would lay themselves open to challenge in the High Court. The parties affected, which could be numerous, could justly complain that the decisions were based on considerations extraneous to the inspector's report and that the whole painstaking process of public inquiry would be devalued.
I think the House will agree that the problem should be resolved as soon as possible, and that, consistent with proper consideration, is the Government's intention. Whatever hon. Members may think about the matters
294
before us, I doubt whether they want to subject the whole process to a further period of delay and uncertainty. There has been uncertainty about a third London airport for over 20 years. This uncertainty has borne not only on the people of Stansted, but on those living near Heathrow, Gatwick, and other sites which have been proposed in south-east England and beyond. There has been uncertainty also for the aviation industry and those employed in it. To prolong this uncertainty will not make the problem go away. It would merely mean that we would have to return to it at a later date.
That is why this debate is taking place on an Adjournment motion. Indeed, there is no other way to proceed if hon. Members are to express their views and if Ministers are to discharge their responsibilities—unless, of course, the House simply wants no decisions to be taken and the whole matter left in limbo for a further indefinite period. This is not to say that I am not acutely aware of the enormous political interest which this subject has aroused — how could I think otherwise? But I suggest that the only way in which that great interest can be properly combined with the requirements of planning legislation is for the House to debate the issue, for Ministers to listen intently, and for no substantive votes to take place—to avoid prejudicing the decisions.
What I can confirm, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said on Thursday last, is that after the decisions have been taken and announced the House will be given a further opportunity to debate and, if it wishes, to vote on the Government's airports policy. What I have in mind is that the Government will publish proposals on airports policy when the decisions are taken and announced, as the inspector urged us to do. These will cover a wider canvas than the narrower one of these particular planning applications.
I should like to make it perfectly clear that we approach this debate without having reached any conclusions as to what the final decisions might be. We will listen carefully to everything that hon. Members have to say.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths rose—
Mr. Ridley: I am sorry; I shall not give way. I did say that I feared it would be unwise for me to engage in debate on these complicated matters.
Before I leave the Floor to hon. Members, I should like to make one further point. Almost every airport policy decision in the last 40 years has been controversial. Wherever there is an airport, or the potential for an airport in this crowded island, there are people who object to its development, understandably so, and their views are of the utmost importance. But the aviation industry plays a vital role in transporting people and supports a large number of jobs of all sorts. Any responsible Government must take account of the interests of all these people. Airlines and airports exist only to serve the needs of the travelling public. Air travel is no longer for the privileged few; it is our objective to bring it within the reach of more and more people. Every Government have had to face these dilemmas and attempt to reconcile these conflicting interests. It is not an easy task. I can only say that my hon. Friend and I will do our best to get the right answer.
4.23 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is it not truly remarkable that we are debating on a motion

295
for the Adjournment of the House probably one of the most important decisions in relation to airports policy to be taken for the next 10 years? The Secretary of State tells us that this is because he is in rather a delicate position. During this week his delicate position seems to have taken on more and more of a close resemblance to the perils of Pauline. He seems to stagger from crisis to crisis, for most of which he is entirely responsible.
It is not true that similar debates on airport policy or on planning applications have been handled in this manner. One way the right hon. Gentleman could have dealt with any legal difficulty would have been to have given a decision and then allowed the House to have a full debate, because he would still have had the right under existing powers to call new expert evidence if he believed that something worthy and important has been brought to his attention. He could have taken account of all the views of the different sections of the House of Commons.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Lady admit that because it has been done in this way we shall get two bites at the cherry? If the Government had done as she has suggested — made a decision and then allowed a debate—we would have had only one bite at the cherry.
Mrs. Dunwoody: What has happened is much clearer. The Secretary of State started out trying to take a major decision by the back door. He brought in a Civil Aviation Bill, which was slung out by his colleagues. When that did not work, he decided that today we would have a debate on a Whip. When it became painfully clear that even his well-disciplined troops would not fall for that load of nonsense, he gradually reduced the Whip until suddenly, rather like the Cheshire cat, not only has the Whip disappeared but the payroll vote has disappeared as well. The payroll vote, which can normally be relied upon to troop through the Lobby, has been told that the Secretary of State is now in such disarray that the only thing he can possibly do to cover his own discomfiture is to suggest that we should have a vote on the Adjournment of the House.
We are all well aware that the Stansted report has far-reaching implications for the whole of our airports policy. We have had a week of leaks, a sort of, "Will they, won't they?" We are now told that we have had to proceed in this manner because there might be legal complications. The Secretary of State should have thought of that before he sought to push through the ceiling on Heathrow and take decisions that would pre-empt the decision that the inspector asked for in a carefully researched report. Today, we are being asked to decide on one area and to make policy in effect in a vacuum.
The report made clear that the inspector was anxious to give an overall picture of airports policy, but he could not. He made great efforts to run the widest possible survey before reaching a conclusion, but the nature of that system produced two main flaws. First, the inspector could not consider issues that were not brought to him for consideration. He actually mentioned the expansion of Gatwick, but there was no deep examination of the implications. The logic of the Government's desire for two equal and competing airlines is that they should operate from equal airports. Under those circumstances, Gatwick would have a second runway. That would mean destroying the village of Charlwood. The Government tell us
296
frequently that we should face up to taking hard decisions. Why are we not being asked to push ahead in that manner? Could it be that all the voters in Charlwood are Conservatives?
That leads to the second flaw. Airport policy is being considered but there has been no debate on airline policy. The computer models have included such assumptions but that is not the same as a discussion of the problems in depth.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: The Government have not seen fit to proceed with a second runway at Gatwick because they have an agreement with West Sussex county council forbidding them to do so.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I am well aware of that. The Secretary of State seems to think that he can take a salami approach to airports policy — putting a ceiling on Heathrow, ignoring the views of people living in that area, and simply pursuing his own interest in relation to one specific airport in the south-east.
There has been no discussion of the public expenditure implications or of the needs of regional airports, and precious little explanation of why the Minister is pushing ahead in this way. We all know why the debate is on the Adjournment. It is because the Government could not have faced the result if there had been a motion that could be amended and voted on in the proper way.
We need to consider what type of airline structure we want in this country. Should domestic companies such as British Midland be encouraged to limit themselves to being feeder services for B-Cal and British Airways or should they start their own international flights? Should there be one major flag carrier airline or two? Those questions lead not just to major decisions about airports but to major implications for licensing policy. It is crucial to decide which companies should use Stansted, if we want Stansted at all, and the type of service to be provided. Is tourism to take the lead from business travel or are we to have three major airports in the south-east warring for existing business, which will involve considerable interlining problems and serious implications for regional airports?
Since the last war, international business and international airline growth have been closely related. Do the Government expect that trend to change? If so, a more decentralised system of airports, extending regional airports and using them specifically as hub airlines not only makes sense but would produce positive dividends. The Government are using this inquiry to decide airline policy in general without proper consideration of all the airports. There is no consideration of Gatwick or the effect on Scottish airports and on major airports such as Manchester, which could develop, not just as a massive and useful international service, but act as a hub in relation to other regional airlines.
There was no comment from the Secretary of State about the investment implications. We should be considering the implications of Stansted for British airports finance. The British Airports Authority figure for capital needs this year is set at £150 million. In April, that will fall to £117 million. It will then be £139 million for 1986–87 and 1987–88. The external finance limit is also to fall in 1985–86. Those reductions are to take place at a time when Stansted is presumably to be built at a cost of more than £400 million. More than 75 per cent. of all investment

297
will be at Gatwick, Heathrow and Stansted. What will be the effect of that on Scottish airports? Prestwick is under threat and a report is imminent with major implications for Scotland. It seems inevitable that landing charges will have to be raised in other southern airports to cover the investment involved, although many airlines are complaining that landing charges are far too high already.
We should also consider the investment implications for British Rail. We have no clear idea of the cost of a British Rail link with Stansted, although those who worked on the northern airline scheme, especially in relation to the Natural Environment Research Council, claim that £166 million would be needed to build the link. At a time when investment has fallen from £522 million to £270 million in 1983–84 at constant prices, British Rail will have to find extra money not currently allowed for. If the Government are serious about this, they should tell us the effect on British Rail investment, on provincial services and on important factors such as section 20 grants. Commuter services in the provinces will be under enormous threat because the Government have not taken account of the investment that British Rail will have to find.
Thirdly, and most important, the Government and especially the Secretary of State have created an atmosphere of distrust. Why has there been such virulence in the north about the suggestion that Stansted should go ahead? It is because people in the north have no faith in the Government being prepared to consider the public expenditure implications on such an enormous injection of capital into the south-east or the loss of jobs and inability to attract new industries to the regions that the development of Manchester airport could have prevented. The Government have deliberately made it clear that in their view the regions take not first, second or third place but fourth place in relation to developments in the south-east.
On 17 January 1985 the Government stopped all regional aid. That moratorium will have a direct and deleterious effect on everything that is important to the regions. Next year aid will be cut by £300 million, with a further cut of £300 million in each succeeding year. That aid is concentrated in the north and in regions outside the south-east.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: As one who rather admires Manchester airport and uses it a great deal, I am glad that British Airways is to extend its flights from that airport, but why are the landing charges there so much higher than those at other airports in this country?
Mrs. Dunwoody: As I have said, the BAA has no provision for the investment that Stansted will require. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about the charges at Manchester now, the result of the Stansted plan will be far worse. In common with many other regional airports, Manchester is capable of developments that would allow it to take a great deal more traffic, both international and domestic. Economies of scale would then make it easier for airlines using that airport to benefit from lower costs than are now possible.
Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: The BAA boasts about the prices charged for franchise, enabling it to keep its charges artificially low because of the large number of people going through. If the regions had the same privilege of numbers, they could lower their charges.
Mrs. Dunwoody: That is exactly the point. Those who oppose the development of regional airports, and especially Manchester, are using the argument not in relation to economies of scale but because they want even more investment in the south-east.
Mr. Tim Yeo: Is not the hon. Lady completely ignoring the fact that the pressure for developing airports round London arises from the fact that many passengers want to use airports round London? To develop Manchester airport in response to this demand in the south-east is rather like building an extra railway line into Manchester because there is over-demand for the railway into Euston.
Will the hon. Lady answer the point made by the trade union representive, Brian Crocker:
"We are most disappointed that it now appears to be Opposition Party policy to oppose any further development of Stansted and Heathrow Airports. We feel this is both impractical and unworkable."
Mrs. Dunwoody: If the hon. Gentleman will give me two minutes to continue my speech, I shall come to those points later.
The kind of attack that the Government have mounted, particularly on regional aid, is one reason why there is such deep distrust in the north of the suggestion that the development at Stansted should go ahead. The distrust of those in the north of the Government's claim that investment in Stansted will in no way be deleterious makes it impossible for them to believe in the sincerity of the Secretary of State. To combine these two plans at the same time is a failure of leadership, which reveals the Government's desperate economic problems.
Mr. Richard Holt: The hon. Lady has spoken several times as though she speaks for the north of England. May I tell the hon. Lady that she does not speak for the north of England? Teesside chamber of commerce wrote to me this morning to make sure that I put my voice behind Stansted, which would be in the best interests of the north-east of England.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I hope that those views are widely known, not only to the people in the north-east, who are very close to the excellent airport system that already exists round Newcastle, but to those who will be anxious to see a development of their own regional airport traffic and who will not take kindly to that kind of remark from a Member of Parliament who represents the area.
Two types of airline will have special worries about Stansted. Will Stansted be a repository for charter and domestic airlines? I ask this advisedly. The Secretary of State, when he brought in the Civil Aviation Bill, showed that the Government's interest was in selling landing slots. Allocation to the highest bidder means that British Airways will win, as will large foreign international airlines. The small airlines might find themselves pushed out into Stansted. It is possible that they will be unable to compete with the BA domestic feeder services or the international flights from Heathrow. Equally, the charter flights—and we believe that there is a good case for the development of tourist traffic in the north of England—might find that, with the availability of Stansted, British Caledonian will fight to have them thrown out of Gatwick. This will allow British Caledonian to expand and deal with some of the problems that it already has because of the restrictions to which previous Governments have agreed.

299
It is, therefore, in line with the Government's abortive competition policy. Why is it that the Government have not made clear to the House their intentions for these two particular types of airlines?
Mr. Cecil Franks: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Dunwoody: I was asked to keep my speech short. It has not been easy to do so.
Mr. Franks: Will the hon. Lady take the point that many Conservative Members, including Conservative Members representing the north-west, would be prepared to take common cause with her if, instead of trying to make points against the Government, she kept her argument to the issues involved?
Mrs. Dunwoody: Let the hon. Gentleman understand that the Secretary of State has responsibility for creating an airlines and airports policy. He has signally failed to do so. He has taken it to the extent of introducing a major planning report on a motion to adjourn the House because he does not want to have the matter considered in any great detail.
It is important also to understand that the implications of Stansted involve real problems for the people living round Heathrow airport. No contribution has been made by any Conservative Member about the effect about pushing up the number of aircraft movements at Heathrow. I believe that we should be asking why, if there is to be any expansion at Stansted, the Government are insisting on such a large expansion all at once. It is obvious that in economic terms it would be possible to build a £5 million passenger terminal without any difficulty. It would be economic and would greatly reduce the guesswork that has so far been done to justify the expansion.
For example, the Stansted plan involves building a taxiway but widening it from the standard 23 m to 45 m along 2,700 m of the 3,900 m length. In other words, Stansted would gain the potential for expansion into a two-runway airport. While that is not likely in the near future, it makes it plain that the atmosphere of distrust that has greeted the plan can be justified by these facts on which the decisions are being taken. It is possible that Stansted could be expanded rapidly without a great deal of difficulty.
The Labour party does not welcome the idea that there should be a fifth terminal at Heathrow. We believe that that would take 15 years to build. It is clear that it will take at least six to eight years to move the Perry Oaks sludge works and that would therefore not solve the existing problem at Heathrow.
Heathrow is the busiest airport in the world and the residents in the area already know that to their cost. Because of the history of airport plans by various Governments and the vagueness of the forecasting—and there is considerable doubt about the processes that were used for forecasting in the report since this is not an accurate science—the residents will not feel particularly safe if the sludge works are moved but terminal 5 is not given the go-ahead. They will rightly fear that there will be yet another change at some point in the future. They will want a much clearer statement from the Secretary of State that he is aware of the environmental danger to the people living round Heathrow airport.
300
Once again the Heathrow expansion is beset by all the same problems that we have seen in relation to the Secretary of State's airport plan. Is the expansion to ensure that domestic airlines can stay at Heathrow or is it to let BA take over the domestic airline market as well? It is claimed in the report that only another 51,000 people will be seriously affected by terminal 5. That brings the 1995 total to 274,000 people while the Civil Aviation Authority has already said that 943,000 people were affected in 1980. The damage that is being done to save Heathrow from a problem that it will have to solve before terminal five could be built is considerable.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Can the hon. Lady clarify her remarks for the benefit of people who work at the airport—or who might wish to do so—and who are involved in civil air transport there? Is her party not committed to the fifth terminal at Heathrow for environmental and other reasons? If that is the case, she is diametrically opposed to one of the important recommendations of Mr. Eyre, QC.
Mrs. Dunwoody: It is not Labour party policy to support the building of a fifth terminal at Heathrow. We believe that people who live round that airport have rights. I am well aware that people who work in airports have the right to have their jobs protected. Expansion at Heathrow would create extra jobs. Similar expansion at Manchester would create an equal number of jobs and the opportunity for many businesses to come into the areas close to the airport. It would also allow Manchester to act as a hub airport for many other regions. I should like to know whether Conservatives are prepared to take into account the effect of job creation when considering whether we should go ahead with expanding Manchester airport.
Working in a vacuum is always bad. The Government should make all their airports plans clear in the light of an overall air industry strategy. In turning their face on forecasting methods they are incapable of providing accurate statistical information. We should understand that many of the assumptions are about as accurate as trying to manoeuvre a poker hand.
It is essential to have a proper plan from the Secretary of State that will take account not only of the effects on regional airports but of the effects on Scottish airports, Heathrow and individual airlines.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has done nothing but harp upon Manchester airport. Clearly she has not read the Eyre report. If she had she would have noticed that specific reference is made to Manchester. Mr. Eyre says that the idea that Manchester airport is being discriminated against has reached the stage of being a phobia. He therefore investigated with particular care and came to the conclusion that there is no evidence for that contention. Has the hon. Lady any further evidence than that which Mr. Eyre considered to justify her statements today?
Mrs. Dunwoody: There is no clear evidence that the inspector was right in saying that the assumption on which the northern consortium had built its plans were incorrect. If the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) believes that we are talking with any certainty about numbers I refer him to the section of the report on forecasts. The inspector says that by 1995 demand in the London airports could be

301
61 million passengers per annum, or even 89·3 million. The inspector looked carefully at the implications but he had to admit that when forecasting the size of aircraft, the noise, the number of passengers generated and where they would come from, there was considerable room for different interpretations. We do understand, however, that there is no room for doubt about what the investment will do if it all goes into the south-east of England and it is very plain that the effects of such massive investment will be very considerable on other regions.
This afternoon the Secretary of State has got himself into considerable political difficulty. He has not been prepared to come forward with a clear explanation of how he views the future of airport policy. He has not even been prepared to consider that, within a short time, another inspector's report about Prestwick and the Scottish airports will be published. He has endeavoured to stymie his colleagues, who do not wish to see any development at Stansted but who are not prepared to concern themselves about the implications for Heathrow, the regions or those airports that are important outside the London area.
The Government have gone out of their way to take decisions behind closed doors which have major implications for the future. Tonight's vote will show the heavy price that has to be paid for their dislike and fear of open government. If Government Members are really serious they will not support a Secretary of State who wishes to close all the options, with little concern for the airlines or the airports policy.
4.54 pm
Sir Humphrey Atkins: Over the years I have often been in disagreement with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Today is no exception. I particularly disagree with her on two matters.
The hon. Lady criticised the Government for having the debate today. It is strange that the Opposition should criticise the Government for having a debate in advance of a decision. Oppositions almost always say that there is no point in having a debate after a decision has been made because the Government do not listen but merely use their majority to push their decision through the House. Here we are, on a rare and welcome occasion, being given the opportunity to tell the Secretary of State exactly what we think and to give our views to him so that he can take them into account — I know that he will — yet the hon. Lady objects. That is strange.
The hon. Lady said that she had not heard much about the case in connection with Heathrow. Perhaps she has not heard it, but that does not mean that the case has not been made. If she missed it, she can hear it again now because I propose to talk about it. Although the case has been made, it is not as widely known as it should be.
Heathrow is in a ridiculous place. Nobody in his senses designing a capital city from scratch in a country governed by predominantly westerly airstreams would place the major airport 15 miles due west of the city centre. It means that every plane landing or taking off flies over the city centre. Any hon. Member who has had the pleasure of taking a cup of tea on the Terrace in the summer will be well accustomed to the sight of a stream of aeroplanes turning on to the flight path, apparently immediately over St. Thomas's hospital. They then travel the 15 miles to Heathrow, causing trouble and disturbance.
Thousands and thousands of aeroplanes fly over the middle of London, but — touch wood — no serious
302
accident has occurred. That speaks highly for the pilots, engineers and flight controllers. I can remember only one accident, about 12 years ago when an aircraft fell out of the sky on to my constituency after taking off from Heathrow. Everyone on the plane was killed but by the mercy of Heaven no one on the ground was killed. The aircraft fell exactly 220 yards from Staines high street. We should be thankful that we have had no major accident. Long may that continue.
However, Heathrow is where it is. It has been developed out of all recognition over the past 40 years and it is still being developed. Terminal 4 is still under construction and is expected to come into operation later this year. That will increase Heathrow's present capacity of 29 million passengers a year by another 8 million. Yet Mr. Graham Eyre, in the report, recommends further development at Heathrow to cater for another 15 million people. He admits that it will take a long time for any such development and do nothing to solve the problem of providing enough capacity in the next few years.
It is important that the case against further development at Heathrow should be made today because Mr. Eyre says that if the fifth terminal is to come into operation in 1997 or later the go-ahead must be given now because of the enormously long lead time.
I am not sure whether the House is fully aware of the great weight of opinion around Heathrow against any further development. Surrey county council — my constituency is in Surrey — led a consortium of local authorities to put the case to Mr. Graham Eyre against any further development at Heathrow. The consortium consisted of the county councils of Surrey, Buckinghamshire and Hampshire, the London boroughs of Hounslow, Kingston-upon-Thames and Richmond and the borough and district councils of Mole Valley, Reigate and Banstead, Runnymede, South Bucks, Surrey Heath, and Spelthorne which I have the honour to represent. This involves a large number of people. There are about 1 million people in Surrey, about 600,000 in Buckinghamshire and 1·5 million in Hampshire. Therefore, we are referring to the elected representatives of more than 3 million people. That leaves out of account the London boroughs to which I have referred.
At a meeting that I attended last week to discuss this debate, we were told by the vice-chairman of the planning committee of Berkshire county council that the Berkshire county council is also totally against the development of a fifth terminal at Heathrow. Unfortunately, I do not know how many people live in Berkshire, but undoubtedly many people live in that county. I should also mention, though I hardly dare, that the chairman of the planning committee of the Greater London council was at that meeting and said that his council is totally opposed to any further development at Heathrow.
Mr. Michael Grylls: As the constituency of my right hon. Friend abuts mine, would he comment on that part of the report which refers to the noise impact and the urban growth impact of a fifth terminal at Heathrow on his area and also on my part of Surrey? No doubt my right hon. Friend's constituents, like many of mine, are concerned about the increase in noise, if there were to be such an increase, and the pressure upon urban development.
Sir Humphrey Atkins: I thank my hon. Friend for his invitation. I shall not rehearse all the arguments that were

303
presented by the consortium to Mr. Eyre because anybody who wishes to find out what they are can read them. However, I shall refer to noise and to the effect upon the roads. I do not propose to dwell upon the subject of noise, for it is only two months since the Second Reading debate on the Civil Aviation Bill and I made the case on noise as well as I could then. Therefore, it would not be profitable to repeat it now. However, in chapter 42, paragraph 10.1, Mr. Eyre states:
"Air noise is a modern curse from which the unfortunate inhabitants of the Heathrow area have been required to suffer over a long period. There will be substantial improvements in the noise climate in the next few years"—
I should like to argue that point with Mr. Eyre—
"but conditions will still be worse than at any other location in the United Kingdom."
Mr. Jerry Hayes: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Humphrey Atkins: No; I am in the middle of this point and I shall not give way.
It is alleged that as time passes—this is part of the reason why Mr. Eyre believes that there may be an improvement — there will be less noise because there will be fewer aeroplanes. I have yet to meet anybody who seriously believes that 23 million extra people can be carried in and out of Heathrow each year without an increase in the number of aircraft. There is talk of super jumbos carrying 600 or 700 passengers to replace the present generation of jumbos. Indeed, terminal 4, which has not yet been completed, is designed to accommodate aeroplanes of that kind. It is worthy of note, however, that not only are no such aeroplanes flying but that, so I am advised, no such aeroplanes are even in production.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I represent constituents who have suffered from serious and severe noise pollution for many years. The result has been that many of them have suffered physical and nervous breakdowns; and it is well known that those who live in Ealing and in the surrounding areas that have already been mentioned by my right hon. Friend cannot hold conversations inside their flats or houses during the winter, let alone during the summer. Therefore, noise, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, is a major factor.
Sir Humphrey Atkins: I accept everything that my hon. Friend has said. However, I shall turn from the subject of noise, because we have already heard a good deal about it, to roads — another important part of the case made by the consortium. The difficulties surrounding getting into and out of London to the west are well known. When the construction of terminal 4 was being considered about seven years ago, Mr. Justice Glidewell, who wrote the report, said:
"Heathrow is London's largest generator of road traffic and the A4/M4 corridor is the Airport's most important route into and out of central London — it has been overloaded for many years."
Mr. Justice Glidewell continued:
"Unrestrained road traffic growth in the past has progressively increased this overloading to such a degree that"
today it has
"reached levels that must be regarded as intolerable."
Mr. Robert Adley: Would my right hon. Friend allow me to comment upon this part of his argument?
Sir Humphrey Atkins: No, otherwise I shall be on my feet all afternoon, and nobody wants that.
In his most recent report Mr. Graham Eyre was more dismissive. He said:
"conditions on the highway network in the Heathrow area and in particular along the M4/A4 corridor are unacceptable."

In chapter 38, paragraph 11.9, he said that a working party ought to be set up to investigate what could be done about this difficulty. That seems to be quite a good idea until one realises that it has already been done. The Department of Transport's evidence to Mr. Eyre's inquiry was as follows:
"The overall picture towards the end of this century will therefore be one of a highway network under stress with drivers operating under considerable strain (and) … conditions are likely to get worse on the M4 itself."
The Department went on to say:
"The Department have no proposals for any further roads in the area and indeed see no scope in providing any additional capacity in the A4/M4 corridor into Central London."
Therefore, one is bound to agree with the statement made last week by the transport committee's chairman of Surrey county council:
"yet the A4/M4 corridor cannot cope with only three terminals at Heathrow. With a Fourth and Fifth terminal and over 1 million passengers a week, traffic congestion would be intolerable. Not only would the M4 come to a standstill; the M25 would be heavily over-loaded as well."
Mr. Adley: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he believes the Government have studied the plans by British Rail for tunnels both for its Western region main line at Iver and for its Southern region line at Feltham? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if one looks constructively at this matter and tries to reduce the road congestion to which my right hon. Friend properly referred, major investment by the state in the rail infrastructure to ease the congestion at Heathrow must be a vital part of these considerations?
Sir Humphrey Atkins: Indeed, it would have to be. If this development went ahead, any rail link would need to take a very much higher proportion of passengers than the current underground link because the underground link represents only about 10 per cent. of passenger traffic and is virtually insignificant.
Over a number of years, the Government have consistently stated publicly that terminal 5 will not be built. Sir John Nott, as Secretary of State for Trade, said:
"these considerations have led us to the view that a fifth terminal should not be provided." — [Official Report, 17 December 1979; Vol. 976, c. 36.]
In another place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade, Lord Trefgarne, said:
"We have come to the conclusion that a fifth terminal at Heathrow … would take perhaps 11 to 13 years to build … and would not provide a long term solution." — [Official Report, House of Lords, 14 February 1980; Vol. 405, c. 327.]
Sir John Nott also said:
"I have made clear the Government's position. We do not favour a fifth terminal".—[Official Report, 21 February 1980; Vol. 979, c. 694.]
My right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said in 1980 — it may come as a surprise to hon. Members to know that he was then only a lowly Parliamentary Under-Secretary:
"The Government's view remains as set out in the statement made on 17 December 1979 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that a fifth terminal should not be provided."—[Official Report, 3 November 1980; Vol. 991, c. 411.]

305
That was confirmed by my right hon. Friend in a letter of 13 November to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), and the letter was subsequently issued by the Department as a press release.
The present Leader of the House, who was Secretary of State for Trade in 1981, reaffirmed in a written answer on 13 May 1981, at column 273, the Government's view that a fifth terminal should not be provided. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre), the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade, said:
"The Government have stated their view on a number of occasions that a fifth terminal at Heathrow should not be provided."—[Official Report, 23 July 1981; Vol. 9, c. 193.]
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), the then Leader of the House, said:
"the Government have on a number of occasions said that a fifth terminal at Heathrow should not be provided. That remains our policy "—[Official Report, 23 July 1981; Vol. 9, c. 544.]
Finally, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote a letter on 19 October 1981 to my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst). Of course, I have not seen that letter, but it was quoted in the House by Mr. Iain Sproat, who was then the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade. He said that the Prime Minister had written:
"The Government's airports policy was announced by John Nott in the House of Commons on 17 December 1979 and has been repeated since."
Small wonder then that hundreds of thousands of people believed in and took comfort from those assurances. Even less wonder that those of us who represent them felt able to say to anyone who expressed anxiety to us, "Do not worry. The fifth terminal will not be built. We have the Government's assurance on that." I have been saying that all those years and I said it during the last general election campaign. I have no doubt that some of my hon. Friends also did so.
Therefore, it will come as no surprise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to discover that if my assurances prove to have been false, there will be no way that he can count on my support — only my opposition. However, I do not believe that it will come to that. The Secretary of State is an honourable man; we all know that. He said as recently as 21 November in reply to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) — admittedly on aircraft movements rather than the fifth terminal:
"I agree with my hon. Friend that when a Government give a firm and unequivocal pledge of that sort it behoves them to seek to implement it".—[Official Report, 21 November 1984, Vol. 68, c. 301.]
Therefore, I hope that I can rely on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to do exactly that.
It is only proper that any hon. Member who contributes to the debate should spell out, as far as possible, the line that the Government ought to pursue. I shall try to do that briefly. All our discussions and Mr. Graham Eyre's report are based on the assumption that, because an increasing number of people want to land in aeroplanes as near to the centre of London as they can, it is our business to make arrangements for them to do so. I suppose that it could be said to be the law of supply and demand, which, in general, is a very good thing. However, a balance has to be struck between the operation of that law and the wellbeing of the people it affects. There is nothing new in that; it is the basis of all our planning law.
306
For example, if a large number of people said that they worked in the centre of London and wanted to live in the city centre, so they wanted permission to build houses in Hyde park, any planning authority would immediately say that such a proposal would be so damaging to the environment of those living nearby that it could not be approved. I believe that the Government should say that to airline passengers: "So many more of you coming into Heathrow would so damage the quality of life of those living near the airport that you should land somewhere else."
The question of a fifth terminal at Heathrow is not an immediate problem, unlike the future of Stansted or developments at Manchester. No extra passengers would be able to use the fifth terminal until almost the next century. However, the Government would be wrong to give the go-ahead to a new terminal in defiance of everything that has been said over all these years.
5.16 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris: I am very glad to be able to participate in so crucially important a debate, which may even prove to be an historic one.
I have two interests to declare. The first is that Manchester international airport, a most successful public enterprise in which, like all Mancunians, I take a legitimate pride, is in my constituency. It employs more people than any other enterprise there, and I am naturally anxious that it should go on expanding to provide more jobs in an area of unacceptably high unemployment.
My other interest in the debate is that I chair the all-party group of hon. and right hon. Members that liaises with the North of England Regional Consortium — NOERC. It was in that capacity that I sponsored early-day motion 146 on "Stansted and the Regions" which, with 233 signatories from all parties, has won more and wider parliamentary backing than any other motion awaiting debate in this House.
As the House will appreciate, I receive no financial reward from NOERC which, as most right hon. and hon. Members will know, speaks for 19 major local authorities in the north and represents millions of people, of all political persuasions and of none, in its opposition to the ill-conceived and unnecessary plan to develop Stansted as London's third airport.
The unemployment rate in the north is 17·1 per cent. In the south-east it is 9·2 per cent. The area immediately around Stansted has hardly any unemployment at all. The northern regions, with 27 per cent. of Britain's population, have 33 per cent. of its unemployment. The south-east, with 31 per cent. of the population, has 24 per cent. of the unemployment. Unemployment is a tragedy anywhere, but it hits much harder in the north, where losing a job means spending at least two and a half times longer on the dole before getting another chance to earn one's living.
In many parts of the north today we have male unemployment rates in excess of 50 per cent. In the city of Manchester there are now many localities where over two thirds of the under-25s are out of work. That is a shocking statistic from a city of which it was said, by one of the best economic historians to have written in the English language, that whoever spoke of industrialisation spoke of Manchester. It is a city today whose name has become synonymous with deindustrialisation. Moreover, even the figure of 66 per cent. unemployment among our young people in Manchester would be much higher but for

307
The masking effect of the youth training scheme on youth unemployment. In this International Year of Youth, the prospect for most of our youngsters is from school to scrapheap.
Even to suggest a £1 billion-plus investment at Stansted not merely derides but mocks the ever-lengthening dole queues of the north. It excites not just total opposition but outright anger among my constituents. We cannot spend the same money twice, and it would be a crime against the north to plan expenditure on that scale in the south-east. Yet it would seem that the inquiry inspector's view of the relationship of Stansted to the north, as to where such vast investment should go, is that while it does not want it, we cannot have it. That is not just voodoo economics, but logic worthy of Fred Karno.
Until only a short time ago it was the Government's intention to take their decision on Stansted without reference to this House. That was their stance in one parliamentary answer after another, and they have made an important concession. In response to pressure they agreed to a parliamentary debate and I am both relieved and grateful that Ministers have now, if reluctantly, conceded Parliament's essential role in debating and deciding issues of this importance. The Government as yet have not declared a view on the inquiry inspector's recommendation on Stansted. By refusing to table an amendable motion for this debate, they have attempted to make it impossible for the House to declare a definitive view. What the 233 signatories of my motion wanted today was an opportunity to vote, not against the Government, but against the inspector's recommendation to develop Stansted to a capacity of 15 million passengers per annum. The only way in which we can now demonstrate our concern, in all parts of the House, is to divide the House tonight and to make it clear that we are doing so as the only means of signalling our opposition to the huge development of Stansted now proposed. This may well be the last parliamentary opportunity to debate Stansted before the Government take their decision, and I hope that enough right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches, by their votes tonight, will leave the Government and the country in no doubt what that decision must be.
Mr. Toby Jessel: The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is against spending a lot of money on developing Stansted, with the object of resources going to the north-west or the north instead. Will he make it equally clear, with equal emphasis, that he supports the view of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that a fifth terminal should not be built at Heathrow, for exactly the same reason?
Mr. Morris: I shall be making reference to Heathrow as I proceed. Meanwhile I much admire the hon. Gentleman for the tenacity with which he fights his constituency case, just as I admire the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) for the admirable way in which he has campaigned for his constituency.
To proceed, I trust that the Secretary of State will himself agree that this House has much to thank the North of England Regional Consortium for. It is the only body prepared to look in depth at the regional airport option as an alternative to developing Stansted. The consortium has exposed the implications, both for public expenditure and tourism, of the Britsh Airports Authority's plans. It has
308
drawn national attention to the widening chasm, in social and economic terms alike, between the south-east and other regions. Even more important, NOERC has shown how a positive policy for encouraging the development and growth of regional airports can assist in regenerating ailing regional economies.
Those with the stamina to have read the inspector's report must have been reminded, by its lengh and content, of some of the old transportation studies undertaken in the conurbations in the 1960s. Technicians were sent away with a brief to produce a shopping list of highway, rail and pedestrian schemes to meet the transportation needs of their areas for the indefinite future. They normally came up with a huge list of schemes. Costs were never questioned until the time came to look at how they could be implemented. Nor were future trends considered which ultimately rendered the proposed strategy largely unnecessary. The studies were models of academic achievement but had little or no relevance to the practical world. As a leader in The Times, of 11 December 1984, said perceptively of the inquiry inspector's findings:
"It would be a cruelly consistent end to a long story of muddle if Stansted were developed as a stop-gap for a gap which never happened."
The North of England Regional Consortium is an unprecedented coming together of major local authorities as far north as Northumberland and as far south as Derbyshire. It commands political support from all parties throughout the north of England. It is supported by authorities and agencies in Scotland, including the Scottish Tourist Board, by authorities in Wales and the midlands, by chambers of commerce up and down the country and by trade unions at both a regional and national level. Over 500 individual firms either made representations to the inquiry inspector or to the Government and Members of Parliament in support of the consortium's case. I cannot think of any other single body which has ever attracted such widespread and positive support in a matter affecting airports.
There is no need in purely air transport terms for a further major development in the south-east of England to meet that region's air transport needs until the mid-1990s at the earliest.
The consortium has also shown that a very high number of regional air travellers are now forced to use airports in the south-east and that, if some of them could be reallocated to services from our regional airports, then expansion could proceed in the regions rather than the south-east. This would bring substantial economic and employment benefits to the regions and, as I have made clear, such benefits are urgently needed to reduce the widening disparities in both employment opportunities and social and economic conditions as between the south-east and the rest of the country.
Of all the alternatives to Stansted canvassed at the public inquiry none has been subject to more misinterpretation than that put forward by the consortium.
Let me give a few examples. The BAA has stated that we are against any increase in the capacity of the London system for all time. Yet we did not oppose the development of Gatwick terminal 2 nor Heathrow terminal 4. We understand and made it pikestaff plain at the inquiry that, beyond the time framework fixed for considering the case for a third London airport—the mid-1990s—there may well be growth in airport need which would justify further expansion of airport facilities in the south-east. But

309
we also made it clear that the distorting effects of massively developing Stansted now, as opposed to some essential development in London later, could not be justified. The extent of any development will depend upon how long regional passengers have to continue using London's airports.
The BAA also said—it is now echoed by the CAA—that the consortium's alternative to Stansted would help foreign airports. That is a scare. It is a facile attempt to throw dust in the eyes of the uninformed. What it seeks to ensure is that passengers who originate in the regions, or who have destinations in the regions and are forced now to use London, will have to go on using London.
But why cannot our regional airports be allowed to accommodate regional passengers? Schiphol and Frankfurt are profiting already from the over-centralised air transport system in this country. What is more, failure to expand regional air services will benefit foreign airports even more.
As the House knows, the BAA and Government Departments rely on CAA surveys which classify passengers on the basis of where their journeys began on the day of the survey. The cumulative effect is that regional passengers who travel to London, or touring passengers who are forced to use London's airports despite the fact that they spend little or no time there, are actually counted as south-east passengers. In fact, they are passengers from Birmingham, Cardiff, the east midlands, Humberside, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle-upon-Tyne and from everywhere else in Britain. To regard them as south-east passengers adds insult to the inconvenience they suffer.
Mr. Adley rose—
Mr. Morris: I am anxious to proceed as quickly as possible, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to make a brief point.
Mr. Adley: I am sure that many people will agree entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying, and I know from my business experience that it is true. Does he agree that the BAA is really disqualified from giving a rational opinion? It does not own any airports between Scotland and south-east England. The BAA simply wants to boost its area of responsibility, and it cannot be said to be a dispassionate witness.
Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman well reflects the strength of feeling that exists on both sides of the House about the orgy of propaganda to which we have been subjected over the years by the BAA.
As I was saying, to regard people from other parts of the country as south-east passengers adds insult to the inconvenience that they suffer. Yet an essential part of the case for Stansted is built on the delusion that they are from the south-east.
NOERC has recently examined data from a highly impartial source which shows that, if the places of residence for United Kingdom residents and the places where foreign visitors spend the greatest number of nights is taken into account, the proportion of airport passengers using London's airports who originate from the south-east — or are tourists going to the south-east — is reduced from 80 per cent., which is the figure BAA constantly uses, to only 71 per cent. This reduction means that the
310
regional share has been underestimated by nearly 50 per cent. This is but one of the fundamental errors which flaws the inquiry inspector's strategy.
Mr. Bill Walker rose—
Mr. Morris: I should like to give way but, in deference to the Chair, I feel that I should proceed.
The inspector's forecasts for the 1990s could have to be reduced by up to 6 million passengers due to the single discrepancy to which I have referred. In any event, we, among others, see his forecasts as far too high because of the unduly optimistic economic assumptions he makes. In this respect, they resemble, both in their optimism and probable inaccuracy, every previous forecast of demand which has been made.
The Secretary of State is welcome to examine our research, an opportunity which I earnestly urge him to take before he determines the inspector's report. To calm his nerves, perhaps I should disclose that the impartial source from which it derives is his own Department of Transport.
Other myths have been put about by the BAA. Sir Norman Payne's description of Stansted as an
"oasis of opportunity in a desert of decline"
is now notorious. In response, I will simply say that, compared with the inner city areas of Manchester, Liverpool and our other great cities in the north, with their male unemployment rates in many localities of over 50 per cent., the Herts-Essex area is nirvana.
Mr. Roger Gale rose—
Mr. Morris: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I must get on.
The BAA's far-fetched story that the NOERC solution represents a real threat to Britain's earning potential may be clever propaganda, but portrays no understanding of current realities. It is a remarkable fact that there are now more direct regional services to Amsterdam than there are regional services to London. All we seek to do is ensure that more passengers use their local airports instead of foreign airports and, by so doing, generate a benefit for the nation as a whole.
Mr. Gale: Allegations have been made against the BAA, an organisation for which I hold no brief whatever. I understand that the BAA wishes, as I do, to see the regional airports developed, and I appreciate the concern which the right hon. Gentleman and others express. However, will the right hon. Gentleman say — I understand that he received this information in answer to a parliamentary question — how many available routes there are already to Manchester that have not been taken up?
Mr. Morris: I do not intend to be drawn into an argument about the BAA. I have indicated my view and will proceed with my argument, which I hope will help to inform the hon. Gentleman in full detail of the northern case.
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 UK by overseas visitors are spent outside London — arrived in Scotland, Wales, Manchester, Birmingham or other centres, instead of 94 per cent. of them having to pass through the south-east and creating unnecessary congestion at and around London's airports.
Mr. Graham Eyre's dismissive attitude to those whose opinions differ from his own clearly stems from the fact

311
that the questions he asked of himself were fundamentally different from those posed by others, notably by the North of England Regional Consortium. He has sought to forecast need and recommends the provision of capacity so far into the future that he is accused of taking evidence from Gypsy Rose Lee. Yet I suspect that Gypsy Rose herself would have been speechless at his powers of prophecy, as she could have told him that there is no practical means of forecasting demand beyond the mid-1990s. To follow the inspector's line would have meant the implementation of what he calls "four-runway" monsters at Maplin, Cublington or, indeed, Stansted, over 10 years ago.
Of course, it is not for a planning inquiry to decide major issues of airports policy. That is ultimately a task for this House, and we must introduce some practical realism into the debate about Stansted in our deliberations today. It would plainly be ridiculous, at this juncture, to commit expenditure well into the 21st century.
Enormous sums of money are involved and it is clearly only prudent to make the best use of scarce existing resources by planning within a reasonable timescale. It is also plainly right that we must first achieve the aims of the 1978 White Paper on airports policy — a policy which successive Governments have strongly endorsed—and in particular the role it envisaged for our regional airports.
Since so many of my constituents work at Manchester international airport, perhaps I may be allowed to make a few comments about Manchester in the hope that Members with an interest in other regional airports will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and speak of the effect of this debate on their constituencies.
Manchester international serves a catchment area of 20 million people, about 40 per cent. of the UK's population. As Britain's third airport, it was designated a category "A" international gateway in 1978. As the House well knows, it has maintained and built upon this status and, in 1984, was the UK's fastest growing airport. We had an increase in the number of passengers to more than 6 million.
The airport has a crucial employment role, not just in south Manchester, but for the north-west as a whole. It provides direct employment for 5,500 people, including the employees of airlines and support services. A further 15,000 people are employed indirectly throughout the region.
Manchester's continued success is crucial to the region's future, in the same way as growth at Newcastle, Leeds-Bradford, Birmingham, Cardiff, the East Midlands and other regional airports is important to the future prosperity of their regions. All of those airports have experienced steady growth in the deregulated inclusive tour and charter sectors. The position is not, however, so rosy in the scheduled sector. In Manchester's case, with the exception of the Qantas service to Australia, and the planned services to New York and Hong Kong, there are as yet no intercontinental scheduled services. This must be bad for industry and commerce in the north-west. The Civil Aviation Authority's own 1983 survey of passenger traffic provides evidence that direct services could be viably operated from Manchester to many other intercontinental destinations including Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, Toronto, Johannesburg, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and Singapore. Such services would bring
312
substantial benefits to northern consumers and business men by improving trade links and generating much needed jobs.
Yet foreign airlines have been stopped from opening up intercontinental routes into Manchester. I know that some of my parliamentary colleagues will want to discuss this very disturbing result of the current licensing system, and I shall not go further on that point except to say that it is totally scandalous that Singapore Airlines has been refused permission to fly into Manchester.
Stansted poses a massive threat to the further development of all our regional airports. For it to operate viably, as Mr. Graham Eyre himself acknowledged, there would have to be licensing policies that effectively forced airlines to fly there. This is, of course, a policy that is likely to meet with considerable resistance from the airlines. Stansted is currently marketed as a low-cost airport with exceptionally low landing fees in order to attract business. It is operating at a loss and, in effect, is subsidised by the other British Airports Authority's airports at Heathrow and Gatwick. The regional airports, such as Manchester, which have to be individually profitable, cannot compete on equal terms. Even now they are the victims of totally unfair competition. I point out to the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), in particular, that this explains much of the animus shown by right hon. and hon. Members representing the regions when they discuss the outpourings of the British Airports Authority.
The regional airports must be developed to satisfy regionally generated demand for air services. This cannot possibly be achieved if a heavily subsidised Stansted airport is allowed massively to expand. By positively encouraging the regional airports, we can benefit not only the regions outside the south-east; capacity would also be released at both Heathrow and Gatwick. The opportunity is now clearly available to us to make better use of the nation's resources. It is an opportunity that must not be missed.
I urge every hon. Member who shares my view to join me in the Division Lobby tonight.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. More than 50 hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye in this debate. I am afraid that some of them will be disappointed unless speeches are briefer.
5.42 pm
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I shall do my best to heed that warning, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you will understand that my constituency is at the centre of these matters because Stansted airport is wholly within its boundaries.
I thank the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), not only for the support he has given generally to a cause in which he and I believe, but for the measured and moderate way in which he has put his case. It would be churlish if I did not acknowledge the debt we owe to Mr. Graham Eyre for the monumental work he has undertaken. Although we shall dive into his studies and find bits that we like and bits we do not like, we cannot detract from the application he has shown. It is a remarkable achievement.
I realise that this debate could be a dreary recital of well-stated positions, which does not inform Ministers or

313
help them in their efforts to listen to the views of hon. Members and make up their minds, or help those hon. Members who are still trying to discover the best truth to emerge from all this. Naturally, my hon. Friends will understand that I must defend my constituency position, but I hope that I shall make as constructive a speech as I can.
I acknowledge immediately that there is more than one opinion in my constituency. Some people would accept development of Stansted in varying degrees, but it could be said that there is almost overwhelming agreement in my constituency about limited expansion at Stansted, provided a reasonable limit can be set. I hope that the House will not be misled by the document that has been circulated — not to me but to others — by the British Airports Authority giving the results of a MORI poll, showing that the proportion in favour of some expansion is nearly 3:1. The authority had to extend its net some 30 miles from my constituency to obtain such a result. I acknowledge, however, that there is support for expansion at Stansted, even from some of the most vociferous opponents of the full-scale development that they fear threatens them.
I hope that I do not sound too pompous by offering a quotation from Edmund Burke which I hope will animate our discussions. In 1775 he said:
"Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interestss; which interest each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole."
In the end, the House must operate in that spirit, and I certainly do not intend to speak now or influence colleagues later in a manner that departs unduly from that spirit.
The fairness argument comes up time and again. There is a deep sense of injustice in my constituency about the singular tale of Stansted over the years. My constituents are concerned that this matter has come up repeatedly. I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) — I am sure that he speaks for exactly the same basic causes as I do when he talks of his constituents' feelings and those of others—that we are all in the same boat because our constituents rely on the various promises that have been given over the years. To say that some promises are more recent than others does not destroy the validity of the point that people have relied on Governments in the past and have not been able to place much trust in them as a result of what has happened. If we cannot allow the past to bind the future, the only advice I can give to the Government is that the slate must be wiped clean. The Government must make their decisions in the light of the position as they see it now and on the best information available.
Mr. Eyre said that he felt that the proposition put before him regarding Stansted was very different from the other propositions. I suggest that the proposition at the heart of this matter is whether north-west Essex is a suitable place for a major airport, with the number of passengers rising to 25 million per annum. It is immaterial whether it has one, two, three or four runways. The basic question is whether it is the right place.
I shall deal with the fundamentalist argument. There seems to be a widely received truth that air transportation is good, and we cannot have too much of it. I want to enter
314
a cautionary word so that we do not lose all sense of proportion and give to Government now and in the future a licence to unroll a carpet of concrete wherever the insatiable appetite for air transport takes them. Colin Buchanan, in his pamphlet published this week, gives us some sound advice—"keep a sense of proportion". I do not want to tread too far down that path. I recognise that people — my constituents among them — will want to travel, and I do not believe that they should be unduly denied the opportunity. We should value the important contribution that tourism can make. I am not one of those who will argue that the British civil air transport industry must be hampered in order to benefit foreign aviation industries. I accept those aims, but not at any price. I recognise that Mr. Eyre believed that the expansion should not occur at any price. It is a matter of judgment and balance as to what one thinks are the reasonable confines for expansion.
My hon. Friends will recognise that no speech of mine on this subject would be complete without a kindly reference to the "Big Brother" of the airport business—the British Airports Authority. The British Airports Authority is far less than its name implies but has far more influence than its territorial extent merits. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley). In the development of airports policy, I cannot help feeling that there has been far too close a relationship between officials of Government Departments and the BAA. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Mr. Eyre analyses very sharply how the wheels have been allowed to grind to make Stansted, time and again, appear the only option. With the BAA constituted as it is, no truly national policy can emerge.
The BAA boasts—the boast was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale)—that it has a great interest in the success of the regional airports. In making that boast, the BAA has all the credibility of the wolf inviting the third little pig to come to the fair. Throughout the whole business, it has shown a ruthless and sometimes unsavoury determination to get its own way.
I cite once again the MORI poll circulated by the BAA in a press release. It is headed:
"Most Stansted Residents Support Airport Expansion".
Stansted Mountfitchet is a village with a population of 6,000 or 7,000. The poll was taken within a 30-mile radius of that village. That is typical of the deception practised by the BAA throughout the campaign. I hope that no hon. Member will be deceived by it.
Mr. Hayes: Has not the BAA gone so far as to buy 1,100 acres of land in the Stansted area at vastly inflated prices?
Mr. Haselhurst: I confirm what my hon. Friend says. That fact, too, has given rise to suspicion that the Government's decision will be prejudiced, even though we have been given assurances in the past that such factors will not affect the issue.
I believe that the inspector was less than fair to the regional argument. I have a decent northern pedigree, not only as a born Yorkshireman but as someone who had the honour to represent a parliamentary seat in the Greater Manchester area a few years ago. I do not believe that people should be forced to use regional airports. Mr. Eyre effectively exploded that view. However, it is reasonable to satisfy the regional demand that naturally arises in the

315
regions. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe produced some good figures on that point, and I know from experience that too many people have to travel to the south-east to fly to their destination.
The population argument is compelling. We are invited to believe that 17 million people in the south-east will fuel the expansion of aviation for ever. However, there are 37 million people in the north as a whole. There must be a great tendency towards growth in the regions, and it should be satisfied there.
We must adopt a more positive stance on future tourism from other countries, and ensure that the benefits of tourism in terms of jobs are spread more evenly throughout the country. That, too, would help airports policy. Mr. Eyre said:
"If tourism brings overall benefits and if its demands are to be met, then more effort will be needed to exploit the potential of other areas of the UK."
He also said that he had little doubt that more could be done in that respect. A well-directed tourist policy could considerably ease our problems in the south-east. The regional argument has been under-played so far. I hope that the Government will recognise that more can be done than paying lip service to our regional airports.
There is also the question of urbanisation. The inspector recognised that it is very much a question of judgment. It is hard to predict how many people will want to move into an area because of a degree of expansion at the airport. I take the commonsense point of view that if 25,000 jobs are to be created by the expansion of Stansted to a capacity of 15 million passengers per annum, and if there are only 2,300 unemployed people in the constituency of Saffron Walden, it is likely that there will be a great deal of migration.
Mr. Eyre seems to believe that the capacity could be increased to 15 million, or perhaps 25 million, with only small effects on the environment of the area, but that if capacity is increased to 25 million and one catastrophe will follow. I suspect that it would be a matter of degree, and that catastrophe would manifest itself much earlier than Mr. Eyre was prepared to conclude.
Mr. Eyre produced forecasts and timetables. The House has every ground for being wary of forecasts on which we are invited to make decisions. We should consider past efforts. For 1985, the Roskill commission said that we would need to be handling 84 million passengers per annum in the London area airports. The CAA forecast of 1973 was also for 84 million. The Maplin review suggested 58 million to 76 million. The 1978 White Paper on airports policy suggested 51 million to 64 million. In 1979 the advisory committee forecast 55 million to 61 million. The 1981 Gatwick inquiry forecast 55 million to 61 million. What is the reality? It is about 45 million during this year.
I remember the chairman of the BAA assuring us within the Palace of Westminster that unless his policies were adopted the London airports system would be saturated by 1987. We now know that the Stansted terminal on which he had set his heart will not be ready until 1991, and that the saturation point will have not been reached by then. It is interesting that there has been a slippage of years that almost matches the passage of time since the inquiry began. I believe that Mr. Eyre's figure of 89 million by the year 2000 should be treated with great reserve.
316
Forgetting, for a moment, the complex factors involved in any such projection, let us ask ourselves whether it is credible to imagine that numbers in London will double by the year 2000. That is what we are expected to believe. The inspector showed clear preference for the development of Heathrow. He said in chapter 39 that:
"the application site forms part of an area which is more suitable for airport development than any other location in the south east and the whole of the United Kingdom."
He turns to Stansted because of the timetable. On the question of the availability of a terminal 5, there is evidence from the Thames water authority that the inspector's estimate of 1996 at the earliest could be improved upon and that it is by no means certain that the Perry Oaks sludge works would have to be physically replaced anywhere.
The idea is that Stansted will take up the shortfall. I do not believe that, in order to take up the shortfall and carry us through to the year 2000 and beyond, we need to give the BAA the green light to build a Texas-scale facility at Stansted. Stansted would be prepared to play its part as a regional airport and to ensure that the disaster of saturation, were it to threaten within that time, would not occur.
I am obliged to say things about Heathrow that will not find unanimous support amongst my colleagues. I cannot help that. To some extent, I fear that I cannot avoid a head-on collision with some of my colleagues. I understand the interests that they represent. I know that the complaints made by the people living near Heathrow are generically the same as those of the people living around Stansted. I accept that more people live around Heathrow. It is still a moot environmental point whether it is better to utilise an existing facility than to start a wholly new one.
Mr. Eyre concluded that the fifth terminal would have no discernible effect on the noise climate, and the Government did not attempt to challenge that point.
Mr. Jessel: Nonsense.
Mr. Haselhurst: The essential difference between the two cases is that, in any case, Heathrow will remain the major airport within the London system. The question is whether it is to be a decent and worthwhile airport. It may be asked whether Stansted is not also there already. Stansted occupies 900 acres. To make it the operational airport that it wants, the BAA is looking for almost twice as many acres on top—just for starters. That is the scale of what it is trying to do in north-west Essex.
Perhaps I should deal with the Schiphol argument, as it will no doubt rear its head again today. I do not want traffic going off to Schiphol but if interlining is the key, the choice must be Heathrow. I cannot envisage people taking a bus ride round the M25 believing that that is more convenient than going to Schiphol. If they went to Schiphol because London were, by chance, full, why should they not go to Manchester? Why should we not set out to ensure that we have another gateway airport which can do a good job for the British aviation industry?
Mr. Churchill: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is already massive interlining from the northern region to Schiphol, Frankfurt and Charles de Gaulle because there are so few direct schedule services from Manchester because of the lack of expansion in direct services overseas that we have been allowed?
Mr. Haselhurst: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has helped to underline my case. Bearing in mind the

317
inspector's recommendations for what could be done to improve Heathrow and surrounding areas, it makes more sense to spend money on improving access, organisation and the environment at Heathrow before spending large sums of money in the Essex countryside.
The report offers too grand a design for too long a term. Mr. Eyre claims that his plan will cope with need into the early decades of the next century. That goes beyond what we can reasonably be expected to decide. History suggests that planning capability too far ahead is fraught with considerable dangers. Are there not technological developments that could render the basis of our decisions irrelevant? I noticed in the press at the weekend that there is a possibility of a train based on magnetic levitation which could reduce the journey time from Edinburgh to London to one hour and the journey from Birmingham to London to 20 minutes. If, in the next 40 years, such a project becomes reality, it will have a revolutionary effect on aircraft movements in Britain.
We cannot know the future in another sense — a matter on which I reacted strongly to Mr. Eyre's report. He said that Stansted should go ahead on the basis of his recommendation only if the Government give an unequivocal declaration of intent that there will never be a second runway. There was hollow laughter in my constituency about unequivocal declarations of intent. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne will share in that laughter because we have all had our unequivocal declarations. Why would Mr. Eyre have been sitting on his inquiry if the declarations of the past had had any validity?
We must try to find a sensible plan. I commend a plan with components that include a fifth terminal at Heathrow, a commitment to the regions, the possibility of Luton making more of a contribution than has hitherto been considered and a role for Stansted. I am not saying that Stansted should bear no part of the expansion in meeting the need of the south-east, but I believe that Stansted within its existing boundaries can do all that is required of it. If it is put on its feet and, perhaps, separated from the BAA, local people will feel that they have more control. That would also enable the Government to say that they are going for genuinely incremental growth to bridge any shortfall that might arise. That is what John Nott said when he began the operation in 1979.
The Government should satisfy need according to national priorities with regard to environment and expenditure. They should make Heathrow the best airport in the world for its users and neighbours and recognise the widely held view that north-west Essex is not the best possible place for an airport-led industrial growth centre on the scale that Mr. Eyre proposes. In choosing a package of this general description — I do not want to be too particular about details — the Government might find that they would give some agony to everyone but that the benefits and disbenefits could be distributed according to a sensible order of national priorities.
6.4 pm
Mr. Stephen Ross: The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) has made a strong and brave speech, in which he sets out the case against the full development of Stansted. I agree with a great deal of what he said.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made some pertinent remarks about airline
318
policy. I agree with her that decisions on airport policy are interlinked with what we are about to do about our airlines. We have not debated that issue, but should have done. What will be the future of the independents? Will we encourage British Caledonian to grow? What will be the future of British Midland Airways and others?
If Stansted is to succeed as Mr. Eyre wants it to succeed, one of our independent airlines will have to establish a substantial base there. I do not see that happening at the moment. At the beginning of his summary, Mr. Eyre refers to strong public cynicism and the fact that there will never be consensus on airports policy. That is only too obviously confirmed by our mail and by the speches that have been made so far. No doubt there are many more similar speeches to be made. Mr. Eyre is right to say that there is a need for decisive action. With our national finances in disarray, we cannot afford to waste this opportunity of new investment in a vital wealth-creating sector of the economy.
I staked out my party's stance on Second Reading of the ill-fated Civil Aviation Bill. I have no regrets about how I cast my vote then or subsequently in Committee, because it was manifest nonsense to put that measure on the statute book before considering the implications of the report fully. Liberals have always favoured much greater emphasis on the development of regional airports, but neither the Government nor their predecessors have given as much encouragement as they should to such development. I regret having to criticise Mr. Eyre, because this is a fine report, but he treats the contribution that regional airports can make with insufficient thought.
With the privatisation of BAA still in the wings, and the abolition of the metropolitan county councils, the future ownership of fine airports such as Manchester, Birmingham and Prestwick is still not known. Moreover, applications for licences to use Manchester from Asian airlines such as Singapore Airlines have recently been refused. I am convinced that Manchester, possibly Birmingham, perhaps even Prestwick and one or two others can make a far more positive contribution to civil aviation policy than they are allowed to make at present.
Mr. Iain Mills: Birmingham airport is in my constituency. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that constituents who live 100 yd away from the taxiway would be extremely disadvantaged and most unhappy about the extra noise that would result from any major increase in traffic? Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that traffic should be redirected from London to Birmingham?
Mr. Ross: I find that a strange intervention, as I have recently been to Birmingham. The airport has recently spent £60 million on development and lengthened the runway. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that it does not want to encourage more use of the airport, that seems to be a terrible waste of money. Birmingham airport has the great advantage of rail links and a bus interchange and the National Exhibition Centre on its doorstep. If it is not policy to encourage people to fly in from the continent and America to use those facilities, I am surprised.
I welcome British Airways' renewed interest in Manchester, because when it was merged with BEA it let Manchester down. It is now proposing to reintroduce transatlantic flights this spring and intends to fly to the far east next year. That is much to be welcomed, but Manchester will need many more national and

319
international links if it is to develop as a hub and spoke airport. Such development is essential to its future well-being.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) spoke with great knowledge about Manchester airport. I shall not pursue his arguments, as I am nothing like as well qualified as he is to speak about Manchester. However, I hope that some of British Airways' promised financial help to the independents will encourage at least one of them to base itself at Manchester. We have only to go to Atlanta in the United States to see what United Airlines and Eastern Airways have done for that airport. An airline must invest heavily in Manchester if a hub and spoke system, which is desperately needed, is to be created. That would take some weight off London.
British Airways will naturally always want to base its principal operations at Heathrow. If Prestwick and Birmingham can attract more international and local flights, they should be actively encouraged to do so. Prestwick could easily be connected to British Rail. That might be its saviour. I am sorry that the gentleman who wishes to run cheap flights across the Atlantic has not yet received his licence. I cannot criticise the reason for that, which I gather is that the financial arrangements are not yet satisfactory. Nevertheless, if a People Express-type operation could use Prestwick, it could save that fine airport. It is essential that Manchester should have a direct link to the west coast main line as soon as possible. That should be an early commitment on behalf of the Government. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe will agree with that.
When dealing with Heathrow, the report clearly shows that there will be an increase above the 275,000 ATMs, if present trends continue. That is not an excessive limitation. The figure could rise to 300,000. The report further states that the figure will decrease again with the introduction of larger aircraft. In the consultation document which the Government issued last year it was repeated that the 275,000 limit, which the Government accepted six years ago, would be reviewed in the light of progress and the introduction of quieter aircraft. Those developments are now upon us and there does not seem to be a total commitment on the Government's part not to go above the 275,000 limit.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he is opposed to the 275,000 limit? If so, is he not opposing the Government's wish to control aircraft noise by that limitation?
Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman has already issued a press release in his constituency blaming me for the defeat of the Civil Aviation Bill. I am not opposed to going slightly above the 275,000 limit. I shall come to the reason why shortly. We have not done enough about noise and traffic congestion. That must be rectified if Heathrow is to retain its dominance, which it will and must do.
Restrictions on ATMs at Heathrow, as the hon. Gentleman knows, hit the very people whom we wish to encourage, that is, the independent airlines, which were going to be forced out of Heathrow. That is the reason why we must go slightly above that figure. All the evidence shows that that is not unacceptable.
Extra finance for insulation aids is essential. The Secretary of State should take the opportunity to see what
320
The Japanese have done at Osaka and Norita. They have spent vast sums on dealing with environmental problems. People who live near those airports are far more satisfied than are citizens in the United Kingdom who live near airports because so much more has been done for them.
Mr. Eyre says that the Noise Advisory Council should be resuscitated, and that is a good idea. It is also extremely important that new connections are built as rapidly as possible both for public transport and to the motorways. I agree with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) that British Rail must be brought to the airfield as quickly as possible. He mentioned a link line between the southern and western regions. That would open up the whole country to public transport and to the public using Heathrow. That would greatly relieve traffic jams. We could even link the airfield to the Channel tunnel.
There should be a total ban on night movements except in emergencies. The Secretary of State should take that recommendation on board — it appears in chapter 58. Mr. Eyre makes a host of recommendations about noise, which the Government should accept. Money must be spent to lessen the misery of people living near airports. That can be done.
As Mr. Eyre said, the sewage works at Perry Oaks should have been moved long ago. That action should be taken now, whether or not it is decided to develop T5. The Thames water authority should be instructed to find an alternative site, if it needs one. Heathrow needs room to breathe and that action would keep our options open while we see how accurate the current forecasts are on traffic movements. As the hon. Member for Saffron Walden said, they have been fairly inaccurate in the past.
In 1979 I said that a limit of 15 million ATMs might be acceptable for Stansted. I have since changed my mind. Since then there has been substantial investment in many regional airports especially in Manchester and Birmingham. I also believe that the cost in terms of loss of amenities and high-class agricultural land is too great. Moreover, Stansted could turn out to be a monstrous white elephant. One only has to think of Newark, which was a white elephant for a long time.
As a recent leader in The Times stated, "Stansted can wait". We should let it develop naturally to the 4 million mark and then assess the position. If the demand is there we shall have to take action, but at the moment I do not believe that it is and, therefore, Stansted should be left alone to see what it can do for itself.
Following the report, the Secretary of State should give priority first to ensuring the future well-being of the independent airlines, on which so much of the future depends. We must not let British Airways totally dominate the scene. We should take steps now to improve the facilities at Heathrow before we talk of further expansion.
Mr. Jessel: The hon. Gentleman said that he was in favour of improving facilities at Heathrow. Will he make it clear to the House whether or not he favours having a fifth terminal at Heathrow?
Mr. Ross: It would be a great mistake to make a commitment which I or a successor might regret in future. I shall not follow the path of previous ministerial mistakes. I am certainly not committing my party to T5 now, nor in the foreseeable future. I would encourage Manchester and any other regional airports that fancy their chances. I would continue to make improvements at Gatwick to press

321
on with Stolport, and to make better provision for business executives at Farnborough or Blackbushe. Above all, I would take urgent action to improve our public transport links to our airports, with particular emphasis on rail, which should be utilised to a greater extent than it has been. I have given a commitment and I believe to be an honest one.
6.17 pm
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst). The House will appreciate the great sincerity of his speech and the skilful and dignified way in which he dealt with a position that must be extremely difficult for him. I respect and acknowledge many of his points.
I declare a constituency interest. Gatwick airport is in my constituency, as is the head office of the British Airports Authority, British Caledonian, British Airways, Dan Air and many other operations. I am therefore surrounded by a good deal of conflicting advice, which is why my remarks this evening are entirely my own conclusions.
Three important points make the basics of this matter. First, air transport is a thriving and growing industry in Britain. Recent growth has been rapid, and substantial further growth is predicted. The industry has a remarkable record in employment and in the creation of jobs. It has a wonderful record on the earnings of foreign currency and on bringing to Britain enormous numbers of foreign visitors, who have materially benefited our balance of trade. For the industry to continue this excellent record and, in particular, for it to continue to create a substantial number of jobs in future there must be an adequate airport capacity throughout the United Kingdom, especially in the south-east. The inspector has clearly identified when existing airport resources will be exhausted even if the arbitrary limit on air transport movements at Heathrow is relaxed.
Secondly, some views suggest that the development of airports in the midlands, the north and Scotland can replace the development of further facilities in the south-east of England. Airports away from the south-east are all developing strongly, and good luck to them, not just because there is a political will from this House and from the public corporations and others for them to develop, but because there is a strong demand for air transport which is being met by the development policies of those airports.
All the projections are that the growth of both scheduled and charter services at airports away from the south-east will continue. It will be necessary for those airports to be developed and I strongly support the principle. But in no way should that further development reduce the requirements in the south-east. Both can, must and should be met equally.
Thirdly, and most importantly, in the discussions to date there has been little reference to the interests of the customer. It has been a fundamental feature of Government policy that more attention should be paid to the needs of the customer in all sectors of our commercial life. The inspector has considered in depth the needs of the customer and he has found that those needs are best met by the provision of substantially more airport capacity for London and the south-east.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the customers who travel from the north of
322
England, Scotland and Wales who at the moment have to travel to the south of England will not be served by the expansion of Stansted but would be better served by the expansion of the regional airport system?
Mr. Soames: I hoped that I had made it clear that I am greatly in favour of the expansion of the regional airports.
The inspector has considered the needs of the customer. If we want those customers to use British airlines and British airports, there is no option but to provide for airport capacity in the area of the country to which they wish to fly. That, I am afraid, remains largely the London area. If that is not done, the customer will elect to overfly to another capital such as Paris or Amsterdam.
Any decision which does not favour a development of airport capacity in the south-east over the next 15 years will be a decision which ignores the interests of the customers and the opportunities for the air transport industry to create jobs and to earn more foreign currency. Indeed, I have here a letter from the chairman of Dan Air which makes it plain that unless his company is able to develop in the south-east it will not be open to him to assist in the development of the regional airports in the north. In what way could such a decision be consistent with any Government policy objective?
Let me now deal with the facts and figures about the British aviation industry. In 1983 the United Kingdom civil aviation industry earned a profit from the rest of the world of nearly £500 million. Over 100,000 people are directly employed in civil aviation in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom's civil airlines fly more passenger miles on international routes than any other country's airlines save those of the United States. The United Kingdom total is nearly twice that of France, our nearest European competitor.
In 1983 £18,000 million worth of foreign trade was handled at Gatwick and Heathrow alone — 15 per cent. of the total value of the United Kingdom's world trade. The best estimates are that, of the £4·25 billion that tourists brought to Britain last year, £3 billion was spent by 60 per cent. of the tourists who entered the United Kingdom through Gatwick and Heathrow.
I in no way decry the role of Manchester or any of the other regional airports, but by anyone's standards the industry is a formidable contributor to national prosperity. It is an industry in which, apart from the United States, we indisputably lead the world. For us not to face the disagreeable, tough and difficult decisions that lie ahead in a sensible manner would be to throw away an enormous national advantage.
The permissions already granted at Gatwick and Heathrow take those airports almost to saturation point and the limited development of Stansted—as recommended by the inspector and by the 1978 White Paper of the Government of which the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was a member — is the most sensible, practical and easy course to adopt.
The Secretary of State will be aware of the views of the West Sussex county council on these matters, with which I entirely concur.
Mr. Michael Marshall: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that a number of his hon. Friends from west Sussex are here to support him tonight and would wish to be associated with precisely what he has said?
Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I had seen that I was much sustained by my hon. Friends from west Sussex.
Successive Governments have not faced up to the need to establish and sustain an airports policy. There have been attempts to determine policies in the past but resolve has always wavered when decisions to implement them have been sought. Perhaps over-zealous forecasting of future requirements has provided arguable grounds for procrastination and delay. That situation does, most emphatically, not now prevail.
The absence of decisions in the past has foreclosed many options, particularly the possibility of a new green field location, and the inspector's report has now picked a difficult and tortuous way through the options that remain open—better ultimate use of Stansted and more use of Heathrow. The inspector is right to suggest that that can make the necessary contribution within the required time scale and the proper aviation context.
If support for international aviation and the protection of Britain and London's position at the centre is to be sustained, as it should be, there is no alternative but to develop the strength of the London system where that is practical. The risks of not doing so are that international traffic will be lost, not to Manchester or Birmingham—sadly—but to Schiphol, Frankfurt or Paris.
Manchester and other regional airports already exist and have had opportunities to develop services. But that has not come about through any fault of their own but because the air transport industry cannot be persuaded in terms of the realities of life that those airports are part of the London system. I can assure the House that many years passed, as many hon. Members will know, before Gatwick was able to acquire real status as an international airport for that very reason.
The inspector's recommendation for Stansted is the only sensible one that can be made if capacity for the early 1990s is to be met.
Mr. Adley rose—
Mr. Soames: May I, please, press on?
The inspector is right to seek firm assurances to limit Stansted's capacity to a single runway comparable with Gatwick. That reduces significantly some of the powerful arguments against a larger, more developed Stansted. The runway is already there. A motorway passes close by and the railway line is not too far distant. A new terminal and supporting developments such as servicing, cargo facilities, car parking and other airport-related facilities will obviously be needed. But the land consumed by those will be modest compared with the original proposals for a fully developed two-runway airport.
A second terminal may be necessary in the distant future, but if the Heathrow proposal is accepted and becomes operational in the 1990s that will be a long way off. The urban development, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden spoke, to support a Stansted expansion will also be correspondingly modest. Unemployment within the labour markets in the travel-to-work area and improved productivity suggest that the demand for new housing and the supporting infrastructure will be less than objectors have forecast. The only room for manoeuvre in the short term is now at Stansted. The resolve to proceed should not be compromised by wishful thinking that Manchester or Birmingham will do instead,
324
because I am afraid they will not. Many will argue that the investment needed to develop Stansted, and Heathrow later, should not be made in the affluent south-east and that it would help to remedy economic imbalance if it were to be made in other regions. I have sympathy with the idea behind that expression, but I do not believe that airport development is footloose in that way. If it is not made in the London system, it will not be made at all.
I now draw the attention of the House to the inspector's summary of overall conclusions in which he deals with the lessons from and the consequences of the past.
Mr. Tony Favell: My hon. Friend has talked about additional capacity in the south-east. Is it not a fact that the second terminal at Gatwick will increase capacity there by about 50 per cent.? Will my hon. Friend say something about the fact that the second terminal is slap bang across where a second runway could have been built?
Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me such a tremendous opportunity to say how grateful I was that the second terminal was located right where a second runway would have gone, because it forecloses the possibility of any development along those lines.
As I was saying, in the summary of overall conclusions the inspector said:
"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."
Regardless of the very real and understandable concerns, the Government should accept the recommendations of the report. It has been an exhaustive, extensive and excursive inquiry, and the national interest, which should be paramount in this matter, dictates that the Government should accept the inspector's report, in which they should be sustained by the overwhelming majority of the House.
6.33 pm
Mr. Doug Hoyle: I can well understand the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) expressing a point of view that is tailored to his constituency. It is a valid point of view, considering the interests in his constituency, but it was obvious that it was not shared by all of his colleagues. When it comes to the vote, I hope many of them will join us in the Lobby because it is vital that we get away from the concept that when we debate air tranport we talk only about the south-east of England. It goes far wider. The trouble has been that the concept of air transport in the past has related only to the south-east. If someone is coming to this country by air, it has been very difficult to come in any other way than through the south-east.
A case should be made in the House for the development of the regional airports, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) for putting that case. That view is shared by many Conservative Members. If the proposals outlined in the report go ahead, they will lead to a widening of the north-south divide—a divide that is far too wide already. The north gets a poor share of the national cake. Unemployment is far higher in the north

325
than in the south. Because of the Government's economic policy there has been an overall decline in industry, but that decline has been far more rapid in the north than in the south. Service industries are more developed in the south than in the north. The same occurs in the Health Service and in education.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced recently that aid to the regions will be cut. That will make the position far worse. If the development of Stansted goes ahead it will add to the burden that we have to bear in the north. I do not believe that it is possible to plan air transport to the year 2020. That is far too far ahead. It is reasonable to look only as far as the 1990s or the year 2000. The Eyre report has tried to look too far ahead. Therefore, hasty conclusions have been drawn in regard to Stansted. The inspector was trying to fill a gap to the 1990s but his recommendation is an expensive way to fill that gap. The cost would be £1,500 million to £2,000 million. That is money that should go to the regions.
We have to get away from the idea that the only way people can come here is to fly to London and then travel to the regions. A case should be made for the hub and spoke approach of using Manchester airport. Of the people who come in via London, 30 per cent. do not want to do so. They should be allowed to fly to the regions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe said that only 38 per cent. stay in London while the rest go elsewhere.
I represent a constituency, Warrington, North, with one of the most successful new towns, and a very successful science park. If we are to attract related industries, they want to be able to transport their goods all over the world. Therefore, they want good communications, which means airport facilities.
Airport facilities are also necessary for tourism. Chester is an important tourist centre in the north-west. If we are to attract tourists, regional airports, particularly Manchester, should be developed.
Mr. Bill Walker: I am fascinated by what the hon. Gentleman has been saying. I ask him to accept that I am not an enemy. Can he suggest how airlines can be persuaded to take up the licences that already exist but are not used for services in and out of Manchester? What positive suggestions can he make to encourage airlines to develop services? There is not a shortage of terminal facilities or gateways but the airlines are not going there. What does the hon. Member suggest?
Mr. Hoyle: That is a fair point, but airlines have been prevented from going to Manchester as a matter of policy. Manchester has been excluded as a gateway to the United Kingdom for United States airlines because a bilateral agreement between Britain and the United States discourages them even from considering operating scheduled services from Manchester. Other foreign airlines wishing to use Manchester have been refused licences by the Government unless a British carrier gains something in return. That is one of the problems that Manchester has faced. We all know that Singapore International Airlines wishes to fly from Manchester, but at present it is unable to do so.
We want to develop intercontinental services. British Airways has recently announced a gratifying expansion of services from Manchester. There will be flights to New York in April, to Hong Kong in the autumn, to Munich, Malta and Geneva this summer and to Athens, Madrid,
326
Oporto and Lisbon in 1986. Those are welcome signs for the future, but if Stansted goes ahead that welcome growth will be very much less. Even worse, not only will Manchester and other regional airports fail to develop fully but I fear that Speke airport in Liverpool may be forced to close. That would be a tragedy for Merseyside, with the loss of 500 direct jobs and many more indirect job losses. All airports generate jobs. Manchester accounts for 5,000 direct jobs and probably 15,000 indirect jobs. Here I must disclose an interest because 10 per cent. of the direct jobs are in Cheshire. Expansion is therefore vital to my area.
Manchester is at the centre of a region with 20 million people — 40 per cent. of the total United Kingdom population — whereas the south-east contains only one third of the population. There is no immutable rule that all major airport facilities should be in the south-east. If we are to attract employment as well as tourism to the regions we must do all that we can to ensure expansion of airport facilities. If Stansted goes ahead that development will be cut back and instead of getting away from overlocation of facilities in the south-east we shall underpin the existing system and further impoverish the regions. We do not want that to happen. We want the regional airports to expand. The success of Manchester shows that this could be achieved, with feeder services from the other regions. I do not share the pessimistic view that if Stansted does not go ahead the benefit will go to the continent.
Mr. Mark Carlisle: Not every hon. Member can speak in every debate, but he will appreciate that the case being made by the hon. Gentleman is of as much concern to people in my constituency as it is to those in his. The extension of Ringway airport and investment in those facilities and the jobs that they support in our area are thus equally important to both of us although we are on different sides of the House.
Mr. Hoyle: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that intervention. We both have thick files of correspondence from companies in our constituencies pressing for the expansion of Ringway airport. It is no use spending public money on developing an attractive new town such as Warrington if the aim is then defeated because the airport is not expanded as the industries so successfully attracted to the area desire. Warrington has become one of the most successful new towns and a most attractive place to live, but businesses coming in regard the expansion of scheduled services and cargo facilities at the airport as vital to success in the future. They are glad that the new cargo terminal is going ahead, but the scheduled services are equally vital.
I have noted the number of interventions from Conservative Members to rebut the argument that the south-east is the answer to all our problems. I fear that if Stansted goes ahead it will not even be ready in the 1990s as the inspector has suggested. It may also prove to be a white elephant, involving vast and unnecessary expense. In looking to the year 2020 the inspector has looked much too far ahead. We cannot foresee what will happen by then, but if we go ahead with regional development we shall begin to see what further developments are necessary. The inspector suggests that Stansted will make a huge leap, catering for 15 million and eventually 25 million passengers per year, but we do not know whether airlines will go there. Charges will be low because the BAA is subsidising them, but we do not know whether that

327
will be sufficient incentive. The Government will have to provide further inducements, but I fear that after all the disturbance and expense the traffic will not materialise. We know that there is demand for additional traffic in the regions. We know that the regions will respond, as the success of Manchester shows.
I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State say that he intended to listen to the arguments. I hope that everyone will listen. Even better, I hope that Conservative Members will express their disquiet in action by voting with us today. The Government will then appreciate fully the extent of the opposition to the Stansted proposal among Members on both sides of the House. The question crosses party lines and it cannot be decided on a party political basis. We must reach a decision based on what is best for the national interest. It cannot be good to widen the north-south divide in this way. The divide is already widening. One way to redress the balance is to put more money into the regions.
If we do not put more money into regional airport developments we shall be cutting off an arm that is vital to the regions, especially the north, in attracting new industry if there is an upturn in the economy. Without that development, we shall be competing with both hands tied behind our back. I hope that in the Division today the whole House will show that the answer lies not in Stansted but in developing the regional airport system.
6.49 pm
Mr. Fred Silvester: The average length of speech so far has been 23 minutes. I hope to be rather quicker than that.
Mr. Eyre, the inspector, described himself as a "reluctant volunteer" in this exercise, and I think that there is every reason for that. This is clearly a political decision. The method of using the planning inquiry is proving very unsatisfactory.
I give my thanks to the Government for arranging the debate. I have never criticised them, nor do I, for not tabling a substantive motion, but it leaves the House in a difficulty. I hope that somebody is beavering away in my right hon. Friend's Department to find a better way of coming to solutions and bringing these matters before the House in future.
The inspector has deluged us with figures. There is not a lot to be said for trying to quote them all, but one thing must be said. On the inspector's own figures the case for a massive expansion of capacity in the south-east has not in my view been made out if one interprets that massive increase as the necessity to build Stansted to the extent he sets out.
In 1985, to use the inspector's figures, there will be nearly 10 per cent. more capacity than passengers. In 1990, there will be about 4 per cent. more capacity than passengers. I refer to the south-east, using his figures. After 1995, if one accepts terminal 5—and I know that some of my hon. Friends would not — but without Stansted there will be 13 per cent. more capacity than passengers. It is not until 2000, if one accepts the inspector's figures, which most of us do not, that one begins to go over the top. On this basis there would be no urgency for any of us who did not object to the development of the fifth terminal.
328
Now hold on a minute, says Eyre, "there is a problem between 1993 and 1995; we shall go over the top before the terminal is completed. The shortfall amounts to 25 million passengers, he says, if BAA fully utilises its assets at Heathrow and Gatwick rising to 8·5 million if it does not.
Even if those projections are not overestimated, as I believe that they are, the shortfall is still based on the assumption that Luton does not go up to 5 million, that Stansted does not exceed 2 million and that there will be virtually no growth in the share of the regional airports between 1990 and 1995. None of those three propositions seems to me to be tenable.
If one takes those three possibilities, one observes that there is plenty of opportunity to fill his perceived gap without going into massive investment in Stansted. On the other hand, if we proceed with Stansted, we make proposals for another 15 million passengers at minimum, we have an expenditure of give or take £1 billion and the destruction of a large area of the countryside in order, let us be clear, to relieve the pressure on BAA and tour operators for the need of a little ingenuity and effort between 1993 and 1995.
The inspector's case for Stansted therefore rests in my view not on present needs but on future prospects. He wants to find a solution until 2020. The inspector said:
"… the London airports system must have a capacity capability which could meet needs as, when and if they arise over a period of the next 30 years or more."
Such a proposition is untenable. If it were applied to any other activity, the people involved would of course applaud it. But it is absurd to suppose that such resources can be diverted as, when and if they may arise over 30 years.
The inspector's report is riddled with his fixation for certainty and the desire to complete the whole issue once and for all. I think that he wants to go down in history as the man who did it. He says:
"The production of a committed strategy now should remove the need for major reappraisals, examinations, studies and inquiries during the next 30 years or more."
Such a conclusion shows that intelligence is no guard against naivete.
My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) drew attention to the changes that are occurring in technology. If we are considering the period between now and 2020, I am convinced that our children will be on package tours into outer space by then. The only certainty in all this is that the pace of technical change has far outgrown the ability of people to forecast accurately the way in which airport movements will develop.
As to the effect on the north, the inspector, as one might expect, was dismissive of the case for the north. He showed intense irritation. It seemed as though one was disturbing the smooth running of his mathematical model. Many of the points that he dismissed were not so daft as he seemed to imagine. He dismissed 1 per cent. of public expenditure on the airport alone as insignificant. I should like to hear that confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Environment. The inspector dismissed the proposition that profitable nationalised institutions such as BAA should make a contribution to the Exchequer. I look forward to having confirmation of that from the Chancellor. The inspector ignored totally the general economic effects of airport development in the northern region.
More important, the report spells out clearly why Stansted as planned will siphon off the growth from the

329
regional airports. The inspector himself does the job. He is describing not three airports but an airport system. He is talking about a
"single category A gateway international airports system."
It is one airport in three places. The object of the exercise is to transfer non-scheduled and other leisure services to Stansted in order to transfer scheduled services from Heathrow to Gatwick. Luton, it is said, will attract leisure services inside and outside the south-eastern area.
The concept of one south-eastern airport sounds fine as a unit until one examines what it means in practice. The British Airports Authority made a profit on its trading concessions last year of £98·8 million. Only Heathrow broke even on traffic costs. Four million pounds went to Stansted. We are told by Mr. Payne that that subsidy is to continue.
British Airways sent all Members of Parliament a position paper which says:
"As an inducement to prospective airlines/users, Stansted charges would remain lower than those at Heathrow or Gatwick. Considering Gatwick expansion as a discrete investment, the level of income generated would be unlikely to be sufficient to provide an adequate return on capital employed. In such circumstances, Stansted would rely on a cross-subsidy from Heathrow/Gatwick."
At present that £4 million works out at £11 per passenger. Applied to Manchester, it means that the airport would be getting the equivalent of £66 million subsidy a year. I am not asking for a subsidy — we do not want one — but I am making clear the size of the operation already taking place at Stansted. Tour operators at Stansted will be paying £1,079 in landing fees. In Manchester the figure is £3,995. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) asked why Manchester is so dear. In fact, Manchester is the cheapest outside London. The reason why London is cheap is that if one multiplies that £11 by the 450 passengers in a jumbo one comes pretty close to the subsidy affecting Stansted.
It is clear that whatever my right hon. Friend decides to do we must be certain that Stansted is maintained as a discrete operation, relying upon its own operations to make its own profits. I wonder whether, if that condition is imposed, the British Airports Authority will be quite so keen to take it on.
Today we are confronted with many scares. One of them is that we are trying to compel people to go north. There is a certain irony in that because for years people in the north have been trundling down to Luton to pick up their tours. Some of us did not take kindly to the CAA which is reported as saying
"Short of compelling people in London and the South East to travel by road and rail to the Midlands and North in order to catch flights … "
We have been doing that for 10 or 15 years, so that that is a bit thick.
We are not seeking compulsion. If the imbalance in subsidy between Stansted and the regional airports were put right the ability of those airports to compete, particularly in the leisure trade, would be much sharpened and there would be a considerable movement in the airlines' own choice about where they sought to go.
The second limitation on the development of the airports is licensing. Reference has been made to unused licences. There is a penumbra about negotiations which never quite come to the surface. The Ministry will say "We have not had an application." The reason is that people will not spend nine months preparing an application if they
330
know that it will be turned down. There is a lot of wink and nod in this business. Some licences which were dropped have been taken up again.
Specific and important changes have to be made. For example, we cannot fly into Manchester from the United States if we do not use BA. We are covered by the Bermuda 2 agreement. That applies to freight as well as passengers. I referred to an example the other day because it staggered me. The largest American freight airline is Flying Tigers. Four times a week that airline flies between Brussels and New York. About 70 per cent. of the freight comes from the north of England. It goes by truck and boat to Brussels and is flown in an aircraft which passes over Manchester airport.
I know that my right hon. Friend will do his best to bring about changes in Bermuda 2, but he may not be so keen about some other matters. Many licences have been opposed by British Airways in the past. It is a matter of assessing whether the development of the airports is as important, more important or less important than British Airways' profits.
Let us take the classic case of Singapore Airlines. Opening up the route between Singapore and Manchester would mean some loss of money to British Airways. Our estimate is about £2 million revenue, which means that we are talking about a much lower sum in terms of profit. One must set against that the fact that our business men have to take an extra day off, and other factors. These matters have to be decided with a fresh mind. We have to look at them from the point of view of the people who use the regional airports. If we do that, we shall begin to see a different ball game. We should consider better the tourist trade and improved communications by rail and accelerate the links with the main rail lines. We should make a better effort to ensure that the 29 per cent. of people who begin their journey in the regions are accommodated in the regions.
My right hon. Friend is a worldly-wise man. I think that he and I share a scepticism about many of the propositions put before us which parade as idealism but which are merely vested interests dressed up. However, I urge him, just occasionally, to recognise that for some issues scepticism is a bad guide. Opposition to the Eyre report is one such issue.
There is a solution in which practicality, realistic planning and vision walk hand in hand. In coming to that conclusion, I want to leave my right hon. Friend with this thought. I want him to understand clearly that the sense of division in the country is not drummed up for the occasion. It burns in the minds of people of all politics, and of none. It is not a passing fashion. One can feel it; one can taste it. It is in the very pulse of the north. The remedy does not lie in huge sums of money — though they may be important — nor in yet more statistical analyses. The remedy lies in commitment and, above all, in imagination.
The Eyre report is the product of an unimaginative, legal and bureaucratic tradition that the Government set out to challenge. It is clever, polite, arrogant, logical—and wrong. It is concerned with established guidelines for policy and not with establishing a new national policy.
Despite the speech of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), which I found offensive and silly, I am asking all my right hon. and hon. Friends who feel that the massive expansion at Stansted should not take place to vote with Opposition Members for the Adjournment of the House.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind the House that the 10 minute limit on speeches is now in operation. I appeal for co-operation. If time is nearly running out, I shall try to assist hon. Members with some sign language.
7.7 pm
Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I am grateful for being given the chance to follow the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester), who made two observations which have thrown my speech somewhat. He began by condemning the Eyre report. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) has the full report with her. I am sure that she will pass it round to any hon. Members who wish to read it. I have only the summary. Chapter 10 on page 28 bears out what the hon. Member for Withington said. Paragraph 7.7 of the conclusion states:
"Regional airports should not"—
note the words—
"and cannot make so large a contribution to satisfying future demand as to remove or substantially reduce the need for further capacity in the south-east."
We know the inspector's view right from the start—he is totally prejudiced.
Hon. Members of my age group in the Chamber today will remember that when the silent films gave way to the talkies the Indian always used to say to the cowboy "White man speak with forked tongue." Likewise speaks the chairman of the British Airports Authority. He knows my view. He tells us in the north that he has no objection to regional airports. One must ask what he has done to assist the regions. The answer is, precisely nothing. When the Civil Aviation Bill was going through the House I said that it was the "Civil Aviation (Norman Payne) Bill". He has left his mark on the report.
Mr. Gale: Of course he was heard. He gave evidence to the inquiry—so did NOERC.
Mr. Carter-Jones: Of course he was heard, but this is supposed to be a neutral report. The hon. Gentleman should not be excessively influenced by one person or one organisation. The north-west and the north have been ignored. The views of the people of Manchester are not unknown. We believe that we deserve a share. I agree totally with the recommendation in the Eyre report that Heathrow should be expanded. I believe that the figure of 275,000 movements per annum was plucked out of the air.
When I last spoke on this issue, I referred to the time, 45 years ago, when I was a navigator. When we returned to base we were stacked at various levels, normally at 500 ft., and wondered whether our fuel would run out. The stacking caused noise problems in the area. This is happening above places like Midhurst. It is no laughing matter if one lives at Midhurst. However, there have been substantial advances in technology since then. To put my point in perspective, I should mention that at the end of the war I was using some of the most advanced radar equipment in the world. When I now enter a cockpit, I am staggered by what can be done.
Mr. Michael Colvin: The hon. Gentleman says that he agrees with the Eyre recommendation about Heathrow. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned noise. Does he not think that it was a little presumptive of Eyre to recommend that there should be a
332
curfew, not only at Heathrow, but at Gatwick, when his inquiry did not consider the problem of noise? No evidence on noise was taken. Surely, therefore, the number of movements into and out of Heathrow is pre-empted if a stipulation is imposed that there should be a curfew. Because of the technological advances to which the hon. Gentleman referred, surely it is time for the curfew to be a thing of the past.
Mr. Carter-Jones: Traffic-handling methods will be substantially improved. Aircraft will stay on course and will be controlled from perhaps 2,000 miles away. These methods will result in economic cruising and low speed safe flying. As for the hub and spoke concept, aircraft like the Super 748, the ATP and the 146 will be extremely quiet. They are mainly hub and spoke aircraft. Therefore, their operational performance will improve. This bears out the point made by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin).
There will be similar advantages with long-haul flights. The Airbus is a much quieter aircraft. Those of us who used to try to sleep at the end of a grass runway with a couple of Merlin engines going over every two minutes sympathise with those who live near Heathrow. However, the noise level at Heathrow will steadily decrease, particularly by 1986, when the Trident will be phased out. The BAC111s will be able to fly only if they are fitted with hush kits. The new generation of aircraft will be quieter. We shall move to about 330,000 movements per annum at Heathrow, with less noise being generated. So the figure plucked out of the air of 275,000 movements per annum is no longer sacrosanct. Therefore, I support the creation of a fifth London terminal and an increase in the number of landings at Heathrow.
However, I cry, "Halt, hold, enough" about Stansted. I want there to be positive discrimination in the interests of the regions. The British Airports Authority practises discrimination over its pricing policy at Stansted and Luton. The local authority at Luton has complained bitterly that, while Stansted was and is being subsidised by Heathrow and Gatwick for handling predominantly charter flights, Luton, which is engaged in the same business, is being undercut on account of cross-subsidisation by the British Airports Authority. It seems that Eyre is a very expensive proposition if it is related to what is said by the BAA. We are told that Stansted will be a super charter airport. Although it may take some scheduled flights, it will be used mainly by charter aircraft. That is unfair.

I deal next with the north-west and the north, a deprived area that needs to be supported. Questions have been asked about why certain routes have not been taken up. Predominantly, it is because they are unattractive routes. It is as simple as that. Let us not make a mystery out of something that is simple. I hope that the projected flights by British Airways from Manchester to the United States and from Manchester to Hong Kong are a great success. This region needs to be supported. This project demonstrates what can be done with scheduled flights. If flights were attracted to the north, the load factor in the south-east would be relieved. Instead of traffic being diverted from Heathrow to Schiphol, it will be diverted from Heathrow to Manchester. There will be positive discrimination in favour of the north-west.
My only regret is that Ministers will not be present for the vote tonight.
7.17 pm
Dr. Alan Glyn: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones). I cannot support all that the hon. Member said. Nevertheless, I respect his tremendous experience and his views concerning regional airports. I shall confine my remarks to the reasons why I believe that a fifth terminal should not be constructed at Heathrow. I do not intend to deal with other issues. However, the Government must reach a conclusion on Stansted, Gatwick and the provincial airports. They must make up their mind about how to approach the matter and at the same time satisfy both the major and the smaller airlines.
Even if we began work tomorrow on a fifth terminal it could not be completed before 1996. That is an important matter. Even if we began work this week upon that terminal it would be too late to meet the immediate demand. Even if work upon the necessary road and rail connections were to begin now, they could not be completed before the year 2000. Even if it were authorised, this would be too late.
My constituency is one of the worst affected by noise. I have fought consistently to reduce the noise, by pressing for a limit on the number of flights and by urging the development of quieter aircraft. Such planes will result in some reduction of the noise. The noise level under the Heathrow flight path is not only almost unendurable during the day, but is unacceptable at weekends. I do not accept that the noise can be reduced in the immediate future, whether or not quieter aircraft are introduced.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the Roskill commission, the third terminal, the number of flights being limited to 275,000 a year, the fourth terminal and so on. I thought that the fifth terminal had been buried without trace. Unfortunately, it was brought back to life by a planning application by Uttlesford District Council.
I object to the fifth terminal because it will lead to increased noise, traffic congestion and the removal of the Perry Oaks sewage station. There is also considerable opposition from local councils. Between 500,000 and 1 million people already suffer the almost unendurable noise under the flight path to Heathrow. The removal of the sewage plant might not take as long as was first thought, but it would still delay the building of a fifth terminal. Buckinghamshire, Berkshire and Surrey county councils and others oppose the building of a fifth terminal. I received a letter today from Berkshire county council setting out its objections.
One of the most difficult problems posed by a fifth terminal would be road congestion. Cromwell road is the most congested part of London apart from Hyde Park corner. The extension of the Piccadilly line was welcome, but I am told that it carries only 8 per cent. of the Heathrow traffic. Whatever we do, we cannot improve the road network. The Cromwell road and Talgarth road areas are so built up that it would be impossible to widen those roads. Even if they were widened, they could still not take all the traffic. If a fifth terminal is built, traffic will be nose to tail from central London to 10 miles outside the city. Even if the rail link were completed and the Piccadilly line were extended further, people would still choose to use the roads, which would result in enormous traffic congestion.
The Government have given numerous promises that a fifth terminal would not be built. Sir John Nott said:
334
"we do not favour a fifth terminal, and that is also the view of the inspector." — [Official Report, 21 February 1980; Vol. 979, c. 694.]
On 3 November 1980, in column 411, my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said in answer to a question that the Government's view remained the same as was stated in the House on 17 December 1979. On 23 July 1981, in column 193, in answer to a question put by me my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State for Trade confirmed the Government's views again and, on 3 March 1982, I intervened repeating the Government's pledges. Pledges were also given on 22 February 1984 in column 948, on 21 November 1984 in column 301 and on 20 December 1984 in column 567. The Government have given unequivocal pledges that they will not construct a fifth air terminal.
Apart from increases in noise levels, practical difficulties will be caused by the building of a new terminal. Much more important, though, are the pledges given by the Government. The circumstances have not altered and I trust that the Government will honour those pledges.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is always generous in giving way, but he was not able to give way to me today when I wanted to ask him a question. The form of our debate was inevitable because of the legal complications, but a vote in the House will be of no significance, because it could be interpreted outside as a vote for or against the fifth terminal and for or against the development of Stansted. The whole thing is mixed up. If hon. Members vote to reject the inspector's report, are they rejecting the fifth terminal? Are they rejecting the development of Stansted? Are they rejecting regional airports policy? The truth is that they will be rejecting the lot.
Surely the object of the debate is to give the Government the opportunity of listening to those of us who have constituency and national interests at heart and to form a judgment on our views.
Mr. George Walden: My hon. Friend says that any vote in the House could be interpreted in any way, but I hope that no vote will be interpreted as opening the way to a reconsideration of a green field site.
Dr. Glyn: I agree with my hon. Friend. A vole in the House would be meaningless because the public and the press could interpret it as meaning whatever they wanted it to mean.
The Government gave a pledge and I rely on them to make sure that it is honoured.
7.27 pm
Mr. Peter Pike: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate and to follow the excellent contributions that have already been made.
The debate is important, and the Secretary of State said that he would listen carefully to what was said. I hope that he will also take careful note of what is said. Ministers will not be voting at the end of the debate, and it is therefore important that as many Conservative Members as possible vote to show the strength of the House's feeling on this issue.
I strongly support the case put by the NOERC, and I oppose the major development of Stansted. I support a

335
national airports policy, with more development of regional airports. That will best meet the needs of the nation in the years ahead.
The financial involvement in Stansted would be £450 million for the airport and associated developments, £160 million for a rail link and between £500 million and £1 billion for infrastructure, depending on the ultimate potential of the airport. That investment will be made at the expense of other parts of the country. It will not be additional public expenditure, and the other parts of the country will have to pay for that major investment in the south. That is a major factor.
Airports attract jobs, and I am aware of the developments that took place because of the foresight of the former Manchester city council, and later of the Greater Manchester and city of Manchester councils, which co-operated with each other. I have that awareness because at one stage I lived close to Manchester airport. The councils have always been prepared to develop the airport in advance of demands to meet the needs of those in the area. Job opportunities are not confined to Manchester airport. Developments within the airport have a ripple effect in the area generally.
Unemployment in the north is far worse than in the south. In the south as a whole there is unemployment of between 6 and 9 per cent., and in the Stansted area there is a very low rate of unemployment. It would be wrong to create more job opportunities in an area where opportunities are already better than elsewhere instead of taking the development to the north. Job opportunities for white collar and service industry employees in my constituency are minimal as it is heavily over-dependent on manufacturing industries. It is over-dependent also on factories and other industrial buildings which were erected before 1914, which have long since seen their better days. It is important that development money should be put into the regions.
There are about 20 million people living in the area around Manchester airport, and if more services were available from the airport they would be used. By concentrating on Manchester airport, I do not underestimate the importance of developing other regional airports. I am emphasising the importance of Manchester because I am well aware of its importance in constituency terms. If those living in the Manchester area want to take a flight from Manchester airport for their holidays, it is necessary for them to make an early booking with the travel companies. That is imperative if they want a flight direct from Manchester. Two years ago I tried to get a flight to Bulgaria from Manchester and was unable to do so. Ultimately, I had to accept a flight from Gatwick.
Bringing one's wife and children down from Manchester to London so as to fly from Gatwick can involve considerable additional cost. Those who do so will opt to fly, to travel by train or to use their car. There is extra expense, and sometimes great inconvenience. Those who use their car are left wondering in what state they will find the car when they return from their fortnight's holiday.
I am glad that the Minister for Housing and Construction is on the Government Front Bench because I am aware that he received a copy of a letter which appeared in the Daily Telegraph a few weeks ago on housing development. The letter which was sent to him
336
was signed by Mr. Alf Norris and Mr. Patton, the chairman and secretary of the National Housing and Town Planning Council for the North West Regional Executive Committee. The letter is directed to the housing development that would have to take place at Stansted. This would happen at the expense of housing in other areas.
The letter reads:
"During the past few years housing programmes have borne the major part of public expenditure cuts and the incidence of identified homelessness has increased. Against such a background many local housing authorities will view the recommended development of Stansted with concern and dismay. In his report Mr. Graham Eyre, QC estimates that a projected capacity of 15 million passengers a year would require the construction of some 10,000 new homes and if capacity were boosted to 25 million passengers some 17,000 new homes might be required. The evidence presented to the inquiry by the Department of the Environment made it clear that development in and around Stansted should be facilitated by a reallocation or re-distribution of resources and the Government could not be committed to provide new additional capital investment."
If that is taken literally, it means that the Government will deprive other areas to pay for development at Stansted. At the same time as paying for that development, they will not get the type of air service that they require in the region. I am sure that the argument on housing could be advanced to cover hospitals, schools and many other items of infrastructure.
It is clear that financial and infrastructure developments, and future Government capital investment would have greater emphasis on the south if the Stansted development were to go ahead. It is believed in the north that there is currently a two-nation divide. If the Government decide to go ahead with the Stansted development, the divide will become even wider. That will strengthen the belief of many that the Government intend to make Britain a two-nation state.
It is no good issuing licences and then saying that they are not taken up if they do not include destinations to which people wish to travel. It is obviously important that passengers should be able to fly direct to America from Manchester. Many industrialists in my constituency have emphasised the importance of communications. They speak of the need to improve the motorways and the railway system and stress that there should be much better direct air connections to the continent and the United States.
The argument that I am presenting is supported fully by Lancashire county council, which believes firmly in the proposals of the North of England Regional Consortium. Those proposals are supported in turn by the North East Lancashire development association.
I presume that within the past couple of days most hon. Members have received the book entitled "Deadlock at Stansted: The Way Out" by Sir Colin Buchanan. We all know of Sir Colin's reputation on road transport. I am sure we are all aware that he served on the commission which considered the third London airport in 1968–70. Sir Colin's conclusions are important. The book states:
"Complicated and intertwined and to some extent unassessable though the issues in this controversy may be, they nevertheless seem amenable to a commonsense judgement. It cannot be said that a proven case exists for a third London airport; the London airports system as postulated by the Inspector seems designed to continue a heavy draw-in of traffic from the regions to the disbenefit of regional travellers; to give the regional airports greater scope would make sense in relation to the spread of the population and would aid economic recovery; and finally there is the incontrovertible environmental case against the expansion

337
of Stansted expressed by many parties with a strength and conviction which no government could over-ride except by decree little short of brutality.
Everything surely points in one direction, namely to leave the position as it is described in the guide book".
That sums up the case, and I hope that when the Division takes place Conservative Members will support Opposition Members in the Lobby.
7.37 pm
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: It is 12 years since my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the then Prime Minister, told me to get on with the job of building a third London airport and to have it ready by about 1985. The reason for his instruction was the report to which the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has referred. It told us that by 1985 to 1990, on all the projections of the British Airports Authority, the Civil Aviation Authority and the other aviation organisations, London would be so clogged with aircraft and passengers that everything would come to a dead stop.
We are now in 1985. We all know that I failed—and that the third London airport was not built. However, London has not come to a dead stop. That leads me to conclude that the Government should be sceptical of all the statistical certainties that are offered to them by experts. Sir Norman Payne has been quoted today as calling Stansted an "oasis of opportunity". Norman Payne, as he was when I was an Under-Secretary of State in the Department of the Environment and the responsible Minister, told me that Stansted was the wrong place and that the right decision was Maplin.
Had we gone for Maplin, it would have been the right decision for the nation and the right decision for hon. Members who represent people around Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton because we would have moved the growth of traffic away from these places and put it where it belongs — on a site adjacent to the sea. But for the fact that the Conservatives lost the 1974 election, Maplin would today be in operation. In the event, the Labour party killed it. As a result, we now face the sad fact that we shall require more airport capacity in the south-east by the early 1990s, but we do not have it. So the only question is where is that capacity to be provided.
My view is similar to that of British Airways, whose chairman I admire. I favour increasing the use of Stansted to the capacity that it now has. That could probably reach to between 4 million and 5 million passengers per year, and while that would not be greatly popular in the area such development could be sustained. It could also be done quickly and relatively cheaply, and with the M11 already in place that would be a sensible decision to take.
Secondly, I strongly favour an improvement of our regional airports. But I am not in favour of coercing people. We should go for the development of regional airports, notably Manchester, in line with genuine market demand. I am not sure what that demand is. We heard from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) about the Bulgarian airline's letting down Manchester. Perhaps it had reasons for doing that. I favour increasing regional airports but only at the rate that proper market demand will bring about.
Neither of those solutions — the development of Stansted and developing the regions—will fill the gap in London. I have therefore come to the reluctant conclusion
338
that the right decision is to get on now with the fifth terminal on the sewage works at Heathrow. I regret to have to say this because I, too, as a Minister gave pledges that we would not increase Heathrow airport nor build at Stansted. But we are today in a new situation. We have to deal with things as they are.
We should, therefore, get on fast with the fifth terminal at Heathrow, and I must tell my hon. Friends, whose feelings, heaven knows, I understand, that this will not be as bad as they fear. Fortunately, there has been a dramatic quietening of aircraft. The noise problem will not be as severe as they suggest.
Unfortunately, our record as a nation in getting on with great and imaginative projects is not good. We did not do the Thames barrier well. We have failed so far with the Channel tunnel. That is why I am concerned over the inspector's depressing conclusion that we could not build a fifth terminal at Heathrow before 1995 or later, that it could take 15 years. That is not acceptable to a modern nation. I appreciate the differences, but we built an airport on the Falklands in about 18 months.
The problem, however, is not the building but the planning. There is the rub. The Minister will find in his Department, if he turns up the records, ample material from the water industry — I had some reponsibility for that, too — to demonstrate that the technology is available rapidly to change the sewerage system at London airport, by flaring and other systems. We do not need, as the inspector suggested, two or three years to test the feasibility of removing the sludge beds. It is feasible. Nor do we need three or four more years to complete the removal of the sewage works to another place. All of that could and should be truncated.
The Government should therefore decide quickly to get on with the fifth terminal and put all their backing behind it. Let them bring before Parliament a special development order. Never mind having further planning inquiries. Let us get on with it now, reflecting on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) that Governments of both parties have lacked the ability to grip exciting, important national projects and carry them through effectively.
What my right hon. Friend wants to hear today is where we stand. I recommend that we should take Stansted to its existing capacity, build up the regional airports as far as possible in accordance with what the market demands and, above all, go now for the fifth terminal at Heathrow. Let us make London the best and most modern airport in the world.
7.45 pm
Mr. Tony Favell: Hon. Members will note that I am wearing a Manchester International airport tie. Thus, my allegiance is not in any way hidden. Manchester International is extremely important to my constituency. The only trouble with it is that it is not called Stockport international as it should be because it is only 10 minutes away from Stockport and the main flight path goes directly over my constituency.
Despite the extreme importance of that airport to my constituency, I join other hon. Members — this shows that we are not being dog in the manger over the issue—in recognising the necessity for some expansion in the south-east, although that is contrary to the view of many pressure groups in the south-east. Indeed, to us in the north-west which is short of jobs and suffering great

339
unemployment problems, it seems extraordinary to build a second terminal at Gatwick right in the centre of the place where the second runway should be, all to reduce expansion.
We would give our right arm for that sort of chance around Manchester. We find it equally extraordinary that people in the vicinity of Heathrow should be campaigning against further development, although that would result in a boost to the economy and more jobs. Because we find that extraordinary, we in the north-west are inclined to say, "A curse on your house and to heck with you in the south-east."
However, we have a duty to United Kingdom Ltd. and we recognise the extreme importance to Britain of the aircraft and airline industry. For that reason, and having studied the figures, we accept that there must be some expansion in the south-east. Where is that expansion to take place? The choice seems to be between terminal 5 at Heathrow and an expansion of Stansted, or both.
The Department of Transport has accepted that there is need for expansion, at the most by 15 million passengers, and it is clear that the best place for that expansion is Heathrow. That is where the passengers want to be. At present, Heathrow is the largest and most successful hub airport in Europe. To retain its success, it must expand, otherwise the traffic will go to Schiphol or Paris—not because Stansted has not expanded but because Heathrow has not expanded. That will drive additional transport away from the south-east, and the sooner we recognise that the better.
Anybody who has taken an interest in the airline industry realises the importance of hub airports. Where better to look for proof of that than Atlanta where, with a population of just over 1 million, that city last year catered for 38 million passengers. That happened merely by developing a hub network. If we do not continue to expand our hub network at Heathrow, we shall be failing not just the south-east and the north but the whole nation.
It is nonsense to suggest that scheduled traffic can move to Stansted. It will not move there. People do not want to go there. We have seen what happened when people tried to direct traffic from Heathrow to Gatwick. We remember that Air Canada, Air Portugal and Iberian Airways said, "Over our dead bodies." In fact, they did not go to Gatwick and, in the end, British Airways moved its Iberian routes there and suffered a great loss.
There is absolutely no need for development at Stansted. There is the proposed terminal 5 at Heathrow, the second terminal at Gatwick, now being built, and there is capacity at Luton by catering for 3 million. During the past four years the number of flights into Luton has decreased because of the predatory methods adopted by the British Airports Authority at Stansted and Gatwick. That is what will happen to the rest of the regional airports throughout the midlands and the north of England if this vast airport at Stansted is expanded to take 15 million passengers. It is clear that the only flights to use Stansted will be charter flights, no scheduled flights. That will have dreadful effects on the regions.
Only 7 million or 8 million charter flights use airports in the south-east. From where will the expansion to 15 million passengers come? Assuming that every single charter flight moved from Heathrow and Gatwick to Stansted, there would still be room for another 7 million
340
passengers. Obviously, the extra traffic will come from the regional airports — East Midlands, Leeds-Bradford, Birmingham, Manchester and Luton — and will have a devastating effect on those regions.
Clearly, we must improve the scheduled services from Manchester, and I support what hon. Members representing the north-west have said. I point out to those hon. Members who represent airports in the midlands and north of England the number of charter flights as a percentage of international flights using airports in the regions: East Midlands, 90 per cent.; Leeds—Bradford, 72·7 per cent.; Birmingham, 73·5 per cent.; Manchester, 81·6 per cent.; and Luton, 99·6 per cent. Would not Sir Norman Payne like this 15 million capacity leisure airport at Stansted? What effect would that have on the regions, losing not what they hope to obtain in the future but what they already have?
7.52 pm
Mr. David Young: The one mistake that hon. Members have not made in this debate is to argue that this is a party political matter. It is extremely useful that the Ministers will not participate in the vote. It is important to recognise that ministerial pronouncements are not exactly written on tablets of stone, no matter which party the Ministers represent. The atrophying effect of office as shown in a person's mental attitude seems to suggest that some people do not look at the position outside the south as flexibly as one would hope.
I hope that we are arguing for a distribution of airports, which are vital economic necessities covering and servicing not just one part of Britain, of which London is the capital, but the whole of the United Kingdom. It is valuable to point out that we are not talking about a country the size of the United States, where there are thousands of miles between cities. We are talking about a fairly small island in which it is useful to find that economic resources and transport resources, of which airports are the key, are distributed to allow the development of our national assets.
I am not making political points, but it is important to note that there was unemployment of 5 per cent. in the constituency that I represented in 1979. Even with the adjustment of statistics, the rate is now between 20 and 30 per cent. We are talking about Manchester airport, which serves not just Bolton and the north-west, but is an international airport. There are 70,000 unemployed youngsters under 25 and another 20,000 youngsters on various schemes in the north-west. There is long-term unemployment of 100,000 in the same area. In the south there is unemployment of between 6 and 9 per cent., and perhaps around Stansted the rate is much lower—3 per cent. or so.
My argument concerns not simply the fact that the airports produce jobs, but the fact that an airport at Manchester provides the economic gateway to the region. What employer from Japan or elsewhere will establish a factory in a north-west town when he needs to fly to Heathrow and then drive up motorways for three or four hours? The north-west has lost many key manufacturing industries. When and if the economic revival comes, the airport will be the vital link and the lifeline by which we can regenerate economic activity.
Manchester airport is midway between Scotland and the south of England. A great deal of tourist trade can be

341
generated by air communications, and that is vital to the region's economy. In the past, Manchester airport has been actively discriminated against. The long-stay car park at Manchester charges £2·90 a day, while the charge at Stansted is virtually a few pence a day. I am told that, because of the Bermuda agreement, American carriers are not allowed to fly to Manchester airport.
We are asking for what the textile industry has requested under all previous Governments — fair competition. We do not make our request on a party basis — Labour, SDP or Liberal. It seems that SDP and Liberal Members cannot find time to attend the debate. We ask those who have an interest in the north-west region to support its key airport. If a third airport is created, it should be created in an area that will serve not only the north-west but virtually the north of England. We have a right to say to the official minds, "Britain does not stop at Watford."
Mr. Tim Smith: Civilisation stops at Watford.
Mr. Young: It depends on the area from which one comes. Judging by the behaviour of some hon. Members, I should not have thought civilisation had even entered the south.
It is necessary to recognise that millions of north-west constituents will depend on Manchester airport, including the communications thereby provided. We need the support of the House — [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentlemen wish to have the Floor, I shall give them the opportunity to do so. It might be useful if they listened to the northern and not simply the southern point. We are talking about the north, and hon. Gentlemen would be courteous if they listened to our point of view.
We should recognise that many hon. Members, from all parties, are talking on behalf of their constituents who will need this link, and we hope that the vote will show the Minister that that link must be provided.
8 pm
Mr. Toby Jessel: The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young) has spoken with great force about the needs of his town and region. I will take up later the points that he made.
First, however, I should like to remind the House of the population statistics for the areas around Heathrow and Stansted. The Home Office figures, based on the 1981 census, show that within 10 miles of Heathrow there are 1,700,000 people. Within 10 miles of Stansted, there are 115,000 people — only one fourteenth as many. The large number of people living around Heathrow are just as sensitive to the quality of their life and surroundings as anyone else. I include my constituents in Twickenham, Teddington, the Hamptons and Whitton.
The House should not forget that five Members who represent constituencies near Heathrow are either Ministers or Whips, and, by convention, they do not speak on matters affecting other Departments — my hon. Friends the Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe), for Putney (Mr. Mellor), for Esher (Mr. Mather), for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) and for Reading, West (Mr. Durant), who is in his place. My hon. Friends have made their views known in their own way, and no one should assume that if there are five fewer speakers from the Heathrow area the people living there are any less well represented.
342
The large population around Heathrow has been told time and again that it is Conservative Government policy not to build a fifth terminal at Heathrow, and it has believed it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) quoted eight instances of statements by Ministers in the present Government to that effect. I can add another. On 4 August 1981, when he was Secretary of State, the Leader of the House wrote to me on this point. He said:
"In his letter to you on 13 November 1980, which was issued as a Press Notice by my Department, Norman Tebbit, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade, confirmed that the Government's view remained unchanged; and in reply to a Parliamentary Question by Kenneth Carlisle on 13 May 1981, I re-affirmed the Government's view that a fifth terminal at Heathrow should not be provided. I do not think this can leave you in any doubt about the Government's view on this matter."
Those repeated statements of policy have come to be seen as amounting virtually to pledges. There will be a great sense of betrayal in constituencies around Heathrow if a fifth terminal is built. Those who want the pledges abandoned are saying that the opinion of a planning inspector who is no more than an adviser — albeit a distinguished adviser — should carry more weight than the commitment and good name of a Conservative Government.
The previous inspector, Mr. Justice Glidewell, was just as eminent as Mr. Eyre if not more so. He reported on the Heathrow fourth terminal with great distinction and took exactly the opposite view. He said:
"it is in my view essential that, if they decide to permit Terminal Four, the Secretaries of State"—
The Secretaries of State for Trade and for the Environment—
"should at the same time reiterate that it is the Government's policy that there will be neither a fifth terminal nor any major expansion at Heathrow".
That view was accepted by the Government. There is no reason whatever why the House should attach more weight to the opinions of Mr. Eyre than to those of Mr. Justice Glidewell.

The traffic aspect is extremely important. With three terminals open at Heathrow, the number of passengers there per year is 28 million or 29 million. When the fourth terminal opens later this year, it is expected that there will be 39 million passengers per year. If a fifth terminal were built, there would be 52 million — nearly double the present figure. That could mean an extra 60,000 or 70,000 passengers passing through Heathrow every day, with all the necessary back-up services. Eighty per cent. of passengers go to Heathrow by road and, however one may fiddle about with railway lines, that proportion is unlikely to drop substantially.
Most hon. Members are familiar with the A4, the Cromwell road, which leads through west London towards Heathrow. That road is already heavily congested, and not only at peak hours. The extra traffic for the fourth and fifth terminals would jam up the Cromwell road. Mr. Eyre had no adequate answer to that problem. The congestion would spread into parallel roads and, eventually, throughout west London.
There are already 750 flights a day through Heathrow. At times, a plane flies over my constituents every 1½ minutes. It is the frequency of the flights that distresses people, not merely the peak loudness of each flight. The assumptions made by the inspector and repeated by various statutory bodies are based on the noise and number index. I was glad to see from a letter that I received only

343
this morning from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport that the noise and number index and the formula for assessing the amount of aircraft noise is under review and that there will be a fresh report on it in April. The new report may render invalid some of the inspector's assumptions about the measurement of aircraft noise.
People in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies will not be content with a continuation of the present level of aircraft noise. They want a substantial and permanent reduction. The burden of aircraft noise must be shared more fairly. It is totally inequitable to pile more and more of a burden—whether the burden is in the form of traffic or of aircraft noise—on the 1·75 million people living around Heathrow in order to protect the far smaller population around Stansted. We should remember that, although I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) said, three out of four members of that population do not want that protection in any case. Even if we take those living within a 10-mile radius of Stansted rather than a 30-mile radius—
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Jessel: A significant proportion of people within the 10-mile radius do not want protection.
Stansted is not virgin territory. There is a great fat runway two miles long there. That excellent runway is under-used. The excellent motorway connection between the M11 and the M25 and other good roads provides the capacity for a great deal more traffic. All those national assets are being under-used.
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The situation is ludicrous. Neither Heathrow nor Stansted appears to want the extra facility, but Manchester is longing for it.
Mr. Jessel: The nub of the problem is that every year 3 million more people want to fly in and out of south-east England. The figure for this year is 47 million, not 45 million as has been said. The inspector calculated that the figure would rise to 61 million in five years and to 75 million in 10 years. He worked out that by 1990 there would be no more room at Heathrow and Gatwick for any more passengers. He also calculated that there is no way in which the fifth terminal at Heathrow could be opened before 1996.
It is only in the past few days that we have suddenly been told that there will be no need for a new waterworks. If so, why was not that point made during the inquiry? The case remains completely unproven. The inspector found that, because of the need to move the waterworks at Perry Oaks elsewhere, it would take 12 years to construct the fifth terminal at Heathrow. The fifth terminal at Heathrow, therefore, could not do the job in time. He concluded that only Stansted could provide the additional capacity to meet the demands during the early to mid-1990s.
The Manchester argument, about which we have heard a great deal and will no doubt hear a great deal more, sounds all right until we ask what it means. It means that someone who lives in Twickenham, Eastbourne or Finchley who wants to take a holiday in Spain after 1990 will be told "Sorry chum, you cannot go through Heathrow or Gatwick because there is no room for you. To get your
344
holiday in Spain you must go to Manchester". People will not stand for that. The same is true for incoming Americans who want to do their usual Tower of London and Stonehenge trip. Rather than come through Manchester they will go to some other country—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's 10 minutes have come to an end.
8.10 pm
Mr. Graham Bright: This debate is crucial to my constituents. Since 1979, we have had to live with the possibility of Luton airport having to be closed if there is major development at Stansted. That would mean the loss of more than 7,000 jobs and the closure of the second largest business in my constituency. I do not know of any other right hon. or hon. Member who is faced with such a prospect. My sentiments are shared by my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel). The prospect is utterly unacceptable to us.
It is ironic that the threat of closure should ever have hung over Luton. The discussion about the siting of London's third airport ignores the fact that Luton is already the third airport in the capital's system. With 2 million passengers a year now, a capacity to take up to 5 million passengers a year, excellent motorway connections and an adjoining railway line to London — it is much closer than Stansted and takes only 30 minutes—Luton airport is perfectly capable of playing a greater role, especially in scheduled services. Indeed, we would welcome the opportunity that a longer runway and parallel taxiways would give us to expand our passenger handling capacity to 10 million — double the present capacity. That would involve taking only 100 acres of land. That is an option which would increase the capacity and the flexibility of the London system and remove pressure for the development of Stansted.
The recent problems of Luton airport have not been confined to the threat of closure. It has faced difficulties because of the existence of heavily subsidised facilities and charges at Stansted which are, of course, designed to attract our charter traffic away. The BAA has used its monopoly at Heathrow and Gatwick to squeeze out competition from Luton. That casts serious doubt on the BAA's claim to be the guardian of the national interest in airport matters, especially when its justification for developing Stansted is supposed to be the need to meet international competition. If it is not prepared to meet competition fairly at home, the claim is bogus.
For that reason, I am not prepared to go the whole way with the inspector, Mr. Eyre, at the recent planning inquiry in blaming successive Governments for the difficult problems that we now face. Any Government must take into consideration the views of their supporters, the environmental lobby, transport interests and many other factors.
Mr. Eyre has overlooked the pressure that a major public sector monopoly, the BAA, can bring to bear on policymakers in the long term by its insistence on the need to cater for passenger growth. It has an overwhelming interest in buttressing its own position. Hence the unremitting pressure since 1965 for the development of Stansted, the difficulty in developing a coherent strategy for regional airports and the BAA's efforts to take over Luton and the major regional airports in the 1970s and,

345
now, to preserve its monopoly. Until it is broken up and its component parts are sold to the private sector within an appropriate regulatory scheme, such conflicts will have to be resolved politically rather than settled in the market.
I do not believe that either the BAA or the inspector has made out a convincing case for the instant development of Stansted. According to Mr. Eyre's figures, he expects 61 million passengers to pass through London's airports each year by 1990, but his assessment of the passenger capacities of the existing planned and committed London airports system for that year is 63·5 million passengers. That might well be an underestimate as Heathrow, with a capacity of 38 million passengers a year, Gatwick, with a capacity of 25 million passengers a year, and Luton and Stansted combined, with a capacity of 9 million passengers a year — with the expansion of Luton it would obviously be greater—there would be an overall capacity of 72 million passengers a year. We shall have the capacity to handle the anticipated level of passenger traffic in 1990 irrespective of whether we decide to develop Stansted now. It is entirely wrong to suggest that Stansted is the only choice that will meet the demands of the 1990s in time.
The public inquiry has reinforced the argument for the development of a fifth terminal at Heathrow. The Perry Oaks site is clearly more suitable for airport development than any other location in the south-east and, indeed, the whole of the United Kingdom. The inspector believes that it is better from an operational point of view than terminal 4 and its development would prevent the imposition of the costs of split-site operations in our domestic airlines. British Airways says that its costs would rise by one fifth if Stansted were developed. There would also be a chance of relieving pressure on the central terminal area and the main access roads and tunnels into the airport. As heathrow is the hub of our international air services network, and as the development of the airport to full potential offers major operational savings to the airlines, a fifth terminal is the logical solution for the south-east.
Growth in the south-east, whether at Heathrow, Gatwick or Luton, is not the entire answer. Regional airports such as Manchester and others in Scotland have reached, or are reaching, critical stages in the development of their services. They have catchment areas and unutilised capacity sufficient to handle far greater numbers of passengers. The existence of the BAA in its current form must not be an obstacle to their development. It will be no service to Britain to reinforce the BAA's grip on our airport policies by promoting the growth of Stansted. Luton is ready, able and willing to play its part, with a fifth terminal at Heathrow, in coping with passenger growth in the south-east for the foreseeable future. It makes sense to expand our existing airports and to avoid artificial commitments on air traffic movements and terminal development of the disastrous kind that were made in the 1978 White Paper. Moreover, ignoring the potential of our regional airports will not be acceptable any longer.
There is no profit in looking back at the past 20 years of confusion and missed opportunities. Now is the time for new policies and, if possible, a new consensus. Nobody in north-west Essex wants major development at Stansted. However, such expansion is possible at Heathrow, Luton, in the regions and in Scotland. The only body with a real interest in developing Stansted is the BAA. It is that body, and the project that it has conceived, that should disappear in the interests of the whole nation.
8.17 pm
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I found it rather entertaining to hear the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) trying to shove passengers off from Heathrow to Stansted as there are obviously many people in the south-east of England who want further development at neither Heathrow nor Stansted. In the north, however, we would give our right arm just to have the opportunity to expand regional airports, the survival of which might be put at grave risk if the Government's weight is put behind the Stansted proposal.
When the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) extolled the virtues of Maplin as a third London airport, partly because it was by the sea, I smiled wryly because Liverpool airport is by the sea and has many of the virtues to which he referred. The hon. Gentleman talked about not coercing people to use such an airport. The hon. Member for Twickenham revealed yet again the gap between the imaginations of those who live in the south and those who live in the north when he said that his constituents could not be forced to go to Manchester or other northern airports to go on holiday or travel on business. I have news for him. That is precisely the problem that people who reside in the north of England face.
A person who lives in Liverpool and wishes to go on a summer holiday to a foreign land can fly direct only to Yugoslavia, thanks mainly to the drive of Merseyside county council. If he wishes to go to Spain, he may get a flight from Manchester. But the weight and balance of airport development is tipped towards the south. Those of us who live in the north must drive to Luton or get the train to Heathrow or Gatwick. That is part of the problem of living in the north of England, but many people in the south are unready or unable to recognise it. The expansion of Stansted will endanger the role of Manchester and the complementary airport of Liverpool.
The airport of Liverpool is already threatened by the plans to abolish Merseyside county council. No one has made it clear whether any authority will be capable of assuming that responsibility when the council is abolished. Far from getting a second terminal, Liverpool airport has recently managed to get a grant of £1·9 million — that shows at least some commitment on the part of the Government — towards building a new replacement terminal. We would love to be able to say that we were building a second terminal.
My constituency is in a county which has an average unemployment rate of more than 20 per cent. One third of the 150,000 unemployed have been without a job for well over a year, and often for well over two years. Therefore, we would welcome another terminal. However, we cannot even get a duty-free shop at Liverpool airport because of the arbitrary qualifying quota of 100,000 international passengers laid down by the Government. Yet many passengers who travel from Liverpool airport are international passengers, who must take an internal flight from Liverpool to Heathrow or Gatwick to pick up an international flight.
Many decisions are taken by the Government and their advisers whose roots are in the south. Not everyone needs or desires to start a journey from London airport. Airports such as Liverpool could handle a greater volume of traffic. Liverpool airport has one of the most up-to-date runways in the country, which has even taken Concorde. The drive

347
of Merseyside county council has led to the development of a new control tower, modern fire-fighting facilities and the beginnings of the development of a new replacement terminal. Flights go out and come in over the river, which is a safe route. Liverpool airport is more often fog-free than most airports in the United Kingdom, and is an ideal diversionary airport for Manchester, Gatwick and Heathrow.
Manchester airport is connected to an excellent motorway system, which includes the M56, M53, M57, M62 and M6. It is an ideal site for development, providing the Government create the balance more in favour of the distressed parts of the United Kingdom, that is, the north-west.
I plead with the Government to consider the position carefully and to examine what is happening in the House tonight. The only reason why the Government have not called a three-line Whip tonight is that they realise they they are not satisfying the House with their proposals to expand Stansted and Heathrow, which totally ignore the needs of the north-west and the northern regions.
If the Conservative party wants to confirm the view of many people that it is fast becoming the south of England nationalist party, it should continue with its present trends. If it wants to expand and ensure that areas such as Merseyside get their fair due, it should consider Manchester and Liverpool airports. There is no use talking about regional policy while cutting regional aid. In Merseyside the six local authorities have suffered a cut of £176 million since 1979. That cannot be allowed to continue.
The Government can show faith with people in the north-west by not supporting further development in the London area. They should see to it that Manchester gets its fair rewards. They should consider the disadvantages that at present accrue to Manchester, and consider regional complementary airports such as Liverpool. Such a move would introduce much investment and economic activity in that deprived area.
8.25 pm
Mr. Anthony Nelson: The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) made a staunch and eloquent defence of the interests of his constituents, as I would expect. I do not doubt the fervour with which he and other hon. Members have put the case for the expansion of regional airports to serve the economic interests of their areas.
The demands of those regions are persuasive, and the environmental and economic interests of the hon. Members who represent seats most closely affected by prospective development in the south-east are understandable. Although I cannot claim to have as direct a constituency interest as them, I hope to display more objectivity and less emotion.
I, like all my right hon. and hon. Friends, have read the report with care. I am bound to declare my credentials at the beginning, which are that I broadly support the recommendations of the Eyre report. I hope that my views and those of other hon. Members present in the Chamber will be taken fully into account by Ministers.
When the subject was first raised about 20 years ago, there were projections for air transport growth which have not been fully realised. Nevertheless, there have been
348
great opportunity costs from not making the essential decision at that time about the development of a third London airport. It is ironic that since Sir Peter Masefield first espoused the case for a third London airport at Stansted we have gone full circle via Wing and Maplin back to Stansted, and now face the same decision 20 years later.
Did we serve the national interest by failing to grasp the nettle, prickly though it was, during those years? Has not the time come to make a clear and final decision? There must be no more prevarication. The people, regions, towns and communities involved are entitled to expect a clear and final decision. That decision should be the one set out in the Eyre report.
Too often we assess the future capital cost of such a decision, but fail to take account of the cost incurred through failing to take a decision earlier. A heavy responsiblity rests with a succession of Ministers with responsibility for trade and aviation, who have not served the country well by failing to make a decision on this highly sensitive, political, judgmental issue. Nevertheless, such a decision can now be made and it should be for a major expansion of Stansted airport.
There has been far too much talk this afternoon about the alternative advantages of meeting, by a minimalist approach, the least possible forecast movements of air transport. There has been insufficient desire to satisfy fairly empirically verifiable and objective judgments as to what passenger transport demands will be in the south-east over the next 15 to 20 years.
It is self-evident, from careful reading of the report, that there is no alternative to the development of Stansted. Much as one might like to see the demand-led expansion of some regional airports, the hard fact is that while certain improvemens can be made, and some new routes can and should be opened — I hope that will happen — consumer demand, both internationally and domestically, will remain predominantly in the south-east.
Mr. Churchill rose—
Mr. Nelson: Like others, I have waited to make my speech. I have a limited time to make my points and I wish to conclude my remarks.
From my reading of the report, such a demand will be prevalent. It behoves the Government to respond and the recommendations in the report, in particular for the expansion of Stansted, will in my view satisfy this.
However, I link with that the importance that I place on the need not to make any concessions or to fudge judgments in responding to the report. In their eventual response to the inspector's report, the Government will be heavily tempted to try to satisfy, for political and other motives, all the fair points of view which have been represented. I shall judge the Government's response by the extent to which they genuinely take the opportunity to do objectively what they consider is in the national interest, and not to dilute an essential decision which should be made for the future.
Although Heathrow, Gatwick and other areas have been developed in the past, they have been developed too slowly and in such a manner as already to lose a substantial amount of business and traffic to elsewhere in the world. No one can assess the value and extent of business that we have already lost to Paris, Amsterdam and elsewhere in terms of passenger movements, freight and the associated

349
business. However, I believe that the cost to Britain has been enormous. That is the cost of failing to make decisions 20 years ago and in the intervening period.
We must have hope for the future. We must not proceed on the most pessimistic assumptions about economic growth and the attractions of Britain both for business and tourism. We should proceed on the basis that we will make new facilities work and that they will attract new business to Britain through Stansted and elsewhere. Therefore, not only should there be a firm Government resolution and decision in favour of the Eyre report, but it must not be watered down.
There will inevitably be behind-the-scene bids for a Government response to suggest a phasing of any increase at Stansted, for a limit on the number of passengers who can be dealt with and for an absolute guarantee that the capacity will not increase beyond a given level in the foreseeable future. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will resist these overtures to the extent that they have taken note of my remarks, although I recognise that it is a matter of judgment. I believe that I have made my point. I want the report to be implemented and I want no watering down of its recommendations.
I am not on my own. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) said earlier. Much of what T have said in support of Stansted rests on the efficacy of the rail link with London and it is essential that that is not intermittent but is a direct through link.
With those remarks, I hope that I have left no doubt in my right hon. and hon. Friends' minds as to my views on the issue.
8.33 pm
Sir Walter Clegg: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson). It is particularly galling to those of us from the north to find that when we are forced to take flights from Heathrow or Gatwick we are supposed to be starting our flights from the south-east and are south-east originated. We are nothing of the sort. We are forced there by a set of circumstances.
One of the penances of debating in the House of Commons is to hear speaker after speaker making one's points infinitely better. Many powerful voices have spoken for the north of England tonight. In particular, I want to take up one or two of the threads which my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) pursued.
First, my hon. Friend talked about the feeling in the north. He said that it was something tangible, something that could be touched. I can back him up on that. The north has a chip on its shoulder, and I do not like that. At one time it was a nice sporting chip—one will have a better chance of playing for England if one plays at Lords than at Old Trafford or Headingley. But it has become worse than that.
As the circumstances have changed between the south and the north, I have become worried about the south-north feeling that is developing. I want to see it stopped. That is why we have heard that the North of England Regional Consortium covers all the old rivalries within the north and stretches from the Irish sea to the North sea, from the Solway to the Mersey, and from the Humber to the Tyne. All have united in opposing the development of
350
Stansted for the reasons which have been cogently given in the House tonight by those supporting the North of England Regional Consortium.
We sometimes misunderstand why there is the concentration of flights in the south-east. It is partly historical and partly due to the fact that the airlines have found it easier because of the cross-subsidisation of the southern airports which is not available in the north and which makes our landing charges higher.
I read something in the inspector's report which I found rather strange. He said:
"Governments can do little to influence the entrenched pattern of air services which is inevitably governed by market forces."
It is nonsense to say that the Government cannot change that pattern. It is ludicrous that the market is referred to there as a free market when one thinks of the International Air Transport Association, the Bermuda 2 arrangement, the licensing restrictions and the communications between Government and Government.
My fear—it is shared by many of my hon. Friends in the north — is that the present position will be frozen into the system because expenditure on Stansted will make those airlines which operate from it wish it to work, and the wish will be father to the thought.
We do not want to play dog in the manger with the south of England. If it needs expansion for its own purposes, so be it, but I am implacably opposed to a major development at Stansted. My feet will take me into the appropriate Lobby tonight, and I shall not be alone.
8.38 pm
Mr. Robert Litherland: Unlike hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I must confess that I am not an authority on airports. I have been impressed by the breadth of knowledge that has been expressed in the debate.
However, as a representative of an inner city area, I am an authority on deprivation. As a former member of the Manchester city council, although, regrettably, never on the airport committee, I am extremely proud of that airport. The alderman who cut the first sod of grass at Manchester airport had to have police protection against a volatile crowd who did not want the airport. There has been criticism in years gone by because of the imposition on the rates. But what a difference today! Today that airport is the dual jewel of the north: it makes contributions to the rates and a marvellous contribution to the region.
I was dismayed at the beginning of the debate when I listened to the south-east lobby. We have heard the Watford gap mentality coming through once or twice. The North of England Regional Consortium has been criticised for its role. Some of the arguments have put forward the old divide and rule idea of separating Manchester from the other regions. The consortium does not want a "beggar thy neighbour" mentality. We have regard for unemployment in the south-east. Arguments have been thrown at us about job creation. The 50 per cent. male unemployment rate in one part of my constituency should be compared with the level of unemployment in the south-east. In Greater Manchester about 70,000 of the under-25s are unemployed; 100,000 have been unemployed for over six months. That is deprivation.
The consortium has pointed out that comparative statistics on unemployment are well known and need not be rehearsed. There is a substantial difference between the

351
unemployment rates in Scotland, Wales, the north and the midlands and those prevailing in the south-east. The creation of further jobs in rural Essex and Hertfordshire will have no immediate beneficial effect on unemployment in other parts, including the south-east. The proposal to create a further 25,000 jobs in that area, where unemployment averages 6 and 9 per cent., is not a priority. Indeed, it is inconsistent with the Government's location decisions on such developments as the Nissan car factory, which, for a variety of reasons, was routed to the north-east. In regard to the disparity between the north and the south-east, average earnings are lower in Greater Manchester. The inner cities are at a disadvantage.
Objections are coming not just from Manchester. At the inaugural meeting of the North of England Regional Consortium three years ago there were people from all over the country, and there was support across the political spectrum, just as we have heard in this debate from the hon. Members for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) and for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst). Local authorities and the tourist trade supported the chamber of commerce. They realised that the spin-off effect, if Stansted should be developed, would be to the disadvantage of the northern regions.
The consortium asks legitimate questions about resources. What effect will the reallocation of resources have on the capital expenditure plans for local authorities at a time of dwindling capital allocations? Who will fund the 17,000 new houses and all the infrastructure that will be required? Will it be the Manchesters, the Liverpools, the Sheffields or the Newcastles? The consortium points out that even inner areas of London will not be immune. So we have decaying urban areas badly in need of revitalisation which will be subsidising new towns in the south-east. The regional dimension has not been taken into consideration in the report. The question about priorities has never been put. Justification cannot be made for expenditure well in excess of £1 billion in the south-east at a time of cutback in public sector financing which will affect the north.
The inquiry has dwelt only on the development of airport facilities and has missed out completely the importance of the air transport industry. There are two important elements. Without question there is a need for wider consideration of the development of the air transport industry in the United Kingdom. Secondly, the decision taken ultimately by the Secretary of State must take account of the regional dimension. The spread of aid for the regions is very thin. Many regions are in dire need of revitalisation. This is an opportunity that should not be missed. This is only one aspect of regional policy.
There are further broader issues concerning major capital investment. In his evidence to the Stansted inquiry the leader of West Yorkshire metropolitan county council indicated that regional policy must take account of regional conditions, which are so bad that no national investment decisions should be taken without first considering the regional dimension. Therefore, it is not just a Manchester versus Stansted argument. Attention must be drawn to the neglect of the midlands, the north and Scotland. If Stansted is developed, if a fifth terminal is built at Heathrow, and if there is a Channel tunnel, this island will eventually sink, as has been forecast, because of the imbalance of being weighted down by the south-east
352
of England. There is a case for regional airports. Finance invested in the regional airports would act as a catalyst to revitalise and reinvigorate areas with tremendous human resources. To neglect them further would be a catastrophe.
At the Stansted inquiry, and throughout its case since, the consortium has argued that there is no need in purely air transport terms for a further major development in the south-east of England to meet south-eastern air transport needs. All the analyses show that an excessively high percentage of regional air travellers are currently forced to use airports in the south-east. If those travellers could be reallocated to services from local regional airports, expansion could take place in the regions and not in London.
The consortium has also argued that the effects of the reallocation would be to bring substantial economic and employment benefits to the regions. Such benefits are more than justified by the widening disparities in employment opportunity and social and economic conditions as between the south-eastern region and the remainder of the country. That is not to say that the consortium has ever failed to acknowledge equally dire problems which exist on a localised basis in parts of the Greater London conurbation, but merely to observe that in quantitative terms the scale of the problem elsewhere is greater. Like most of my hon. Friends, I appeal to as many as possible Conservative Members to support our campaign by joining us in the Lobby tonight.
8.48 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: I am genuinely sorry for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. He has as disparate a portfolio as the craggy-visaged, iron-watchchained Alderman Foodbotham, chairman of the Bradford tramways and fine arts committee in the old days, about which Peter Simple writes so eloquently. One day he is on the buses; the next day he is proposing a Bill to deal with London regional transport; the next day it is those confounded airports again. I am only glad that at least we have given him some respite from the Civil Aviation Bill. I am sure he is glad that we have, particularly if he studies the inspector's report. I hope that at the end of the debate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or the Minister of State will state clearly the Government's intentions with regard to that legislation. The unanimous verdict of all informed parties is that the artificial statutory limit of 275,000 air transport movements per year at Heathrow is totally unjustified. Moreover, taken annually, the 275,000 ATM limit will be exceeded this summer even before the fourth terminal comes into operation in the autumn. I hope that this matter can be laid to rest today.
Secondly, I hope that the Government will listen to the very wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), formerly a Minister responsible for these matters. In a powerful and succinct speech he emphasised that Heathrow is a major national asset. The inspector, too, made that point. There is no airport with a comparable range of international services anywhere in Europe and we would be foolish indeed not to maximise its potential. As Mr. Eyre pointed out, however, to do so we need—and have needed for many years — a fifth terminal on the Perry Oaks site. I hope that at the very least my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction will approve that planning application.

353
We are all conscious of the pressures in the western part of London. A necessary prerequisite for such a development is the construction of a motorway spur from the M25 to the fifth terminal, proper railway links to Feltham and Iver, an extension of the underground system to the fifth terminal and improvements to the M4 and the A4, as well as the trunking of the Hayes bypass to which my hon. Friend for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) will no doubt allude if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Many people are worried about the potential noise impact of such an increase in capacity at Heathrow, but we should not be too alarmed. The inspector sets out good figures to prove the point, as do British Airways, and they explain that the introduction of new noise regulations at the begining of next year for British-registered aircraft and at the begining of 1987 for most foreign-registered aircraft will mean that the noise nuisance, which is such a worry to many local residents, will diminish, even if the passenger throughput at Heathrow is dramatically expanded.
Mr. Jessel: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that it is not just the peak loudness of each flight but the frequency and number of flights — already 750 per day — which distresses so many people? I might also point out that the runways go east and west whereas my hon. Friend's constituency is to the north of Heathrow—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his 10 minutes and he is now trying to nick someone else's.
Mr. Wilkinson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think that intervention was really worthy of my hon. Friend. I have always supported full use of Heathrow, just as I supported the full use of regional airports when I represented the constituency of Bradford, West. I still support the expansion of regional airports. The expansion of Heathrow should be seen as part of an overall strategy. It has not been made sufficiently clear in the debate that the future of many regional airports is directly tied up with the future of Heathrow. The feeder services which run from the regional airports into Heathrow to interline with international services are vital to the survival of many of the regional airports. I think that the inspector is broadly right when he says that there is only marginal potential for alleviation of demand through the expansion of regional airports. That is not to say that the regional airport expansion should not take place. There is a manifest case for it on grounds of regional development and equity, on economic grounds and on air transport grounds, but we should not delude ourselves that it will make all that much difference.
For all those reasons, I believe that from about 1995 we shall need a further expansion of the fifth terminal across the western perimeter road to the ground now covered with market gardens. I believe that is the most sensible strategy. Forecasts must always allow a margin for error. The inspector has made very generous allowance for error. His projection is way above the mean between the lowest and highest estimates of future demand. The CAA's own figures in document CAP 502 show that up to 1995, even with the present confines of Stansted, the additional demand that the inspector envisages for the south-east airports can be met. If Luton airport is developed up to 10 million passengers per year, as my hon. Friend the
354
Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) suggests, and if Heathrow is used to the full with a fifth terminal and 53 million passengers per year, it will be possible to meet the demand planning value given by the inspector for the year 2000 with Stansted handling only 5 million passengers per year.
Before we unnecessarily despoil the most beautiful countryside around Stansted I hope that we shall do everything possible to maximise the use of Heathrow. It is not beyond the wit of man to provide alternative sewerage facilities to those at the Perry Oaks site. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds was absolutely right about that. I believe that such an overall strategy could provide the basis for a consensus on which the Government, the Opposition and the country could unite. It is for this reason that I put it to the House. For this same reason, too, I am pleased that we are not making it a party matter in the Division Lobby. I believe that we should express the view that, with future demand projections so uncertain, it would be quite wrong to commit ourselves, in effect, to putting a Gatwick, with 15 million passengers per year, or, by the mid-1990s, the virtual equivalent of today's Heathrow, in the exquisite and unspoilt countryside of Essex. My hon. Friends and I believe that would be wrong and we shall seek to express the view in the Division today.
8.58 pm
Mr. Churchill: The Secretary of State, in opening the debate, referred to the extreme delicacy of his position, a phrase which one can well appreciate from one who finds himself poised so awkwardly on the horns of a dilemma.
The House is invited tonight to give its verdict on the inspector's proposal for a massive expansion of Stansted and for a huge investment of resources in the south-east of England. Such a development in my belief is undesirable and unnecessary, and would represent a most un-cost-effective use of national resources.
The inspector betrays his own south-east bias in the concern which he expresses about the possibility that, were there to be major expansion of regional facilities, people from the south-east might conceivably have to go to Manchester to take an aeroplane, yet he takes little account of the plight with which so many northerners have been confronted and remain confronted and, if the inspector has his choice, will for ever more be confronted: that they have no choice when they want to go abroad but to interline via Heathrow or one of the European transit points.
Although Manchester is the greatest city in the United Kingdom outside the capital, there are no more than 20 foreign destinations to which one can fly direct from Manchester. On some of those flights there are restricted traffic rights and many of them are scheduled only one day a week.
What we in the north are battling against is the concept so admirably displayed by the latest British Caledonian advertisement which, for the benefit of those hon. Members who do not travel regularly through Manchester airport, I read:
"Manchester—London—one stop—the world".
It is to this precisely that we in the north object. Why do we have to go via London in order to get to the world? Although I have the greatest respect for Sir Adam Thompson and for his admirable airline, which I use

355
regularly, the advertisement epitomises the problem with which we in the north-west are confronted, that we have to travel via London or one of the European Community countries to get anywhere.
This is an outdated syndrome which has been dead and buried for 15 years in the United States. There was a time — people have forgotten it — when one could not get anywhere in the United States without going via what used to be called Idlewild, now JFK. Anybody with any sense travelling now to a destination on the west coast, the south or the mid-west will go many miles out of his way to avoid the horrors of JFK and the eastern seaboard airfields.
Exactly the same attitude has developed among northerners who, although we recognise that at present we are forced to interline, will interline more regularly via foreign airports—Schiphol, Zurich, Charles de Gaulle—in order specifically to avoid Heathrow airport.
The huge numbers of passengers from the north have no choice at present. I was intrigued that the BAA should have let the cat out of the bag in its earlier propaganda for the debate which took place in the House before Christmas. It proudly paraded the fact that no less than 80 per cent. of the passengers coming through the London area airports wish to do business in London or the south-east. However, the flip side of that coin is that no less than 20 per cent. of passengers have no wish to go anywhere near the London area airports. The latest figures for 1984 show that the figures on which the inspector based his report are entirely outdated. At present it is not 20 per cent. who do not want to go near London area airports but 29 per cent., an increase of 45 per cent. on the figure on which the inspector based his decision.
Nearly 15 million travellers from the regions who have no wish to pass through London have to do so. That is the equivalent of the entire throughput of Gatwick airport. It is estimated that that 15 million will have increased to 25 million by the end of the decade. In consequence, the London area airports are unnecessarily congested. This in turn leads to demands and fatuous proposals such as we have had from the distinguished inspector, the only effect of which will be to aggravate the situation whereby northerners are unable to travel from their local airports and more and more people are encouraged to go through London. The extent to which people are interlining via other terminals might not be readily appreciated in London.
We have heard the suggestion that if we restrict growth at Stansted people will use other European airports. Many northerners are doing precisely that. Business men wanting to fly to Hong Kong from Manchester will go to Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Dublin or Paris to avoid Heathrow.
Mr. Carter-Jones: Is it not hopeful that in the autumn people will be given the opportunity to fly direct to Hong Kong from Manchester with British Airways?
Mr. Churchill: Yes. I warmly welcome that. It is long overdue. At present people are more likely to use Swissair and travel via Zurich which gets them to Hong Kong two hours sooner than flying British Airways via Heathrow.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) that, far from there not being the demand in the north-east or the north-west, in 1981 — thanks to Sir Freddie Laker — no fewer than 11 DC10s a week flew
356
between Manchester and the United States. Three flew to Los Angeles, four to Miami and four to New York city. Today there are no such flights.
I am delighted that British Airways is planning a three-times-a-week service as from the autumn this year. We shall then be served about one quarter as well as we were by Sir Freddie Laker's airline before he was done down.
I have three suggestions for my right hon. Friend. Will the Government develop positive policies to the maximum to ensure that regional demand is satisfied? That must mean a major expansion of Manchester and other regional airports, and abandoning plans for major developments at Stansted. Secondly, will my right hon. Friend give the BAA its marching orders? Will he make it clear to it that the predatory pricing in which it is indulging at Stansted by subsidies from Heathrow and Gatwick is unacceptable? As an example I cite the cost of landing a jumbo jet at three airports. At Heathrow the cost is £4,930, at Manchester £3,908 and at Stansted £1,071 — barely one quarter of the economic charge that has to be made in Manchester. As a direct consequence Manchester has lost at least one regular far east freight flight. It has now gone to Stansted. The massive volume of freight which goes by road to London is ludicrous. Some goes on roll-on/roll-off ferries to Amsterdam and elsewhere. But half the freight delivered to Manchester airport is sent by road to Heathrow for onward transmission.
Finally, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he ought to reconsider the Bermuda 2 agreement and adopt a liberal policy towards foreign airlines. If need be, he should take British Airways and British Caledonian by the scruff of the neck and make it clear to them that their dog-in-the-manger attitude towards those who are seeking traffic rights out of Manchester and the regional airports must change. Those hon. Members who represent Manchester constituencies and constituencies elsewhere in the north of England will not accept what is believed to be an undesirable, unnecessary diversion of resources to a misconceived project in the south-east.
We demand that the Government should take full account of the case for Manchester. Until Manchester becomes the second international gateway of this country, I could not support any major development at Stansted.
9.12 pm
Mr. Ken Eastham: Stansted has been an issue for many years. However, it is only during the last three or four years that it has come to a head. There is a strong belief, which cuts right across party lines, that the Stansted proposals will not benefit Britain in any way. We are referring not just to an airport but to the infrastructure that would be needed. Very considerable investment would be involved. Roads, sewers, rail services, houses, and schools would have to be provided, and they would cost many hundreds of millions of pounds. We believe that massive expenditure of this kind ought to be invested somewhere other than in the south, as is consistently the case. This should take place, not just because of the expenditure that would be involved, but because of massive unemployment in the north. In the Stansted area, unemployment stands at about 9 per cent., yet in the north-east and the north-west of England unemployment stands at over 40 per cent. Because of this massive unemployment, money ought to be invested in the north.

357
Ministers have attempted on previous occasions to convince hon. Members that there is no alternative to Stansted: that if Stansted is not developed the traffic will go to Schiphol. It is not a convincing argument. Hon. Members of all parties have been critical of the theory that people would rather cross the English channel, involving additional expense, and travel to Schiphol than go to an airport in the north of England. I represent a Manchester constituency but this is not a Manchester issue. Hon. Members who represent northern constituencies recognise the very great importance of investing in Manchester airport.
This campaign has continued for three years. It can be said unstintingly that hon. Members of all parties readily recognise that if Britain has very limited resources at least some of its investment ought to be directed towards the north. Manchester is a most successful airport. We ought to pay tribute to the pioneers of the past who had the foresight in a new venture to invest in the early 1930s. The airport is now highly successful and operates at a profit. We are not asking for a handout. We want common justice; the Government's resources should be spent in a different area and not always in the southern counties.
Non-political bodies strongly support Manchester's case. Chambers of trade and chambers of commerce—hard-headed business men — recognise the advantages for Britain of redirecting money to the north. They urge strongly that money should be invested in Manchester airport. We are not considering only the future of Manchester airport. The European Community recognises that some of this country's gravest problems occur in the northern areas. The Community would have sympathy with those who press that investment should be directed to the north. No Government can ignore the problem of the regions. Yorkshire, Newcastle, Greater Manchester and Liverpool face serious economic difficulties.
The Government continually say that they want to expand the service industries because they have the potential to create wealth and jobs. What better investment could there be than money to attract business to the north, which would help tourism, the hotel trade and the catering and food industries? The north has many cultural attractions which would be interesting to foreign visitors. Too often, tourists fly into London and never visit any other part of the country. London is always complaining that it is becoming overused and overheated because of the strain put on its resources.
The north has some of the finest countryside in the world, yet it is underused. It is a resource that costs nothing and it is there for the taking for tourists who fly into the north. I do not make a case for Manchester alone. People who flew into Manchester would not necessarily stay in the city. They would go to other nearby areas. The Lake District, for example, is one of the most beautiful areas in the world.
People in the north often feel great resentment when their area does not get its share of investment. The Government could do something positive and invest money in the north. I shall be supporting the north when I vote tonight.
9.18 pm
Mr. Patrick Ground: I have both a constituency and a personal interest in the debate. My constituency is immediately to the east of Heathrow, under the flight path, and my personal interest is that for
358
six months I appeared at the airport inquiries representing the Greater London council — one of the comparatively few ventures in which the GLC supported declared Government policy.
A strand that has been picked up in many speeches is the case presented by the North of England Regional Consortium. There was a great deal of evidence given at the inquiries, which occupied the time of the inspector for about four years and about 250-odd working days at the inquiries. The evidence was examined in considerable detail by an inspector who declared himself to be basically sympathetic to the case being advanced. I must remind those who have relied upon the evidence that it was rejected by the inspector, who rejected also the criticisms of Government policy that were involved in the evidence. The inspector did not hesitate on many occasions to criticise Governments of both political colours. At page 28 of chapter 10 of the summary the inspector states:
"Development of further services out of regional airports has not been hindered by any action or inaction on the part of Government which, in so far as it can influence the situation, is actively seeking to encourage the introduction of more services at airports in the regions."
That is a clear finding by the inspector that it is not Government action or inaction that has brought about the present position in respect of regional airports. He says that the solution lies principally in the hands of the air transport industry to recognise when demand appears in sufficient amounts at the airports. It is not that capacity which is lacking — indeed, many regional airports already have excess capacity. What is lacking is the perception of adequate demand on the part of the air transport industry.
One of the matters that has somewhat surprised me about the debate is the little amount of emphasis that has been placed upon runway capacity, which is one of the most important considerations for the Government in choosing between Stansted and a fifth terminal at Heathrow. At Heathrow, irrespective of whether the Government adhere to their intention to impose a limit on the number of air transport movements, the airport is now operating close to its capacity.
Mr. Gerald Howarth rose—
Mr. Ground: Approximately 275,000 air transport movements will take place at the airport this year.
Mr. Hayes rose—
Mr. Ground: The maximum capacity at present for practical purposes is between 300,000 and 305.000 air transport movements.
Mr. Bill Walker rose—
Mr. Ground: Therefore, there is a maximum, for practical purposes, of another 25,000 or 30,000 air transport movements with the present runway capacity. On the other hand, at Stansted — the figures that I have given are confirmed by the British Airports Authority—
Mr. Walker rose—
Mr. Ground: —and they are close to the figures put out by the Civil Aviation Authority. Members may have their own calculations and no doubt anyone who is interested in the airport has his own calculation of runway capacity. The 1982 figures tell us that at Stansted, with the

359
existing runway, there were about 5,000 air transport movements. The finding of the inspector was that the capacity of the existing runway, with the development proposed of 15 million, would result in a capacity of no fewer than 165,000 movements.
In other words, there is that potential increase with the existing runway of 160,000 air transport movements. That must be a major consideration when contemplating an investment of several hundred million pounds, and the Government must have that important consideration in mind when making up their mind on the report.
Mr. Churchill: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the CAA's estimate is for 330,000 air transport movements capacity at Heathrow airport?
Mr. Ground: That figure was in the report this summer. The BAA estimate is for between 300,000 and 305,000. But even if my hon. Friend is right to refer to a capacity of 330,000, the extra runway capacity beyond the current use is limited. It is an additional 55,000 movements, which compares unfavourably with the additional capacity available at Stansted.
It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) to refer to special orders to remove the Perry Oaks works, but not many hon. Members would be enthusiastic about the prospect of Perry Oaks being located in their constituencies. Indeed, it would be a draconian step to allow a sewage works on the scale of Perry Oaks, one of the largest in the country, to be relocated in the green belt, in an hon. Member's constituency, without a public inquiry and the normal safeguards.
If hon. Members think it is difficult to find a site for an airport, they will know that it is equally difficult to find a site that is acceptable for a sludge works on this scale. Any hon. Member not aware of that would soon discover it if the proposal affected his area. There was more than a week's evidence on that issue at the inquiry and, having heard it all, I believe that the inspector's estimate—that it would not be completed until the mid-1990s—could be optimistic.
I regard it as fantastic for my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds, after all the evidence has been given, to come forward with a quick solution. The fact that the project will take so long is plainly an important factor in the Secretary of State's eventual decision.
Two recommendations in the report involve a clear departure from Government promises — the proposal to abandon the 275,000 movement limit and the recommendation of the eventual construction of the fifth terminal—though I will not go in detail over the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) and others who referred to Government promises about both those matters. The Government would commit a major breach of faith if they acccepted either of these recommendations.
A fundamental point behind the inspector's recommendations is the fact that there is a need to maximise existing investment at Heathrow. I remind the Government that the last and largest investment at Heathrow — the construction of terminal 4 — occurred in the full knowledge that there would be a 275,000 limit and that, on completion, no fifth terminal would be permitted. That was the basis on which that major investment occurred. I
360
suggest that those who are responsible cannot in fairness now complain of the need to maximise their investment or previous investment further.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Ground: I must continue, because of the time.
The belief that people living under the flight path could not distinguish between 275,000 movements and 300,000 or more movements is one basis of the inspector's decision. Last week I told a meeting of my constituents that the inspector thought that they could not tell the difference between the 275,000 and 300,000 movements, and they were incredulous. They said, "Where does the inspector live?" When I said that he lived in Sussex, they thought that explained everything.
I assure the Government that the people living around Heathrow are extremely sensitive to changes in the method of operation of the airport and in the number of movements. I entirely support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel). Further restrictions on night movement and a rail link would be welcomed, but one must emphasise for the people concerned the great importance of the effect of the number of movements. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham that the number of movements is one of the greatest irritants and nuisances to the people living around the airport and under the flight path.
The Government's promise to limit the number of movements and to restrict further development at Heathrow matters greatly to the people living around Heathrow who have relied upon that promise. I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to follow a course of sensible investment by applying the criteria of runway capacity, to which I have referred, by looking at the practicalities of the matter in terms of timing and by respecting the Government's clear unequivocal pledges.
9.33 pm
Mr. Cecil Franks: This debate is on one of those rare issues which, though controversial, cut right across party political loyalties. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on the way in which he presented the case not just for Manchester international airport but for the north. His speech was as good and balanced as the speech of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was bad and unbalanced. To make a partisan political speech on a cross-party issue was an act of crass political ineptitude. The hon. Lady did her case and our case no service.
I declare an interest in this matter. I am one of three hon. Members — certainly the only Conservative Member — who have been members of the Manchester international airport committee. During the years before I became a Member I had the privilege of watching the growth of that airport and the pride of people in the north in that growth. That growth occurred not because of any Government direction or of any assistance from the British Airports Authority, British Airways or the Civil Aviation Authority — all of whom sought to thwart the development — but because of natural market forces. That reason should delight the hearts of Conservative Members.
One voice not yet heard in the debate is the voice of the consumer. The BAA pontificates about future demand and

361
tells us where the consumer will want to go. British Airways pontificates about where, in its opinion, the consumer wants to go. However, we have evidence of what consumers themselves want. Some consumers want to fly direct to London—to Heathrow. The solution is simple — build a fifth terminal. Many consumers, equally, want to fly to Manchester. That is evidenced by the growth of Manchester international airport. The solution again is simple — allow the airport to develop naturally. Some consumers may wish to fly to Stansted: so be it; allow Stansted to develop naturally. Why should Conservative hon. Members, of all people, be asked to deny natural market forces? That defies the logic upon which we were elected.
I am one of a fairly rare breed of politician. I am a Conservative Member from the north. A rarer politician is the Labour Member from the south. I say that, not to score some dubious or spurious point over Opposition Members, but to emphasise the fact that there is a north-south divide which grows wider and wider. The political and economic division of our country is something of which we in this House should feel ashamed.
We constantly hear, from some hon. Members on these Benches, reference to the philosophy of one nation. If we believe in that philosophy, it is time that we started to practise it. I often look with envy at my colleagues from Scotland and consider how much time they are given in which to fight for their case. I do not begrudge them that time. I look with equal envy upon my colleagues from Wales who can further their causes in a similar manner. All too often, in the early hours of the morning, I look with great annoyance and equal envy at those from Northern Ireland who are able to occupy the time of the House for hour after hour. The real Cinderella of the House is the north of England. Hon. Members representing the north lose out time and time again in the opportunities afforded us to present our case.
The solution to the problems of the airline industry in Great Britain is obvious. We propose to deregulate the bus industry. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for promoting that policy. We deregulate this and deregulate that, but we neglect to deregulate fares, routes and licences in the airline industry.
The international airline passenger traffic is organised in a cosy cartel between national Governments and national airlines. The arrangement is just as much opposed to the interests of the consumer as is the rigging of oil prices by the member countries of OPEC. If we condemn OPEC for operating a cartel against the interests of the consumer, we should be just as vociferous in our criticism of the national airlines, which, to an equal extent, operate against the interests of the consumer. None is more guilty of that than British Airways. Its record is disgraceful.
About four weeks ago, I was abroad with a member of the Government. We travelled on a charter flight from Gatwick to Zurich and the return ticket cost £59·50. Because of urgent Government business, he had to fly back early on a scheduled flight. For a single ticket on a scheduled flight from Zurich to Gatwick he was charged £180. When that Minister complained to me, I could do no more than remind him that he is the Minister responsible for privatisation. Perhaps he will now practise what he preaches.
The House has been given many statistics, and I should like to give two more. One illustrates Manchester airport's natural growth in spite of the obstacles. There were 100
362
per cent. more charter flight passengers last year than five years ago. For the same period, there was only a 2 per cent. growth in the number of passengers on scheduled flights. Those statistics invite the question: why? The answer is obvious. Charter flights are unfettered by regulations while scheduled flights are at the whim of the CAA. It is virtually impossible for a scheduled airline to fly to Manchester, as is evidenced by British Airways' opposition to Singapore Airlines. United States airlines have met similar opposition because they are not part of the Bermuda agreement.
I give the second statistic to refute the spurious argument that everyone who flies to the United Kingdom wants to go to London. There is no evidence to substantiate that view. According to the British Tourist Board, 2·5 million United States citizens flew to London last year. One third of that number then visited the north. Why could they not fly to the north in the first place? I have not yet heard a sensible answer to that question except that there are vested interests determined not to be broken although that might be in the interests of consumers and the north.
At 12 midnight I shall go into the Division Lobby to register my opposition to the inspector's report If the Government believe in the free market, let there be a free market and a free vote in the House when we have to make a decision.
9.43 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. and learned Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) was worried on two counts: first, that there are too many flights into Heathrow, and, secondly, that there is a problem associated with getting rid of the sewage works. May I inform him that the people of Greater Manchester are only too willing to have the extra flights but do not want the sewage works. The trouble is that the deal usually works out so that people in the north of England get the sewage works and others get the flights. We want a much better deal.
The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) might believe firmly in free market forces, but his choice of Manchester airport as an example was unfortunate. He should know from his service on Manchester city council that it was the enterprise of that council and more recently, the Greater Manchester council that did much to develop the airport. Almost all hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the north-west argued that we need more assistance from the Government if that airport is to develop and become more successful. The case for the north-west has been forcefully presented to the House, and I hope that the Minister will take note of it. I slightly regret the fact that there has not been as much emphasis in favour of pump-priming and development in other regions, such as the north-east, Yorkshire and Scotland.
Developments at Manchester airport have done a great deal to increase job opportunities both in services provided at the airport and in firms, which realise that by setting up offices and service depots in the Greater Manchester area they have access to the whole of western Europe. In my constituency several firms are now able to serve the whole of western Europe from a base in Tameside or Stockport. Such places are probably as efficient as any others in the United Kingdom and, probably, in Europe. I hope that the Government will do all they can to encourage that development.

363
The time spent at an airport is extremely important for firms which are sending out service engineers or spare parts. The speed with which people and equipment can be handled through Manchester airport is impressive. One cannot begin to compare the speed of arriving at Manchester airport, hiring a car and reaching the motorway with the problems at Heathrow. It is much faster via Manchester.
The hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) said that there was no sense in encouraging people to fly from Manchester to Heathrow and then to a European destination, and that the sensible thing was to make it possible for them to fly directly from Manchester to an increasing number of European destinations. The slowness of progress through Heathrow means that most regular travellers to Europe from Manchester prefer to change anywhere but at Heathrow. Therefore, it is in our interests to give people the opportunity to fly directly to their destinations rather than to interline somewhere else in Europe.
Heathrow will not be able to meet the needs of travellers to interline at Heathrow. The more terminals, the longer one will spend moving from one to another. Regular travellers find the time spent moving round an airport particularly frustrating. There are now sufficient people in the north-west who want to fly direct to European destinations. The Government should give every encouragement to getting direct flights from Manchester to those destinations. They should not insist that people take the shuttle to Heathrow.
One of the major problems for Manchester airport is that many people do not appreciate how easy it is to reach it. It annoys me when I wait at the airport to hear people expressing surprise about how easy it was to reach the airport. From most of the northern part of Britain it is easier to reach Manchester than Heathrow. It is sad that so many people still assume that Heathrow is easier to reach than Manchester.
A rail link into Manchester airport would break that psychological barrier and improve communications further. As the railway is within two miles of the airport, it is scandulous that the Government have provided money to develop rail links and improve communications to all the southern airports but not for the rail link to Manchester airport. I say firmly to the Minister that if he wants to convince people in the north of England that he believes in Manchester airport he must make sure that money is available for the rail link.
I have a slight fear that British Rail's heart is not fully in that rail link because it still sees itself in competition with the airlines for travel to London. Certainly the most recent British Rail advertising campaign is an attack on the shuttle service. That is shortsighted of British Rail. If it were to encourage the link by putting up the money or getting the Government to do so, more people would want to use the railway into Manchester and it would gain more passengers than it would lose to the shuttle service.
I hope that the Minister will listen to the voices that have been raised in the House today arguing that money should be spent in the regions rather than in the south-east. In particular, the Government should put up the money quickly for the rail link into Manchester airport.
9.50 pm
Mr. John Whitfield: We have heard many interesting speeches tonight, many of them expressing sectional interests of one sort or another, but my heart bled when I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) complaining about the likely effects on the quality of life of his constituents of the establishment of a fifth terminal at London airport.
Twickenham has the jobs and the money that the airport provides. The people there are lucky enough to live in the M4 corridor, which is often referred to as the golden triangle of the nation. They have the convenience of a major airport on their doorstep. I understand that the value of houses in Barnes and Richmond is as high as anywhere in London. Yet my hon. Friend comes to the House and says that we must worry about the quality of life of his constituents.
My hon. Friend's constituents are a little naive if, living on the borders of the world's No. 1 international airport, they think that that airport will not be jealous of that position and seek to maintain it. I hope that I may be forgiven for saying that they are also somewhat naive if they believe the solemn and binding undertakings of politicians.
I had intended to say quite a bit this evening about the British Airports Authority, but scorn has been poured on its head from both sides of the House and it ill-behoves me to add to it. However, let me urge on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a point relating to the cross-subsidisation which is practised between Heathrow and Stansted. My right hon. Friend will soon be urging upon the House legislation on buses, which I for one completely support. We shall hear many arguments from the Government Benches about the evils of cross-subsidisation. I see no reason why the same principle should not apply in the aircraft industry as in the bus industry.
Until my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) spoke in his forthright manner, little had been said about tourism. There are many tourists in London. If we are to worry about the qualities of life, one should remember that those qualities are considerably eroded for at least nine months of the year in London. The number of tourists in the city and around about, particularly in the city of Westminster, amount to a public nuisance. The hotels are full and the theatres are packed, often with philistines who do not know the difference between a good play and a bad one. We have already heard that one third of the people who are forced to fly to the south-east have no desire to visit it. If we have to suffer the blue rinse route—I know that there are currency and other advantages to be obtained from it — there is no reason why it should not start at Manchester rather than at Stansted or Heathrow.
The regional tourist boards are well equipped to cope with any number of tourists. My own regional tourist board, Yorkshire and Humberside, has produced a magnificent brochure, which I have just read. It has almost persuaded me to take my holidays in Yorkshire, which I have not done for a long time. If it has that effect on me, surely it could lure tourists from the North American continent to the north of England. Surely they could be persuaded to visit York minster just as easily as they could be persuaded to visit Westminster; the Castle museum in York is just as much of an attraction as the British museum

365
and the Humber bridge as Tower bridge. Many American tourists have already done London once. Statistics show that they are spending less and less time in London.
I am surprised that so little reference has been made in the debate to the position paper which British Airways issued on 15 January. It is clear from appendices A and B of that document that British Airways itself has many reservations about Stansted. I shall not waste the time of the House by reading quotations from that paper, but I urge my right hon. Friend to study it, if he has not already done so. It is clear from the document that British Airways, our major flag carrier, is reluctant to use Stansted and believes that if the regional airports, Heathrow and Gatwick, were properly utilised, the need for Stansted would be at the very least a buffer, a contingency to fall back on.
As always, it is the convenience of the indigenous air traveller which seems to be the last consideration in matters such as this. I was interested to hear my right hon. Friend say when opening the debate that airports and air travel should serve the public. I urge him to remember that it is the public who live in this country who are to be served. The principal objective of the British Airports Authority should not simply be to launder the international air traffic which passes through London airport. That must be a secondary consideration.
My right hon. Friend should not turn his back on the north. He should resist the self-interested representations of the institutions of the airline industry. Any further concentration of charter air travel in the south-east will be extremely divisive. There is no overwhelming evidence of a need to develop Stansted. The airlines themselves are reluctant to go there. Regional airports can and should take up any excess demand. The fact that Mr. Graham Eyre, about whom many kind things have been said today, says in a rather pompous manner that the regional airports should not help out with the problem in the south-east is abominable. It shows the southern bias of the man, and we have heard that he lives in Sussex. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful".] It is not disgraceful.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to think very carefully before committing large amounts of unproductive Government expenditure to developing Stansted. If following my advice and the advice of so many other hon. Members means that Mr. Graham Eyre occasionally has to travel to Manchester to take an international flight, so much the better—it may broaden the man's mind.
9.59 pm
Mr. Patrick Thompson: Having been straining at the leash for some time, I am grateful for being released from the starting gate—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Airports Inquiries 1981–1983 (Inspector's Report)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Twelve o'clock. — [Mr. Sainsbury.]
  Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
  Mr. Thompson: I wish to support my hon. Friends the Members for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) and for
  366
  Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) and the many others who have spoken so ably against any significant expansion of Stansted airport. My views on this are coloured by three factors, which do not include my recent experience as a member of the Standing Committee on the Civil Aviation Bill. My boyhood was spent in north Essex, my early career was spent in the north of England, where I also stood as a parliamentary candidate, and I now represent a more northern and remote part of East Anglia.
  My experience as a boy in Essex can be summed up very briefly. I was brought up in an area that includes not just Stansted but Thaxted and Finchingfield, which is regarded as the most beautiful village in Essex. It is quite wrong that anyone should ever have considered a major expansion of Stansted airport, because the case against such a development in that area is extremely strong on environmental grounds alone. It is amazing that the matter should have been under debate for so long. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said today that we must make a decision very quickly. Labour Ministers said the same in 1965. Why has no decision been taken in 20 years? It is because Stansted is the wrong place for such an expansion and the wrong place for a third London airport.
  I also have strong links with the north of England and am glad to support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) and of Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who rightly pointed out the real and increasing divide between north and south. They should recognise, however, that this serious problem results from wrong decisions by Labour Governments as well as more recent decisions which they seek to criticise. Any opportunity consistent with the Government's economic strategy, which I support, to redress that imbalance between north and south must be grasped eagerly.
  I have not tangled very deeply with the inspector's report, but I note that he refers to the North of England Regional Consortium as a leap of faith, but it is clear from the report that any decision to expand Stansted would be an even greater and more suspect leap of faith, especially in view of the environmental implications and the urgent need for improved communications in the area to make such a development possible at all.
  Once a week I travel up the Whitechapel road, the M11 and—I hesitate to mention this again in the presence of the Secretary of State for Transport — the A11 to Norfolk. I am being given signals to get off the subject quickly. Those of us who drive up the Whitechapel road, through Leytonstone and up the M11, realise what foolishness it would be to have a large London airport sitting next door to the M11. As the Member of Parliament for Norwich, North—and I have an interest to declare because Norwich airport is situated in my constituency—I have to consider this matter in any judgment that I may wish to make in a debate.
  In fairness, I should point out that in Norfolk there are mixed views on the question of Stansted airport. I know that it is the policy of Norwich city council and of Norfolk county council to oppose in principle any large-scale development of Stansted airport. They wish, rightly, to encourage the development of Norwich airport to serve the needs of the region. In my view, this must mean modest development for Norwich airport with a view to encouraging further business and tourism activity in

  367
  Norfolk and East Anglia generally. This will surely help to preserve and increase job opportunities not only in my constituency but in neighbouring Norfolk constituencies.
  To take just one example from my constituency, many people in Norwich are employed by the airline Air U.K. Ltd. I have their interests very much in mind when I come to any judgment in the debate.
  I appreciate that the Government and the Secretary of State have in mind the encouragement and development of regional airports such as Norwich. The nub of the case that we are considering surely is that the inspector in his summary says:
  "The growth of passenger demand will continue into the foreseeable future. In so far as that demand arises in the south east, it should be met by the provision of additional capacity within the region."
  With respect, I regard that as a non sequitur if ever there was one. As an ex-schoolmaster, I know that the demand for entry into Oxford university — or perhaps I should say Cambridge university tonight — is ever-increasing, but it does not follow that everybody will go to that university.
  The Stansted question has gone on for far too long. We have all been subjected to an endless flow of statistics, circulars and so on. I believe that we must encourage increased activity and prosperity where there is room and people want it. If we change the rules by defeating the Stansted idea once and for all, the market will adapt and there will be benefit for all the regions.
  Today we have a chance to end the pressure for Stansted that has been going on for 30 or more years and the pressure for ever more development in the south-east at the expense of the north. We have the opportunity to end the pressure for any south-east inland airport which will be to the detriment of people who live in these areas. We know, and have heard tonight repeatedly, that the case for Stansted expansion is weak. We know that it is wrong. Let us take this chance to make that clear once and for all.
  10.8 pm
  Mr. Michael Foot: I have great sympathy with the view expressed by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) and I shall do my best to respond to it briefly because I believe that, especially in his latter remarks, he made an appeal to the House that we should consider carefully.
  I believe that any hon. Member who participates in a debate should do his best to listen to the speeches that are made from the Government and Opposition Front Benches at the beginning of the debate. I have followed this rule in almost every debate in the House in which I have participated. It so happens that I did not hear the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) or the Minister, for which I apologise. [Interruption] If hon. Members listened, they would understand why I wish to intervene. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, would not have called me if I were not entitled to take part. All hon. Members, if they possibly can, should listen to the opening speeches from both sides of the House. I say to Government Members, who apparently are irritated that anyone from the Opposition should speak in such terms, that I have participated in more debates on these matters than—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Foot: We had a debate on Stansted in 1968 or 1969 in which I participated and on which we voted. The Labour Government were proposing to proceed to build an airport at Stansted, although their proposal was tentative. The House was full and the vote was large. There were many differences of opinion and I was dubious about the case put from the Treasury Bench by Anthony Crosland on behalf of the Department of the Environment. As always, he made an extremely powerful case, but a few of us were not convinced by it. I have a strong recollection of the debates in the House on this subject. In that Parliament the Government majority was considerably narrower than it is today and therefore the way in which hon. Members voted was of more decisive consequence.
  Not because of the failure of Anthony Crosland to present his case—he always did that well—but because of what I believed to be the de-merits of the case, I was not prepared to support the Labour Government on that occasion. I listened carefully to those who put the case against the extension of the airport at Stansted and I thought that their case was powerful. They have a powerful case today, which is why I intervene now.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Norwich, North. I think that it would be valuable for the country as a whole if we could kill off here and now the whole idea of a large extension of Stansted. I shall be happy to vote to achieve that result at the end of our discussions, and I hope that as many hon. Members as possible will help to secure that result. Stan Newens, who knew the area well, would not vote for the Government, who were then supporting the idea of extending Stansted. I took the same view. One of the reasons why even so long ago we were so opposed to the proposition concerned, of what would happen to many towns and villages. If the plan for the expansion of Stansted had been carried through, it would have caused the wrecking of many communities.
  Some hon. Members today have put their case strongly and I respect their case. Many towns and villages in Essex and elsewhere will be wrecked if the plan goes ahead. We have to be careful about doing that. I hate to vote for the wreckage of such communities. I only wish that some hon. Members who are so passionate in defending communities around Stansted were equally passionate in defending the communities around Abertillery and Ebbw Vale. Exactly the same kind of community spirit is involved.
  I do not suppose that any hon. Member who tries to put the case against the Government's proposals will mock the community spirit of all the towns and villages that are to be found around Stansted. Those people are defending their communities. They cannot bear the idea of their communities being uprooted and wrecked unless it is for an absolutely paramount national purpose. The same community spirit exists in Abertillery, Blaenau, Nantyglo and all the towns and villages that contain mining communities. Perhaps some of those who so strongly defend the rights of the inhabitants of towns and communities in that part of England will also defend the rights of the inhabitants of communities that depend upon the mining industry.
  So at least I am consistent. That is why, when the matter was posed some 20 years ago, I found it very difficult to go into the Lobby and say, "Let us vote for it, irrespective of the consequences for all those towns and villages". There is always a difficult and awkward balance to be struck. Some communities have to be uprooted and sacrificed to the national interest, but it ought to be done

  369
  with the utmost care and reticence. There have been reports by inspectors, it is true, but I have seen inspectors' reports that do not pay very much regard to these important considerations. I do not say that all of those important considerations are neglected. A balance has to be struck. However, if many communities around Stansted would be wrecked by this proposal, we ought to be very careful before we vote for it. I shall not vote for it. Communities around Heathrow could make claims, too, but not quite the same claims.
  The reason for the disturbance in the House tonight is the different balance of community representation. If anybody jeered at me at the beginning of my speech for getting up to speak on the matter, I would say to them that I have spoken before on the matter and that I shall always examine the possibilities for preserving communities that are fighting for their rights. Those hon. Members who have spoken on behalf of such communities are doing just that. I do not believe that the hopes and the rights of those communities should be killed off by one vote tonight. That cannot be done. Indeed, so strong is the case against the extension of Stansted that if sufficient Conservative Members were to vote in the Aye Lobby with the Opposition the proposal would be killed off. That would be a good day not only for Stansted but for the House of Commons.
  However, I read in the newspapers that the Government propose to deal with the matter in a very different way. A report in today's Financial Times—I am sure that all hon. Members agree that the Financial Times reporter is a most reliable political correspondent who tells the Government exactly what they are up to and what is going on—says:
  "The Government has ducked the threat of a Tory revolt and a probable defeat in the establishment of a third London airport at Stansted. It has instructed Ministers and their parliamentary private secretaries not to vote when the issue is debated in the Commons tonight; and has put its back-benchers on a one-line whip—a tacit encouragement to abstain."
  To deal with the matter in such a fashion is to demean the House of Commons. The Government must face up to these questions sooner or later. Why do they not face up to them now? Many Opposition Members have for many years conducted a campaign for the north-west in order to sustain the claims of Manchester, and, as we have seen tonight, many Conservative Members have put that case strongly.
  The Government submitted to the demands for a debate and underlined its importance by agreeing that we should
  370
  have an extra two hours so that more hon. Members could participate. For the Government then to say, "We shall make a mockery of the vote" is an insult not only to hon. Members who are interested in the subject but to the House. Adjournment debates are an important instrument for the House. Some of Parliament's most important debates have taken place on Adjournment motions. The Government have no right to say that they will not regard an Adjournment debate as a matter of importance and that Ministers will be told to stay away.
  If the newspaper story is not true, I hope that it will be repudiated. The Minister who is to reply may tell us to wait and see how many Ministers vote. We shall count them. If all the Ministers vote—we know how obediently they turn up when they are required to do so—we shall know that the story is not true. However, if Ministers stay away, it will be a shameful treatment of the House by the Government and a special insult to hon. Members who have participated in the debate and pressed the case of their constituents with all the strength that they can.
  It seems that some Conservative Members are irritated that I should be speaking in the debate. Apparently, they would rather debate the matter than win the issue. We would rather win the issue. We want to kill off Stansted. I was against it 20 years ago and I am against it now. If Conservative Members wish to assist us in killing off Stansted, they can vote with us, and if we achieve a substantial majority the Government will have to take account of what has been said.
  If the Government try to pretend that the vote, which ever way it goes, is of no consequence, they will insult some Conservative Members, infringe the rules of the House and injure our possible ways of proceeding in the future. How can we have Adjournment debates if it is said that it does not matter which way they go?
  Perhaps the most important parliamentary debate this century—the overthrow of the Chamberlain Government in 1940 — took place on an Adjournment motion. [Interruption.] I know that some hon. Members want to trivialise the debate and none more so than the Secretary of State for Transport, who will not last very long anyway. Any attempt by the Government to trivialise Adjournment debates will be injurious to the House. I invite all hon. Members who do not want to see the development of Stansted and want to uphold the rights of the House to vote with the official Opposition. That is the way to uphold the rights of the House.
  10.23 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: It is a great pleasure to be called to participate in the debate after the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who is one of Parliament's great orators. I am sorry to say that on this occasion, as on others, the right hon. Gentleman allowed his emotions to overrun his appraisal of the mood of the House. I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman and I happen to think that he is one of our distinguished parliamentarians. I am merely making the observation that, not for the first time, he has misjudged the mood of the House.
  It is clear that the Eyre report is an important document. I believe that Mr. Graham Eyre has done Parliament and the country a great service by producing it. We have been given the opportunity to debate important and essential issues. There has been imput to the debate from almost every part of the country and I am delighted that I have been given the opportunity to make an imput to it from the most northern constituency that has featured in it.
  No one can accuse me of having a direct interest in what is going on at Heathrow other than as a commuter from Scotland at least twice a week. However, I have an interest in aviation which I must declare at the outset. I have an interest in an airline company.
  Airline companies respond to the needs of the market within operating restrictions, and it is the regulations that often present the problem. We have heard of the difficulties at Manchester airport, and I have intervened on one or two occasions to elicit some useful information. If we are to talk about free competition and the opportunity for customers to travel, we must examine the opportunities that are available to the airlines to provide a service. Unless the opportunities are open to the airlines, there is no prospect of them using our airports. On the other hand, if there are opportunities for the airlines because the regulations are so framed, we must consider why airlines do not want to operate out of certain airports. The usual reason is that the airlines are not convinced that it will be commercially viable for them to do so.
  Observations have been made about charter operations and an attempt has been made to confuse them with scheduled operations. Scheduled flights have to be flown irrepective of whether the aircraft are full, whereas charter operators will not fly unless they have fully booked aircraft. That is the general pattern.
  As a regular user of Heathrow airport, I recognise that Heathrow is the jewel in the crown of civil aviation in the United Kingdom. If we do not maximise the use of Heathrow airport, we are being foolish and doing a disservice to many of those who have spoken against development at Heathrow this evening. Unless Heathrow continues to meet the demands of the world's airlines and customers—that calls for giving them adequate facilities when they land because there is no point in having aircraft land there if the terminal facilities are inadequate and do not meet the needs of the customers — it will not prosper. I have believed for a long time that those who argue against the fifth terminal development have not taken on board the needs of the customers, and it is their needs that matter.
  It is unfortunate that we have become bogged down in the air traffic movement limit, which I happen to believe is nonsensical. All the airlines would say that it is
  372
  nonsensical, as would the Civil Aviation Authority. There is plenty of scope for additional movements at Heathrow. It is true that at certain hours of the day the airfield is fully utilised, but at other times it is very much under-utilised. The answer lies in the slotting arrangements, which are made by the airlines. It is not known by many who debate these matters that it is the airlines which agree on which slot a particular airline will occupy.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the view of the airlines and the Heathrow scheduling committee that the airport's capacity is considerably more than 330,000 ATMs — nobody knows exactly — and that we should leave the airlines to come to a decision?
  Mr. Walker: I agree. There is no doubt that the airlines and the national air traffic services which are responsible for the safe movement of aircraft agree that there is scope for additional ATMs at Heathrow. Of course, the prime consideration must be safety. That must be the only real consideration. Provided that it is safe to operate within certain limits, the maximum use should be made of Heathrow, the jewel in the crown.
  There is scope at Gatwick for further development. It is wrong that we should be using the major runway there for commuter aircraft; there should be a commuter runway at Gatwick. I have been in small aircraft which have been stacked, waiting to come into Gatwick after heavier aircraft have landed, and that has been a frustrating experience. Let us develop Gatwick.
  The whole Stansted issue must be considered sensibly and objectively. The runway and facilities are there and the terminal is coping with present demand. Stansted should be allowed to develop and evolve naturally, remembering that a substantial number of airlines want to go there. Hon. Members should note that the demand to use Stansted, particularly for charter operations, is increasing. That particularly applies to airlines from the eastern seaboard of the United States and elsewhere, and that interest should be allowed to develop.
  Much has been said about Manchester airport, and I intervened earlier to refer to airlines which had authority to fly there but had not done so. At a given time in airline evolution, the economics may not make it practicable to use a licence to fly to an airport. We have lived through a period of intense difficulty when airlines, like everyone else, have had to face the economic problems resulting from the activities of the OPEC countries in the last 10 years.
  As a result, there were times when airlines with licences did not use them because it would have stretched their liquidity to do so. That did not mean that scope did not exist for airlines to operate at those airports; simply that, at that time in their evolution, they did not have the capital to do so.
  We are now entering a new era in airline and aviation activity and we should not look at the future in a blinkered way. Manchester airport has a great future and it should be a gateway to the north Atlantic and elsewhere.
  It will not come as a surprise to hon. Members when I say that I am a great supporter of Prestwick. However, I shall not spend time tonight on that subject, other than to say that it is already a gateway. Those who ask why it is now coming back into use as a gateway should realise that that is happening because of the changing fortunes of the airlines. Things are improving, and I see opportunities ahead for them.

  373
  The Government must not muff this one. Never again must we be in the position of not being able to see a realistic future for the British airline and aviation industry. The Government should make the maximum use of Heathrow and Gatwick and allow Stansted to develop as the demand increases. That could mean an additional 5 million rather than 15 million passengers. Either way, there will be a demand to use Stansted because the runway and facilities are there and the airlines will want to use it.
  Those who think that if we do not allow the development of Heathrow, including terminal 5, to take place — the commuter airlines will have access to that major airport — are kidding themselves. Unless we guarantee an increase in movements and increased facilities to meet that increase, airports throughout the country with commuter services going into Heathrow will face problems.
  I therefore counsel those who have been discussing the issue from the narrow aspect of their local airports to remember that, whatever happens in the future, Heathrow will continue to be the jewel in the crown and the magnet and that we shall want our commuter aircraft to use that airport.
  10.34 pm
  Mr. Jerry Hayes: One of the great mysteries to me has been the fact that during the past 20 years the most consistent piece of Government policy—no matter which party has been, in power—has been the desire to undertake the major expansion of Stansted airport. Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry, for the Environment or for Transport, after collecting their seals, after the kissing of hands ceremony and after leaving Buckingham palace, go back to the great white Lubianka in Marsham street and go through the secret, simple and moving ceremony of being given the documents dealing with a major expansion of Stansted airport.
  It is right and proper that there should be passion in this debate from hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and, if he gets the opportunity, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), because they live in the area and have their constituents' interests at heart. I commend my hon. Friends for that. There are, however, many people in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) who have fought against the major expansion of that airport for 21 years. Promises have been made and broken by successive Governments. It is right that Stansted airport's expansion, which seems to behave like some great unslaked vampire, should finally be laid to rest this evening.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), in a forceful and perceptive speech, made it clear—
  Mr. Eric S. Heifer: I just want to explain the mystery to the hon. Gentleman. Does he not realise that there are civil servants who have these plans in little cubby holes and, when they find a Minister stupid enough to take them out and make them his own, they are presented to the House of Commons as Government policy?
  Mr. Hayes: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I shall say no more on that matter. I understand what he says.
  374
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds rightly said that long-term passenger predictions had been horribly wrong. There is no reason why the figures put forward by the inspector will be wrong as well. It would be foolish to deny that there will be an increase in passenger demand in the next few years, but we should not forget that it would be a grave mistake to expand Stansted airport, to the detriment of the environment and of the people. We are talking about investment in the infrastructure worth about £716 million, about the British Airports Authority spending £1 billion in extending a terminal, and about extending a rail link at a cost of £170 million. All the time our Chancellor and our Government are telling us that we should be particularly worried and careful about the public sector borrowing requirement.
  It is about time the Government grasped the nettle of understanding that we must have a consistent and coherent airport strategy and policy that will bring us fairly and squarely into the 21st century and beat off foreign competition. We should accept wholeheartedly the inspector's recommendation to expand terminal 5 immediately. Let it be expanded to take 53 million passengers, but at the same time let Stansted be allowed to expand naturally from 5 million to perhaps 6 million or 7 million passengers.
  Ours is the Government of free competition. Where is the free competition at Stansted at the moment? The airport is heavily subsidised, but still loses £4 million a year. We are the party of free competition and market forces. Let us give the north a fair slice of the cake. We have not done so over the years. That is one of the reasons why I shall not vote with the Government this evening.
  British Airways has made it clear that a major expansion of Stansted airport would be an economic disaster. The split-site operation would increase BA's operating costs by about 5 per cent. It would add £150 million a year to those operating costs.
  Mr. Tim Smith: That is British Airways' problem.
  Mr. Hayes: It is the taxpayers' problem, and it will be an even greater problem for the taxpayer because it will be a further shadow cast over the privatisation of the airline.
  How will my constituency be affected in terms of jobs? The effect will be devastating. One of my largest electrical employers, who employs several thousand people, made it clear to the public inquiry that it would consider pulling out of the constituency. There would be a net loss of jobs, though we have heard about the mass migration of thousands of people into my constituency. The inspector talked about the urbanisation of Harlow. There are already only 14 acres of development land left. The housing list grows longer every day, yet the inspector talked of the possible substantial urbanisation of Harlow. He said that about 17,000 dwellings would have to be built in the area.
  I understand the real fears of those hon. Members who have a constituency interest in terminal 5. However, what does the inspector say about noise? He says:
  "I am wholly satisfied that the development and operation of a fifth terminal would not have a perceptible effect on the noise climate in the Heathrow area. The development would not delay the improvement or rate of improvement in any way that would be discernible to those affected by Heathrow air noise."
  The first message that should be brought home to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is one that was made to him forcefully in the CAA debate. The limitation

  375
  on air traffic movements of 275,000 which the Government intend to impose at Heathrow is nonsense. It will make nonsense of terminal 4, and it will make terminal 5 utterly impossible. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends accept that, with the new microwave techniques, it is possible to have more than the 330 air traffic movements suggested in the CAA's revised figures.
  As the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said in a speech with which I wholeheartedly agreed, we must make it clear to the Government and the country that the House will not be ridden over roughshod. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction must realise that a number of hon. Members are dissatisfied with the present proposals and that a number of us will not allow our constituencies and our communities to be devastated.
  10.43 pm
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: Because of the great importance of Manchester international airport, the Opposition's contribution to the debate has been dominated by my hon. Friends from the north-west of England. However, we do not mean to imply that the debate is about Manchester airport. It is about airport strategy and policy for the country as a whole.
  We all accept that—as the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) rightly said — Heathrow will continue to be the centre of the United Kingdom's airports policy. Although we are defending our communities and their interests, we have a common cause with other northern airports such as Newcastle and Leeds-Bradford, Scottish airports such as Prestwick. The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), he spoke with a clear constituency interest, but that is not incompatible with a national airports policy. We must have such a policy. That is what is so disappointing with the inspector's report. It is not an objective report about a national airports policy but one that is premised and predicated by pressure from the airline establishment, the CAA and the BAA, which have a strong vested interest in the development of Stansted.
  The CAA was not designed as anything other than a regulatory body. That it should have chosen, 48 hours before the debate, to weigh in on the side of the inspector's report and Stansted calls into question its future and reputation. The report is premised by acceptance of the orthodoxies of the airline establishment. I pay tribute to the North of England Regional Consortium, which has made information freely available to all hon. Members. It is one of the few groups that has given us the opportunity to examine arguments that run counter to the report, the airline establishment and, it seems, the Secretary of State.
  The report does not tackle some basic facts. There is no adequate discussion of the costs of developing Stansted. That should be compared with the Roskill report, which made a detailed examination of the cost structures then available. As to the evidence on which the inspector bases his report, I should like to quote from Colin Buchanan's pamphlet "Deadlock at Stansted". He writes:
  "The result of the Inspector's approach is strikingly illustrated by his own estimates of the future distribution of air travel. By 1995 the passenger through-put in London airports will be twice that of all the other UK airports put together. With a mere 17 million people living in the South East and 37 million elsewhere it sounds like forecasting gone mad".
  He is right, because the inspector talks of 75 million movements in the south-east and only 36 million in the rest
  376
  of the country. He is effectively telling people in the north, Scotland and Wales that they will either be denied the opportunity to travel through airports or will have to go through airports in the south-east. That is ridiculous and an insult to my constituents and those of many other right hon. and hon. Members.
  The amount of capital required to develop Stansted is also unacceptable to those of us who do not represent the south-east. Even the minimal estimates of the inspector are for perhaps £500 million. The more realistic estimates of the North of England Regional Consortium reach £1·3 billion. We simply cannot accept so much investment going to the south-east. I do not want to deny the southeast of its share of public investment, but it would not be acceptable for such a massive development to go ahead in one region at a time of public expenditure restraint and directly at the expense of other regions. In Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow we need investment in housing, schools and the infrastructure. Such cities have housing crises and decaying sewers. They have a manifest need for investment both to create employment and facilities that are decaying. We could not, therefore, accept that investment.
  Moreover, such investment would deny other airports their place in the airport structure of the United Kingdom. If Stansted is developed, it will guarantee that Manchester airport cannot be the gateway airport, about which even the Government Front Bench will refer to in glowing terms. Given massive airport development in the southeast, airlines will not allow their aircraft to fly into and out of the north of England.
  We were willing to co-operate with British Airways recently about the CAA report. But British Airways has not been a friend to Manchester airport in the past. It has taken a defensive strategy and has known that it is safer to operate from the south-east. It was not prepared to experiment and to move to Manchester, where the commercial gain exists, but at a higher risk.
  The north-east has passengers. Our catchment area represents 20 million people. I should be delighted to know what the Minister finds so amusing about the plight of Manchester airport. If he is listening, perhaps he would like to leap to his feet and explain. In the absence of any comment from him, I repeat that Manchester airport has a catchment area of 20 million people. That is as large as that in the south-east. The area deserves the third international airport, but not at the exclusion of developments in Leeds-Bradford, Speke or other regional airports. That would not be the case with the development of Stansted. If Stansted is developed, Manchester and all other regional airports would not have the necessary capital made available to expand.
  The issue is important for the north-west, and it unites hon. Members from all regions. Hon. Members representing the south-east recognise the need for an airports policy, which will maintain the supremacy of the south-east as the centre of the air industry. But they recognise, as we do, the importance of allowing people who do not live within an hour of London the opportunity of an airport structure which serves their interests as consumers and in developing the economies of those areas.
  10.53 pm
  Mr. Terry Dicks: I speak as the authentic voice of Heathrow airport because the entire

  377
  airport, including terminals 4 and 5, lie within my constituency. The development is vital to the from the north on both sides of the House, I find it amazing that some of my hon. Friends, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), should be unconcerned about the creation of so many jobs and more concerned about the problems of noise.

  As I understand it, all airlines want T5. Travellers coming to London want to arrive at Heathrow. I remind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of a comment he made to me when I suggested that some domestic movements could be moved from Heathrow elsewhere. He said:
  "When people fly to London, they want to come to Heathrow, not Gatwick or Stansted."
  I hope that he will bear that in mind when he comes to make some decisions.
  Regional airports have an important part to play in the future of civil aviation. Being in favour of terminal 5 does not mean being opposed to regional expansion. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have rightly made the point about the need for the Government to take into consideration the north and its problems of unemployment and so on. I fully support a scheme that would allow for the expansion of Manchester and other northern airports alongside the development of terminal 5.
  A third major airport at Stansted is not wanted. The Government should bear in mind that that strong view has been put forward during the seven hours of this debate. However, a marginal increase in traffic movements would be accepted by those who live in and around the area, but nothing more at this stage.
  Terminal 5 is seen as providing the best solution for future additional airport capacity. The inspector saw terminal 5 as providing an opportunity on the best site anywhere in the United Kingdom for airport expansion to modernise and improve Heathrow's facilities. There will also be the increased prosperity throughout the area to which I have referred.
  The inspector dealt fully and comprehensively with noise. He dismissed the arguments of the well organised and articulate anti-Heathrow noise lobby. One wonders how many of those people who complain about noise have moved into the area since Heathrow has developed at reduced house prices and now want to maintain the value of their properties. The inspector said that terminal 5 would not make a perceptible difference on either the level of noise or the rate of noise reduction in future. I fully agree with that.
  The inspector also said that the 275,000 ATM limit was misconceived and ill-advised, and he produced substantial evidence to justify that view. Approximately 20,000 general ATMs at Heathrow could be moved immediately and I should like to see that happen straight away.
  One wonders why the Government tried to introduce the Civil Aviation Bill to bring those movements in. My guess is that it had something to do with civil servants who seem to be controlling civil aviation and its policy developments in Britain. At times Sir Norman Payne could be substituted for the permanent secretary in the Department of Transport and nobody would notice the difference in the work done.
  Infrastructure improvements are necessary in the Heathrow area whether or not terminal 5 is built and prior
  378
  to the coming on line of terminal 4. The inspector supports the view of the Hillingdon borough council that the Hayes bypass should be built. He felt that it had a strategic role to play and should be given trunk road status or 100 per cent. funding from the Department of Transport. He went on to say that the Department's view as to why it should not be a trunk road or 100 per cent. funded was wholly unacceptable and he could not understand the reasoning or the lack of it.
  The expansion of the Piccadilly line would make a real contribution to the access to Heathrow, and that was also supported by the inspector. As we have heard, British Rail is developing a junction at Iver station and a link from there to Heathrow is a possibility which could also make some contribution to solving the potential access problems of the airport.
  Terminal 5 has the advantage that it could be financed by the airlines and would provide an attractive rate of return if Heathrow were to be privatised. That is also important in the context of the public expenditure aspects of the capital investment. Government capital investment would be modest but long overdue in the successful part of south-east England where public investment has not kept pace with the increase in economic development. The Government must bear that in mind when they make their decision.
  I am pleased that the British Airports Authority has suddenly come round to being in favour of terminal 5. If or when terminal 5 comes on line, we must ensure that the dirty hands of the BAA are kept away from it. It created chaos when it organised the operation of terminal 4. The people who want to use terminal 4 have not been consulted about the layout. The concessionaires on the car hire side have been told that they will have small kiosks where only one person will be able to work and where they will not be able to use their computers.
  The British Airports Authority is not interested in the problems. When I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister of State about some of the problems, I am sure that the reply I received was written by civil servants. It defended the British Airports Authority's view and suggested that the authority was doing a damn fine job. It is an appalling organisation and it is about time someone investigated its operation. I understand that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will be doing so in the not-too-distant future; it is long overdue. There has been very little consultation between it and anyone else about any airport that it controls anywhere.
  The development of terminal 5 must be put in train immediately. That means giving all the planning consents necessary to get it off the ground. Regional airports can be expanded along with terminal 5. Neither is mutually exclusive. The south-east does not need a major third airport. The development of terminal 5 calls for infrastructure improvements along the lines I have suggested.
  11 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Thornton: Those of us who are in favour of regional airport development are delighted because nobody has been against their development. We were delighted to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say in his opening remarks that it is the Government's desire to bring air travel within the reach of

  379
  more people. The most effective way of doing so is to bring it within their reach literally by letting us have the option to expand the regional airports.
  The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred to those who are opposing regional airports. I do not believe that anybody is. What we are concerned about is that many decisions that have been taken seem to frustrate actively the growth of regional airports. That is what a fundamental part of the debate is about.
  There is a chicken and egg situation. We say that there is a demand for the development of regional airports. How can we test the demand if policies seem to work against regional airports going out and capturing the market that they say exists? In its press release of 17 January British Airways said:
  "We are committed to introducing international services from regional airports whenever there is enough customer demand to make them viable. We know from our surveys that Manchester is the main candidate for our second international hub, and now that Government aviation policy has been finalised, we are pressing ahead as fast as possible."
  That airline, which has actually tested the market, is saying to the Government, "Give us the opportunities; we will provide the services because we believe that the demand exists." We are asking for a fair deal so that we can test the market for regional development.
  I want to refer to the frustration that we have experienced at Liverpool airport. I do not pretend that it can ever be the sort of airport that we hope Manchester airport will become. It will play a complementary role. One of the areas for expansion has to be the charter market. An important part of the package is the duty-free facility. Whenever we have asked Government for a duty-free facility to enable us to market Liverpool, they have moved the goal posts. They said we should have 50,000 passengers; we got 50,000. They upped it to 70,000; we got 70,000. Then they upped it yet again to 100,000. What price the encouragement of regional airports policy? If my right hon. Friend wants to encourage regional airports to expand, the Government must give them the means to test the market and attract customers.
  The debate is about more than airport policy; it is about the north-south tilt. It is about the effect of a massive development at Stansted on regional development, on investment and on the commitment of Government resources. It is about the damage that will be done to the chances of the regional economies picking up in what will be a difficult period for us all in attracting investment.
  The Government must strike a balance between a viable future policy for airports and airlines and the right economic balance for the regions. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not to disregard those two important elements of the equation. We in the north-west and the north will not lightly forgive a Government who make a decision which will make it difficult if not impossible for us to attract the investment which we believe would be diverted if the expansion of Stansted were to go ahead. That message is coming to us loud and clear from chambers of commerce and business men in our areas. I urge my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Cabinet to take that message on board. This is perhaps the most important decision that we as north-west Members will be called upon to take in our lifetimes. I urge the Government not to ignore our message.
  11.7 pm
  Mr. Frank Cook: I am grateful for this opportunity to express the views of the north-east group of Members. I intend to be brief, and I apologise for the fact that other parliamentary duties prevented me from attending the whole debate.
  I should first point out an inconsistency in the discussion. Many hon. Members, on both sides, have stressed the need for regional development and the importance of airport facilities in that context. Others have claimed that the expansion of Stansted would demolish the surrounding countryside and interfere with the rural quietness. Frankly, the north-east would welcome some noise in the current silence of industries no longer in use while so many people are on the cobbles, suffering enforced indolence due to lack of investment. We badly need the injection that regional airport development would provide.
  Newcastle is not the only important factor. I wish to make a special plea for the Teesside airport, which has a record for all-weather access unequalled by any other airport in the country. When all other airports have been closed, it has been able to take the largest craft. It also has excellent road and rail facilities at its boundary fence, and British Rail, for all the ineptitude of which some people complain, has put on inter-city 125 trains at the drop of a hat to get people to London almost as quickly as they would have got there from Heathrow.
  I shall not go into detail now, but I hope that hon. Members will go into the points that I have made. I believe that the whole structure of airport authorities and management in this country is so crazy that it needs to be thoroughly examined and completely reconstituted.
  11.9 pm
  Sir Fergus Montgomery: I shall be brief. The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) is fortunate because he and his hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) have not been present during the debate. Some hon. Members have been present since half past three. It was all very well for the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) to say "Get on with it". We listened to a very boring speech from her at the beginning of the debate which lowered the tone and started the debate in a bad way. If the hon. Lady has something to say, I hope that she will get up and say it.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I shall be delighted to do so.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That will take time out of the debate, will it not?
  Sir Fergus Montgomery: The debate revolves round airport policy, and I make no apology for putting the case for the north. Many hon. Members representing northern constituencies have tried desperately hard to make clear to the Government how anxious we are to have further development of the regional airports. The Government must heed the message of the two nations and recognise that, if there is to be a massive investment for a third major airport in the south-east, there will be an almighty explosion in the north of England. We badly need that investment in the north, which we believe will produce jobs and assist the region.
  All Members of Parliament have been swamped with circulars in the last few days. I had to laugh at one which I received from a group which said that it would oppose

  381
  the situation whereby passengers who had an origin or destination in south-east England were forced to fly from a regional airport. That point was taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel).
  I get a little sick of the fact that the north of England always seems to be treated as the poor relation. It is the people from the north who have to come down to Heathrow or Gatwick to make flights out of the country.
  I disagree with the inspector's estimates of future London demand. Thousands of passengers from the north would be only too delighted if they could make their journeys direct from a northern airport instead of having to travel through London. Many figures and statistics have been given, but, in order to allow some of my hon. Friends to speak, I shall omit them. I cannot help feeling that the forecasts used by the inspector have given a false picture.
  I am sorry that the inspector seems to have paid so little attention to the case that was put forward by the North of England Regional Consortium. I hope that my right hon. Friend will pay more attention to its case than was paid by the inspector.
  Manchester international airport is a successful airport. It is Britain's third largest airport and already services 40 British and foreign airlines. However, I believe that under successive Governments — Labour and Conservative — the interests of Manchester airport have been subordinated to south-east England. I wonder how much thought has been given to the loss of time by business men who have to fly abroad on business and make the journey from Manchester or the north to Heathrow or Gatwick. How much more convenient and time-saving it would be if they could make their international flights from Manchester airport. If there were more international flights from Manchester it would be a great boon to businessmen in the north, it would improve trade links and it would generate much-needed jobs. Until such time as those services are provided, the northern business man must continue to waste time and money in travelling via London, Amsterdam or Frankfurt.
  That brings me to the case of Singapore Airlines, which has already been touched on in the debate. This airline wanted to fly direct three times a week each way between Singapore and Manchester. It was perfectly happy to have straightforward competition with the British airline, which wanted to fly the same route. This was a tremendous opportunity for Manchester airport. Somebody in the Department of Transport refused the application on the grounds that there were not enough potential passengers to justify more flights. That smacks of the old adage of the man in Whitehall knowing best. If Singapore Airlines, which is one of the most efficient airlines in the world, believes that it makes commercial sense to fly from Singapore to Manchester, who is it in the Department of Transport who would argue on that score? I remind my right hon. Friend that when the Glasgow to London monopoly route of British Airways was opened to competition from British Midland, the number of passengers increased by 30 per cent., prices fell and the service improved. That pattern should be encouraged.
  I make no secret of the fact that so far as airport policy is concerned I want to know what is in it for Manchester. Every hon. Member will be fighting his own corner for the area that he represents.
  I question some of the recommendations of the inspector, for example, that Stansted should be expanded to take 15 million passengers per year by 1990 with a
  382
  further growth thereafter to 25 million, with no second runway to be allowed. Heathrow's capacity is to be increased from 28 million passengers to 38 million when terminal 4 is completed next year and to 53 million by 1995 with the addition of the fifth terminal. I am still unconvinced that we need three major airports in the southern corner of England. I query whether a boost to the economy of more than £1 billion should be applied to the Stansted area where unemployment is not a major problem. Such an investment would be welcome in the north.
  Massive development at Stansted would undermine the regional airports. They have an important part in the economies of the regions. They could play an even more important part by encouraging new industrial investment and the development of tourism. It should never be forgotten that they could have an enormous effect on relieving pressure on the London airports. However, I realise that regional airports would have to face much greater difficulties if they are competing with a massive subsidised airport at Stansted.
  There is an answer to my right hon. Friend's dilemma. If he gives regional airports real encouragement they could release capacity at Heathrow and Gatwick and make a large-scale expansion at Stansted unnecessary. It would also make the best use of national airfield resources.
  I realise that the purpose of the debate is for Ministers to listen. I beg my right hon. and hon. Friends not to dismiss the case for the north as contemptuously as the inspector did. It makes great sense to utilise to the full the airport capacity that we have, rather than to spend enormous sums on Stansted.
  Sir Colin Buchanan has just published a pamphlet, at the end of which he states:
  "To give regional airports greater scope would make sense in relation to the spread of the population and would aid economic recovery."
  I hope that that phrase will be heeded when the decision is finally taken.
  11.17 pm
  Mr. Tim Smith: I am opposed to the construction of a fifth terminal at Heathrow because of the damaging effect that it will have on my constituency. It will result in increased noise and affect the roads and the environment.
  As the chairman of the South Bucks district council, Mr. Peter Janes, recently said:
  "If Heathrow is expanded it will again be the long suffering population of the Heathrow hinterland who will endure the consequences of more aircraft overhead, more traffic on local roads and major erosion of the green belt."
  Aircraft noise is of particular concern to my constituents in Colnbrook, Dorney, Burnham and Taplow. They wish the 275,000 limit on air traffic movements to be imposed and kept. So do I.
  The M4 is already overloaded. The M25 will be at capacity when it is opened. Further pressure will be put on local roads and the whole point of the M25, which for my constituents is the relief of local congestion, will be lost.
  The green belt in south Bucks is already severely damaged. Only last Monday I had an Adjournment debate on the situation in Iver. I said:
  "Iver is under attack from every quarter". — [Official Report, 21 January 1985; Vol. 71, c. 834]
  If the fifth terminal is allowed, the Perry Oaks sewage works will have to be moved either to south Iver or to

  383
  Dorney. Both villages are in my constituency and both propositions would be totally unacceptable to my constituents.
  Both the M4 and the M25 pass through Iver, and now the Department of Transport wants to build a motorway service area in Iver and British Rail wants to build a park-and-ride there. If the fifth terminal goes ahead, Slough might as well become part of Greater London, along with Iver and Colnbrook. We might as well give up the pretence that it is in a green belt and accept that we are the unwilling victims of urban sprawl.
  Each time a motorway has been built, gravel has been extracted locally. Now the inspector suggests that more gravel should be extracted to build a fifth terminal. Therefore, any remaining part of the green belt will become a giant rubbish tip.
  When I gave evidence to the inquiry, I dealt in detail with the effect on south Iver and on Dorney. Because of the shortage of time I shall not deal with that again. All I would say is that because it would severely damage the quality of life in south Buckinghamshire I am totally opposed to the inspector's recommendation that a fifth terminal should eventually be built at Heathrow.
  11.21 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: An advertisement in today's copy of The Times from the North of England Regional Consortium begins:
  "This is the third time that the British Airports Authority have tried to foist Stansted upon the public. On two previous occasions they have failed. But at the third attempt, and after the expenditure of millions of pounds and even more millions of words, their persistence has brought them a favourable report from the Public Inquiry Inspector."
  In this debate we have heard a great deal, much of it disparaging, about the British Airports Authority. If its persistence has borne the truth of the national interest in upon the inspector, then all power to it. If what this advertisement says and really means is that its millions of pounds have bought it the inspector, then that advertisement is scurrilous.
  We have heard in this debate a great deal about the north and about Heathrow, but very little about Stansted. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Hon. Members do not, of course, use the former, but we have heard a great deal about the latter. I do not believe that many hon. Members are unconvinced of the need for airport expansion in this country, so the question is not "what" but "where".
  Hours ago I was asked by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) what my interest in the matter is. I hold no brief for the British Airports Authority. My constituency is unlikely particularly to benefit, any more than is any other constituency in the country, from an airport at Stansted or anywhere else outside my constituency. I recognise the regional needs of the north and I recognise also the need for the expansion of regional airports, but we are debating a third London airport.
  The case against another terminal at Heathrow has been made very forcefully by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins), and by my hon. Friends the Members for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) and for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and, will I hope, be made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who is yet to speak. The nub of that argument
  384
  is, "Yes, we do need more capacity, but," as my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said, "land somewhere else."
  The prime case against Stansted was made by the hon. Member in whose constituency that airfield is situated, my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), who claimed to be speaking for the general good. My hon. Friend went on to criticise a MORI poll which showed that people in the area would welcome an expansion of that airfield because that poll was conducted within a 30-mile radius. It does not seem to me that 30 miles constitutes "the national good", the subject that we ought to be debating tonight. My hon. Friend went on to say that people have an insatiable appetite for air travel. I would ask hon. Members to consider that both I and my colleagues who sit on the tourism committee seek to attract new visitors to this country and the business and money that they will bring. If there is an insatiable appetite for air travel, and if it is bringing people to this country, that is all to the good.
  I come to the case for the north, about which we have heard so much. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), at the beginning of this debate, when many hon. Members who are now chipping in were not present, said that not to locate this new and much needed airfield in the north would be "a crime against the north." I recognise the case for the north. I understand what unemployment means — it is 19 per cent. in my constituency.
  However, we are talking, not about regional aid, but about the need for a new airport. I believe that the airport must be situated at Stansted. We have failed in the debate to consider what my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) described as "the interests of the customers"—the visitor and the international airlines. They wish to visit London and the continent. If we ignore that fact, we shall miss out.
  If we do not adopt the report, 20,000 jobs will go to Schipol, Frankfurt and Paris. That will be because the House has not seized the opportunity to build the airport that is needed, where it is needed, now.
  11.26 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley: In the few minutes that remain, I wish to express with all the vehemence that I can and with all the weight that I can muster the passion felt by my constituents about the airport inquiries and the misery that they suffer from living under the Heathrow flight path.
  Noise is the most important consideration for my constituents and for nearly 3 million people who live in the vicinity of Heathrow. I resent the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Whitfield), who said that I should not complain about the quality of life for my constituents in wealthy Richmond. Noise is noise. Whether a person is employed or unemployed, old or young, noise at the levels around Heathrow is unacceptable.
  Whatever minor reductions may come from new technology, an increase in aircraft movements would provide a prospect of even greater honor. An unlimited hell is already unbearable for many of my constituents. A small drop of water is harmless, but the constant unremitting repetition of that drop — the Chinese water torture — drives its victims mad in terrifying agony. Heathrow is Richmond's water torture.

  385
  In a statement made to Mr. Eyre during his inquiry, and kindly repeated by him in the report, it was said:
  "Modern technology has reduced aircraft noise from the totally unacceptable to the merely unbearable."
  The report stated:
  "Air noise is a modern curse from which the unfortunate inhabitants of the Heathrow area have been required to suffer over a long period."
  The report went on:
  "The present noise climate in some areas around Heathrow is worse than people should be required to accept."
  The inspector said that double glazing might help, but double glazing does not help in Kew gardens or Richmond park or when people are trying to sleep with the windows open on hot summer evenings.
  Aircraft noise and the horrendous levels of traffic, both in the air and on the roads in my constituency, are the blights of the area. There is no doubt that the development of a fifth terminal at Heathrow will increase aircraft movements beyond the unacceptable. Indeed, the level is already unacceptable.
  British Airways has said that it proposes to increase the number of movements to 400,000 a year by modern technology and by using two parallel runways. The Government's position is what my constituents believe and what I have always told them. I hope that the Government will confirm that Heathrow will not be expanded beyond four terminals, air transport movements at Heathrow will be limited to 275,000 a year, for environmental reasons, Gatwick will remain a single-runway airport, regional airports will be developed to their full potential and that it is in the national interest to provide adequate facilities for future demand for air transport in London and the south-east. As Sir John Non said, Stansted has chosen itself.
  In summary, my constituents and I look for a realistic and viable development at Stansted, encouragement for regional airports as demand is created, an environmental limit at Heathrow, continuing noise reduction orders and, above all, no T5.
  11.29 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: This has been a parliamentary rather than a political occasion. I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House for the commitment that they have expressed to a regional airports policy.
  I regret that time prevents me from listing one by one individual Members and their comments, but I pay tribute to the outstanding speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), which graphically set out the argument. He left no one in any doubt about the justice of his case. I pay tribute also to the speech of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst). As we expect on these occasions, he was fluent, coherent and impassioned in some instances, and rightly so. He has demonstrated over the years his determination to protect his constituency from what he sees, understandably enough, as the likely ravages of Stansted.
  It has been suggested that, because the debate is being held on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, its importance is not particularly substantial. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) has demonstrated that that is not so. He observed that various important debates have taken place over the years on such a motion. It has been suggested in the newspapers that as
  386
  the payroll vote, as it is somewhat disrespectfully known — Ministers and their Parliamentary Private Secretaries — has been instructed to stay well away from the Government Lobby this evening, the result of a Division will not matter. It is argued that the Government will have shown that it is not significant by keeping the pay roll vote away and thereby downgrading its importance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent has adequately disposed of that assertion. I hope that the House will reject it.
  We have heard individual Members making out a case on behalf of their region or constituency regardless of party affiliation. They can best make out their case, and dispose of the Stansted argument once and for all, by using their votes in a Division. I understand that the Secretary of State claims that he has a quasi judicial role as he and the Minister of State, Department of the Environment is responsible for making the decision. I accept that. But to claim that the same quasi judicial role extends to every Minister stretches constitutional credulity, to say the least. I am sure that it provides a convenient excuse for the Government to explain away tonight's defeat, if defeated they are to be, but that will not make it any less relevant.
  The Secretary of State said in opening the debate that the Government felt that this was an unprecedented opportunity for the House to debate a planning matter before a decision had been reached. The House should be suitably grateful for that. Of course, in the circumstances, it is understandable enough that the right hon. Gentleman glossed over the fact that the only reason why we are having the debate is that he has failed twice to get a sittings motion for the Civil Aviation Bill in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but when he tried to explain away yet another disaster for which he had been responsible he said that there would have to be a debate on this issue because of the Committee's failure to approve its sittings motion.
  Unless we dispose of this matter this evening, the House can be sure that it will come back to haunt us. In December 1984 there was an article in the London Evening Standard by Mr. Max Hastings in which he left readers in no doubt that the first proposal to build Stansted airport was brought forward in 1967, when the then chairman of the British Airports Authority made it plain that unless Stansted went ahead the prospects of aeroplane landings and take-offs at London's airports would be diabolical to say the least by the mid-1970s. However, Sir Peter's worst fears were not realised in the mid-1970s and there is no sign and no evidence in the mid-1980s that his fears are more realistic 10 years on.
  However, I may have some good news for the House. Regardless of what the civil servants dust down in the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment, the track record of the Secretary of State for Transport suggests that he will be with us on the question of Stansted, for he is a long and consistent opponent of the construction of London's third airport. I do not often get the chance to praise him, but I am delighted to think that I shall be able to praise him on this occasion for what I hope will be his consistency. As a long-standing opponent of London's third airport, I hope that the House can rely on the right hon. Gentleman to make the right decision when the appropriate time comes.
  On 13 June 1973 we debated the question of London's third airport when we discussed what was then the Maplin Development Bill. Indeed, one could easily delete

  387
  "Maplin" and insert "Stansted" because the same arguments apply in both cases. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) was the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment at the time. Earlier tonight he said, bravely if cavalierly, "One cannot rely on Ministers' promises." He should know because he was responsible in those days.
  When the Maplin Development Bill was being debated, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) moved new clause 2, which read:
  "It shall be the duty of the Civil Aviation Authority, in consultation with the Maplin Development Authority and appropriate Minister, to keep under constant review technical developments of new, quieter aero-engines, short take-off capability or other relevant factors affecting the operations of civil aircraft, and it shall take such action as may be appropriate to delay, vary or desist from the construction of an airport on land to be reclaimed as a result of the passage of this Act."
  The hon. Gentleman moved the new clause in such a persuasive manner that the then Conservative Government suffered a dramatic defeat. No fewer than 15 Tory Members bravely demonstrated their principles by going into the Lobby with Labour Members. They thereby defeated the Government and wrote that important new clause into the Maplin Development Bill.
  I am glad to remind the House that among those 15 good brave men and true was the present Secretary of State for Transport. As I said, praise for the right hon. Gentleman does not fall easily from my lips, but praise him I shall — it will probably do his career even more damage than he has done to it himself — if he demonstrates that virtue of consistency tonight and reaffirms his bravery of 13 June 1973.
  In those days the Conservative party was led by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). He and the present Secretary of State for Transport were hardly the best of friends, for the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup had had the temerity to fire his right hon. Friend from his then post at the Treasury.
  However, there has been no such occurrence under the present Government. Bearing in mind the close relationship that obviously exists between the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister, one can only hope that he adopts that consistency for which I have praised him so as to impress on the Prime Minister the fact that objection to the construction of London's third airport is as great now as it was in 1973, when he made that stand.
  Mr. Soames rose—
  Mr. Snape: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman took more than 20 minutes, which is more than I have to wind up the debate. He did not say a great deal, though, to be fair to him, he said it prettily.
  No case has been made for London's third airport. The statistical evidence is conflicting, to say the least, and the fact that the BAA has demonstrated its belief in London's third airport should impress nobody. The BAA has been a consistent supporter of the third London airport since the idea was first mooted. That is hardly surprising, because the effect on its finances is like winning the jackpot. No hon. Member needs to be reminded that, if the British Airports Authority is privatised in the Government's passion for privatisation and the third London airport is a going concern, BAA will be even more valuable when it comes on the market.
  388
  I agreed with a great deal of the speech by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks), who spoke with passion and commitment. I know that, as he comes from the Manchester area, he would wish to defend the future of Manchester airport. He said that the free market economy should dictate what happens in these matters, but I point out to the hon. Gentleman that that is not true anywhere else in the world, and there is no reason why it should be true in this country. The hon. Gentleman would leave it to the operators to decide where to fly, but I believe that the prospects of regional airports booming and developing are grim. All around the world it has been necessary for Governments to direct airlines as to which airports they should use. [Interruption.] It is not rubbish. A Right-wing Government in France had to direct French airlines and other airlines to use Charles de Gaulle airport, because when that airport was built all the airlines said that they would not use it. The Japanese Government, who were hardly a Left-wing Government, had to coerce the world's airlines to use the new Marita airport because it was so far from the centre of Tokyo. So market forces will not do the job.
  Mr. Franks: It is the consumer who determines the free market.
  Mr. Snape: It is not the consumer. Despite my praise for the hon. Gentleman's speech, I have to say that part of his speech was somewhat simplistic. He argues, as we do, that the consumers do not have a choice and are not allowed to dictate the market forces as they affect British regional airports. The arrogance of some hon. Members from the south of England who seem to believe that the only people who wish to buy tickets for international flights are based in and around London has to be heard to be believed. Are there no business men in Manchester or Birmingham who may wish to fly to, for example, the United States?
  The Secretary of State — I am afraid that my praise for him is over; we are now back to our normal relationship—who professes a deep and undying belief in private enterprise, has prevented airlines from flying into our regional airports as a deliberate act of policy. Where is the free enterprise and consumer choice in that? This whole argument is riddled with inconsistencies.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: Ridleyed.
  Mr. Snape: And he is my Whip!
  There is a fairly modern and prosperous airport in Birmingham.
  I was astonished to hear the silly intervention of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills), who, having intervened, headed for the door in mortification. He has not been seen since. I was astonished to hear him say that the capacity at Birmingham airport should not be increased. Despite spending £63 million on a brand new terminal, no more aeroplanes than at present should be allowed to take off and land there, because it would disturb the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I cannot understand an hon. Member who pleads such a case on behalf of his constituents. People living by an airfield should expect aircraft to take off and land. If any hon. Member took that attitude to a railway station, he would be laughed out of the Chamber. However, the hon. Member for Meriden

  389
  said that, despite all the public expenditure on Birmingham airport, no other aeroplanes should be permitted to take off and land there.
  An overwhelming case has been made for the regional airports. Every hon. Member, with the exception of three Conservative Members, has condemned the Government's proposals. For goodness sake, let the House of Commons speak out tonight. Let us kill off once and for all the myth that Stansted is necessary by casting all our votes in the same Division Lobby this evening. Only in that way can we plan the way forward. Only in that way can the country have a sensible aviation policy — a policy that, under successive Governments, it has long lacked.
  11.46 pm
  The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): The debate has lasted for nearly eight hours. It will come as no surprise to the House to learn that not a single member of the Social Democratic party has spoken and that only one Liberal Member has made a contribution. Although, excluding the Front Bench spokesman, 11 Labour Members have made speeches, it is the Tory party that has made the most massive contribution—[Laughter.] Oh yes. There have been 26—[Interruption.]—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am anxious to hear the rest.
  Mr. Gow: I am anxious to hear it myself. No fewer than 26 of my right hon. and hon. Friends have contributed to the debate.
  It is not always wise to believe all that one is told, but I am told that the Opposition Whips were deeply concerned about the imbalance between those speaking from this side and those speaking from the Opposition side. They went out into the highways and byways and found the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who had not even heard my right hon. Friend's opening speech.
  No one who has listened to the debate can doubt the importance of the decisions that have to be taken or the strength of feeling in all parts of the House. Today's debate has underlined the wide range of interests that will be affected by those decisions. Although the planning applications relate to Stansted and Heathrow, the whole House accepts that the decisions that will have to be taken will be of deep relevance to the future of airports policy and to every part of the United Kingdom.
  My right hon. Friend and I have listened to the debate with the greatest care, but the House will understand that, as my right hon. Friend explained at the beginning, we cannot comment on the arguments that have been deployed. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) acknowledged that fact.
  I also remind the House that the procedures under which we are operating were not fashioned by my right hon. Friend or by the present Government. The procedures were laid down by the Labour Government in 1974. Scarcely had the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent got his feet under the desk at the Department of Employment in 1974 when the order was laid on 11 March 1974. It was one of the first measures of the Labour Government. The time for my right hon. Friend and the Government to explain the reasons for our decision and the time to comment on the arguments that have been advanced in the House and elsewhere will be in the later
  390

  debate that was promised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House last Thursday and which was reaffirmed by my right hon. Friend today. I cannot prejudge or be seen to be prejudging issues that are before my right hon. Friend and me for decision.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gow: I have little time.
  Hon. Members: "Give way."
  Mr. Speaker: Order. In fairness to the Minister, his time has been cut.
  Mr. Gow: The inspector's report ranged widely. He has expressed conclusions on the present Stansted and Heathrow proposals—
  Mr. John McWilliam: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is rather inappropriate to raise points of order at this stage.
  Mr. McWilliam: I must raise this point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister seems to be claiming the protection of the sub judice rule. Could you make it clear to the House that the sub judice rule does not apply to this debate?
  Mr. Speaker: The Minister is a lawyer—I am not. I thought that I heard him say that he could not prejudge the issue.
  Mr. Snape: He is a divorce lawyer.
  Mr. Gow: The inspector has expressed conclusions on the Stansted and Heathrow proposals and on broader and longer-term issues of airport policy. Some hon. Members have paid tribute to the massive work that the inspector and the two assessors have done. I should like to join in paying tribute to them.
  It might be helpful for me to explain the matters that are before my right hon. Friend and me and the procedures that we are required to follow. There are two principal matters for determination. The first is an outline planning application dated 25 July 1980 by the British Airports Authority for the expansion of Stansted airport to a capacity of about 15 million passengers a year. The second is an outline planning application dated 18 June 1981 by the Uttlesford district council for the extension of Heathrow airport by the provision of a fifth terminal and associated facilities and works.
  Dependent upon the Stansted application are a number of other applications, including an application for planning permission for the carrying out of road works to give improved access to the airport, seven applications for listed building consent, an application for planning permission to re-erect three of the listed buildings on a site at Burton End; and a compulsory purchase order made by the BAA relating to land at Stansted.
  The House will remember that, on 3 December 1980, the then Secretary of State for the Environment announced, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), that he had called in the British Airports Authority's application for the expansion of Stansted. He announced that he was appointing Mr. Graham Eyre QC to hold a public local inquiry into the proposals. Mr. Eyre was appointed subsequently to hold concurrent inquiries into the other matters to which I have referred.
  On 12 February 1981 Mr. Philip Maynard was appointed as assessor to assist the inspector on planning

  391
  and environmental matters, and on 8 April 1981 Mr. William Woodruff was appointed as assessor to assist on aviation matters. The inquiries opened on 19 September 1981 at Quendon park, near Stansted.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gow: No, I have little time. The inquiries were adjourned on 28 October 1982. They were resumed on 11 January 1983 at the Crest hotel, Heathrow airport, and were closed after a total of 258 sitting days. The inspector's report was delivered on 28 November 1984, and published on 10 December 1984. It was made clear to the inspector that the inquiries were to be wide-ranging and that the Government intended the fullest opportunity to be given for objectors to express their views on the proposals both about Stansted and Heathrow, and for alternatives to be considered.
  During the inquiry the inspector sought and was given the express assurance that he was not precluded from considering matters which ran counter to Government policy. The inspector took full advantage of those assurances and his inquiries were conducted, as his report has been framed, to take account of such matters.
  The answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) is that in this case planning applications have been made, have been subject to long inquiries and are now awaiting decisions under the normal procedures laid down in the planning Acts. Despite the suggestion made by my hon. Friend, the question of a special development order cannot arise at this stage.
  I remind the House that if my right hon. Friend and I should be disposed to disagree with any recommendation made by the inspector as a result of taking account of new evidence or a new issue of fact not being a matter of Government policy, we are under a statutory duty to inform the parties to the inquiry and to afford them an opportunity of making representations on the new evidence or new issue of fact. Initially it is for Ministers, and ultimately for the courts, to decide whether any material received after the inquiry constitutes new evidence or a new issue of fact that should be referred to the parties for comment. The fact that others may claim that certain material is new evidence or a new issue of fact does not make it so automatically, nor does it follow necessarily that it will influence Ministers' decisions or lead them to agree or disagree with any of the inspector's recommendations.
  It is obvious to the House and clear to the Government that it is most desirable that my right hon. Friend and I should reach our decision on these applications as soon as possible, consistent with that thorough examination and consideration of the inspector's report that a matter of such great importance requires.
  We shall follow strictly the rules which have been laid down by Parliament provided in the statutory instrument which was approved in 1974. We consider that we have now reached the time when final decisions need to be taken about the future of policy for airports. To every hon. Member who spoke, I say that his contribution will receive proper consideration. My right hon. Friend and I will come back to the House with our decisions at the earliest possible date.
  Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Dennis Canavan(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the inevitable defeat of the Government in this Division can you tell the House when the Prime Minister will be going to the Palace to offer her resignation?
  Mr. Speaker: I think that that is hypothetical.
  Mr. Canavan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Presumably once the vote is announced the House will adjourn and there will be no further opportunity to raise points of order or for any other Member to speak. It is therefore important that you, as Speaker of the House of Commons, give a ruling as to what will happen as a result of the defeat of the Government. I suggest that following that defeat you should summon the Prime Minister to make a statement as to when she intends to offer her resignation.
  Mr. Speaker: All this is hypothetical. None of us knows what will happen. But if the House votes to adjourn that is what we shall do.
  Mr. Canavan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the House votes in favour of the Adjournment, that will be tantamount to a defeat of the Government, but there will presumably be no opportunity to raise points of order after the result is announced.
  Mr. Speaker: I can do nothing about that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Adjournment is in the hands of the House. If the House votes to adjourn, we shall adjourn, and I shall not be here. If the House votes not to adjourn, we shall proceed in the normal way.
  Mr. Canavan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to give notice that if the Government are defeated in the Division I shall seek to raise a point of order afterwards to say that the Prime Minister should go to the Palace and offer her resignation and that there should be a general election.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I call upon the Tellers.
  The House having divided: Ayes 247, Noes 0.

  Division No. 84]

  [11.58 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Adley, Robert

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

  Alton, David

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Anderson, Donald

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Caborn, Richard

  Ashton, Joe

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Campbell, Ian

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Baldry, Tony

  Canavan, Dennis

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

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

  Barnett, Guy

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Barron, Kevin

  Cartwright, John

  Batiste, Spencer

  Chapman, Sydney

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Churchill, W. S.

  Beith, A. J.

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Bell, Stuart

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

  Clarke, Thomas

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Blair, Anthony

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Body, Richard

  Cohen, Harry

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Boyes, Roland

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Corbett, Robin

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Cowans, Harry

  393

  Craigen, J. M.

  Heddle, John

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Crowther, Stan

  Hicks, Robert

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hind, Kenneth

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Home Robertson, John

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Deakins, Eric

  Howells, Geraint

  Dewar, Donald

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Dicks, Terry

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Dobson, Frank

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Dormand, Jack

  Jackson, Robert

  Douglas, Dick

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Dubs, Alfred

  John, Brynmor

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Eadie, Alex

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Eastham, Ken

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Ellis, Raymond

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Knox, David

  Ewing, Harry

  Lambie, David

  Farr, Sir John

  Lamond, James

  Fatchett, Derek

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Faulds, Andrew

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Favell, Anthony

  Leighton, Ronald

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Lester, Jim

  Fisher, Mark

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Flannery, Martin

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Litherland, Robert

  Forrester, John

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Foster, Derek

  Loyden, Edward

  Foulkes, George

  McCrindle, Robert

  Fox, Marcus

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Franks, Cecil

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Freud, Clement

  McKelvey, William

  Galley, Roy

  Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Maclean, David John

  George, Bruce

  McTaggart, Robert

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Madden, Max

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Madel, David

  Golding, John

  Malone, Gerald

  Gould, Bryan

  Marek, Dr John

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

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Mates, Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Maxton, John

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Meacher, Michael

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Michie, William

  Harvey, Robert

  Mikardo, Ian

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hayes, J.

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  394

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

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

  Nellist, David

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

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Snape, Peter

  O'Brien, William

  Spearing, Nigel

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Park, George

  Stott, Roger

  Patchett, Terry

  Strang, Gavin

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Straw, Jack

  Pendry, Tom

  Sumberg, David

  Penhaligon, David

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Pike, Peter

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Prescott, John

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Radice, Giles

  Thurnham, Peter

  Randall, Stuart

  Tinn, James

  Redmond, M.

  Torney, Tom

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Wainwright, R.

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wallace, James

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Wareing, Robert

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Weetch, Ken

  Robertson, George

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Welsh, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wheeler, John

  Rogers, Allan

  White, James

  Rooker, J. W.

  Whitfield, John

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Wilkinson, John

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Ryman, John

  Wilson, Gordon

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Winnick, David

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wood, Timothy

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Woodcock, Michael

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

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

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Silvester, Fred

  Mr. Don Dixon.

  NOES

  Nil

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mr. John Browne and

  Mr. John Nicholson.

  Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Government have been defeated—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The House now stands adjourned.
  Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Twelve o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT
  Empty Dwellings
  Empty Dwellings
  Housing Corporation
  Housing Corporation
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Local Authority Expenditure (London)
  Local Authority Expenditure (London)
  Unitary Development (London)
  Unitary Development (London)
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Air Pollution
  Air Pollution
  Stornoway Airport
  Stornoway Airport
  Local Authorities (Legal Proceedings)
  Local Authorities (Legal Proceedings)
  Inner City Partnership Funds
  Inner City Partnership Funds
  Local Government Staff (Salaries)
  Local Government Staff (Salaries)
  Housing Investment Programme
  Housing Investment Programme
  Urban Development Corporations
  Urban Development Corporations
  Manchester City Council—Manchester Ship Canal Company
  Manchester City Council—Manchester Ship Canal Company
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Radio Stations
  Radio Stations
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
  Public Sector Housing Management
  Public Sector Housing Management
  Norfolk Broads (Livestock Grazing)
  Norfolk Broads (Livestock Grazing)
  Home Improvement Grants
  Home Improvement Grants
  Prefabricated Reinforced Concrete Dwellings
  Prefabricated Reinforced Concrete Dwellings
  Housing Defects Act
  Housing Defects Act
  Prefabricated Reinforced Concrete Dwellings
  Prefabricated Reinforced Concrete Dwellings
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Jury Vetting
  Jury Vetting
  Public Records
  Public Records
TRANSPORT
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Coal Industry Dispute (British Rail)
  Coal Industry Dispute (British Rail)
  Train Crash (Micheldever)
  Train Crash (Micheldever)
  Public Transport (Revenue Support)
  Public Transport (Revenue Support)
EMPLOYMENT
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Select Committees
  Select Committees
WALES
  Dairy Farmers
  Dairy Farmers
  Renal Dialysis
  Renal Dialysis
  Housing Expenditure
  Housing Expenditure
  Local Authority Finance
  Local Authority Finance
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Free School Meals
  Free School Meals
  Graduate Diplomas in Music
  Graduate Diplomas in Music
  Schools (Governing Bodies)
  Schools (Governing Bodies)
  Open University
  Open University
  National Advisory Body for Local Authority Higher Education
  National Advisory Body for Local Authority Higher Education
    COMMITTEE
    COMMITTEE
    BOARD AND NOMINATING BODY
    BOARD AND NOMINATING BODY
  Advisory Committee on the Supply and Education of Teachers
  Advisory Committee on the Supply and Education of Teachers
PRIME MINISTER
  EC Heads of Government
  EC Heads of Government
  Mr. David Williamson
  Mr. David Williamson
ENERGY
  Domestic Supplies (Disconnections)
  Domestic Supplies (Disconnections)
DEFENCE
  Defence Programme (Cost)
  Defence Programme (Cost)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Community Radio
  Community Radio
  Refugees (Naturalisation)
  Refugees (Naturalisation)
  Community Service
  Community Service
  Prison Officers (Residential Accommodation)
  Prison Officers (Residential Accommodation)
  Departmental Administration Costs
  Departmental Administration Costs
  Foreign Nationals
  Foreign Nationals
  Amusement Arcades
  Amusement Arcades
  Polling Stations (Ramps)
  Polling Stations (Ramps)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Renal Dialysis
  Renal Dialysis
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Departmental Costs
  Departmental Costs
  European Communities
  European Communities
  Multilateral Disarmament Negotiations
  Multilateral Disarmament Negotiations
  Israel (Arab Trade Boycott)
  Israel (Arab Trade Boycott)
  Falkland Islands (Air Service)
  Falkland Islands (Air Service)
  Foreign Affairs Council
  Foreign Affairs Council
SCOTLAND
  Households (Statistics)
  Households (Statistics)
  Renal Units
  Renal Units
  End-stage Renal Failure
  End-stage Renal Failure
  Forestry Planting Grants
  Forestry Planting Grants
  Tourism (Development)
  Tourism (Development)
  Tourist Policy
  Tourist Policy
  Road Signs (Tourism)
  Road Signs (Tourism)
  Scottish Development Agency (Tourist Projects)
  Scottish Development Agency (Tourist Projects)
  Tourism (Expenditure)
  Tourism (Expenditure)
  Bypass Signs (Borders Region)
  Bypass Signs (Borders Region)
  Scottish Tourist Board
  Scottish Tourist Board
  Tourist Grant Assistance
  Tourist Grant Assistance
  Tourist-related Projects
  Tourist-related Projects
  Local Authority Finance (Tourism)
  Local Authority Finance (Tourism)
  Tourist Accommodation
  Tourist Accommodation
  West of Scotland Science Park
  West of Scotland Science Park
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  EC (Trade Barriers)
  EC (Trade Barriers)
  Manufactured Goods
  Manufactured Goods
  Small Firms Service
  Small Firms Service
  Japan (Telecommunications)
  Japan (Telecommunications)
  Brazil
  Brazil
  Small Firms
  Small Firms
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Local Enterprise Agencies
  Local Enterprise Agencies
  Basildon New Town
  Basildon New Town
  Electricity (Resale)
  Electricity (Resale)
  Business Improvement Service
  Business Improvement Service
  Buses (Legislation)
  Buses (Legislation)
  Manufacturing Industry (Investment)
  Manufacturing Industry (Investment)
  Latin America (Exports)
  Latin America (Exports)
  British Aersopace
  British Aersopace
  English Industrial Estates (Small Units)
  English Industrial Estates (Small Units)
  Citizens Band Radio
  Citizens Band Radio
  Yorkshire (Industrial Costs)
  Yorkshire (Industrial Costs)
  Regional Assistance
  Regional Assistance
  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Small Firms Enterprise Week
  Small Firms Enterprise Week
  Cars (Exports to Spain)
  Cars (Exports to Spain)
  Manufacturing Industry Output
  Manufacturing Industry Output
  Assisted Area Status
  Assisted Area Status
  Machine Tool Industry
  Machine Tool Industry
  Small Firms (Management Training)
  Small Firms (Management Training)
  "Brazil—New Opportunities" (Exhibition)
  "Brazil—New Opportunities" (Exhibition)
  European Regional Development Fund Aid
  European Regional Development Fund Aid
  Oldham Batteries
  Oldham Batteries
  Nuclear Electro-Magnetic Pulse
  Nuclear Electro-Magnetic Pulse
  British Telecom
  British Telecom
  British Shipbuilders
  British Shipbuilders
  Shipbuilding Industry (Redundancies)
  Shipbuilding Industry (Redundancies)
  Space Agency
  Space Agency
  Radio Stations
  Radio Stations
  British Aerospace Space Freighter
  British Aerospace Space Freighter
  British Leyland
  British Leyland
  Electricity Boards (Revenue Collection)
  Electricity Boards (Revenue Collection)
  Manufactured Goods (Balance of Trade)
  Manufactured Goods (Balance of Trade)
  Shipbuilding (Privatisation)
  Shipbuilding (Privatisation)
  United Medical Enterprises
  United Medical Enterprises
  Amateur Radio Licence
  Amateur Radio Licence
NATIONAL FINANCE
  EC Budget
  EC Budget
  Tax Credit Scheme
  Tax Credit Scheme
  EC (Agricultural Prices)
  EC (Agricultural Prices)
  On-course Betting Duty
  On-course Betting Duty
  EC (Agricultural Expenditure)
  EC (Agricultural Expenditure)
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Customs and Excise (Confiscated Goods)
  Customs and Excise (Confiscated Goods)
  Disabled Persons (Polling Stations)
  Disabled Persons (Polling Stations)
  Nationalised Industries (External Financing Limits)
  Nationalised Industries (External Financing Limits)
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Pay and Employment (Review)
  Pay and Employment (Review)
  Sterling (Exchange Rate)
  Sterling (Exchange Rate)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Newcastle Computer Dispute
  Newcastle Computer Dispute
  Deaf Persons (Assistance)
  Deaf Persons (Assistance)
  Flenac
  Flenac
  Cardio-pulmonary Resuscitation (Training)
  Cardio-pulmonary Resuscitation (Training)
  Leukaemia
  Leukaemia
  Limited List Prescribing
  Limited List Prescribing
  "Don't Smoke" Day
  "Don't Smoke" Day
  End-Stage Renal Failure
  End-Stage Renal Failure
  Health Authority Statistics
  Health Authority Statistics
  Information (Members' Requests)
  Information (Members' Requests)
  DHSS Statistics
  DHSS Statistics
  Hospital Inpatients (Cost)
  Hospital Inpatients (Cost)
  Low Income Families
  Low Income Families
  Fuel Direct Scheme
  Fuel Direct Scheme
  Preschool Playgroups Association
  Preschool Playgroups Association
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Post Mortem Examinations
  Post Mortem Examinations
  Hospitals (Ethical Committees)
  Hospitals (Ethical Committees)

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

Young Offenders in Adult Prisons
Lord Hunt: 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 how many young offenders are serving sentences of youth custody in adult prisons.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, on the latest available information, some 520 offenders aged under 21 sentenced to youth custody were located in adult prisons in England and Wales. Of these some 370 were either being allocated or serving net sentences of under 21 days.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which I find very disturbing. Is it not a fact that the youth custody centres, which have capacity for something like 7,000 places, are full to overflowing? Is not the overflow which is referred to due in large part to the fact that magistrates' courts are making much greater use of youth custody than was envisaged in the guidelines supplied to those courts by the noble Lord's department after the passage of the Act? Do not the figures available in his department, and indeed from the survey conducted by NACRO on a year's working of the Act, bear out the fact that the use of youth custody is increasing? Quite aside from that, is it not a negation of the intention of the courts that a sentence requiring a specific and constructive training programme to be carried out in the totally equipped establishment is in fact carried out in the totally unsuitable, inappropriate conditions of an adult prison? Is this not a recipe for recidivism?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not certain I can encompass all the questions in one answer. But the general tenor of the noble Lord's query is to the trends in sentencing and the adequacy of provision. The number of juveniles given custodial sentences in the last six months of 1983 was slightly lower than that for the last six months of 1982. The slight increase in the number of young adults given custodial sentences was not out of line with the trend in recent years. Within the overall pattern of custodial sentences for young offenders there has been a shift from detention centre sentences to youth custody sentences. The reasons for this change are probably quite complex. However, I believe that, if the noble Lord examines the breakdown of the numbers of young offenders in adult prisons, he will find that the vast majority of them are there for a very short time and are kept strictly out of contact with adult prisoners.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the answer that he
644
has just given brings into relief yet again the concern expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice about being able to suspend youth custody sentences? I know that this matter has been discussed before but would my learned friend—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister inform the House as to where we are getting along this line?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for, however fleetingly, calling me a "learned" Lord! As I said in answer to a question which my noble friend asked on 15th January, we have sought the views of interested bodies on this issue. We are now considering the matter in the light of the comments that we received as a result.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, would the noble Lord say what are the ages of the youngest offenders serving their sentences in adult prisons?
Lord Elton: My Lords, not without notice, but not below 14.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether the present situation does not bring the juvenile justice system into disrepute? This is a system whereby some children are sent to prison and some children go to youth custody centres though they have committed comparable offences.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think that without a full debate on this subject it is difficult to give an exact picture of the complex spread of provision and candidates. I repeat that we have a wide selection of provision. My noble friend has referred to "children" as though everybody from the age of 14 to the age of 20 was in the same category. Of course they are not.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware there is to be a new project in York which will be a day centre for the rehabilitation of young offenders? Might this not be a help in keeping them out of prison?
Lord Elton: My Lords, we are very much aware of efforts being made in the direction of what is called intermediate treatment to keep young people out of custodial sentences. That is why we have committed £15 million to support it.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how many persons under the age of 21 who are on remand awaiting trial are held in adult prisons?
Lord Elton: My Lords, at present about three-quarters of the number of young persons under 21 who are on remand are held in remand centres and about one-quarter in local prisons. All remand prisoners need to be held as close as possible to their families and friends, and also to their legal advisers and the courts where they are due to appear. But there are not enough remand centres to accommodate the existing population and to cover all the major urban court centres. The noble and learned Lord asked for an exact figure. I shall write to him.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Is it not deeply deplorable that remand prisoners, many of whom will be acquitted altogether and some of whom will not receive custodial sentences, are nevertheless held in prison at that youthful age?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I took the opportunity, I think two years ago, to visit a local prison to establish what were the views of these young people. I asked them unloaded questions. I was very much struck by the fact that, with very few exceptions indeed, they preferred to be kept in a local prison, where they were accessible to their families and lawyers, than as little as 20 miles away in perfect conditions.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, may I take it from the noble Lord's reply to my previous question that there are young people of 15 in prison? If so, is it not an appalling state of affairs, and what do the Government intend to do about it?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord returns to an issue. The latest figure I can give does not relate to children of a specific age but simply to juveniles in the juvenile bracket. On the latest available figures, 73 of these are in adult prisons. Thirty of them are on remand—and I have spoken about that. Thirty-eight have been sentenced to youth custody; and they are, I understand, all awaiting allocation. The process of allocation normally takes four to five days, and they are then shipped out on the next bus to an appropriate institution. They are kept separate from the adult population. I believe we have a flexible system, and that it protects the interests of young people.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, may I refer the Minister to his answer to my noble and learned friend a moment ago as to young people on remand in adult prisons? Does he really feel that an interview that he had some two years ago with young people on their preferences as to where they are to be kept, however helpful and praiseworthy such an interview may have been, is really a social answer to the deplorable situation of young people on remand being put in adult prisons?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord is aware as the rest of your Lordships are that the present Government have the biggest programme of this century to expand and modernise the prison system and to bring it up to date after decades of neglect by earlier Governments. We are doing a great deal in this direction. The figures that I have given for those held in positions that the noble Lords think less appropriate, perhaps, than some others show that we are making tremendous progress. I hope that your Lordships will recognise that.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that many of the interesting answers that he has given do not necessarily apply to Scotland?
Lord Elton: My Lords, whenever possible I avoid giving answers about Scotland altogether.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that I, personally, have considerable admiration for the efforts being made by the Government in this matter? Will he not accept, however, that there is considerable concern on all sides of the House, and will the Government not consider that the time is coming to review the workings of Sections 6 and 7 of the Criminal Justice Act?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I gladly accept the first of the noble Lord's supplementary questions. As to the second, it is a function of this House to focus its concern on Ministers and for Ministers to transmit that to the Administration. That I gladly do. Whether I do it exactly in the terms that the noble Lord asked, I shall have to reflect upon.

United Kingdom-Argentine Relations
2.48 p.m.
Lord Paget of Northampton: 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 went to war with the Argentine Republic, and if not, why not.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, neither side recognised the existence of a state of war. Our inherent right of self-defence, as recognised by Article 51 of the charter of the United Nations, was a sufficient basis for our actions.
Lord Paget of Northampton: Oh! my Lords, so there never was an Argentine war. Can the noble Baroness say who will break the news to Mrs. Thatcher? I mean, after Oxford, this will be a terrible shock. She did so enjoy her little war.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Answer to the Question is as I have given it to the noble Lord, Lord Paget. I am surprised that he would demean himself by asking his further supplementary questions.
Lord Cledwyn of Penhros: My Lords, would not the noble Baroness agree that we should be concentrating on the possibilities of peace and not on the bitterness of conflict? Will she say whether she read the remarks of President Alfonsin in New Delhi yesterday? Can she further say what steps are being taken to secure a resumption of talks with the Argentine as a matter of urgency in order to seek a settlement that is acceptable to both sides?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I entirely agree with the first point that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has made—that we should now be looking to the future. As Her Majesty's Government have made plain on a number of occasions, we would welcome better bilateral and more normal relations with Argentina, but we are not prepared to discuss the issue of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether there is yet any sign of Argentina declaring that the state of hostilities is at an end?
Baroness Young: No, my Lords. The position on this matter immediately following the end of the war is that they expressly ruled out declaring a definitive cessation of hostilities on the grounds that this would give legal status to our position in the Falklands.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, may I repeat my question of the other day, to the effect that it might be advisable for the Government not to resume negotiations on the question of sovereignty, which is a very general and debatable question, but to agree to discuss the political future of the Falklands?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not think that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, an answer other than the one which I gave him to the same question he asked the other day.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the whole of the civilised world condemns the obduracy of the British Government in refusing to discuss the issue of sovereignty, which is is an essential prerequisite to the full restoration of peace? Does not the noble Baroness recognise that this is placing on the shoulders of the British people a financial burden which is almost comparable with the iniquitous Trident project?
Baroness Young: My Lords, we have taken several initiatives to achieve more normal bilateral relations with Argentina, and we remain ready to do this. We have made quite plain our views on the matter of sovereignty, and, as I think I said on an earlier occasion, just as we have welcomed the return of democracy in Argentina and the right of the Argentinian people to vote for a government of their own choice, so we believe that a similar right should be exercised by those living in the Falkland Islands.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that the charge of obduracy is better directed at Argentina than it is at this Government?
Baroness Young: My Lords, we do not accept that we have been intransigent over these matters. We have sought, over extensive negotiations in the earlier part of 1984, leading up to the negotiations in Berne in July, means of establishing better bilateral relations with Argentina. That continues to be our policy. It is our wish that we should have normal relations.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would not the noble Baroness be prepared to accept that the issue of sovereignty ought not to stop negotiations continuing, particularly in the field of commerce and trade? When these matters really get under way they could perhaps make a contribution to a much better attitude and spirit which will resolve the other issue, which is now blocking things altogether.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we should like to have normal trade relations with Argentina: but, as the
648
Argentine Government made plain at Berne, they were not prepared to discuss other issues without addressing the question of sovereignty.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the difficulty about a war that never was is that there are no logical means of stopping it?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the position on a declaration of war is as I stated in the first Answer to the Question. I think that it would be a much more profitable exercise to look now to the future, and that is why Her Majesty's Government are seeking ways to have more normal relations with Argentina.
Lord Morris: My Lords, does my noble friend believe that there can be anybody other than the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who would not believe that "political future" is sovereignty, written in another way?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that we have to be quite clear that her Majesty's Government are not prepared to negotiate sovereignty, however it is described.

Arts Funding: Business Sponsorship
2.54 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will explain the working of the business sponsorship incentive scheme for the arts.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, the business sponsorship incentive scheme aims to encourage a higher overall level of arts sponsorship by adding one-third, subject to an upper limit of£25,000, to any new sponsorship obtained by arts bodies. The scheme is administered by the Association of Business Sponsorship of the Arts, and I am glad to say that in its first three months I have been able to announce awards worth £294,000 in respect of £1.27 million of new sponsorship.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his very interesting reply, and also congratulate the Government on the refreshing innovation of this scheme. May I ask how many actual awards have been made, and how the scheme is publicised?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks which the noble Baroness has made. I hope that the publicity which is generated by the awards—I myself take every opportunity to get these to the attention of the public, particularly in the regions which have received over half the money—will encourage more businesses to look into the benefit of arts sponsorship. I have not broken down the figures in terms of individual awards; but, as I said, the ratio of three to one is cost-effective in terms of public money spent.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble Earl will be aware that ABSA got under way in the period during which I preceded him; therefore I am in support of this proposal and I congratulate him on it. I should like to ask him if he is aware also that business sponsorship can be only a minority support in terms of the general necessity for more generous state sponsorship for the arts? Is he further aware that in the United States there is now a movement away from business sponsorship, which has been found unsatisfactory in a number of respects, and towards state sponsorship for the arts? This is happening in that country as well as here.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his entrepreneurial zeal, which I have been delighted to try to build upon. I was not aware about what he said in respect of the United States, where direct subsidy of the arts is only about 5 per cent. in relation to our figure of 95 per cent. My own view is that business sponsorship is a welcome chance for additional growth into arts funding; but of course the role of the state will remain very important.

America: Trade and Commerce
2.57 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will seek to initiate a conference with the United States of America and Central and Southern American states with a view to improving understanding and increasing trade and commerce.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's Question is no.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the cause of all the serious problems in South America which are dangerous to NATO and the West in general is the simple lack of social justice, which has been expounded by the Pope in the past 48 hours? Is she aware that the attitude of the British Prime Minister, who is prepared to see the Vice-President of Nicaragua, is a very welcome and healthy change which contrasts severely with the Reagan Administration's point of view, and that this could be a hopeful step in the right direction of bringing first peace and then some form of ever-increasing social justice in South America?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am not absolutely clear as to the question the noble Lord was asking. I should like to say that I am glad he welcomes the steps which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is taking to meet a representative of the Nicaraguan Government. Her Majesty's Government support the objectives of the United States Government of bringing democracy, peace and better economic prosperity to the countries of Central America.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, would it not be wiser to leave to America this matter concerning the United
650
States, South America and the central states? It is better fitted than we are to undertake this task. Of course we are interested in what is being done, and no doubt our American friends will inform us when it is necessary. We are interested, but if we took the initiative it might appear that we distrust the Americans. At this time it is unwise to create the impression that we are not the best of friends with the Americans.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, for what he has said, and to say that I agree with the terms of his question. He is right in stating that the Americans have a major interest in what goes on in Central America, and we ourselves have supported their objectives as well as the Contadora movement.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, would not the noble Baroness make some reservations over her statement, in answer to my noble friend, that the United States Administration is seeking democracy in Central and Southern America, when it is perfectly clear in the United States and elsewhere that, at least in some countries, there is open intervention against the elected governments? Would she agree that even if Her Majesty's Government do not feel inclined to take an initiative in calling a conference, they might very well seek the means, through the United Nations, of taking an initiative to stop the very dangerous escalation of conflict in that area, which is a danger to the whole world?
Baroness Young: My Lords, we have supported the Contadora process, which we believe is a most effective way in which to try to bring peace and democracy to Central America. We have supported the objectives of the United States policy both to bring democracy and to increase the economic prosperity of the peoples of that region.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will view with some sympathy the Question which I put because it is not terribly difficult and ought to be easily understood. Is the noble Baroness aware that the initiative which has been taken by the British Prime Minister is something new? It is far better than the way in which the American Administration have been behaving with their evil CIA which has been condemned on both sides of this House. Therefore, would not the noble Baroness be prepared at least to pursue the initiative which has been taken by the Prime Minister, which might encourage the Americans to come together, so that we could all talk about this matter and try to resolve the problem? Moreover, that would remove another threat to possible world war.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I really do not think that I can give a clearer answer to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, than I have given already. The Question that he has put down on the Order Paper is a very wide one. I suggest that the subject is more suitable for a debate than for a Parliamentary Question. It would be better to raise it in that forum than to try to answer these complex matters across the Floor of the House at Question Time.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I say a word at this point about the arrangements for this afternoon's short debates standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Harris of Greenwich and Lord Mayhew. It is customary in short debates that the mover is allowed a maximum of 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate. In the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of five minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length, it will be at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate. In the case of the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, the maximum is 12 minutes.

Industrial Development Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision with respect to the English Industrial Estates Corporation and to extend the borrowing powers of the Welsh Development Agency. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth).
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Drug Trafficking
3.2 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich rose to move to resolve, That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take more vigorous action to combat the rapid deeply damaging growth of trafficking in heroin and cocaine in the United Kingdom and to provide adequate resources both for the law enforcement services and for research, education, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation by statutory and voluntary bodies.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I believe that this country is now confronted with a menacing threat from the rapid increase in heroin and cocaine trafficking. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice has expressed his alarm—and I am sure that we are all glad that we are to hear from him later this afternoon—and so have the police, the medical profession, social workers and, indeed, many local authorities.
The statistics present a very disturbing picture. In 1983 there were over 10,000 addicts known to exist on the Home Office register. But there were probably between 50,000 and 60,000 further addicts about whose existence the Home Office was unaware. It is not just the number on the register that is disturbing: it is the trend in the number of new addicts that is particularly alarming. Between the end of 1982 and the end of 1983 the number of new addicts rose by no
652
less than 50 per cent; and in the nine years between 1974 and 1983 the number of new addicts rose by 500 per cent.
Let me illustrate the gravity of the present situation by discussing the situation facing just one drug dependency clinic in an inner city area—that is, in the London Borough of Hackney. That clinic serves both the City of London and the London Boroughs of Hackney, Redbridge, Enfield and Waltham Forest, with a total population of rather over 900,000. In 1981 there were 52 new arrivals or people with drug problems going to that clinic; in 1982 there were 109; in 1983 there were 232; and in 1984 new arrivals were running at the rate of around 350.
I say "running at the rate of" for a particular reason. By the end of May last year the staff of the clinic were overwhelmed. They were operating in three tiny rooms at Hackney Hospital. They had by then a waiting list which, even for an initial assessment, meant a delay of between six and 10 weeks. The staff consisted of just four people: an associate specialist, who also has to look after the psychiatric day hospital; two social workers who are employed by the London Borough of Hackney; and a part-time receptionist. They decided that so serious was the situation with which they were confronted last May that they could not cope with it any longer. So they had to stop the flood of new arrivals. I am afraid they had been ignored by the DHSS, and so they said that they could take no new patients.
On 22nd May this particular issue was raised in this House during a prolonged series of questions on the heroin situation. It was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Their exchange appears at column 137 of the Official Report of that day. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said:
"I am not aware, without notice, of the particular case".
He added:
"I shall certainly have it read".
I am sure that he did. But despite that, and a series of press reports concerning the matter, the Department of Health and Social Security did nothing. And so a long line of pathetic young men and women had to be turned away from the doors of that clinic at Hackney Hospital.
The doctor and his social workers are caring people. They were deeply distressed by the action that they were compelled to take and at the consequences which, of course, they knew would arise. But all that they could do was to give these poor wretched young people who had got into these serious problems a few words of advice; they took their names and addresses, and promised to write to them when the situation improved.
That situation continued from last May until Monday of last week. Then, belatedly stung into action by continued pressure both in the locality and from newspapers ranging from the Sunday Times to the Daily Mirror, the clinic was told that in February they could have a part-time clinical assistant who would be on a short-term contract, and possibly a nurse. So they were able to open their doors again, but with an immense backlog of cases and with the need, of course, to communicate with hundreds of others who, in acute distress, had heard that the clinic was no

653
longer taking any cases and who, therefore, had simply lost all hope that anything could be done to assist them with the problem which they faced.
The clinic has now been told that as it operates in a densely-crowded metropolitan area it will be the basis of a regional drug problem team. That is admirable. But, of course, the establishment of such a team is set out in the report of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in 1982, published by the DHSS. In paragraph 6.7 it said that the establishment of such a team should be a consultant psychiatrist; full-time junior psychiatric medical staff; social work staff, including community psychiatric nurses or health visitors; a clinical psychologist working on a sessional basis and adequate administrative staff. So even now this clinic is going to be chronically under-staffed.
The same problem exists at the St. Clements Clinic, which serves the London Boroughs of Tower Hamlets, Newham, Havering and Barking; and I fear at a number of other similar clinics in inner city areas in this country. Yet it is in precisely these inner city areas that the problem is most acute. The problem in the past has been that of the isolated user. Now, as we know from the figures, groups of young people have become infected. Many are unemployed, and those who are not soon will be as a result of their addiction to heroin or cocaine.
That being so, what immediate action should be taken? I am sure that later this afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will tell us what the Government have done. I am sure he will tell us of the existence of an interdepartmental ministerial team headed by his honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr Mellor; and indeed of the additional funds which have been made available by the Government—a sum of £12 million over three years has been provided. Certainly all of us concerned with this problem welcome both these developments.
However, the question is a very different one. It is whether nearly enough is being done, and I do not believe that it is. First, although I do not doubt in any way that Ministers want more resources to be devoted to the attack on heroin and cocaine abuse, I am sceptical about the effectiveness of circulars from the DHSS at a time when, as we all know, the resources of the health service are stretched to breaking point. Medical administrators are involved in fierce struggles over the limited funds that are available. I can of course understand—as I am sure we all can—the attitude of doctors who, in reality, are forced to sentence patients to death because they do not have enough kidney dialysis machines, resenting what they regard as unreasonable pressure to give priority to drug dependence clinics.
That being so, I wonder whether all the funds made available to regional health authorities will indeed reach these clinics and the regional drug dependence teams. After our painful experience over regional secure units—and the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, will I suspect remember this from his days at the Home Office—when many regional health authorities simply ignored the clearly expressed views of Parliament, thus ensuring that mentally-ill inmates remained in prison, like many others, I am afraid that I do not have confidence that such resources as are
654
being made available will all find their way to the right destination.
There is also the question of law enforcement. Only on Monday the Customs announced that the street value of heroin which they had seized last year had risen from £10 million in 1979 to nearly £48 million in 1984. Unhappily this does not necessarily mean that we are being any more successful at cutting off the supply at source; indeed, I suspect that all it does is to reflect the staggeringly swift growth of international trade in narcotics. Commenting on these figures only yesterday, the Daily Mail said:
"Unfortunately, record seizures are usually an indication of record sales".
It is estimated that the United States Customs may intercept in the region of 10 per cent. of the heroin that is destined for the United States market. Even if we are three times more efficient than the American Customs, it still means that last year probably in the region of £150 million worth of herion flooded into the United Kingdom.
The Government's response to this has been to announce that they will increase the size of the investigation division of the Customs and Excise by around 250 men and women. I am sure that we all welcome that, but I wonder how they can possibly justify cutting the size of the uniformed strength of the Customs and Excise by over 1,100 men and women since they came into office. That is a cut of 25 per cent. in the uniformed strength of the Customs and Excise—our first line of defence against drug smugglers. As a result, the green channels at Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester airports and at the port of Dover—and that is where a great deal of this heroin and cocaine enters this country—are sometimes manned by only a handful of uniformed customs officers. Sometimes, as was the case on the last occasion I happened to pass through the green channel, they are manned by no one at all. It is as though in the middle of an immense forest fire it was decided to cut the size of the fire brigade by 25 per cent.
When pressed about this during our debate on the Civil Service the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, winding up for the Government, said that more vigorous action in the green channels, for which I had been pressing, would cause:
"a complete disruption of the present flow of people through our airports".—[Official Report, 5/12/84; col. 1405.]
I think that that is a pretty lame defence. We all know perfectly well why the number of Customs officers has been cut. It is in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can make his own contribution to the cuts in the overall size of the home Civil Service. In the situation which we now face in this country, I am afraid that it is just a piece of doctrinaire foolishness, and I hope that at the end of the debate we shall hear from the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that the Government are now reconsidering their position on this matter.
Lastly, I hope that the Government will provide additional help for the police. The police cannot possibly be asked to increase the size of bodies of specialists such as drug squads without being given additional resources to do the job. Of course, the role

655
of the police is of crucial importance. For the consequences of a rapid growth of heroin and cocaine smuggling are already facing the police with a most serious situation. Many sophisticated criminals have moved into drug trafficking. It provides very easy pickings. As we know, many young addicts require more than £100 a day to finance their own purchases of drugs; they can obtain such money only by becoming pushers themselves or by burglary and robbery. That is precisely the pattern that we have seen in the United States, where it is estimated that in the region of 70 per cent. of the entire prison population is there because of drug-related offences.
I believe that it is vital to take every step to halt our own dangerous slide towards a situation in which the heroin and cocaine traffickers can do damage to a whole generation of young people and, indeed, to the whole quality of life on these islands. I hope that the Minister will indicate by his reply that the Government not only accept the gravity of the situation, which I am sure they do, but are prepared immediately to provide substantial new resources to equip both our law enforcement agencies and the National Health Service. If the noble Lord does so, we shall of course not press the Motion which I now move.
Moved to resolve, That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take more vigorous action to combat the rapid deeply damaging growth of trafficking in heroin and cocaine in the United Kingdom and to provide adequate resources both for the law enforcement services and for research, education, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation by statutory and voluntary bodies.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
3.17 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, as the noble Lord the Chief Whip has told us, time is of the essence and although this is an extremely important debate, I shall confine myself to one point, and one point only. Since the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, who is to speak later in the debate, raised this matter some months ago, there has been a natural upsurge of interest in the horror that is concerned in the drug incidence. Great interest has been displayed by the media: by broadcasts and by letters in the press. All of that is welcome.
However, that has had one distressing aftermath: as far as I can see, there is now an immense amount of contradictory and confusing advice. The question which I ask the noble Lord who is to reply on behalf of Her Majesty's Government is whether, on behalf of his noble friends and his friends in another place, he would be prepared to sit back for a moment and look at the contradictions to see whether he can tidy matters up in order to help those people who wish to assist in this problem.
The reason for the confusion is perfectly clear. It is due to the dichotomy that exists in administration. Two government departments are principally concerned—namely, the DHSS and the Home Office—but three or four more are also involved. Nevertheless, I wish, in a slightly more strongly worded way than the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who
656
moved this Motion, to thank the noble Lord and his colleagues for what they have done; I should particularly like to thank the noble Lord's colleague in another place, who has been most energetic. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who I know is deeply concerned about this matter.
Who are the principal victims of this confusion? They are, first, the families who are suddenly confronted with the horror of a drug addict in their midst. A victim is something which they do not understand and cannot possibly solve. Where do they turn for advice and help? They turn at once of course to their doctor, their GP. A little too often the GP says, "Look, I have 24 hours a day. I have two hands. I am looking after Mrs. Muggins who was run over by a bus," or "is dying of terminal cancer. I cannot bother with your friend who is suffering from a self-inflicted wound." That still happens. I hope the Government are doing everything they possibly can to stamp upon that. One understands it completely, but it is not very helpful.
In the second case they turn to their GP who is helpful, who says, "Yes, I am very worried about your colleague who is suffering from heroin addiction, but I know nothing about it. I learned about heroin when I was a student. I learned about leprosy. I can no more cure leprosy than I can cure heroin. Go somewhere else." Where does he go? Does he know? Are the Government doing everything they can—I am sure they are—to make certain that the medical profession know which hospitals can now deal with this matter? A large number of unofficial hospitals—very good, no doubt—have sprung up. There is confusion here. There is confusion as to where a patient should be sent. The local authorities, who can help a great deal, are confused. So are the citizens advice bureaux and so are the schools, which have a great deal to do in trying to help the young people from falling into this ghastly trap.
The confusion is also about treatment. I am deliberately not using the word "cure", because you must not use the word "cure" when talking about heroin. I am talking about treatment. People are confused as to whether the National Health Service, or BUPA, or its equivalent, can help them. Are Her Majesty's Government examining what is being done in other countries as conscientiously as they might to see what lessons we have to learn? Do they know about, for instance—I learnt of it only a week ago—the neuro electric therapy system, NET, invented by Dr. Margaret Patterson of Aberdeen University, which is widely thought of in America and hardly known of here? Are they sending people to discover what is being done in other countries?
I ask again whether they are examining the Minnesota Method which has been so successful in America—the Minnesota and Hazelden scheme, which is being copied in this country. I asked a Question about this the other day and got a very hoity-toity answer. It did not surprise me. I suppose if Christopher Columbus had come here and told Whitehall that the world was not flat, he would have been told that this was merely a tiresome answer from a tiresome foreigner, and would he please go away. I hope that the noble Lord will look again at what is happening in the successful Minnesota Method. That is the DHSS aspect.

657
I now turn to the Home Office, the policing side, where I think the Government have done extremely well. They have sent representatives to Amsterdam and to Karachi. They have done something to help those countries which base their livelihood upon the poppy growing industry. But some people turn round at the confusion here again and say, "Look, isn't this the same as appeasement amongst the Mafia? You pay £1,000 to a man not to break up your shop, not to kidnap your children". Incidentally, what other countries are helping in the countries which use poppy growing as a base for their entire industry?
Are we quite clear—another confusion—whether or not LSD or marijuana, the minor drugs, are really leading us down the primrose path to the everlasting bonfire? We get confusing advice about this. Two days ago an Alsatian dog was shot because it savaged two small children. Alsatian dogs are the one "weapon" for sniffing out drugs at airports, and we are told that we must not use them because public opinion is hostile to them. Well, I do not believe that. The Australians do it out on the tarmac, and they can use them perfectly satisfactorily.
I add my word of praise to the Customs and police for the great success they have achieved. But every success they achieve only makes one think whether this is the tip of the iceberg. One great capture—and they have had many—makes one realise how much deeper is the iceberg below the water. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said about the green gate.
These are all the problems which are causing the confusion. I therefore ask the noble Lord whether he will do everything he possibly can with his colleagues to sit back and try to resolve some of these conflicts which have necessarily arisen. It will give great comfort to those who are anxious, and thoroughly anxious, about this dreadful problem; and what is much more important, it will give great comfort to me.
3.24 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will express the official view of my party when it comes to the end of the debate. In the meanwhile I shall venture to express what I believe to be the strong feeling among all who sit on these Benches about this horror, this new found curse. It is relatively new. I would express also a sense of the total inadequacy of the efforts of the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, at times seemed to praise the Government and then at other moments he put some searching questions. I think he has added to the confusion he referred to. It was hard to know whether he was trying to assist the Government or give them stick. Whatever he said, it was very relevant, but I found myself closer to the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who gave us a strong lead in this matter.
It is some years since I was intimately connected with drug addicts. I used to share a lavatory with drug addicts who spent some of their time "fixing" there. I do not know whether many other noble Lords have shared lavatories with drug addicts. If they have not, I do not advise them to try the experiment. It is not pleasant. But I was closely associated with them in a centre which I helped to start some years ago.
Now most of the drug addicts in central London go to specialised agencies and the problem has meanwhile
658
greatly increased. A young man who was co-ordinator of our centre years ago is now co-ordinator of Scoda, which is concerned entirely with drug addicts of one sort or another, and other noble Lords besides myself have drawn on his wisdom this afternoon. In that sense I am thoroughly up to date.
There is no doubt whatever—the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has given the facts and I do not propose to dwell on them—that it is a new curse which has taken the Government and perhaps all of us—even people such as myself, who knew it when it was incipient—by surprise by the extent and the rate at which it has increased. It is now really becoming a question of whether there is any new and urgent approach.
As the time is passing I must make sure before I am rung down that I make my point, which is a point widely held by most of those who sit with me here. I shall quote the Daily Mirror, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. Whether or not these remarks were dictated by my old friend Mr. Robert Maxwell—I have no reason to suggest they were—or wherever they came from, they are very good words:
"The drug menace has become the single biggest threat to the health of young people. It is the single biggest dread in the minds of their parents. Delay means death, and in the end it will be more expensive to do nothing. The Government knows it must act soon. Why doesn't it do now?"
I cannot agree at all with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that the Government deserve any credit for their exertions in this matter. I do not think they have got round to it. I do not know—who am I to say?—whether any other Government would have got round to it faster. When one of these new curses suddenly appears on the horizon the Civil Service, the Minister, and all the rest are not organised to deal with it, and it takes some years. I hope this debate will force the Government. I hope there will be a Division. Whether or not there is, I hope that the Government will find themselves forced to do far more in the future than they are doing now.
I shall add only one word to make sure that I give everyone else plenty of time to make their points. It is possible to see this awful thing, this drug addiction, first as a sickness. But those closest to the scene do not regard it as a sickness exactly; and yet you cannot call it a crime, you cannot give it a general label. I would see it, though, as a matter of choice. The young people who start to play about with drugs have this choice. Then they go further into drugs, they become addicts, and it is hard for them to come off.
That does not excuse those of us in public life, and not only the Government, who have a responsibility for speaking up as we are trying to speak up today. That places a heavy responsibility on all of us for seeing that a whole generation is not ruined, degraded, corrupted and in many cases killed by the development of this disease. I was fairly close to the drug scene because the drug addicts used to come to our centre more than they do now. They now go to specialist places.
In one particular year 30 of the young men I knew were dead within a year of my first knowing them. That was the situation when there was a relatively small number. It does not become any easier or any happier when there are large numbers; it becomes many times worse.

659
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in expressing horror about the whole thing. It is not a party matter. Those who support the Government naturally want to be loyal to them and be more kind about them than some of us feel, but we are all completely non-party, hating drugs equally, and look to the Ministers to say that they hate the situation also and mean to do something about it.
3.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has outlined the tragic situation which faces us today in the field of drug addiction. That is of some interest to me and my fellow workers in the diocese of Chelmsford because Hackney is the only place to which we can send people. It looks as though that will be cut back and will not be able to take anybody from the county of Essex, which is a large county as many well know.
In 1982 the Government took immense pains to publish a report on treatment and rehabilitation by their own advisory council on drugs, a copy of which I have. In it the council took a long hard look at the fact that neither local authorities nor regional health authorities would be likely or even able to provide long-term treatment, and for at least five years there would need to be solid funding by central government. It says in this document:
"because of the difficulties in achieving local funding, there is increasing pressure for greater central government involvement in the provision of treatment and rehabilitation services for problem drugtakers, either through increased grants, by direct central government funding or, in the extreme, by the assumption by central government of full responsibility for such services".
In other words, if the Government rely on the hope that other bodies, voluntary and otherwise, will be able to take over responsibility, the whole edifice of drug treatment will eventually collapse like a pack of cards.
I do not rely on my own experience exclusively for these words. In my diocese of Chelmsford there is a general practitioner who has made this his major work and who was a member of the working party for the guidelines which have been written. He is desperate. I have had to leave certain matters out of my speech, as others have, but I should like to stress the number of people who can give treatment. This doctor in Chelmsford has six other doctors in his practice but he is the only one who is allowed to treat addicts. All the others are overworked, and he therefore has placed upon him the entire responsibility for those who come to him.
It seems that the Government have chosen to ignore the sound advice of this document from their own counsellors and have announced a generous gift of £6 million to be spread over three years, not five. This money was to go on entirely new projects, and was not to be used to back up existing hospital clinics or long-established voluntary work. After three years' short-term pump-priming funding the project would be taken over by local councils, charities or health authorities.
In those days, looking at the drugs field, £6 million sounded a lot of money, and the Government's desire to spend money on badly needed research and training
660
projects was altogether commendable, but was not enough. What the country is liable to forget is that this funding, and ad hoc grants announced since, bringing the total to £12 million, is not only short-term but short-sighted, says my doctor. First, the new projects are likely to founder in three years because of lack of support. Secondly, long-established voluntary work is now becoming overloaded. We have one or two voluntary set-ups in Chelmsford and Essex and 14 drug dispensing units, DDUs, set up in the early 1960s to cope with about 5,000 addicts. Now the figure is 50,000 addicts. The University College Hospital clinic for drug dependency has had a 600 per cent. increase in its workload, with no matching increase in resources.
I conclude by stressing once again the importance of having doctors trained for this work. My doctor is particularly vituperative about this. Not only are so few doctors trained to do this work, but there is nobody to train them, so he tells me. We are left with a situation which is constantly retreating from us.
In a recent television appearance which I saw last week a junior Minister for Health and Social Security, Mr. Patten, put the blame for the paucity of Government funding on the shoulders of the medical and allied professions. He said that no-one knows what is the best way of treating drug addiction. If only someone would come up with a method of curing three addicts out of three who are treated, he said, the Government would be able to throw more money at the problem. This entirely ignores the sterling work being done already by self-sacrificing people. If Mr. Patten had used those words about cancer treatment 20 years ago we should be nowhere on cancer treatment now, whereas we are well advanced.
I have here one more document—
Noble Lords: No, no!
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: I see, my Lords. My case stands.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I should remind your Lordships with the greatest courtesy that one has had five minutes when the number "5" comes on the screen, not when "6" does.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Lane: My Lords, there are two aspects to this problem, are there not? First, there is the aspect of the death and degradation which are the sequel to the trafficker in this type of drug, and as to those one needs no emphasis. No doubt your Lordships have received letters such as I have received frequently from distraught parents asking whether anything is being done to prevent other children from dying in the same way as their own children have died. That is bad enough.
The other aspect is that already touched upon: the effect of the necessity to buy drugs on the part of the addicts. Let me take even the lowest figure of 10,000 addicts in the country. It requires, at the lowest, £20 a day per addict to feed their addiction. That is £7,000 a year per addict. If one multiplies that by 10,000, that totals £70 million. Those figures can probably be multiplied by four.

661
But whether it is £70 million or £280 million, that money has to come from crime; it cannot be legitimately earned. It comes from crime of all sorts. It comes from peddling to other people, thereby creating yet more addicts; it comes from burglary, robbery and so on. All this means a further burden on already overstretched police forces, on courts and on judges—a burden which we can ill afford to bear.
It is a problem which affects us all. It is not perhaps entirely hopeless. There is no use in throwing up one's hands and saying that there is nothing we can do about it. First of all, if one has a pipe leaking in a large number of places, one goes and turns the water off at the source. One wonders how much is being done at the source; and the source for 80 per cent. of heroin is Pakistan. How much effort is being put into persuasion and advice to the Pakistanis as to how to cut down the growing of the poppy, the refining of the poppy and the exporting of the heroin?
The next problem is this. How much is being done by way of research into why youngsters become addicts? Having discovered the answer to that, one hopes, is enough being done to try to educate potential addicts away from it? We have seen a successful campaign against the use of tobacco. Is it beyond the wit of man to devise a similar programme to wean possible addicts away from heroin and cocaine? The question of increased manpower has already been touched upon; and not only in regard to the police. I understand that there has been no possibility of increasing the Metropolitan Police drug squad since 1978. Is enough being done to increase the intelligence services upon which so much rests? Is enough being done, as already has been indicated, to man the channels at Heathrow, Gatwick and other places where this drug mostly enters the country?
Finally, there is the question of punishment. It is not enough simply to impose long terms of imprisonment upon people discovered trafficking in and importing these drugs. It is clear now that the big-time villain has moved away from the High Street bank. He finds it a great deal safer and a good deal more profitable to import and distribute heroin. It is not enough simply to imprison him. What should be done, surely, is to make sure he is divested of every single penny of profit which he has made out of this terrible trade. Unfortunately, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 was reluctantly interpreted by the appellate jurisdiction of your Lordships' House not to cover this stripping of the importer's or manufacturer's profits. Is it not time that some such legislation was introduced as a matter of urgency to make sure that the profits are stripped from these men? They are very wicked men and they do not deserve very much sympathy, if any. Is it not a case where the burden should be put upon the convicted drug trafficker to show that any assets which he may be seen to have did not arise from trafficking in drugs? That would be described as draconian. I do not generally approve of the principles of Draco being applied to sentencing but, so far as drugs are concerned, there is a good deal to be said for them.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I wonder whether the large number of speakers in this debate is indicative of the general acceptance of the importance of this subject
662
which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has so wisely raised or whether—and I hope that this is not the case—there are many more Peers than I know who have been associated with this problem in a personal capacity. Arising out of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, said about research, the gradual process from anorexia nervosa leading to dependence upon narcotics is one of the first problems which I think might be tackled. It is unfortunate that today the time factor means a severe limitation on the depth of the debate and it may be that the usual channels might find that the matter requires another run with a longer debate with more depth. In the light of my experience and that of our closely-knit family, I have more to contribute to your Lordships' considerations than can be covered in a few minutes, so I shall make only one or two salient points.
The noble Lord's Motion is in two parts. He has very vividly dealt with the first part. I turn to the second part because that is the one to which my own experience can apply. It reads:
"to provide adequate resources…for research, education, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation"
seriatim. As to research, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, has said, it is open to a great deal more time, care and expense than has yet been given to it. There is more to be done, and I have reason to believe that the medical authorities are working hard at it. Is there any link between a tendency to addiction and the medical history, even from the surgical point of view? Is the process of childbirth connected with any tendency to addiction? Has the production of twins anything to do with the problem?
As for education, is there enough emphasis placed on impressing upon the young that so much as starting an experiment with narcotics is not wise? As Virgil said, "Facilis est descensus Averno". To turn to prevention, there is the ruthless, relentless pursuit of the mischievous, as well as the pursuit to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, referred—the relentless pursuit of the mischievous or corrupting influence of individuals who are obvious purveyors of evil. Treatment and rehabilitation perhaps go hand in hand. Should there not be more development of facilities to cope with these? The noble Lord, Lord Harris, turned to that. Take Scotland, for instance. The only rehabilitation facilities are provided by voluntary organisations, such as the Church of Scotland. In England there are organisations such as Broadway Lodge and so on, and a great deal of study, I believe, is being given to the care that is being taken in the USA.
It so happens that the state hospital at Carstairs offers outstanding expertise more especially in its influence on delinquents incarcerated on remand. This was a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I have reason to say that the capacity of this side of the hospital's work in Carstairs is capable of rapid development, and I have enormous respect for it. The Carstairs experiment has proved its worth over a number of years over and over again in many directions.
The next thing is to be wary of "sin-swapping therapy", such as is practised occasionally. There may be something in it; but day centres bring delinquents

663
together and in our experience contacts are thus built up which may lead to groups in the future.
My Lords, what I have said is a fraction of what we as a family could contribute. But I will repeat Virgil's words, "Facilis est descensus Averno". I wonder whether television could do anything to continue to press that upon the young.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Perry of Walton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich painted a graphic picture of the drug scene and I can add only that it has been confirmed to me over the past few weeks from many sources ranging from senior medical men to recovered addicts. All share in the recognition of the almost epidemic spread of heroin misuse. All share in the knowledge that most misusers misuse more than one drug. All share in the belief that misuse is more of a sickness than a sign of moral weakness; and all share in the opinion that facilities for coping are woefully inadequate. They do not agree at all about what are the best facilities. Many dedicated altruists, doing yeoman work in the field, are convinced that their method is best; yet none can produce chapter and verse or scientific evidence to support that belief.
But there is one message that I think one most emphasise and that does come through. Although the problems are very difficult and complex, the outlook is not hopeless. There will no doubt always be failures and those who reject treatment, but just yesterday I was told of a private residential treatment centre which admitted only the small number of 73 addicts during 1983 and 1984. Of those, 21 discharged themselves almost all within the first week and of the other 52, 46 are still drug free. That is a remarkable record, and I would take it with a grain of salt. These people were highly self-selected; they came with a lot of family backing; they were people who had enough money to pay; and they were people who were better educated. But still it is a sign of hope that it is possible to get people off drugs. It needs a lot of follow-up and a lot of care from a lot of people. That is the first message.
The best source of information about the current situation is the reports of the advisory council, as other speakers have said. They both show that there is no established base-line; evidence is lacking, and the council concludes that all methods of treatment have a place at the moment and that no one method is intrinsically better than another. They are very cautious about saying that any new treatment should be tried; anything innovative is seen as risky. But things are getting very much worse than they were when the last report was written, and the last report showed that very little had been done in the two years between 1982 and 1984.
The whole tenor of the advice of the council is that all kinds of facilities should be increased and, as I said, they advocate great caution. They advocate—and this is the main point I want to make—leaving things to local institutions, and not centralised co-ordination. They are still prepared to see training left to the professional bodies, despite the fact that, as someone has said, there is an incredible dearth of people who know about the matter. It is everywhere acknowledged that local health authorities, who are short of money,
664
as my noble friend Lord Harris said, will relegate drug users to the bottom of the heap. They are still regarded as being somehow to blame for their own misfortunes.
While I sympathise with and understand the reasons for the cautious approach of the advisory council, I am inclined to think that the time has come when a bolder approach must be risked, because the epidemic state of the problem is now such that it is hard to imagine adding to the risks. I should like to see a central initiative where a large increase of funds is earmarked centrally for the control of drug misuse and given locally only for this purpose. I should like to see a central initiative—indeed, a central control—in providing training and education. I should like to see an increased awareness among the public in general of the nature of the problem. I do not want scaremongering, but I do want balanced and dispassionate information, disseminated by as many routes as possible, including the mass media. The public are woefully ignorant.
I do not think that the Government are unaware of or indifferent to these problems, and indeed they have done something about them. I have said that the problems are very complex and the advice they get is very confused. This Motion merely calls upon the Government to intensify their efforts. I very much hope that it will be accepted in this spirit and that a real surge of activity will follow.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, the problems inherent in the Motion which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is moving this afternoon concern parents, doctors, magistrates, the judiciary and everyone. It is something from which none of us can escape. I recall some years ago, when my wife and I toured a mental hospital in Surrey on whose house committee I then sat prior to reorganisation, seeing a 17 year-old girl who was as white as a sheet and obviously very ill. I remember that we asked the nursing sister, "What is the prognosis for this girl?" She said, "She has about six weeks to live". That pulled us up with a jolt.
It seems to me that the most important part of this Motion is on the educational side. The schools have a major part to play. I believe that even from the primary school stage, if children can be educated, if necessary by visual means and even if it causes a shock, something can be done to bring this menace to the fore.
So far as detection is concerned, I was somewhat heartened by some figures published in yesterday's Scotsman of drugs seized by the Customs. The figure for heroin was 212 kilograms in 1983 and, in 1984, 298 kilograms. My decimal knowledge is not sufficient to transfer that into simple measure, but it throws a little shaft of light, at least, on this matter.
The Customs authorities at the airports do a marvellous job although, as has been mentioned, their staffing at present is far from adequate. Detection is a major problem, and I would submit to your Lordships that, even with increased staffing, detection remains the major problem.
What are the sources of these drugs? In the Sunday Telegraph not long ago I read an article about Colombia and the volume of drugs which comes out of

665
that country. They do not come, possibly, directly to this country, but as I understand it they go to Miami and possibly come from Miami to here. I would ask my noble friend the Minister how much research his department has done into the sources—not only Pakistan, but perhaps the lesser known sources—of these drugs.
As I say, our hospitals have a major job to do in treating the addicts who are more seriously affected. I believe that the subject we are discussing this afternoon in all too short a time is one of major importance, and I hope that the Government will take very serious note.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for introducing this subject this afternoon. As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, reminded the House, I introduced a similar debate a year ago, and when I was asked by my Chief Whip to take part in this debate I at first thought that I would merely rise and ask the Government what they have done since. Then I changed my mind and decided that I would try to reiterate what I said on that occasion.
It is a fact that there is widespread addiction to heroin and cocaine and that there is plenty of heroin on the street. Two things are needed: the first is trying to prevent the heroin coming into this country and trying to prevent its being distributed. There is also the question of treating the addicts. I challenged on the last occasion the approach to treating the addicts when I said that we were too concerned with restrictions and prohibitions and not sufficiently concerned with treatment and help. Drug addiction is an illness like any other illnesses and should be treated as such. Because it is an illness like any other illnesses, it should be treated on the National Health Service by GPs. That does not mean that there should not be specialist centres, but they should be places to which GPs refer cases and from which GPs get guidance through the greater experience of the specialists in those centres.
In addition, drug addiction is one of the illnesses which require a great deal of time and patience. Therefore GPs cannot tackle too many addicts, because if a GP tries to tackle too many addicts they take over his practice. So GPs should be encouraged to take a certain number of addicts, and to work closely with the specialist centres and also with the voluntary organisations which are doing good and great work in counselling and supporting those addicts. That should be the tripod on which the treatment is based.
It will not automatically end up with lots of addicts being cured, but there will be several cures, and what is more important when an addict reaches the stage where he feels that he wants to kick the addiction, he will be able to get treatment. What happens now is this. Most addicts go through a phase where they want to kick the drug and they go to a centre. But then they are told that there is a waiting list which is sometimes of six weeks and sometimes longer. The doctor does not see that addict after that because he goes back on the street and gets his "treatment". It is not until the addict's next phase when he wants to get off that the doctor will see him. In that phase, he will again he told
666
to go on the waiting list, and again the doctor will lose him.
However, the suggestion that I am making is that the addict will go to his GP, the GP will take him on for treatment and the GP will seek help and advice from the specialist centre and from the voluntary organisations, and something will be done. It is easier to get a drug addict off a drug than to keep him off the drug. Most of the addicts with whom I have dealt have been off drugs on several occasions, sometimes for as long as a year or more, and then they go back again.
They need that continuing counselling and support. They need that from their GP and from the other organisations that do this sort of work. I want the Government to recognise that that is the approach required and to see that resources are needed in order that that approach may be effective. I have no doubt that if that is done we can have some success.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I would have willingly forfeited my five minutes, instead of distributing them among noble Lords in general, had it been possible to give them to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, whose admirable speech pointed to the very heart of this matter and to precisely those things which the Government should now be doing, and which admirably reinforced the excellent speech of my noble friend Lord Harris.
I shall now come straight to my two points. First, the crucial element in this whole matter is surely law enforcement in relation to the trafficking of drugs of addiction. It is clear that the primary cause of drug addiction is the availability of addictive drugs. Were there no drugs of addiction available, it necessarily follows that there would be no drug addiction. But there are drugs of addiction available and, I am afraid, we have heard that they are now available at a price that is within the means of the most deprived, even if they have to supplement their means by crime or by becoming traffickers themselves.
There are a great many legitimate drugs in circulation for medical reasons. There are something like 5,000 different drugs, about 1,500 of which are effectively different and about 400 of those act directly on the central nervous system. There are three types. First, I would refer to the response reducers, which are drugs like barbiturates. Secondly, there are the response enhancers like the amphetamines, which did such terrible damage in the 'thirties and leading people to heroin. Thirdly, there are what I would call the experience changers, which are drugs like the opiates and which include heroin, cocaine, LSD and cannabis.
I should like to say a word about cannabis. At a time when our resources are overstretched and perhaps inadequate it would be regrettable if we squandered too much in the pursuit of cannabis. I do not say for a moment that cannabis is safe. I say that I do not know. We do not know enough about cannabis. Since the report of the Home Office Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence and that of the committee under the admirable chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, in the 'sixties, we have learned very little more about cannabis. I know people will tell me that all heroin users have at some time tried cannabis, but

667
we must not be misled by the post hoc propter hoc argument. The relationship is statistical rather than causal.
May I explain the difference? If noble Lords went to a strip show in Soho—I do not suggest that they would—they might find the front rows occupied exclusively by middle-aged gentlemen with bald heads. That is a statistical relationship. Were it to be a causal relationship, we would say that observing naked women at close range makes the hair fall out. That is manifestly untrue. There is a statistical relationship between cannabis and heroin that we do not yet know enough about. We do know that in cannabis the molecule of the alkaloid which is active is very similar to the molecule of the alkaloid of the opiates. I think that perhaps there are grounds for anxiety; but let us at least think a little more.
That leads me to the second point that I want to make, which is in regard to research. Research in this matter is essential. As noble Lords have said, we are not going to solve this problem only by punitive measures which may be necessary, purely by law enforcement or by the kind of very necessary steps to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice referred with regard to the assets of drug traffickers. In the end, we shall solve it only if we know a little more about the nature of drug addiction.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, referred to the tragedy of the drug addict in the family. He was right, and it is horrifying. One of the problems is that the family does not know which child is at risk. They came to me as a doctor—as they did for 30 or 40 years—worried about whether Johnny, who was going to Oxford, would become an addict.
But nearly always it was the child whom they were not worried about who became an addict. We must do more research so that we can find out which individual is at risk of becoming an addict and which is not, because we very often find it is unexpected.
We must remember that when we have cured a drug addict the factors in his personality which led him to become an addict, and the factors in the environment which lead to his addiction, will still remain after he has been cured. The answer to many of the problems underlined in this Motion is further research. I make this plea. We must direct much more energy and more resources to research into the nature of drug addiction, into the nature of the substances which lead to drug addiction and indeed into the factors which have led to this sensational, dramatic and terrifying increase in drug addiction in our community.
4.8 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, it is quite impossible to cover this vitally important and escalating subject in the very short time that each of us has available this afternoon. However I seek to show as briefly as I can—certainly within the five minutes—that the Government and the voluntary bodies care and are doing something about it, but I shall take only two examples both of which I personally know about. The first is a statutory centre, to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred, and the second is a voluntary centre.
668
The first one is Phoenix House, about which I expect all noble Lords will have heard as being almost a centre of excellence for treating drug addicts. They are referred to the centre or go their voluntarily. This centre is funded entirely by Government money, through he DHSS, the Home Office, the London Boroughs Association and of course the patients' sickness benefit, which is taken and used to help them when they are in residence. There are 65 residents and there are 12 in the resettlement house. It is an 18-month programme, which they are all trying to reduce at the present time. There are 12 full-time staff and one part-time member of staff. There are also volunteers who go in as a support group to help on the psychiatric side with the drug dependent patients.
I am happy to tell your Lordships that Phoenix House now have another branch in Sheffield. They hope to open in South Tyneside in March and they are going to open another branch in Merseyside. The age group at Phoenix House was between 55 and 18; it is now between 24 and 25. The tragedy of what I have learnt in the past 24 hours is that children of 12 and 13 are coming in, hooked on heroin. That is something of which we in this Chamber and throughout the country must all take note. There are also, as noble Lords will know, day centres in London.
Merseyside is one of the worst affected areas in the whole country, presumably because of its proximity to the Liverpool docks. The new Arrow Park hospital, which I visited recently, have a drug centre going but it has existed for only the past 12 months. I must tell noble Lords and my noble friend the Minister that they desperately need funds to enlarge their clinics. They have four new patients a week; 62 per cent. of them have been referred from the courts, the courts having found them guilty of theft and the possession of drugs. A magistrate friend of mine in Merseyside said that recently a referral was made to find out how many robberies in the neighbourhood were connected with drug addiction. The answer was 80 per cent., a terribly high total. The robberies of course occurred at chemist shops to get the drugs, or parents or houses were robbed of money with which to buy the drugs.
In Merseyside, there is a very active parents' concern group which is based on two estates on the outskirts of Liverpool. There is a voluntary organisation called "Compass" which now has 12 training centres dealing with drugs and counselling. Thirty-one counsellors have been lined up to carry out these training programmes to help drug dependent people in the Heswall area.
I know I must not take up any more time, but there are two main problems to which my noble friend Lord Mancroft referred and which I must re-emphasise. First, the patients must know where to go to get help. It should be easy for them to go and get advice. Secondly, I also feel, as do other noble Lords, that, as part of community health education, the schools should initiate advice to their pupils before they leave school. I hope that some of the points that have been mentioned in the House today by noble Lords who know what they are talking about and who do care will be taken note of by the Minister.
4.14 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, this is Youth Year. What value are we putting on youth? They

669
challenge society, they can be rebellious, they seek pleasure, they are curious, they are bored and they are unemployed. We must do far, far more.
Addiction has several problems. There is the risk of hepatitis B, a problem about which doctors, nurses and dentists are all very worried. There is the infection of thrombosis and gangrene which comes from injecting tablets. In York alone, last week, there were five cases of hepatitis B. Babies are being born addicted. They cause great problems to the staff in hospitals. Death can happen so easily for those who are addicted. Amphetamines and tranquillisers are a problem, too. So many young people who come into drug centres for treatment are mixing their drugs.
The regional health authorities are not doing enough. I serve on the Yorkshire Regional Health Authority and it has not done what was recommended by the 1982 report. There are 17 health districts and we do not have a regional health authority centre to organise and co-ordinate this work. We have a very good project in Bradford and this idea should be spread around the country. The project gives confidential help to parents, children, professionals and all those coming for advice. It is called the "Bridge Project". We hear throughout the country of all sorts of problems—cocaine at a party given by staff at Cambridge University; ice cream laced with heroin sold outside a school in Liverpool; and jerseys coming in impregnated with heroin and being washed out and the drugs sold.
There is need for more rehabilitation. There should be subtle advertising which will attract young people and tell them where to go—this advice comes from young people whom I know well personally. They do not know where to go. The rich can go to clinics and those sent from court can go to rehabilitation centres, but what of the others? This really is a very great problem.
We must be vigilant. The All-Party Parliamentary Committee on the Misuse of Drugs is working together. This problem of drug abuse must not become a political football. We must work together to fight together; we have a war on our hands. I was once told by a prisoner, "As long as crime pays, we shall continue to do it". We must not let this crime pay, but victims of drug trafficking must be given help.
There is so much we could say. I hope we will have another debate, because it is impossible to go into the subject in depth in such a short time. I know there are other noble Lords who want to speak and others have gone over their time. I shall ask everybody to look carefully in their communities. It is not just the Government; it is the Church, it is the teachers, it is the parents, and it is the police. Last Saturday I was at a conference in York, and the police said, "There is not a problem here". There is a problem. There is a problem in Yorkshire, in Scarborough, in York, in Harrogate, in Richmond, in Leeds, and in Bradford. One can go on; it is a problem for the whole country. We must be united and fight together.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, at the present time, drug misusers are treated as criminals, both within the law and by society in general. A number of committees
670
have considered the problem of drug misuse, going back as far as 1926 with the Rolleston Committee, and later on the two Brain Committees, in 1960 and 1965. All of these august bodies recommended, among other things, that addiction should be treated as an illness, and not as a mere form of vicious indulgence. In fact, the first Brain Committee went so far as to endorse the view that addiction should be regarded as an expression of mental disorder, rather than of criminal behaviour, and that the satisfactory treatment of addiction was possible only in suitable institutions. If we can accept that definition, then we should remind ourselves that the mentally handicapped are not usually committed to prison unless they are a threat to society.
At this stage, it would be as well to differentiate between those people who handle drugs to satisfy their own needs only and those who handle drugs purely for financial gain. I make it plain that I am in no way advocating soft treatment of so-called pushers; in my opinion, there is no punishment too severe for them. But in the case of addicts, society's primary object should be to help those unfortunates shake off their habit and resume a normal way of life.
I am fully aware that many drug misusers have inflicted this sickness upon themselves and that while under the influence of drugs they are in many cases extremely anti-social. But we are a caring society and should not simply consign such people to their own purgatory and lock them up in prisons when they are caught possessing drugs. This may sound somewhat idealistic. If it does, then I make no apologies—but there is also a practical side. We hear constantly of overcrowding in prisons, of how much it costs the taxpayer to keep a person in custody, and of the high percentage of first offenders who are back inside prison again within a short time of being released. Add to that the very questionable merits of committing a drug misuser to prison, and then we have a very good case for a complete rethink on how best to restrain and help these sick people.
In 1979 the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs issued a report on drug dependants within the prison system in England and Wales. This stated that all those who were drug-dependent had drugs withdrawn from them during the period of their custody. On the face of it this is very reassuring, but later the report stated that the majority of dependants interviewed declared that on release they would return to their habit. Another real danger is that on release, such dependants will return to the level of dosage to which their systems adapted prior to committal. But, having been drug-free for some time, this constitutes for them a considerable overdose which in some cases has proved fatal.
Probably the most significant argument against prison committal is the lack of specialist knowledge within the prison system and the interruption committal causes to continuous treatment—which may have started before entering prison and which should certainly be continued after release.
In the end, we return to this question: are we to treat drug misusers as criminals or shall we try to help them as much as we possibly can? I recommend much greater use of the parole system, involving compulsory attendance at rehabilitation centres and drug-free

671
residential communities. Funding will always be the main stumbling block, but if the Government are really determined to improve the situation, I am sure progress can be made.
An aggravation to the problem is that it is the responsibility of both the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Security. Evidently, with fewer prison committals, there would be a saving to the Home Office. But if the DHSS is to make available adequate residential centres, which are absolutely essential to this proposal, then they will accrue extra costs.
I urge Her Majesty's Government at least to undertake an inquiry into the feasibility of these suggestions. It may be that the recently-established inter-departmental working party under the chairmanship of the Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office will have the authority to undertake such an inquiry.
4.24 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich for initiating this debate. I hope that, as a result, Her Majesty's Government will be forced to take more effective steps to combat the ever-increasing illegal sale and use of drugs in this country. Your Lordships may have read last week the shocking story in the newspapers of a teenager who had an illegitimate child and who, by the age of 15, was on the streets selling her body to earn the £50 a day she needed to buy hard drugs. That was £50 a day seven days a week and 365 days a year. I hate to think how much money is being spent now.
How do young people get on to drugs? Everyone seems to have different ideas. That a bad example should be set is not very surprising when one considers the idols of the young today; a transvestite pop star, female film and television stars who have illegitimate children, and soccer and cricket stars who are often in the newspapers because of their misuse of drugs.
I have argued with young people about drug addiction. Invariably, young people of both sexes will claim that smoking cannabis is not habit-forming, does no harm and is not addictive—but, as my noble friend Lord Winstanley has said, there is some doubt about those claims. And more often than not these young people then point an accusing finger at me and say, "We may smoke pot but we do not smoke tobacco." I admit that I am a cigarette smoker and that I am addicted to cigarettes. But if one smokes cigarettes as I do, where is the downward path? Does it lead to pipes and cigars? It is said that they are less dangerous than cigarettes—so one is gravitating from a dangerous addiction to a less dangerous addiction.
What about the cannabis smoker? It is true that many young people smoke cannabis with no apparent ill effects. But all too many move on from cannabis to hard drugs. It must be difficult for a young person at school to refuse to conform. Their friends smoke cannabis, and if they do not do so then they are made to feel out of it—outsiders. And since the reasoning is that cannabis is non-habit forming and harmless, all too often they give in. Then when hard drugs come on
672
the scene, having given in once, it is all too easy to give in again.
My noble friend Lord Harris referred to the deeply damaging growth in the traffic in heroin and cocaine. He is right about that; something must be done, and the Government must do it. They must spend more money detecting drugs being imported. They must spend more money on apprehending importers, distributors and pushers. And they must spend more money on preventive education. Finally, when such persons are apprehended, not only should they receive very long prison sentences but they and their families should be deprived of all their ill-gotten gains.
4.28 p.m.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, like many Members of your Lordships' House, I have torn my speech into pieces today. I am sure other noble Lords agree with me that this debate is too short for so important a subject. The spread of heroin addiction is increasingly affecting the young and destroying their physique—all too often resulting in their death.
I can take your Lordships back to 1949, when the World Health Organisation and the Social Council of United Nations recorded that only seven countries out of the then total of 82 were opposed to dispensing with heroin and urged governments to prohibit the manufacture, import and export of heroin save for scientific purposes. After an intensive investigation in the Ministry of which I was a member, the issue was raised again in a suggestion for strict licensing which was brought before your Lordships' House after a massive campaign against the banning by the BMA. After opposition in your Lordships' House, the Government conceded that the Motion had to be withdrawn. That was in 1955.
In 1958 I represented the Government at the United Nations when, on the item on the agenda concerning the international report of the narcotics committee, I had to report that we had 52 registered addicts in England and Wales and two on Scotland, and that they were all over 40. For six years I had responsibility at the Ministry for mental health. In those days it was difficult to find selected wards with more than four to six patients. The patients were nearly all middle-aged. Today they are nearly all young, and one sees the tragic effects on young lives.
We make a very big mistake when we assume that all addicts are deprived people. Too many acquire the habit away from the watchful eye of their parents while at university, college or boarding school where they would not be if they were not academically qualified. Proud of their abilities and with the exuberance of over-confident youth, they feel that they can try anything once and are often convinced that they will know when to stop. Too many get hooked and cannot stop.
I agree with everything that has been said about additional treatment and clinics, but we have to prevent addiction. It is in the field of education that we have to fight. I am appalled by the trendy attitude of teachers, dons and tutors who have said to personal friends of mine, "I could not possibly warn you that your boy was taking drugs. I would lose his confidence." If they saw that same boy drowning they would be the first to rush to his rescue. Why cannot

673
they take the same attitude with a boy who may be killing himself with heroin? We have to work just as hard on prevention and on making the contact between parents and educationists much closer in the interests of the young whom we seek so desperately to serve and save from this lethal drug.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I hope to keep your Lordships for not more than three minutes, I too, having heavily chopped what I intended to say. For the sake of brevity, I shall omit the customary acknowledgements to previous speakers.
It is worth pointing out that to finance adequately the sort of measures we are discussing will not be very costly as Government expenditure goes: say twice the money that has been spent already, but on an annual basis of £25 million or so. It will pay immediate dividends. It is also worth drawing attention to the billions of pounds which come from tobacco and alcohol tax revenue—finance which, incidentally, is hardly used at all by the Government to curb these addictions. I suppose one could say that the Government are showing reluctance to bite the blood-stained hand that feeds them. I ask your Lordships to think what a little extra tax on a packet of cigarettes could provide. A quick calculation that I made on figures given to me by ASH shows that one extra penny on a packet of cigarettes could produce £50 million per annum, which is more than enough to cope with all the measures which people are suggesting for combating heroin addiction.
May I deal briefly with three aspects of the strategy for coping with heroin abuse? First, the training of all professions working in this field—not only doctors, but social workers and the police—must be improved. Several other speakers have mentioned this, and it is a point made by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in its report on prevention and also in its previous report on treatment and rehabilitation. This should be done at basic course level, and there should be refresher courses. Noble Lords may be interested to know that at lunchtime today I was running a meeting for Bloomsbury general practitioners on the problem of heroin addiction.
Secondly, I understand that £2 million is proposed to be spent on a large-scale publicity campaign about the dangers of heroin addiction. I consider that this may well be counter-productive. It first needs careful evaluation on a small scale. As the report on prevention says:
"There is a…risk of stimulating interest where none previously existed".
Research is vital—and I very much support the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, on this—looking into both prevention and the relative effects of the different methods of treatment and rehabilitation. However, the funding of research needs to be long-term, not bit by bit, making people think about drawing up plans for re-applying for their grant every year.
For example, the drug indicators project, which is attached to the University College Hospital Drug Dependency Unit and has produced most of the figures on which Home Office estimates on the prevalence of the problem in the country are based,
674
has had to re-apply for fresh funding on several occasions during its four-year lifespan. Again, I quote from the report on prevention:
"The danger of short-term 'pump-priming' exercises is that they lead to a concentration on angling for funds, to a period of uncertainty followed by retraction of services, and this is clearly an inefficient use of public funds".
The drug indicators project which I have mentioned has put forward an excellent plan for a future research programme to look into the relative effectiveness of different approaches to treatment and rehabilitation. I believe that it would be incredibly shortsighted of the Government if this excellent unit had to close down for lack of funds.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has raised this important and difficult matter this afternoon. He knows a great deal about it and the different sides of the subject. In the course of the very few minutes that we have I shall speak about one side only—the supply and traffic of drugs.
I do not believe that we can clear this up by just putting more powers on the statute book. We must possibly consider more men being made available, not just policemen and customs men but devoted and skilled men from all the agencies that there may be in the country. The police are not short of powers for dealing with drugs but they are short of manpower, and the control of drug supply is very demanding on the time of the customs and the police. It involves the long drawn-out business of what they call surveillance in their jargon, and I do not think that all of us realise how much time can be spent by a squad of men following one particular line.
We have already heard mentioned this afternoon the customs and the police working together. I was disturbed when I heard that the number of customs men in this country has gone down, but it was not long ago that I thought that they were on the increase rather than the decrease. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us the position. The customs and police are important and they should be working together at our ports, where this material is imported.
I was disturbed, too, when I heard—although I am not quite sure whether it is right—something about privatisation. British Transport Police are being withdrawn from Associated British Ports, Southampton Docks, South Wales ports and the Humber ports. What can be the result of this? There must be some results. Again I hope that we may hear something this afternoon.
I turn to rural areas. I am told that the offence of holding supplies of drugs and of trafficking is on the increase in the more remote rural areas. Profits can be very large. There are certain long-established criminal elements in this country who work more regularly in the town than in the country. However, I am assured that they are waking up to the fact that very large profits are easily made in the country.
In my last few sentences I have a few ideas to put forward. In most police forces we have drug squads, but not in all. No doubt they have their reasons for organising themselves differently. I wonder whether we could not attack this drugs question on the basis of

675
the regions, which are rather larger than the areas covered by most of our rural police forces. Then there is the decision about how many men can be employed on general duties or how many are specialists. That is a problem which is to be found in every police force.
Finally, let us keep up something which is expensive as well as important, because our police officers must travel abroad from time to time to liaise with those in other countries. I believe that has been mentioned briefly this afternoon, too. If this problem is going to be solved, it is not going to be solved by any one country, by America alone or by any individual country in Western Europe: a solution will not be provided by any one country. It is going to be provided by the efforts of many countries working together. I hope that when that happens Britain will be right in the forefront.
4.41 p.m.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, you cannot search every person, parcel, load, ship, vehicle and aircraft coming into this country; it really would be impossible. Therefore, you have to concentrate on those which you have particular reason to suspect of carrying drugs. A very high proportion of carriers slip through the net. Therefore, I think we must turn to deterrence and to the guidelines laid down by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice in Aramah in 1983 for sentences on importers of Class A drugs: that is, seven years' imprisonment and upwards for consignments worth £100,000 or more and 12 to 14 years' imprisonment for consignments worth £1 million or more.
While I should like to see even longer sentences imposed on importers and suppliers of Class A drugs—who, after all, are indirectly guilty of premeditated multiple murder for financial gain—I bow to the wisdom and experience of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. But the guidelines under Aramah do not touch on three points. The first point is the erosion of the sentence by remission. The second point is the abuse of sentencing by the parole system. Taken together, these points make complete nonsense of any sentence a judge may impose. I hope the Home Office will consider this carefully, because the expense involved in keeping these criminals in prison for the full length of their sentences would surely be offset by the saving in the cost of rehabilitating drug addicts, where possible, and of the human misery and crime to which drug-taking leads.
Thirdly, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, said, the guidelines make no suggestion that the property of the criminal should be sequestrated, so that he goes into prison with nothing but the clothes he stands up in and comes out with nothing but the clothes in which he went in, and so that there is no question of his coming out to enjoy the fruits of his nefarious trafficking, as he can at present. I should not be too choosy about how his property had been acquired; I should just sequestrate the whole lot.
Finally, I might add that the Government could perhaps spend less on combating cigarette smoking and more on combating hard drug addiction. I have never yet heard of anyone who went out and committed a murder as a result of smoking too many cigarettes.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I had not intended to inflict myself on your Lordships this afternoon since I did not really feel qualified to enter into the arguments about this terrifying problem. However, may I in passing just pick up a comment by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and one by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee? I must say that I do agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that we could with advantage, perhaps, devote rather less of our resources to the pursuit of cannabis and relatively rather more of our resources to the pursuit of the hard drugs.
Similarly, in listening to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, I was reflecting that I, too, being an addict of tobacco, sometimes wonder whether, if I had to go and buy my cigarettes from a pusher, I should not thereby be more likely to be driven to what is a much more interesting proposition for the pusher—namely, the hard drugs—than I am since I can obtain my cigarettes from a legal source. Perhaps that is also a matter about which we should wonder.
The only reason I have for intervening this afternoon is that, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, giving a trailer (if I can so describe it) on the wireless this morning of his very important debate this afternoon, I realised that in the context of this debate I was almost in the position of a convicted criminal. That is because I must freely confess that when I was a Minister responsible for Customs and Excise at the Treasury I was involved in the process of encouraging and urging the Customs and Excise to achieve greater economy of manpower. I must confess that in the context of this debate I am on the whole an unrepentant criminal in the sense that I dare to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that we need to ask ourselves whether we should in fact achieve a more effective policing of drugs on entry into the United Kingdom by a greater concentration on the uniformed force, such as he has suggested.
Certainly when I was at the Treasury responsible for Customs and Excise, from the information I was given I could not see that the modern methods of importing hard drugs into this country were likely to respond to enhanced police forces or enhanced uniformed Customs forces in either channel at Customs and Excise. When people are bringing in the drugs, as they are, in condoms in the body, or alternatively in highly sophisticated compartments in long-distance lorries and the like, there is no chance whatsoever that this is going to yield at all effectively to random searches in the green channel, or, for that matter, in the red.
Hence I believe that we were right, and I believe that the Government are right today, to concentrate the effort on the intelligence resources so that the Customs and Excise are alerted, as best they can be, to where the traffic is coming from. Frankly, I believe that we could double, treble, quadruple or multiply by ten the number of Customs and Excise officers in the green and red channels and it would not do us a bit of good. We need to have the intelligence and to concentrate the effort there. Therefore, I believe we have been absolutely right to concentrate our resources in that direction.
It is only for that reason that I dare to stand before your Lordships as a convicted criminal, in the context

677
of this debate, for the responsibility I had, involving, as it did, some diminution in the number of Customs officers. I do not believe it affected the argument at all in the circumstances of this debate today.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I should much like to follow the noble Lord's most interesting and convincing speech about the necessity for intelligence, but there is not time. One proposition has arisen today upon which I want to ask the Government to come back to us. That is the perfectly clear proposition put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, that convicted drug pushers should be deprived, in some way or other, of their profits and, indeed, so far as possible, of their existing assets. I should like the Government definitely to come back to us here and say what they are doing about this proposition. It is clearly practical and it would clearly be useful.
Otherwise, I want to confine myself to one narrow part of the problem here. The greatest difficulty in doing anything to help drug dependants is that they never ask for help until it is too late. However, in one area, that of the courts and the prisons, they show up involuntarily. Ten years ago at Brixton there was a drugs unit to which everyone about whom there was any suspicion of drug-taking was automatically sent, whatever his alleged crime and wherever he was arrested. The doctor in charge when I visited the unit, I suppose 10 or 12 years ago, said he had no difficulty, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, said, in weaning them off drugs. In doing so, he saved them from some of the very desperate withdrawal symptoms that people who are suddenly deprived of drugs can suffer. However, as soon as they were released, they went straight back to Piccadilly and started up again. What he wanted was somewhere—a hostel I suppose—where he could send them for counselling and help in the very difficult process of breaking the habit.
A number of noble Lords have spoken about this. The unit was shut down and hostel facilities have not been provided on a scale in any way relevant to the size of the problem. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford has already told the House about addicts in Chelmsford who have to go to Hackney for help. My view—I press it on the Government—is that something like the Brixton unit should be reinstated, and immediately reinstated, not only in Brixton, but at a number of other prisons as well, and some effort should be made to provide the necessary follow-up hostels area by area.
I wanted to talk at length about hostels and training of the kind that we give in NACRO but time does not allow. The Brixton unit had a further valuable function. It isolated the drug suspects from normal prison life, where I fear it is nearly as easy today to obtain hard drugs from the tobacco barons as it always has been to obtain tobacco. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to deny this. If so, I shall be very pleased. But the Prison Officers' Association's excellent report on drug abuse in prisons says that it has developed in prisons into big business, and I can well believe it.
With any problem as widespread and dangerous as my noble friend Lord Harris has shown this to be, one
678
must tackle it wherever it shows its head. The courts, the probation service and prison are an area where it shows its head every day of the week. In my opinion, nothing adequate is being done about it. I hope that something adequate will be done.
4.52 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, in case my noble friend the Minister needs more proof of public concern about the need for extra funds to combat current drug problems, perhaps I may report on Thames Television's Telethon 1985. I was recently appointed chairman of their trust, in charge of setting up and organising this great fund-raising opportunity. The method is to present on television a star-spangled marathon entertainment over 24 hours, laced with films and statements about selected charities in Thames Television's area, after which viewers will be invited to phone in and pledge their financial support. The last such telethon was an outstanding success, and this time we mean to do all we can to make it still better.
As 1985 is International Youth Year, those who benefit will be the charities dealing with children and youth. And here I come to the reason for my intervention in this debate. Prominent among these will be charities to combat the spread of, and effect of, drugs among young people. The charities will be invited to send in details round about Easter so that they may be considered among many which are expected to stake their claim for selection. Alas, not all will be selected.
My reason, again, for intervening in the debate, is to assure my noble friend the Minister that there is no doubt in our minds that drugs abuse and the desperate need for funds to fight it is sufficiently recognised as a subject to have an absolute claim to the attention of the public and that it should be included as an object for the fund-raising programme.
I am sure that it is the wish of my noble friend the Minister to back up the efforts made to prevent the spread of this vicious disease and to attempt to repair the damage being done. By spending more money on this urgent crisis now, the Government can save a fortune later in hospital and social services, not to mention immeasurable distress and waste in human terms.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, let me try to summarise the situation in five minutes and make five points, giving one minute to each. First, there is greater availability of heroin than ever before. Not long ago it was traded at £60 a gramme, half the price of two years earlier. It can now be bought by teenagers for £5 or £10 in a bag. It is the only addictive substance that has decreased sharply in value since the Government came to power. The record seizures, to which the Government may be inclined to refer, are also likely to be an indication of record sales.
The second point is that the Government are not unaware of the seriousness of the situation. They have pledged £12 million. That is over three years, expiring, I understand, at the end of this year. No doubt, the

679
noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong. I also gather that only £3 million remain unallocated. We shall therefore expect the noble Lord to give an indication of the Government's plans for future funding and its order of magnitude, which will have to be larger than the present tranche. These funds should be earmarked, as my noble friend Lord Perry has said. A writer in The Lancet said in relation to the current £12 million:
"It would be naïve to suppose that it will be sufficient to bring this serious problem within the coping capabilities of the services".
Four million pounds a year means £100 a year per addict or £2 a week if a conservative figure of 40,000 addicts is accepted. Almost all speeches this evening have argued for more resources. In the light of these figures, I hope that the noble Lord will acknowledge that the demands are almost irresistible.
The third point is that the Government have set up an inter-departmental ministerial group on the misuse of drugs, chaired by the noble Lord's colleague, Mr. Mellor, and with participation by the Department of Education and Science, the Scottish and Welsh Offices, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, ODA and the DoE, all of which have an interest. This is clearly to be welcomed, but it is alarming to learn that the bids by health authorities and voluntary bodies for new money have been subjected to long delay. There are only two addiction units on Merseyside, I understand, and one application, for that area of all places, took 13 months to process before it was turned down. The money, I gather, is DHSS money. Can the noble Lord say more about the procedure for getting it? Can he assure the House that bureaucratic barriers will be dismantled?
The fourth point is that £2 million of the Government's £12 million is set aside, again over three years, I understand, for a prevention campaign. I gather that the Government have commissioned market research on target groups and intend next to commission advertising agents to prepare a high profile media campaign. Is this the right way to go about it when there is some evidence that this approach tends to highlight and even glamourise specific drugs and may increase abuse? I think that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, shared this worry. Would it not be better, at least in parallel, to top up the Health Education Council's limited funds to enable them to tackle the problem at the root as part of a general health education campaign in schools, youth clubs and Rotary clubs, etc., for which video films and cassettes are the most suitable vehicle?
The Health Education Council also needs money for research into the pattern and causes of addiction, and for the professional training and updating of doctors and nurses. That was a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, referred. I want to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that the Government will provide more funds for the Health Education Council. I know that they have had £100,000, but this is just a drop in the ocean. I shall listen with the greatest care to the noble Lord's answer on this point.
Finally, some have said that this should not be seen as a political debate. Indeed, there is a very real sense in which it is the concern of all of us regardless of party, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said. It
680
would, however, be naïve to pretend that there is no political dimension. The epidemic has to be set in the context of youth unemployment. A causal connection cannot be proved, but the correlation is striking as 30 per cent. of known drug misusers are in the 16 to 24 age bracket and 60 per cent. are aged between 24 and 35.
The causes of that unemployment and how it is to be diminished belong to another debate; I seek to apportion no blame this evening. But we cannot overlook the legion of youth without work or very much hope. They are a fact that must spur the Government to take the more vigorous action for which the Motion calls. It means, of course, more manpower and more money. Obviously, we shall listen carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, but unless he can offer some substantial assurance as to the Government's intentions my noble friend may feel he should press the Motion to a Division.
5 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, what a salutary oratorical discipline your Lordships have undergone this afternoon! I shall impose upon myself exactly that same measure of discipline in order that the noble Lord the Minister may rise with an appropriate latitude of time for what I am sure will be his welcome speech. It would be churlish, even in a short speech, not to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for bringing this matter before us, and to all your Lordships who have spoken. If I may single out the contribution by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, I am sure it will not be thought to be to the detriment of any other speaker.
I think it also would be churlish not to pay tribute to the Government. It may be that some of the Members of your Lordships' House, regardless of party, have tried from time to time to put pressure upon the Government, but nevertheless it would be churlish not to pay tribute to the fact that the inter-departmental group of Ministers has been set up; that some expenditure has been set aside; that there has been an addition to one side of Customs, on their investigatory work. At this stage I would immediately want to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said and what the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said about the need, as I understand it, to see that the police and the uniform branch of Customs deal with this matter adequately. It is a very important matter and it is a matter that intelligence alone cannot deal with.
At once I come on to the question of deterrence. There I, too, would feel that the contribution made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice is worthy of the greatest investigation. We are dealing with people who conspire to murder. They do it for the most sordid of motives—that is, gain—and I assure your Lordships that, if legislation is needed, those who sit with me on these Benches will support anything that can be done to take away from them that gain, and to punish them.
My first message, if I may give it, is, "Please give this priority". We are always told in this House that expenditure has calls upon it for so many worthy objectives. There could not be a worthier objective than this one, because we are fighting the cause of a generation that otherwise may suffer so devastatingly if

681
this horrible problem of drugs is not dealt with. It has been said that nobody quite knows why there is this addiction at this time. I thought that the noble Lord who has just spoken was so right when he said that it would be common sense to believe that at least one of the causes was boredom, enforced leisure, unemployment. It may be, of course, some sort of adventure.
Having said that, and having pleaded for priority, may I plead also for propaganda? Here again I know that the Government have some intentions. I hope the Government will not be frightened of that warning which is given—that propaganda may lead to some people wanting to experiment. I can only tell your worships—I thought I was in another place! I can only tell your Lordships this: the frightening sequences of drug addiction must be shown to our youngsters, in every shape and form—on television, in the media, at schools, and everywhere else. We have got to take the chance. I hope, with others, that there will be increased expenditure on the treatment centres, which are so necessary, as my noble friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead said, in order that the GPs can refer to them.
My last plea is this. There is now a gap (I believe my noble friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead referred to this) in that those who, happily, are cured—temporarily cured—of drug addiction, have, because of their problems, no counselling whatsoever, be it on the question of being homeless or be it on the reasons for their original drug addiction; and so the need for money to be spent on counselling after the doctors have done their best is so very essential. I know that this House, on all sides—how right to say there are no politics in this—hopes that the Government will prevent a Division tonight by showing that they really have constructive and worthy answers to the debate so well initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, we are grateful for the opportunity of discussing what is a matter of the gravest importance. That it is of the gravest importance is clear from the terms of the Motion, from the number of your Lordships who have spoken to it, and from what has been said. Indeed, so many noble Lords have spoken that I cannot, within the time permitted, do as I usually do and acknowledge the points made by every noble Lord in his speech; and I shall be writing afterwards to a number of your Lordships.
Drugs misuse sucks from its victims their health, their wealth, their happiness, and sometimes their very lives. It is not a dragon that they are chasing; it is a vampire with fangs that are poisonous. Statistics—and we cannot conduct this debate without statistics—may measure the problem but they do not begin to describe it. You cannot measure sorrow. The son or the daughter lost to the love of parents, lost to health, lost to home, perhaps lost to life, is a tragedy for a complete family; but he or she adds only one solitary figure to one year's total. The threshold of casualties, as my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith has said, gets younger. Today we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, of 12-year-old addicts and, I understand, even pre-natal addicts. My Lords, you do not need to remind the Government that this is an urgent problem; we know.
682
The statistics are, we know, deeply worrying. In 1983 the number of addicts notified to the Home Office went up by 42 per cent. to 5,850. There can be dispute about how many more there are, but it is not disputed that they are many. It is too soon to give a figure for last year, but it seems likely that it has increased again; and the number of addicts who are not notified and of the misusers of other drugs, who are not required to be notified, is of course much higher still.
The Motion directs our attention only to heroin and cocaine. But we cannot look at parts of this problem in isolation. Certainly heroin and cocaine are the drugs which give the greatest concern today; but there are other addictive drugs on the streets and they also carry the seeds of misery and destruction. We cannot afford to ignore any of them, for if we ignore the lesser danger today it may become the greater—indeed, the overwhelming—danger tomorrow. My answer to this debate must therefore go wider than these two drugs.
The problem is very serious, and it shows no signs of getting less. I revert again to statistics to say that the number of new addicts notified in 1983 was 50 per cent. up on those in 1982. Customs seized a record quantity of heroin last year; the provisional figure was 298 kilos, which I think has been correctly quoted, against 212 the year before. I do not entirely accept, though I of course accept in part, that this represents a possible considerable increase in the inflow. I do believe that the measures we are now taking are resulting in a higher proportion of interceptions, for reasons to which I shall return. Nonetheless, the street price of heroin is low and its purity is high. That indicates plentiful supplies. This is a problem that does indeed call (as does the Motion) for vigorous action.
The present Home Secretary recognised drugs misuse as a major issue as soon as he took office. It is a complex problem that cannot be taken on by a single department. The Home Office is the lead department because it is responsible for the police and that is why I am at the Dispatch Box this afternoon. But I speak for many colleagues, and my noble friend Lord Mancroft pointed to this as a possible source of confusion. The Treasury is responsible for Customs and Excise; Education is responsible for schools; Health and Social Security is responsible for the medical and welfare services. All these departments, too, are crucially involved. So are their Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland equivalents; and so, in the international field, are the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the overseas development administration. That can lead to difficulty and I shall draw the attention of my honourable friends to the difficulties which my noble friend Lord Mancroft suggested arose from this situation.
I come to my first point. In 1984, the Government set up a new ministerial group, chaired by my honourable friend Mr. David Mellor, to bring together all the Government agencies concerned with drug abuse and to develop policy. The group has five objectives. The first of these goes beyond the terms of the Motion and I shall return to it briefly at the end. The remainder are to strengthen controls on drugs produced and prescribed in this country; to increase the effectiveness of policing; to reinforce deterrence;

683
and to improve prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. I shall summarise what we are doing under those headings starting briefly with the work to strengthen controls on drugs produced and prescribed in this country.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has acted swiftly, on the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, to subject dipipanone to the same restrictions on prescribing as heroin and cocaine. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has set up an expert medical working group to consider whether we can, and should, extend the same licensing requirement to all opioid drugs.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has acted equally decisively to check irresponsible prescribing. Three directions were issued against doctors in 1983 and four last year. Four weeks ago we brought an order into force bringing barbiturates and certain other drugs under the tight control of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; and, in view of the grave damage that can be done by drugs stolen from places where they are kept in quantity, we are examining carefully the advisory council's recommendations on the security of controlled drugs in pharmacies and hospitals.
These measures will significantly increase our control of drugs produced and prescribed in this country. But as the Motion recognises, home produced drugs are not, at the moment, the greatest threat with which we have to cope. It directs our attention particularly to others and to what we do about them once they have arrived in this country. That brings me to the police.
By 1st January this year every police force in England and Wales had established its own specialist drug squad. There are now some 1,000 police officers in regional crime squads and in drugs squads with a major commitment to investigation of drug related crime. Dealing with this sort of crime is a specific task in the terms of reference of regional crime squads. They form a highly specialised network of experienced detectives, trained especially in surveillance skills. Unlike ordinary units operating within a single force, their structure enables them to cross the boundaries between one police force and another and as drugs trafficking networks spread across the country, their contribution is a vital one. They now spend nearly half their time on drug-related crime.
The attention of individual police forces has also been deliberately focused upon drug abuse by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary. In his statement of strategy for 1985, published on 17th January, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, will be interested to know that the Commissioner made it clear that drug offences are one of the six types of criminal offences specially listed for priority in detection work by the Metropolitan Police. No doubt he will deploy his forces, which have been considerably increased in recent years, in an appropriate way: that is for him.
We face a rapidly changing problem; and in rapidly changing circumstances, traditional responses and traditional organisational structures from which they come are not always the best or the most efficient. We
684
must not rely uncritically on what we have thought to be good enough in the past. Last April therefore the Association of Chief Police Officers set up a committee to review their existing arrangements and to see whether the police are now organised in the best way for drugs operations. They are after the top end of the drug market and that is, very often, a regional matter. But they are also looking closely at the organisation at force level and will be reporting progress in April when the Association of Chief Police Officers holds its next national drugs conference.
These measures make a heightening of police alertness and efficiency in the drugs field. They are in addition to the massive expansion of police strength and resources, and the thorough modernisation of police powers which have occupied the Government since 1979 and which render local police forces increasingly effective against petty local pushers.
The third limb of our policy is deterrence. Catching a drug trafficker or pusher is an important deterrent, but it does not suffice alone. Deterrence also depends on punishing him when you have caught him. That is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary decided to restrict severely the granting of parole for people sentenced to more than five years in prison for trafficking in drugs—a decision for which I remember the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, criticised him very severely at the time. But like my noble friend Lord Rodney, we believe that there is a distinction between the trafficker and his victim. These traffickers are the criminals who have brought upon countless innocent people the dreadful degradation and misery of addiction. I believe that my right honourable friend marked the real feelings of society when he made that decision.
The most lethal drugs are Class "A", and I believe that we again marked the real feelings of society when we decided last October that we should, for further deterrence, increase the maximum penalty for trafficking in these drugs—which include the heroin and cocaine which appear in the Motion—from 14 years to life imprisonment. My honourable friend Mr. Keith Raffan has now introduced a Bill in another place to give effect to that intention. Even if they know that they may first be caught and then be gaoled for a long time, determined traffickers will still, as noble Lords have said, push their wares if they believe that afterwards they will enjoy the rich spoils of their trade. How warmly I echo what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, has said in this regard. My right honourable friend has therefore announced that he intends to introduce legislation in this Parliament which will deprive them of the proceeds of their crimes. Those three steps will together constitute a massive increase in our deterrent policy.
In the context of deterrence, I should say that when we have got the offender into prison, the problem is not at an end. I say that for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and others gave. I am concerned that drugs do get smuggled into prisons. In order to assess the problem accurately, we have issued new and tighter directions for the reporting of drug incidents and we now have much better intelligence about what is going on. For detection, we find that the trained dogs that we have are exceedingly effective in

685
locating the drugs. We are increasing the establishment of those from 28 to 40. All 40 should be at work by the middle of next month. By March we shall have six or eight more in reserve. In addition to the dog searches carried out at the request of individual prison governors, we are also shortly starting a separate programme of searches of all dispersal prisons.
We are also preparing at the prison service college a completely new drugs training package specifically for the prison service. I expect it to be issued to all establishments by next summer. The training we already provide in the prison service about drugs is also being revised.
The prime targets for the police are the trafficker and the pusher. The prime targets for the pusher are the gullible and the weak. For that reason they are particularly apt to prey upon the young and we must put the young on their guard. This brings me to education.
The responsibility for providing education rests with the local education authorities. The first step, therefore, has been to establish what their practices are in these matters. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education has accordingly commissioned from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools a survey of policy and practice in over 400 schools and colleges of education. The results have come recently to hand, together with those of the department's own soundings of the local authorities, and the product of market research commissioned jointly by that department and the Department of Health and Social Security. This is a large and important body of work and will form the basis of further actions that my right honourable friend is at present planning.
The market research undertaken was principally in order to establish possible strategies and target groups for a major education and information campaign aimed at parents and young people. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, suggested that something of this kind was needed. In the light of their findings the Government have now appointed an advertising agency to develop proposals for a media campaign. We expect to announce further details next month. I can tell my noble friend Lord Auckland that we shall also be issuing advice leaflets to parents. The Department of Education and Science is also sending a circular to local education authorities inviting them to co-ordinate their efforts locally with other statutory services. We are there dealing with the possibility of confusion at the other end of the administrative pyramid.
However effective our policies may be, we shall continue to have a drug dependency problem and a drug problem generally for a long time to come. Therefore, I agree that we must provide a service for the victims.
I turn to the Department of Health and Social Security. When we debated this subject last year, my noble friend Lady Trumpington spoke of the £6 million which was then being provided by the department to help local projects get off the ground—projects of various kinds to which noble Lords have referred. Since that debate this sum has been increased by stages until it now stands at £10
686
million. No fewer than 90 projects have so far been approved for grants to a value of £6,700,000. The department's initiative was over-subscribed and that is why decisions on some desirable applications have taken some time to process. Some of the good projects for which applications have been received will be considered for funding from the additional £3 million to be made available. The guidelines of good clinical practice, which have been issued by the Department of Health and Social Security, direct themselves to the problems outlined by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, and others. They are guidelines in good clinical practice in the treatment of drug misuse and were recently issued to all doctors to encourage general practitioners to treat addicts, and to general psychiatrists to advise and assist general practitioners in treating addicts.
Health services are provided by the regional health authorities. In June my right honourable friend the Secretary of State sent a circular to these authorities underlining the priority that he wished them to give to drugs matters. This required them to report back by the end of last month on the extent of the problem in their areas and their preliminary plans for tackling it. All the replies have now been received. The department is following up all these replies and urgently seeking information not yet provided. Ministers will then give careful consideration to the fully developed plans due at the end of March. Where plans seem inadequate they will pursue the matter with the authorities concerned, as they are responsible for the provision of health services for drug misusers.
Your Lordships will notice how often I am saying that we are seized of a problem, are working on it and will deploy the answer shortly. Let me remind the House that scarcely a single gramme of heroin or cocaine has its origin in this country. Virtually all of it comes from abroad, and so do other dangerous drugs. It is vital that we intercept and destroy it as it arrives and that, where we can, we stop it arriving at all.
Your Lordships probably already know that the number of specialist drugs investigators has risen by no less than 75 per cent. since 1979. In addition to that, last October my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced both that 60 temporary preventive posts were to be made permanent and that 100 new posts were to be created in 1985–86 specifically to combat drug smuggling. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has understood the problems that we are tackling, and my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne has very aptly summed it up and explained it. These new posts, for reasons which the noble Lady and the noble Lord have given, will be used to reinforce the move away from static controls towards more mobile and flexible enforcement and improved intelligence gathering and targeting, which I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, are far more effective against the increasingly sophisticated drug smugglers, against whom we are operating with increasing success.
This specialisation and this increase in Customs' manpower is a considerable reinforcement of the outward defences of this country. But we have to stop the enemy before he gets here. We are not fighting this problem alone; we are not inside a ring fence. We are part of a worldwide community of nations facing it

687
together. The first of the five aims of our policy group takes us beyond the target area of the Motion, because without that aim your Lordships will get a lopsided view of what we are doing about drugs.
Not only do we play an active part in the work of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs, which oversees the operation of the United Nations conventions and develops international strategy against drug misuse, but we are also active members of the Pompidou Group of 15 European states. In September my honourable friend David Mellor attended a ministerial meeting of the group in Paris which agreed to carry forward a programme under British chairmanship for three years, including studies of the role of the criminal justice system in responding to the problems of drug misusers, methods of depriving drug traffickers of the proceeds of their crimes, on which we shall obviously lead, and ways of reaching young people at risk.
I shall leave out some detail but I shall say this. Our concern includes all dangerous drugs. We have therefore agreed to ratify the 1971 convention on psychotropic substances. In April we pledged a further £1 million to the United Nations fund for drug abuse control to help with the eradication of opium poppy-growing in Pakistan, where we have also helped to finance the strengthening of law enforcement agencies. We have sent expert advisers to several countries under the auspices of the United Nations or under bilateral arrangements. We have established postings of a Customs officer to Karachi and a police officer to the Hague. Those efforts have not been without results. I understand that Turkey has completely eradicated the illegal growth of opium poppies. Pakistan is reckoned to have reduced opium production from 800 tonnes in 1979 to under 60 in 1983, and a massive campaign is now under way against cocaine production in Colombia.
Of course I shall draw your Lordships' valuable and important views and expertise to the attention of all my right honourable and honourable friends. In conclusion and in short, I would support this Motion even if it went further than it does. It bids us do what we are already bent on doing. But it only bids us do it at home—and we are already doing it abroad as well.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, briefly, I should like to thank all those who have participated in the debate and who have spoken in difficult conditions where speeches have had to be limited to what in normal circumstances would be an unreasonable length. Secondly, I think that the House has been very nearly unanimous in the views which it has expressed this evening as regards the Government. Given the fact that there has been this element of unanimity, and given the fact that people have not been able to speak at length, as they would be able to in normal circumstances, we shall not press this Motion tonight.
However, having said that, I should like to make just two brief comments. First, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that in his speech this evening he has offered the House precisely nothing. He has not announced any new expenditure of public money to
688
deal with what is probably the most alarming single problem in the area of criminal justice policy in this country. I think that that is a matter of deep regret on all sides of the House.
All I would say in conclusion is that if in fact we see within the next few months that there is not a dramatic change in expenditure priorities in this area so far as the Government are concerned, we shall come back to it on a Motion of a very different character. I do not propose to press this tonight, and therefore, with the leave of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Noble Lords: No!
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alport): The Question is, That this Motion be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say, Content? … To the contrary, Not-content? … The Contents have it.
Motion agreed to.

Strategic Defence Initiative
5.31 p.m.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew rose to call attention to the political and economic implications for global stability and peace of the Strategic Defence Initiative of the United States Administration; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the controversy about cruise and Pershing dies down we are faced with a new dispute about the Strategic Defence Initiative. This can also have a divisive effect on East-West relations and between, and within, NATO countries. However, the critics of the Strategic Defence Initiative, among whom my noble friends and I must count ourselves, must concede a number of points to begin with.
First, the project aimed at destroying incoming nuclear missiles is in human and moral terms much to be preferred to a project aimed at destroying cities and people. No one can fault the initial statement made by President Reagan when launching this initiative in moral terms. He said:
"I call upon the scientific community who gave us nuclear weapons to turn their great talents to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete".
Even though the statement has since been shown to be wildly utopian, it is not ignoble in intention or in spirit.
We must also concede that the initiative helped to persuade the Russians to resume arms control talks. We must admit, too, that the Russians are already well advanced in anti-ballistic missile defence. Indeed, they are the only country in the world with a system in place and operational at this time, and they started major research in space-based weapons defence as well. Pentagon officials have estimated that within a few years the Soviet Union could be able to destroy about one-fifth of incoming American missiles.
Finally, we must bear in mind that SDI, like cruise, presents the Russians with an admirable opportunity of dividing the West; of exploiting differences of opinion between hawks and doves throughout the Western world. This does not mean however that to

689
preserve the unity of NATO the critics should remain silent. When the Prime Minister met President Reagan to discuss this it was announced:
"The Prime Minister was able to tell the President, as she had earlier made clear to Mr. Gorbachev, that we would not allow others to create divisions between ourselves and the United States on these important questions".
I take this to mean that critics will not be inhibited from pressing their strong views on the United States but simply that they would do so in a manner acceptable between allies.
It would have been reassuring at that time if the President had felt able to make a similar statement that he will not allow his strong support for SDI to create divisions between the United States and the other NATO allies. The fact that he did not do so is another unwelcome reminder of the rather one-sided nature of Euro-American relations within NATO.
All the President has committed himself to, of course, is a research programme, admittedly on a vast scale and at vast cost. Nobody can be sure at this stage what is, and what is not, practicable in anti-ballistic missile defence. But we know that the Americans have succeeded in intercepting and destroying a missile on re-entry a hundred miles up at a closing speed of six kilometres a second.
Those who, like I did, attended the recent elaborate presentation of star wars by the High Frontier Organisation in London are probably disposed to believe that by miracles of skill and organisation, and at vast cost, the Americans will equip themselves, or can equip themselves, before the end of the century with a capacity to intercept and destroy a proportion of incoming ballistic missiles. What the project cannot do is to protect the United States population.
Last year the United States Office of Technology assessment declared that the prospect of leak-proof defence
"is so remote that it should not serve as the basis for public expectation or national policy".
We need not doubt the estimate of the Union of Concerned Scientists that penetration by only 5 per cent. of current Soviet warheads would result in 60 million American deaths. These calculations, of course, only refer to ballistic missiles. There is nothing whatever in SDI which obstructs the obliteration of the United States, especially its vulnerable Eastern seaboard, by submarine launched cruise missiles, which the Soviet Union could develop easily and quickly and at a fraction of the cost of the Strategic Defence Initiative.
Therefore, we are not talking about protection of the United States; we are talking about protection of a proportion of American missile sites and other key defence installations. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether building up this capacity is worth it for the United States, Europe, the rest of the world.
The first objective, it seems to me, is that to the extent that this initiative is effective and is not balanced by a similar Soviet project, it is destabilising. By partly protecting American first-strike capability it would give the Americans a nuclear edge over the Russians. In the West, as sensible people, we are quite confident that the Americans would never launch a first strike against the Soviet Union, but the Russians
690
are not so confident. Their first official reaction—though of course it should not be taken wholly at its face value—no doubt reflects a good deal of genuinely held opinion in the Soviet Union. At that time Mr. Andropov stated:
"The strategic offensive forces of the United States will continue to be developed and upgraded at full tilt and along quite a definite line, namely that of acquiring a first nuclear strike capability. The intention to secure the possibility of destroying, with the help of the ABM defences, the corresponding systems of the other side, that is of rendering it unable to deal a retaliatory strike, is a bid to disarm the Soviet Union in the face of the United States nuclear threat".
No doubt there is a lot of propaganda in that. But for people brought up from their earliest years on the doctrines of Lenin, Marx and Stalin—doctrines that capitalism in its death throes will lash out against the socialist enemy, and other dangerous rubbish of that kind—those fears, though ridiculous to us, can be genuine, and we have to take them into account. At best therefore the star wars concept will increase East-West tension, and at worst it could persuade the Russians to contemplate pre-emptive action of a disastrous kind.
There is a further objection, and it is this. Granted that the initiative could give some protection to some American missile sites, what protection could it give to missile sites such as cruise and Pershing in Western Europe? It appears that last year Mr. Weinberger informed the European Defence Ministers at a meeting of the Nuclear Planning Group that a full-scale American ABM system would partially protect Western Europe, but the primary burden of deploying European terminal defence would have to be borne by the European members of NATO. That is not a very attractive prospect. I hesitate to ask the Minister what provision there is in the British defence budget for anti-ballistic missile expenditure? I think it would be foolish even to ask him. It is not a very kind question.
But the fact is that SDI will not protect much of the United States, but it will protect more of the United States than of Europe. It therefore undermines that concept of equality of risk which lies at the heart of all good alliances and it presents us in a new form with the old and dangerous problem of decoupling.
We can be sure that if the initiative goes ahead the Soviet Union will react in two ways. First, it will modify and increase its offensive nuclear capacity. Secondly, it will redouble its efforts to develop its own ABM capacity. Like the Americans, no doubt, it will be unable to cope with a full-scale nuclear attack. But by the end of the century it seems very likely that it will be able to intercept and destroy a number of incoming missiles. How many it is hard to say; quite possibly, though, as many as could be launched by the British independent nuclear deterrent.
The Secretary of State for Defence was arguing yesterday in the other place that Trident will be deployed before the Soviet Union can make it obsolete, but we would be paying a very large sum for very few years of operational effectiveness. When the Secretary of State went on to talk about the finance of Trident it became clear that, even though Trident might be deployed before being made obsolete, it will be made obsolete long before we have finished paying off the capital cost of the product. It is plainly time that the Government started to respect the opinion of all

691
well-informed people and scrapped the Trident project. This is absolutely clear.
A further serious objection to the initiative is that its development and deployment would breach the 1972 ABM treaty. Mr. Weinberger stated that the Americans are prepared to abrogate or renegotiate the treaty if it were to stand in the way of the initiative. But this treaty is one of the rare successes of multi-lateral arms control negotiations and to destroy it in this way is another important objection to proceeding with the initiative.
Finally, this is only a research project. It does not deal with development, procurement or deployment, but is due to cost 26 billion dollars and is bound to produce a reduction in the United States defence resources committed to NATO; fewer tanks, fewer aircraft and fewer ships in Europe, a lowering of the nuclear threshold and, I suppose, an even greater American deficit on the budget and even higher American interest rates.
To sum up, therefore, on the one hand the aim of destroying incoming ballistic missiles is not ignoble and within strictly limited limits is likely to prove practicable and the initiative has helped to persuade the Soviet Union to resume negotiations. On the other hand, it cannot protect more than a proportion of American missile sites; it cannot protect the American people; it cannot protect either the missile sites or the people of Western Europe. It is politically divisive both between the United States Government and NATO Governments and within NATO countries. It would worsen East-West relations, increasing the Russians' morbid suspicions of American intentions, and would persuade them to develop counter-measures of a substantial scale. The testing and deploying of the missiles would breach the 1972 treaty and, finally, the cost is immense and will weaken NATO and lower the nuclear threshold.
Can proceeding with it be justified on bargaining grounds, a bargaining weapon in arms control negotiations? Since neither the American nor the Russian research project is even remotely verifiable bargaining about research will be extremely difficult. But testing and deployment could be verifiable and here results are possible. The two nations might agree to renounce testing and development of space-based ABMs, and perhaps in exchange the Russians might be willing to offer something more. That would be a worthwhile achievement, but is this the aim of the United States Government? I particularly ask for a reply on that tonight. This is where we need reassurance. Do the United States Government regard the Strategic Defence Initiative as a bargaining weapon or as a moral and strategic imperative?
Last Sunday, the New York Times published a full length feature on the Strategic Defence Initiative written by three distinguished Americans. It took an optimistic, indeed a propagandist, view of the possibilities of strategic defence. It took an entirely defeatist view of the possibilities of reaching agreement on arms control. The authors concluded:
"We favour energetically pursuing arms control negotiations and seeking to achieve credible deterrence, but these options by themselves are unfortunately not as likely to provide a more secure future as the alternative strategy of mutual security combining defence against missiles with retaliatory offence".
692
In other words, SDI is likely to provide more security than arms control. A disturbing feature of the article is that one of those authors is Mr. Max Kampelman, who has been placed by President Reagan in charge of the arms negotiations. We are driven to the conclusion that the chief American negotiator on strategic defence would prefer those negotiations not to succeed.
However, let us suppose that President Reagan ignores the views of Mr. Kampelman and decides to bargain seriously about SDIs. The question arises: will he be able when the time comes to withstand the immense pressures built up of powerful political, scientific and industrial interests urging him to go ahead with the project? This is where we expect action from Her Majesty's Government and the European governments. The initiative has immense implications for Europe, and European governments must insist that the Americans take these negotiations seriously. They might start by requiring proper machinery for consultation.
Why were the European governments not consulted when this initiative was launched? In what form is the European view of the initiative being formed and expressed at the present time? What assurances have we that the United States Government are genuinely committed to reaching agreement banning the testing and deploying of space-based anti-ballistic missiles? In the months ahead the Government will be increasingly pressed by Parliament and by the public to give clear answers to these questions. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Birdwood: My Lords, I shall be exceedingly brief. This is not the time to restate the arguments for and the principles of nuclear deterrence. I note from my records that the last three times I have spoken in this House I have gone through those principles. Even so, I should like to remind your Lordships that these arguments of deterrence are complicated, long, and logical and they work.
The SDI has its place in such arguments and does not introduce new unstable options. We shall certainly be hearing later from far better-informed individuals than I about the technologies, the political tensions or the impact on USA-Europe relations.
As an aside, I should like to comment on the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that the SDI risks a decoupling of USA-Europe relations. It is a word that is going around. He then went on to give objective evidence of the fact that decoupling has taken place in all but name, and I suggest that this process has been going on for at least the last five years. Consultation is fine. I do not think that we have been consulted. I think that there is a hard lobby in America that America should go it alone. I have read numerous articles in the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post to this effect and I think that this is getting through. I think that the French have been extremely realistic about decoupling; and that has contributed to the present French nuclear posture. I am particularly looking forward to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who, I hope will be exposing the fraudulent accounting of the groups ranged against the SDI development. I hope that he will also detail the effect

693
that SDI has had on bringing the Russians back to the negotiating tables.
In no way could I suggest that I can put things more logically than the leader writer of the Economist; and I propose to quote briefly from that periodical:
"It is also necessary to understand"—
this was published on December 22nd—
"the main lever by which Russia might be prised out of its preference for more warheads and unsafer ones. This lever, though the anti-nuclear movement will hate the thought, is Mr. Reagan's plan for an American anti-missile system.
"The full version of Mr. Reagan's…project—a missile-proof roof over the whole of the United States—may be beyond the capacity even of American technology, and of America's purse. But a more modest version, protecting the American missile silos, is almost certainly workable".
Paraphrasing the remainder, the mere possibility that America might create such a system but would abandon or modify it if Russia were more reasonable about warhead numbers is the most powerful card in the West's negotiating hand, because the Russians do not yet have a similar card of their own. I agree with every word of that.
We shall be hearing, certainly from later speakers, that the scheme is money wasted because no system can be truly leak-proof. I suggest that that is irrelevant to going ahead with the scheme itself. We will hear the most plausible arguments against SDI and it needs a conscious effort of will to distance oneself from those. I should like to propose that we would not be debating this at all if we lived in a society whose defence technology was developed in secret, a society which did not have to vote funds; and neither would we be debating it if it had not been announced as a single homogeneous package, if the development had continued in small, even increments spread out over the time-scale, as has been suggested, of five or six years.
This is to some extent a by-product of the freedoms of democracy. Funds do have to be voted, people do have to be persuaded and won over, projects have to be talked through in the blaze of publicity and I propose that this reflects well on us. I am glad that we are able to debate it, but I am also concerned that once again in this House we have heard the reluctance to pressure the tender sensibilities of the Russians, to whom such a debate would be incomprehensible.
I want to make just two points. The technology of SDI, out of all military technologies contemplated in recent times, has the most bearing on peaceful uses. Power storage in space, propulsion systems, communications, systems management—all of these spill over into the next thrust of exploration for mankind itself. This has not escaped the Americans and it is a matter of observable fact that it is a great deal easier to vote to retain funds for defence projects than for non-defence uses. Like it or not, we occupy a technology escalation. We cannot "not invent" the cross-bow. It was inevitable that missiles would become more accurate as the guidance systems improved—and again I have touched on this in the past, pointing out that increased accuracy brings the use of nuclear armaments closer to battle decisions rather than political decisions. It is inherent in technology that if something is conceived somebody will make it reality. There is no way back. The noble
694
Lord, Lord Mayhew, was gracious enough to concede that this is a 100 per cent. shielding system. Dr. Edward Teller has remarked that we now have swords only. Surely, it is slightly more civilised to suggest that we have swords and shields.
If I had not been already convinced that SDI is not only desirable but inevitable, there was a brief piece in yesterday's newspapers—it was very brief—which would have cemented my belief. The crew of Soyuz, as an experimental manoeuvre, were recently put in charge of a Russian battle group. It is highly logical. Any general's idea of perfection is occupying the high ground. The idea that through lack of will and through timidity in negotiation we should hand over on a plate, as it were, the impregnability of battle command and control to a potential enemy is unthinkable. That little item describing how as an experiment the crew of Soyuz were given a battlegroup to command was reason enough for me to give my personal support to the principle of High Frontier.
5.59 p.m.
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for having introduced this debate. It is a most important matter, and I am sure that we shall hear about it again—and it may be we shall also hear various views about it. I apologise to your Lordships if, despite my wish to remain to the end the debate, I fail to do so.
Since President Reagan's speech in 1983 this subject has generated an enormous amount of debate and literature. I have followed the arguments very closely. I have a considerable library on the subject, and I must confess to your Lordships that I added to it only last week in a big review in the New York Times Literary Review.
Much of what has been written has been highly critical of the SDI programme, and that has been indicated in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. One needs to ask why this is so. After all, what the President has in mind—and it was a promise to the American people—is the noble aim of providing a defence which would prevent any nuclear missiles ever hitting US territory, with the ultimate aim of making nuclear missiles, as he says, "impotent and obsolete". There is nothing wrong with this aim, and we should all be grateful to our Prime Minister for having been given the assurances which she sought from the President: first, that the United States was not embarking on a fruitless effort to achieve so-called nuclear superiority; secondly, that if it ever came to deployment the United States would negotiate with her allies; thirdly, that nothing would be done to undermine deterrence—a most important point—and, finally, that East-West negotiations should have as their aim the preservation of mutual security at a reduced level of nuclear armaments.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has dealt with some of the political implications of the subject, and I shall not burden your Lordships with the technological arguments. As most know, the idea is that the United States should devise a three-layer defence. In the first, Russian missiles will be attacked as they blast off from the ground by lasers or particle beams from space platforms. In the second, the multiple warheads and

695
the decoys of those missiles which would not be destroyed in the launch phase would be attacked in the course of their ballistic paths outside the atmosphere. Finally, in the third phase, those warheads which managed to penetrate the atmosphere would be dealt with by a terminal defence.
Little of this technology is possible today, and we would be deluding ourselves to suppose that it is. That is why we are dealing essentially with a research and development programme. But the basic argument is whether any part of the system could ever be achieved in a way which makes stategic sense. I have read much and had many discussions with those who are directly concerned with this problem. I believe I must say here that Mr. McGeorge Bundy, Mr. Kennan, Mr. McNamara and Mr. Gerard Smith, who negotiated the SALT I and then, fruitlessly, the SALT II agreements, were justified when they wrote in a recent article that those technical experts on the subject who have neither been silenced (and I quote) nor "muted by co-option" are convinced that there is no possibility that the research programme will prove successful.
The issue, therefore, is not whether the separate components of a possible system can work in isolation. Reference was made to the fact that a single missile was knocked down by an anti-missile. That is not the point. What matters, as was the case in the technical discussions in the 1950s and 1960s about the feasibility of defensive systems against aircraft, is whether the separate components can work when combined into a single system.
A second critical point is whether any part of the system could become effective given that the USSR were to decide, as they almost certainly would—and here I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew—to take precautionary counter-measures. And, indeed, they have already published what they would propose doing.
In addition to Mr. McNamara, who associated himself with Mr. Bundy, Gerard Smith and Kennan, two previous Secretaries of Defense, Mr. James Schlesinger and Dr. Harold Brown, have powerfully attacked the SDI concept as being impossible of achievement. Of all the holders of that distinguished office, it would be fair to say that Harold Brown, with whom I have had close relations for some 25 years, is far and away the most experienced scientifically, technically and managerially. As a young man he ran one of the two big nuclear weapons laboratories. For years he was America's Director of Defense Research and Engineering; then he became Secretary for the Air Force; then he became President of the California Institute of Technology—all this still at a pretty youthful age—and then he served for four years as Secretary of Defense.
In a recent address he acknowledges—and this is important—from his personal dealings with the five Presidents whom he served, how much the fact of American vulnerability has eroded the confidence which its political leaders have in United States nuclear policy, and how it affects (and there I quote).
"all of our national security policies and limits our military and diplomatic behaviour."
But, having analysed the technical issues—and he took
696
his time—he concluded (as also did Mr. Schlesinger in another outspoken address which I had the opportunity to hear in the middle of a meeting opened by General Abrahamson, the director of the programme) by saying that,
"the combination of limitations—scientific, technological systems engineering, cost, and especially the potential counter-measures, make the prospect of perfect or near-perfect defences negligibly low."
Like others, Dr. Brown also draws attention to the fact that, since it was made, the idealistic goal of the President's challenge to make nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete has taken on a new complexion, should the USA deploy,
"active defences with more limited objectives and capabilities"
so as to enhance mutual nuclear deterrence, so as to generate uncertainty about retaliation, so as to restrain the arms race.
While not so forthright, Dr. Brown here agrees with the conclusion stated by Schlesinger and by Bundy and his colleagues that this goal is also unattainable. The nuclear arms race will go on if SDI goes on; for no one supposes that the Russians will stand still as the SDI R & D programme gets under way. They are going to devise ways to defeat the defences; they will increase the size and variety of their offensive forces so as to overcome defence systems. And everyone admits, including Mr. Weinberger and General Abrahamson, that some warheads will always get through, and any warhead would cause immeasurable damage. There can be no stragically effective defence of cities.
The one thing which has not changed in the whole of our debate, in the 25 or 30 years in which we have been dealing with nuclear weapons, is the destructive power of a single nuclear weapon. The danger, therefore, is that the SDI R & D programme will lead to counter R & D. That means destabilisation, and that, I understand, is what our Prime Minister was concerned about. That is why I was heartened by her determination to get an assurance from the President that nothing would be done to undermine, as opposed to enhance, deterrence.
Mr. Weinberger has been given the difficult responsibility for the research programme. He, like General Abrahamson, who is in executive charge, now recognises that no anti-ballistic missile umbrella could keep out cruise misiles or aircraft. Not surprisingly, therefore, we have heard in the last few days that he has decided to reinforce what he hopes will emerge from SDI R & D by updating the radar installations and other defensive components of the air defence system which the USA largely abandoned some years ago when it became clear that the main threat was from missiles.
Obviously, research and development is going to go on; and so it should. But as it does, nothing should happen which is in defiance of the 1972 ABM Treaty. This the President has promised; and one must hope that his promise to the American people that they can be defended against nuclear attack will not enhance the unreal fear which so many hold that the Russians would deliberately launch a first strike. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is correct in believing that the Russian leadership might be mad enough to do such a thing. It knows that from the

697
moment the USSR and the USA developed a triad of nuclear forces the whole concept of a first strike became totally irrational. They know that whoever struck first would be struck in return.
Ever since 1957 we in this country have accepted that there is no defence against nuclear attack, that we are defended by the fear of an adversary that we could retaliate. In the abstract, one might say that part of the price we pay for being defended in a nuclear age is the prospect of annihilation. So be it. One cannot evade the facts of nuclear hardware: they have no political edges.
The stand-off environment of mutual nuclear deterrence is infinitely safer than what would happen if we entrusted our security to an automatically-operating imperfect complex of artificial satellites, lasers and computers, in which there was neither place nor time for the exercise of human judgment.
We must remember that the nuclear arms race is, and always has been, a race in R & D. The technological people who work in weapons laboratories—whether American, Russian or our own—are not going to slow it down. The race can be slowed down and monitored only by political decision. America's allies should use whatever leverage they have, in order to see that the race does not get out of hand. If it does, there will be nothing to hope for.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, who for so long has devoted his scientific and philosophic mind to these problems. It is also rather intimidating. I must also thank the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for initiating this debate. My speech will be rather a pale, thin echo of his speech. Where he is confident, I merely ask questions. I am also looking forward to the speech, which follows mine, of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who I think is less sceptical than most people are about the Strategic Defence Initiative.
This SDI, this ballistic missile defence, poses a series of questions that it is impossible to answer now and may indeed remain unanswerable for the rest of time. The first question, however, is whether R & D is feasible, and the second is: if it is feasible, is it desirable? If it meant the end, or approaching the end, of a nuclear war, it would be most desirable. But nobody imagines that ballistic missile defence could ever be perfect, or indeed could ever be universal.
The current nuclear logic is difficult enough to grasp and is certainly imperfect. It works best at its most simple, at its most crude. It is the view of the man in the street: If they have nuclear bombs and we have nuclear bombs, they will not destroy us, because they know that we could destroy them in return, and we cannot destroy them, because we know that it would mean destroying ourselves. So we get to the paradox which so many find disturbing, that both sides are spending vast fortunes on more and deadlier weapons, whose use would be suicidal for both the aggressor and for the defender.
As Mr. Brzezinski and his colleagues put it in an article in the New York Times which the noble Lord quoted, and which the International Herald Tribune reproduced on Monday—it is available in the
698
Library—the conventional view is that nuclear stability is based on two contradictory pursuits: the acquisition of increasingly efficient nuclear weapons and the negotiations on limits and reductions of such weapons. But the argument that these writers are using is that, as there is a profound unease in the world, that in itself undermines stability and we all see this unease reflected in the strength of the various peace movements which may yet, I fear, undermine the Atlantic Alliance.
Part of the unease is moral; part of it is based, I think, on rational and technical grounds. The problem of arriving at an effectual arms control agreement becomes more difficult as mobile weapons of greater precision and with multiple warheads are developed by both sides. So these distinguished writers quoted in the New York Times believe that we should look beyond deterrence and examine the idea of basing security on the ability to defend, which of course means anti-ballistic missile defence.
But, of course, the concept is still in its infancy. It is still in an early phase of research—not just research, but an early phase of research—and though we are most aware of it in the United States of America, it is also apparently going on in the Soviet Union, if the reports which were given to us a few months ago at the North Atlantic Assembly are correct. We have no idea whether or not the Russians are ahead of the US in their experiments and there is no certain way of finding out. What one fears is the start of a new, expensive and impoverishing arms race with defence as part of the race.
In some ways, the problem is not unlike the one which was posed all those centuries ago when men discovered gunpowder. Was it possible to devise armour that would withstand the new weapons? I think that we have been trying to do so ever since, and we came up with the tank. But the search for anti-tank weapons has been successful and today the tank is probably as vulnerable as the original body armour was against the first bullets. It is one of the arguments of the philosopher-scientist that as fast as ways of destroying nuclear missiles are found, new ways of frustrating the defence will be found. We shall perhaps be starting on another and interminable arms race.
President Reagan, either with considerable political skill or with holy simplicity, or a combination of these things, certainly started something in March 1983 when he called on the scientific community to give him the means of rendering nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete. But we are not only very far from that; it is most doubtful whether it will ever be reached. Even if the theory is successful, as noble Lords have pointed out, the difficulties of proceeding to an operational system will be very great.
It looks, even to many people who want to go ahead with this, as though it will be possible only to protect certain points or even limited areas at the most. But to defend a country! That is a problem of so much wider dimensions that it seems to be absolutely impossible and hopeless to think of that. Counter-measures in the new no-man's land of space would add to the already enormous difficulty of detecting, tracking, finding and intercepting.
The optimists believe that the deployment of BMDs would allow the world to embark on a transition to a

699
new kind of stability, as mutual assured destruction was replaced by mutual assured survival. The optimists, or rather the opponents of BMD, see it as destabilising. Even with a 99 per cent. Effective defence, the super-powers could still inflict terrible damage on one another through the gaps in the defensive screen and by the use of non-ballistic delivery suystems, such as cruise missiles and even bombers. And there will be a temptation in times of crisis to eliminate the BMD defences orbiting in space.
The hypotheses, the questions, that all this arouses, are endless and unanswerable. It looks, however, as if it is impossible for scientific man to be deterred. He will go ahead with research and, as the problems of feasibility are being solved, we must be examining the dangers of deployment.
There is also the delicate question which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, raised of the effect of BMD on the alliance, which even today is less strong and more disturbed than it should be. If the Soviet Union and the US felt more secure behind BMD, would they exercise less self-restraint? Would it increase the chances of a conventional war in Europe?
I am sorry that my noble friends who speak in this House for CND have not taken part in this debate. It would have been extremely interesting to hear their points of view on these subjects. Perhaps they might have dared even to suggest what somebody has suggested, which I hardly dare to repeat, that perhaps one happy day the Soviet Union and the United States will share one another's secrets of missile defence.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, has told us why it probably cannot be done and my noble friend Lord Mayhew has told us why it should not be done even if it could be. I am going to give a few more reasons in support of my noble friend.
We are still talking, and we must never forget it, about the original High Frontier concept, the great balloon in the heavens, which it is hoped in due course will prevent any and every ICBM from hitting the United States or any other country it is destined to protect. We have also to observe that at the same time the United States is going hell-for-leather for anti-cruise missile defence and is greatly upgrading its defence against bombers. The policy from the top is still the maximum one. At the same time we have to notice that the United States is developing no fewer than six new means of offensive strategic delivery of nuclear weapons; MX and Midgetman—both ICBMs; Trident D5, which we know all too well to our cost; and two bombers—the B1 and the so-called "Stealth"; and lastly long-range cruise missiles.
Let us go back now for a moment to President Reagan's original speech of March 1983. He said:
"I clearly recognise that defensive systems have limitations and raise certain problems and ambiguities. If paired with offensive systems, they can be viewed as fostering an aggressive policy, and no one wants that".
These words seem to have been forgotten. They are "paired with" the development of "offensive systems"
700
and they are "viewed" by the Soviet Union "as fostering an aggressive policy". But it seems that some people, including the President himself, still want the full SDI.
Now, of course, the Soviet Union is also developing about six new offensive strategic delivery systems. It is also researching into ABM. Here we have no alternative, boring as it is, but stand back a little and look at the history of the matter over the past few years. In the 1960s, as I reminded the House, I think, the last time we debated it, the Soviet Union thought that the general canopy of ABM would be a good idea to protect its people, and it was talked down out of this high folly by the United States, which pointed out that it might look like a first strike capacity. They then negotiated on the matter and in 1972 they signed—thank God; and it is perhaps the greatest achievement yet of arms control between the super powers—the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the ABM Treaty, which, incidentally, allows research.
In the 1970s, notwithstanding that, the Soviet Union did some interesting research into ABM. They did it hoping to avoid detection, but they did not avoid detection. They were caught out, playing grandmother's footsteps. In 1981 and 1982 the United States began to think what it ought to do about the fact that it had caught the Soviet Union out playing grandmother's footsteps. An American general called Keegan took the lead in urging extreme responses. Throughout those years and until now, the Soviet Union has carried on quite slowly, although now it is seen all the time by the United States, doing what it was doing; the most obvious example being the famous radar array at Krasnoyarsk in Siberia.
Between 1983 and the present day the United States has begun to gallop in research at perhaps the greatest speed and at the most rapid expenditure for any element of the arms race which has yet taken place. It can look only as though it will be ready to develop before that vast research programme is finished. I strongly suspect that there is development in it. There is the ability to procure within that 26 billion dollar, four-year programme. The Soviet Union is already beginning to respond to the American gallop by going into long-range cruise missiles—it has said so in so many words—and other counter-measures, and of course it will in the future, if it has not done so already, be jacking up its expenditure on ABM research and development. When the Soviet Union does this, the United States will no doubt deem it a reason for calling upon the extreme national interest provisions of the ABM Treaty and abrogating it. We shall then be in a full-blown ABM arms race by both sides, at which point, as Lord Zuckerman has eloquently put it, there will be nothing to hope for.
This moment is a snapshot of the arms race taking a violent upward spiral. We should ask this of our American allies: if the Soviet Union acquired a high frontier ABM system first, would the Americans not be alarmed at the first strike capability that that would give them; because an effective High Frontier would enable you to knock out any retaliatory rockets which might come at you, and would thereby give you perfect security for a first strike? Would the United States not be alarmed by the Russians getting there first?

701
Does the United states plan to get it first? If so, it is up to them to explain why the Soviet Union should not be equally alarmed. The acquisition of this capacity by the two sides will not be simultaneous unless they agree to make it so; but if they can agree that, they can agree to call the whole thing off and save the billions.
I have read that the world is now spending 1 million dollars a minute on arms. Any noble Lord with a calculator in his pocket can work out at 26 billion dollars in four years how much a minute the United States will be spending on this research. It is quite a perceptible portion of that. I come back to the question: can this be all research? Must there not be development tucked away in it in the later phases? What we have to do, and what I hope European statesmen will do, is to help those in the United States Administration who are trying to talk the President down from his High Frontier, which is destabilising, to an increased hard point ballistic missile defence in protection of retaliatory capacity which is, if anything, stabilising. Some of the research needed would be the same as for the great destabilising programme.
The Prime Minister went to Washington recently and came back with her four points. The more I reflect upon these four points, the more I think that they were a remarkable achievement of diplomacy and will have a profoundly beneficial effect in lessening the dangers of the next few years. I commend to noble Lords who may not have seen it an article by John Barry in The Times on 24th January, the third of three pieces, in which he spelled out what is not visible to the layman's eye—namely, the full diplomatic effects, the extremely binding diplomatic effects, of the Prime Minister's four points. We are lucky she got them; and if we want to know how lucky, we should read John Barry's excellent article.
We are told that the Russians are or will be splitting us; that they will be trying to drive a wedge between European and United States NATO. They have not done much about it yet, but maybe they will. Before reacting to that, before making our judgments about that phenomenon, we must see what it is that we think is true. We must ask ourselves, "Is SDI a good idea? Is it a better idea in one form than in the other form? Does it contain dangers? What in our view is the truth of the matter?"
If we find that what we consider to be true is also considered by the Russians to be true, that does not stop it being true. I believe that the alliance will not be split on this matter, any more than it has split during the many difficult moments it has already lived through. All of us are old enough to remember the multilateral force, when the United States was wrong. There was sharp disagreement, but it did not split the alliance. We remember the neutron bomb, when the Soviet Union was wrong. We remember the Soviet SS20 deployment, when the Soviet Union was wrong. We remember the dual track decision of NATO, when the whole alliance was at least half wrong as regards Pershing 2—although it may not have been wrong as regards the cruise missiles. We remember the Soviet walk out from the Geneva negotiations only last year, when the Soviet Union was wrong.
It is with those memories—and sure in the confidence we have that, if those matters did not split the alliance, this will not—that we have to face the
702
SDI, where, if we look at its major version, the United States is unfortunately wrong.
The alliance will not split but it is imperative that we and the other European countries should put our weight behind those of the President's advisers who are trying to talk him down from his high dreams to the relative safety of deterrence conditioned by treaties—namely, SALT I and the ABM treaty, with possibly some increased terminal hardpoint ballistic missile defence, with consequent treaty changes to be agreed in Geneva.
It is not enough for the American Administration and for the friends of High Frontier to tell us that we shall favour it when we fully understand it. We are still awaiting their explanations. They have not come, and it seems to me that they have not come because they are not there. I believe that the European governments and parliaments have understood the arguments which have been forthcoming and have rejected or are rejecting High Frontier—but are accepting those arguments which point solely to hardpoint BMD.
I believe that the alliance will survive this Administration, although I am not sure that the Initiative will do so. After all, it is a vast piece of Keynesian expenditure for the benefit of the arms industry; will Congress approve it?
In conclusion, I should like to quote from a statement by General Abrahamson, who is the commander of the Strategic Defence Initiative programme. He has said that the industrial spin-off possibilities could help the SDI programme to pay for itself. He speaks of,
"applying production-line techniques to satellite manufacturing, probably driving costs down exponentially; production of multi-purpose satellites, differentiated and customized through use of plug-in modules; long distance, low cost transmission of energy by laser beams; rockets powered by particle beams; space-based solar cell arrays for generating power to remote or under-developed areas; miniature, parallel processing computers; and a low-cost nuclear waste disposal system made possible by ferrying the waste to harmless destruction around the sun".
All this, he says, can become practical reality.
"So too"—
he continues—
"perhaps, can Krafft Ehricke's"—
whoever he is—
"novel concept of subdued terrestrial illumination, including street lighting, through use of bands of space-based mirrors".
So we have not only $26,000 million of public expenditure on research, but the United States also wishes to conscript capital investment by private industry in what is probably the first part of the arms race to be overtly privatised.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, before I make my brief contribution to this debate, it would be proper to remind your Lordships' House that through my business directorships of a multi-national computer company, a London merchant bank and a business consultancy, I have close associations with defence and aerospace industries in the United States, in Western Europe, and in the United Kingdom. This I know will immediately qualify me in some quarters for the description of merchant of death, but perhaps in compenstion I might claim that it does give me a

703
fairly detailed and up-to-date knowledge of some of the technological developments which are taking place at this moment in areas such as the Strategic Defence Initiative which we are debating this evening.
This is, as the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, has said, not the time—nor have we the time—for detailed technological analysis. I will make just a few general points. First, I will emphasise that we are talking about a research programme only. If we can all bear that in mind then some of the more apocalyptic visions of the results of the Strategic Defence Initiative might be somewhat mitigated.
The research programme does not breach any existing arms control treaty. It is not in breach of the anti-ballistic missile treaty of 1972. It is not in breach of the outer space treaty. And it is not in breach, as some have claimed, of Article 6 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
If there were to be development as a result of the research, that position would be changed—but we are not talking about development. As noble Lords have already said—and made much of it—the agreement which the Prime Minister secured in her discussions with President Reagan at Camp David included the undertaking that there would be no such development without further consultations with the allies. So my first point is that we are talking specifically about a research programme and that we are not yet contemplating the possibility of development, procurement, or—least of all—deployment. If those moments should come then the debate would be in an entirely different dimension.
I come now to the aspect of the debate which was most eloquently highlighted by my noble friend Lord Zuckerman. I feel somewhat reluctant to take issue with my noble friend because on many issues of this kind we tend to agree. But when he quotes such authorities as McGeorge Bundy and Harold Brown, and other distinguished Americans, as saying that there is no possibility that this system can be successful, then I have to point out that President Reagan assembled 50 distinguished American scientists and put them to work for several months full time simply to decide whether a programme of research offered any possibility of success.
The conclusion of those scientists was that a successful system was possible. They did not say that it was certain to be achieved or even that it was probable; they said that it was possible. I am more inclined to take note of people who say that things are possible than of those who say they are impossible.
For almost as long as technological history relates, people have been saying that this or that is impossible. Television was once thought to be quite out of the question. A distinguished British scientist said once that placing a man on the moon was a ridiculous concept. I am deeply sceptical of people who, in an age of explosive exponential technological development, say that this or that is impossible. However, let us again return to the fact that this is a research programme to find out whether the system is possible or not. It would be foolish at the beginning of such a programme—which is still going to be undertaken, however much we may debate it—to say that the
704
system is impossible, especially when faced with the evidence of 50 distinguished American scientists who say that it is possible.
My next point concerns the frequently rehearsed argument about vast costs. We hear this argument being used continously. I think it perhaps derives from some of the arguments and conclusions put forward by a body called the Union of Concerned Scientists in the United States of America which published a report on the strategic defence initiative and which was conspicuous largely for its extraordinary number of inaccuracies, tendentious statements and false assumptions. If the concerned scientists had been more concerned with the facts they would not, for example, have said that a strategic defence would require thousands of satellites, because it will not. It may require hundreds, but it will not require thousands. They would not have said that you would have to put a 42,000 tonne vehicle into orbit—clearly an attempt to bring the whole concept into ridicule—because you do not need anything of that size to place in orbit even the kind of advanced technological weapons now being discussed.
The fact is that when we talk about a 26 billion dollar research programme that is not an inconsiderable sum of money, but when one considers that over the same period the United States will be spending on its space and military budget alone between 2 trillion and 3 trillion dollars—that is, my Lords, a figure of three with twelve noughts on the end of it—the question of vast cost comes somewhat more into perspective. So far as the Americans are concerned this is an expensive project but one which they believe, if I may use the modern jargon, to be cost effective. Before we start using phrases like "vast cost" we should try to put the whole matter into its proper perspective.
I come now to this argument about the so-called leak-proof defence. It is important to recognise two things about this. First, what we are talking about in strategic defence is not a war-fighting capacity. We are not talking about fighting a nuclear war in which "X" number of missiles will get through. We are talking about a concept of improving deterrence and making it less likely even than it is now that war will ever occur. The way of doing that, according to the concept of strategic defence, is to prevent as great a proportion of attacking missiles as possible from getting through—which must, as everybody says, make practical sense as well as good moral sense—but also to retain a residual retaliatory nuclear capability.
In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said, we are not talking about a totally leak-proof defence, a total protection of the United States against nuclear weapons. Whatever President Reagan may have said in his original speech, or what he may have said since, the scientists of the United States who are working on this project at the moment do not contemplate anything like a leak-proof defence. What they contemplate is a layered defence, in four layers. Perhaps I may put a gloss on the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, and say that they are working on four layers, whereas the noble Lord mentioned three layers. They have divided the mid-course into early mid-course and late mid-course. They contemplate the possibility—the possibility

705
only—that in each of those four phases if one can gain a 50 per cent. interception rate of offensiveness, a simple sum of arithmetic will show that, at the end, one will get 95 per cent. success, give or take a percentage point. If one can do that, surely the deterrent effect of having that must improve the deterrent posture of the United States and the West very considerably.
I come back to the point which I want to make, which seems to have been missed in most of the debate. What we are talking about is not an attempt to disarm the Soviet Union but an attempt to do what we have always tried to do—to deter the Soviet Union from attacking us at all by restricting the number of their options, complicating their calculations, and therefore making it less likely even than it is now that they will resort to military force as an instrument of foreign policy.
We have had, too, a good deal of argument about the Soviet reaction to this. We have heard that it will create a new spiral in the arms race. Yes, my Lords, it might. If the Soviet Union decided that its reaction to this was so to improve its offensive capability that it could saturate this kind of defence, that would indeed be a spiralling of the arms race. I suspect, and I suggest, that it would be an extremely unwise and unproductive option for the Soviet Union to take. What I think the Soviet Union is much more likely to do is to increase its strategic defence initiative. Indeed, your Lordships will recall that President Reagan said—I think somewhat quixotically, but he said it—that if strategic defence research turns out to be successful, he is willing to share it with the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union goes in for this kind of strategic defence I entirely fail to see why we should be so worried. As the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, said, surely mutually assured survival is preferable to mutually assured destruction, which is the posture we are in at the moment.
There is no doubt that, however much we may debate the rights and wrongs and the possibilities and impossibilities of this initiative, a good deal of future strategic thinking must take place in the context of space. In that respect, I congratulate the Government on the recent announcement that they are to set up a British National Space Centre. In my view that is a long-overdue policy decision. I also congratulate the Government on their activities inside the European Space Agency because I believe that what we should now be doing, inside the alliance, is calming down our rhetoric about arms control, instability, spiralling arms races, and so on, and collaborating with the United States of America in discovering whether or not this research is feasible.
Space is already militarised. Those who say that the Strategic Defence lnitiaitive will militarise space seem to forget that of the 8,000 or so pieces of hardware, pieces of ironmongery, whch have been put into orbit in space since the first one was launched, the vast majority are there for a military purpose. They are reconnaissance satellites, surveillance satellites, navigational satellites, weather satellites, targeting satellites, and as the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, said, more recently there are the satellites used to house, activate and control the command and
706
communications of Soviet land forces. Space is already militarised.
I conclude by saying that these are extremely complicated matters. It is in a way sad that we should commit them to a 2½ hour debate in your Lordships' House. I only say at this stage: let us not prejudge the results of this research. We have had, as I said earlier, too many examples of people saying this or that is impossible. Moreover, let us not be besotted with the idea of arms control as an end in itself. Arms control is only desirable if it increases our security. If it does not do that, it is not desirable. I believe that we should now be organising our minds in the context of this initiative so that we begin to abandon and cast out outmoded habits of thinking and recognise that the inexorable advance of technology is going to revolutionise military strategy in the twenty first century; and we had better be ready for it.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, we have acquired, perhaps unintentionally, a new measuring rod for the interest which the public at large is likely to take in our debates. That is provided by whether the cameras are switched on or switched off. This afternoon we have seen them switched on for a debate about drug abuse in this country—a serious problem for government and for society—and switched off for a discussion of events which, on some apocalyptic judgments, might mean the end of humanity as a whole, when even drug abuse would cease to concern us.
I believe that the broadcasting authorities were thoroughly right in their judgment, for this reason. When, earlier this afternoon we were discussing drug abuse and the measures to take against it, we were discussing something which is, at any rate, within the reach of government. By taking measures outlined to us by the Minister, by spending more money as was urged by some other noble Lords, our own Government can at least hope to handle the drugs problem. But when we talk about the Strategic Defence Initiative it is of course true that it affects diplomacy and that we can, to some extent, as allies of the United States, perhaps make some difference as to what they do, but it is not something for which either our Government or this House is or indeed can be responsible.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, when introducing this debate, particularly in view of the divisions that have emerged over the technologies, was probably right to concentrate on the political implications of such research. However, as I often do, I find it somewhat difficult to follow parts of the noble Lord's argument about the Alliance. I think that he cherishes a view which is understandable but Utopian. That is the view that in an alliance, properly conducted, risks must be equal. In my view risks cannot, in the nature of things, often be equal, and in the Atlantic Alliance they are not equal at all.
In order to illustrate my point, let me suppose for a moment that the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, is wrong and that somehow or other, by some breakthrough which cannot at the moment be foreseen or understood, this kind of total defence—which is what the President first talked about—was achieved by the United States (and, if achieved by the United

707
States, clearly also by the Soviet Union). Let us suppose that by a fortunate chance (as they might both see it) they simultaneously arrived at this position of total defence. What would then be the position of the world in the strategic sense? Surely it would be that the preponderance of the Soviet Union in conventional forces and in other forms of warfare, which, at the moment, while threatening, is not a dire threat to our security, would become one. That is because the nuclear weapons of the two sides cancel each other out; we would be left neighbours of a highly-armed Soviet Union, and the United States would be on the other side of the Atlantic.
This is to put it only in its most graphic terms, but it is an inescapable, geographical fact that Europe is the neighbour of the Soviet Union and, except in Alaska, the United States is not. It is also an inescapable fact, as I have ventured to remind your Lordships before, that the interest of the United States in the defence of Europe—in, let us say, keeping Europe out of "Sovietisation", or even "Finlandisation"—is diminishing, and is bound to diminish with the change in the interests of the United States. The Pacific Basin is, more rapidly than one would have thought, replacing the Atlantic Basin as the focus of American attention. In these circumstances, the arguments for treading very carefully to avoid American susceptibilities seem to me arguments for prudence which, on this occasion, have been observed by the speeches of the noble Lords but have, on some such subjects, not been wholly observed in the past.
The question I should like someone to answer is this. As has been said—and I think no one has so far denied it—the Soviet Union clearly has the capacity to embark upon research of this kind, and probably, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennett, says, has made some steps towards anti-ballistic missile defence. Whether or not this amounts to a formal defiance of the treaty is perhaps a matter for argument. In the light of this, what interests me is what the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, perfectly correctly said. That is the fact that we have to admit that the announcement of the Strategic Defence Initiative was an important fact or, perhaps conclusive, in bringing the Russians back to the negotiating table at Geneva. Why are they so worried about this development if they themselves have the capacity to match it?
It can hardly be—and this would be horrific—that they seriously think that this is a prelude to an American first strike, because there is no conceivable reason why any sane person should believe that. Is it because they feel that to embark competitively on the development of systems of this kind would, for economic and financial reasons, cripple them to an extent to which the more expandable economy of the United States would not be crippled? What is the reason? What is the reason why, after having rejected opportunities—after having, indeed, rather put themselves into a corner by saying that they would never discuss arms controls so long as intermediate-range missiles were poised in Western Europe—they have suddenly come round to this?
I think we must keep asking ourselves what is the Soviet position on matters of this kind. I think this
708
raises questions upon which one should like to have a feeling that more information existed. I do not know what is the answer. I find it difficult to work out potential answers, even, other than the economic one which I have mentioned and which I am inclined to dismiss on the ground that the Soviet Union has always given (and, in my view, so long as it continues under its present régime, will always give) priority to political considerations over economic ones.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, this is not to answer the noble Lord's question, but would he bear in mind, when thinking about it, that the announcement from Washington of SDI took place many months before the Soviet Union even left the negotiations, let alone before they came back?
Lord Beloff: My Lords, yes, that is an interesting comment, but it somewhat undermines the position of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, which I was exploring. That is because he said that he thought that this was the effective reason for the Soviets returning to Geneva.
I think it is important, perhaps, to keep in mind both the susceptibility of the Soviet Union to worries about its security—which I am sure are genuine—and also the difficulties which it finds in backing up its willingness to discuss arms control in terms of hardware with any kind of what one might call ideological arms control. We have seen this recently in the divergent preparations being made in Western Europe and the Soviet Union to commemorate the end of the war in Europe. It is rightly urged upon us in this country to choose it as a moment for reconciliation and for remembering the contribution of our allies. It is used in the Soviet Union to deny the importance of the contribution of the Western Allies and to place it in the context of alleged American expansionism.
In the light of this, and in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, said—that, on the whole, history suggests that people will go on probing the balance between offensive and defensive weapons—I think that all I could say in conclusion is, "Let us tread very carefully. Let us discuss this, but let us discuss it quietly and not too often".
7.1 p.m.
Lord Caccia: My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for bringing forward this subject, even if only in a short debate, and particularly for the terms in which he started it. The noble Lord pointed out clearly that there was nothing ignoble in the President's original thought. Indeed, in another part of the speech which he made on 23rd March 1983, the President said:
"The human spirit must be capable of rising above dealing with other nations and human beings by threatening their existence".
I do not think that, on the moral side, we have anything to complain of. I gather that this is also the view of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, of the President thinking in these terms. We then come to the question, "Was this thought likely to be practical?" Here, I think, for the non-scientifically trained, it is perhaps difficult to come to a final conclusion. We have had two slants on this matter from my noble friends sitting on this Bench. They have their counterparts in the United States.

709
As the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, the President set up a team of 50 distinguished scientists. At the end of their deliberations, the scientific adviser to the President, Dr. George Keyworth, concluded that the system "probably could be done". No sooner had he come to that conclusion, than, on the other side, Dr. Hans Bethe, a distinguished Nobel laureate in physics, said bluntly, "I don't think it can be done". Very soon after this he was backed by a report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has referred, sponsored by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), and a little later by a report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) of the Congress.
I have listened most carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman said. I should, however, be grateful if the Government felt able to comment on this divergence of scientific advice in the suggested development of laser and neutral particle beam technology. It is not only on scientific advice that divergencies have arisen. The financial burdens to achieve the results have been as marked in their differences. For instance, the UCS report sought to show, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, that the number of satellites needed to protect the USA would be "in the thousands". This report, at first, put the precise number at 2,400 satellites which would cost in the trillions of dollars. Per contra, the careful computer studies done at the Livermore Laboratory claimed that 90 satellites would survive or even, in certain circumstances, maybe 45. That would cut the cost from many trillions of dollars to a level that could be met with the amount already earmarked for spending on American strategic forces during the next 10 to 15 years.
In sum, it seems that we are inescapably faced with a debate of what to do in circumstances, totally or quite seriously unclear and about which there can be no immediate finality. If that is anything like the situation we are faced with, I would have agreed entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. Is it not wise to tread a little cautiously before going in and accusing the United States of risking the three Ds for danger—the risk of decoupling, destabilisation and the diversion of resources?
And would it not be more prudent at this stage to rely on the assurances that the Prime Minister has achieved in her latest conversations with the President of the United States? I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, say that he welcomed these assurances. If the state of science and the costs involved are as uncertain as I have sought to show, surely that is all that, at the moment, it is reasonable to expect from the President of the United States.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, as noble Lords may conceivably be aware, I have publicly expressed my dislike of the whole idea of star wars ever since it was first proclaimed by President Reagan in March 1983, so it follows that I agree entirely with the criticisms of the project advanced by several noble Lords, notably my noble friends Lord Mayhew and Lord Kennet, and also Lord Zuckerman, and, perhaps, to a certain extent, too, by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick. My short contribution to the debate will therefore be
710
chiefly concerned with what I believe to be the ill effects of the apparent abandonment by the United States Administration of the whole concept or philosophy—call it what you will—of what is technically known as mutual assured destruction. For this concept, more popularly referred to as "deterrence" or "the balance of terror"—it all comes to the same thing—is, as I shall hope to show, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, simply not consonant with SDI, as I see it. Therefore, what is it exactly? And why is its maintenance so important?
Well, ever since the Soviet Union achieved in the early 1960s what is known as nuclear equality, there has been, pending general disarmament, a tacit recognition of the fact that since each side already possessed the assured capability of inflicting totally unacceptable damage on the other side, even on a second strike, there should be no attempt by either side, in the first place, to achieve any kind of nuclear superiority—a fact, I think, recognised by the Prime Minister—by building up sufficient nuclear weapons to eliminate all the strategic weapons of the adversary on a first strike, or, in the second place, to construct any overall anti-ballistic missile system capable of destroying all, or most of, such missiles before their target is reached. This understanding, sometimes, as I say, known as the balance of terror, accompanied, and was fundamental to, such notable achievements in arms limitation as the Treaty on Outer Space of 1967, the famous ABM treaty of 1972, SALT I of 1972 and SALT II of 1979. It is quite true that the Russians—possibly through fear of being dominated, though conceivably as the result of a desire to dominate—have been building up, over the years, a nuclear armoury that far surpasses that required for any reasonable nuclear security under the concept of the balance of terror; and that this fact, coupled with a series of disastrous acts and policies about which we all know, eventually resulted, not surprisingly, in the emergence in Washington of a régime resolved to stand up to the Soviet Union in all fields, and notably to embark on a very large rearmament programme, more especially nuclear.
We, the European members of the North Atlantic Alliance, as is known, went along with this tendency by agreeing, in principle, and pending negotiations, to the stationing of nuclear weapons in Europe capable of countering, to some extent, the Soviet SS 20s, which might otherwise, I suppose theoretically, obliterate at least the Federal Republic, without any particular comeback, always supposing of course that the two super powers decided not to indulge in an exchange of strategic nuclear missiles as between themselves.
The trouble has been, I suggest, that while the Russians, for whatever reason, have certainly been endangering the balance of terror, the Americans, by overreacting, have lately been endangering it too. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, dwelt on this to a considerable extent. Still, until March 1983, though endangered, the famous principle of the balance of terror remained very much alive, seeing that both super powers undoubtedly retained the assured ability to destroy each other on a second strike, even if, idiotically enough, each was able, and each is able, so to destroy the other many times over, once presumably being quite enough if the theory of deterrence is to continue to operate.

711
Here, however, we do come up against the President's celebrated dream, or, as some malign sceptics might possibly say, his brainwave. How intolerable, he seems to have said to himself, for the world's greatest nation to cower permanently under the threat of extermination and to allow its freedom of action to be in any way curtailed by such a threat. Can we not break out of this insane embrace? Why, yes. All we have to do is to get our scientists to think up a system which will protect us—and our allies, too, if possible—from any nuclear assault of any kind. Since American resources are practically unlimited, this can no doubt be achieved, in time. And, after all, it will in no way be a case of warlike preparations. Oh, no. If no missiles can threaten America, and since America, being pacific, will never threaten anybody, then we shall all be at peace and humanity will be saved from the present threat of extinction. Surely, therefore, all right-thinking people must welcome such a great idea as this.
Given a prospect, for many years ahead, of work on world peace and not on war, it is not very surprising that at least some qualified scientists assured the President that, contrary to the views of others, there was at least some likelihood, by the end of the century, of placing great platforms in space from which Soviet missiles could be shot down by laser beams shortly after leaving the ground. Needless to say, the project, or at least the devotion of 26 billion dollars to research, was also welcomed by the universities, the research centres and the business interests involved. But what real validity is there in the claim that SDI is the key, or a key, to world peace? Alas, very little, for the following reasons.
Supposing—first assumption—that, with their far greater resources, the Americans do achieve complete, or almost complete, nuclear immunity by the end of the century and the Russians do not. Is it not obvious that in the event of war, or the threat of war, the Americans, if they so desired, would have the capacity to inflict unacceptable damage on their great adversary without fearing any substantial retaliation? Would they not, in other words, have the Russians at their mercy? We might ourselves be quite happy with such a development, but is it not obvious that the Russians will do everything possible to prevent what from their point of view would be a calamity? And it is also pretty obvious what they might do if they really felt that they were going to be cornered.
Supposing, however—second assumption—that the Russians, as the result of inconceivable and no doubt crippling effort, were more or less simultaneously to achieve nuclear immunity. What then? Would peace break out? Hardly, for, apart from the whole problem of proliferation, it is really impossible to imagine that SDI would be able to cope with short-range cruise and very low trajectory weapons or shells, nuclear shells. Thus, Western Europe would still be devastated by the Soviet Union when the Soviet Union itself would be immune from nuclear attack. However—and this is a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff—even assuming that Western Europe could be adequately protected against any nuclear assault, what is to prevent its being at the mercy of some great Soviet superiority in conventional weapons? We might all,
712
under this hypothesis, therefore, be involved perforce in conventional hostilities, with the Soviet Union in a strong position to win.
In spite of poor prospects of success, would the Russians then still feel obliged to catch up with the Americans on ABM? If they did, the effect on their already ailing economy would be pretty devastating, I should have thought, and that is, I am afraid, what at least some of the advocates of SDI, more particularly perhaps in America, have in mind. Might not the Soviet Union, in effect, disintegrate under the strain, leaving the West, and notably the Americans, as the equivalent of victors in a third world war?
This would surely be a most dangerous assumption on which to base Western policy. Nor would it be compatible with any serious effort to arrive at arms limitation, always supposing that that is desirable. We have every reason to dislike and distrust the Soviet régime, but it is there and it is quite unlikely to go away. We should therefore at least try to imagine how the Politburo would react in any given circumstances and not despair of eventually arriving at some acceptable form of co-existence; that is, if it is indeed our intention to avoid and not, perhaps unconsciously, to promote some ultimate recourse to force, which, in a nuclear age, can no longer be held by any sane man to be, as the Romans said, the ultima ratio regum, or the final choice of princes.
I do not know whether, in a necessarily very compressed statement of a case, I have carried any conviction with your Lordships. So I would end by saying only that if Her Majesty's Government are by any chance persuaded that SDI, even in its early research phase, is a dangerous project, more especially because of the accompanying demise of deterrence as the guiding principle in East-West relations—a point which was so successfully brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman—they would surely be well advised to rally their European partners in friendly opposition to it and then to explain to the Americans what exactly our common apprehensions are and how desirable it would be to bargain star wars against some real concessions in arms negotiations by the Soviet Union, which I think would be quite possible, given that the Soviet Union has obviously come back to the negotiating table because of fear of star wars going ahead.
I suggested in my own last speech on this subject, on 16th January, that if we were able to combine our remonstrances with some offer to increase and strengthen our own conventional defences, notably, as I should think, and as my noble friend Lord Mayhew would doubtless think also, by abandoning Trident, that would no doubt add very greatly to the persuasiveness of our arguments.
In conclusion, I would add only that I should not of course expect the Government to reveal the cards which they will no doubt soon have to play in a difficult and perhaps even a dangerous game. I would only ask them not to dissent publicly from the belief that the principle of mutual assured destruction—the balance of terror—though naturally not ideal, is still something that, pending general disarmament, cannot safely be abandoned, least of all by the Western Europeans, who might well be the first, and possibly the only, victims if it were abandoned.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmondon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and his party have rendered a service to the House and I believe also to the Government in using some of their precious time—and party time is very precious in the House—to expose some of the questions which arise from this latest phenomenon as regards defence and security. Many who are taking part in this debate also took part in the debate on 16th January. Therefore, many of the matters raised on that occasion must still be fresh in our minds. I am sure that we can all recall the previous debate which took place within a week of the conclusion of the Geneva talks. There was an air of optimism. Some might have been sceptical, but there was an air of optimism among those who took part in the debate and I certainly played my part in injecting some optimism into the matter at that time.
We need to ask the following question. Is it only three weeks since the Geneva talks? I recall the powerful and thoughtful speech in the debate on 16th January by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, to whom I always listen with respect, and indeed to whom I listened with respect again tonight. Early in his speech, at column 983, he confessed that we did not know enough about the Strategic Defence Initiative to condemn it. I suggest that nor did we know enough about it then to endorse it. However, the noble Lord did so tonight. So he has used the last three weeks very fruitfully indeed.
I trust that we can acknowledge that the SDI has at least the merit of refocusing our attention on what the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, underlines—namely, global stability and peace. When we discussed a defence matter in the House the other day the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, used the expression, "a jaundiced view". He said that he took a more jaundiced view that I did. Jaundice is contagious. I must tell the noble Lord that his strain of jaundice has spread horizontally to the Labour Front Bench as regards this particular issue tonight.
I take the view that the SDI has already served a major purpose in helping to create the climate which led to the Geneva talks. That strong possibility was referred to not only by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, but by others in the debate. The potential, the value or the importance of those talks was such that the Russians felt compelled to begin the dialogue once more across a wide range of defence and security matters, after breaking it off when the West proceeded to place its cruise missiles in situ earlier.
Bluntly, I shall need a great deal of convincing that in time the SDI will be seen as other than the latest initiative to be probed, got round, improved or broken in the same way as other initiatives over these past 40 years have inexorably led to the circumvention of the latest wonder ingredient in the search for parity, balance or domination. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, made the same point, and he made it most effectively.
The Motion before us calls attention to the political and economic implications of SDI. These are important and worthy of the time of the House. The extent to which the SDI can sow dissension—and this was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew—is well illustrated by John Barry's articles in The Times
714
that were quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I have with me the article that appeared on 24th January. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and all others interested, will know that he was talking then about the Camp David talks and their aftermath. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, highly praised the shrewdness and perception of this series of articles and I would certainly agree with him. However, in my view we ought to examine a little more closely what John Barry said in his article. He said:
"The agreed statement made after their meeting was a masterpiece of ambiguity. In return for very partial blessing of Reagan's present plans. Mrs. Thatcher was able to announce agreement on four policy guidelines which mean as much or as little as either side wants".
Earlier in the same article he was very perceptive in posing one of the problems that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, about sowing dissension in the West. John Barry wrote:
"Ronald Reagan's power as a political leader is his ability to persuade the American people to share his dreams. Right now, as his inaugural speech once again showed, he is in thrall to his vision of a world made safe by anti-missile defences. And he presides over an economy rich enough to pursue it.
"Margaret Thatcher, by contrast, leads a country inclined by nature and history to manage the status quo rather than seek some dramatic new order, and her frugal soul is appalled by the mountain of money the Americans propose to gamble in search of one".
He goes on:
"President Reagan was genuinely saddened to learn of her doubts at Camp David".
As regards Mrs. Thatcher, John Barry said:
"She talked and talked, lectured him about her worries. And he realised she was just a European like all the others".
So we can see the opportunity for mischief between the alliance. I use that as one of the threads of the political implications of the SDI talks that have been referred to in this debate.
I am conscious of the fact that we are long on questions and short on answers. I make no complaint, no strong, positive assertion; but again I find that the SDI gives us cause for reflection and re-examination. The fact is that both sides need to spend less money on defence, but Russia needs to do so even more than America does. It is a certainty that Mr. Chernenko's problem is that, with an economy half the size of America's, he has to spend twice as much per Russian on defence just to keep even. The squeeze on the Russians' hopes for a better standard of life will become worse when their generals demand for the Soviet Army the new precision weapons that America has already developed.
The depressing economic consequence of the SDI is that every dollar, every pound, every rouble that is spent even on research is a dollar, a pound or a rouble less to spend on hospitals, homes and factories. We know that Geneva came forth with a package of initiatives, but in the meantime, until we reach that happy state when there is universal agreement to reduce and eliminate arms of all kind, current programmes are scheduled to proceed without let or hindrance.
Yesterday in the Commons the Secretary of State for Defence told us that the cost of Trident has now reached £9.285 billion. That was calculated on the basis that the pound was worth 1·38 dollars. We all know that that calculation is a patent nonsense—the

715
rate is now 1·12 dollars. I can share the optimism that the pound will rise. But my honourable friend Mr. Denzil Davies was spot on when he recalculated the Secretary of State's figures to show that the sum is now in excess of £10 billion and rising. What an economic body blow that programme is? For all the many reasons that were outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, I certainly share the noble Lord's view on the future of Trident—which is that it ought to have no future at all.
In this debate we are trying to examine consequences—political and economic—which are largely guesswork and based on a premise: the Strategic Defence Initiative, which has yet to be researched. We have to hang on to the fact that we are talking about a research programme, a point so effectively made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
We are in the earliest days after Geneva. Both Russia and America have acted with commendable speed. Teams of negotiators to take the next steps forward have already been announced and a date to begin negotiations has been set. I remind your Lordships that the aims for those talks have much to commend them. They are to work out effective agreements aimed at preventing an arms race in space; to work out effective agreements to terminate the arms race on earth; and to reach an effective agreement designed to achieve the complete elimination of nuclear arms everywhere.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has taken his own initiative in so ably leading us in this debate tonight. It has served a good purpose and we are all the better informed for it. The noble Lord deserves our thanks and I give them to him without reserve.
7.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I add my words to those of other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, not only for giving your Lordships the chance to discuss this matter, but for giving me the opportunity to explain the Government's policy towards the United States Strategic Defence Initiative, a subject of such obvious importance that I hope your Lordships will allow me to return to some of the points which my noble friend Lady Young addressed on 16th January in response to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy's Motion on disarmament. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, also referred to some of those points.
On that occasion my noble friend mentioned the very thorough and extensive discussion of the prospects for arms control which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister had with President Reagan last month at Camp David. During the course of that discussion they naturally touched on the subject of this debate, the Strategic Defence Initiative.
It is not surprising that a large measure of agreement emerged from that meeting, and my right honourable friend was able to tell President Reagan, as she had earlier made plain to Mr. Gorbachev, that there is no question of allowing wedges to be driven between the United Kindom and the United States on this subject. She also made clear that the research into defences against ballistic missiles being conducted under the
716
SDI programme is of course permitted under existing treaties between the United States and the Soviet Union; and, as your Lordships are aware, the Soviet Union already has extensive and long-established programmes of its own in this field. Indeed, it should be remembered that the Soviet Union already has in service the only operational ABM system anywhere in the world.
Four specific points of agreement emerged from the Camp David meeting: first, that the aim of the United States and the West was not to achieve superiority, but only to maintain balance, bearing in mind developments in the Soviet Union; secondly, that in view of treaty obligations, any SDI-related deployment would have to be a matter for negotiations; thirdly, that the overall aim behind the SDI was to enhance deterrence and not to undermine it; and, fourthly, that the aim of East-West negotiation, including the forthcoming arms control talks between the United States and the Soviet Union, should be to achieve security with reduced levels of offensive forces on both sides. These four points are the basis of Her Majesty's Government's approach to the question of the SDI. They speak for themselves and I shall not seek to elaborate on them.
I should however reiterate the welcome we have given to the negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union, which are due to begin on 12th March in Geneva and which will address the whole range of nuclear and space arms. Her Majesty's Government fully share the objective agreed by Mr. Shultz and Mr. Gromyko on 8th January:
"To work out effective agreements aimed at preventing an arms race in space and terminating it on earth".
The prospect of serious negotiations, coming after so long an interval in which the Russians simply refused to talk, is a clear vindication of the steadfastness with which the alliance has sought a resumption of the East-West arms control dialogue. There are certainly grounds for satisfaction but not euphoria. As President Reagan has said, the need for patience and perseverence will be as great as ever if this fresh opportunity for arms control is also to prove a positive turning-point in arms control history.
Yet listening to some of the criticisms levelled by several noble Lords this evening, I feel bound to rebut the charge, apparently laid at the Government's door, of complacency in the face of this historic challenge. I can assure those of your Lordships who fear the development of an arms race in space, that the Government's concern on this score is by no means new. Our view has often been made clear that such unrestrained competition, taking the arms race quite literally into a new and infinite dimension, would benefit no one. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister herself stressed the need for negotiation and mutual restraint if the urgent challenge posed by costly new space technologies is to be met.
Lest any of your Lordships should think that this is little but a belated recognition of developments that have only in recent months begun to attract extensive public and parliamentary interest, I would recall the speech made by my honourable friend, the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Arrairs, Mr. Luce, to the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, as long ago as October 1983, in

717
which he amply brought out the complexities involved in arms control in space. He said:
" Much attention has rightly been paid to the problem of arms control agreements in space. The argument that progress in arms control is easier to achieve when the weapons concerned have not yet been fully developed, let alone deployed, is a good one, which the history of disarmament to some degree endorses. But we must not forget that in outer space some military developments can have a positive effect on international security. The use of satellites to monitor arms control agreements is an obvious case in point; and there are others. We should therefore beware of the quick fix, the easy option which could complicate rather than resolve the issue. That however is no excuse for ignoring obvious opportunities for agreement which would truly enhance security".
In parenthesis, I should add that much confusion in the debate about arms control in space is caused by those who call glibly for the total "demilitarisation" of space or blanket bans or moratoria on "space weapons". A more rigorous approach that acknowledges the beneficial nature of some military uses of space would save us from some of the intellectual blind alleys with which discussion of this subject is afflicted; it would permit a better appreciation of what arms control measures might truly benefit international peace and stability. In the propaganda campaign that will no doubt accompany the Soviet return to the negotiating table clear-sightedness will be essential.
Nothing could be clearer, despite Soviet propaganda, than that the Strategic Defence Initiative will be on the table in the negotiations along with everthing else. President Reagan said so in those very words on 9th January. Britain has welcomed on numerous occasions United States readiness to discuss with the Russians research programmes on strategic defence. To catalogue those occasions, when the American offer appeared to be falling on wilfully deaf Soviet ears, would be tedious.
But as I have pointed out, United States undertakings are not limited to current SDI research: at Camp David, President Reagan and the Prime Minister were in full agreement that, in the hypothetical future event of any SDI-related deployment, in view of treaty obligations this would have to be a matter for negotiations. Anyone who is inclined to confuse the SDI research programme with the script of "Star Wars" should reflect on the following extract from a statement issued by the White House on 3rd January this year:
"Developments of defensive systems would most usefully be done in the context of a co-operative, equitable and verifiable arms control environment that regulates the offensive and defensive development of the US and the Soviet Union.".
Those are not the words of an administration hell-bent on taking war into space. As for the present situation, I am sure your Lordships will recognise that a measure of Western research into defences against ballistic missiles is prudent insurance against the possibility of a unilateral Soviet breakthrough in this field. To ban or constrain laboratory research through international arms control agreement would clearly not be an easy matter. Nor is it certain that such an intrusive approach would be welcome to the Soviet Union, given its activities in this sphere and its past attitude to verification.
The question of "linkage"—between ballistic missile defence and offensive nuclear arms—is a complex one and fundamental to the forthcoming
718
negotiations, which will address both areas. There is a clear and logical connection between the two, which last year the Russians sought strenuously to deny but which they now openly acknowledge. Sufficient unto the day, perhaps, is the propaganda thereto. Undoubtedly the SDI has been a factor in persuading the Russians back to the negotiating table. The Americans have made clear that the SDI is intended to complement efforts to reduce nuclear arms. But we must not be misled into seeing it simply as a crude negotiating level or bargaining chip. A creative and imaginative approach by both negotiating partners to the interconnected problems of nuclear and space arms ought, we believe, to lead to progress in both areas, and would help achieve what both we and the Americans have long been pressing for—enhanced security with greatly reduced levels of forces on both sides.
The maintenance and enhancement of deterrence, prudent research into ballistic missile defence, balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons—these are surely uncontentious aims. Naturally we are determined to preserve the greatest possible cohesion of the Western Alliance in support of these objectives. We shall do everything necessary to achieve this. Divisions between us on these important issues would serve the interests of no-one but our adversaries. The United States continues to consult its allies about SDI developments. Critics of the alliance would do well to heed the Prime Minister's warning against attempts at wedge-driving, which cannot succeed in the face of effective consultations among free allies.
Some of your Lordships have rightly drawn attention to inherent features of the SDI programme that have been the subject of hot debate on both sides of the Atlantic. One such feature is the technical feasibility of the basic aim under investigation—in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, and others this evening—to defend against ballistic missiles. On this, I would only say that President Reagan himself acknowledged in his original SDI speech of March 1983 that the technical task was indeed formidable and would take decades of effort to accomplish. The technical problems involved, which include that of likely countermeasures, are obvious, and present research is designed to do no more than to establish what may be possible and desirable. It will be several years before decisions are taken on whether or not to proceed from there.
The same applies to the question of cost, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has referred. At present all that can be said is that the United States Administration is engaged in requesting Congressional approval for research funds of 26 billion dollars over a five-year period, of which very little has yet been approved and allocated. As the SDI proceeds, cost factors will need to be carefully weighed. Were an extensive system of anti-missile defences, if feasible, ever to be deployed, it would undoubtedly be very expensive.
May I turn now to one or two of the points which have been raised during the course of this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked particularly about the effects upon the United Kingdom nuclear deterrent. As my right honourable friend the Secretary

719
of State for Defence pointed out in another place as recently as yesterday, Trident will be in service long before any deployment of comprehensive ballistic missile defences, assuming of course that such defences prove feasible. In short, Trident will provide the best possible means of ensuring the continued effectiveness of our national nuclear deterrent well into the future, regardless of Soviet ABM programmes. No comparable expenditure on so-called conventional weapons could possibly prove of the same deterrent value.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred to the cost of Trident 2 following the announcement of my right honourable friend yesterday. I would remind him that the great bulk of Trident expenditure will fall several years from now, and I am simply not in a position to anticipate what the dollar exchange rate might be, for example, at that time. Therefore, any calculations which may be made on today's rates, or rates which existed recently, are not likely to have much relevance when the time comes.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, if it is not possible to calculate the future dollar/pound ratio, what was the basis on which the 1·38 dollars figure was arrived at in order to make the present calculation?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that was the rate applying at the end of June last year. It has been the historical fact that we have always published the revised costings based on the rate at the end of June of the previous year. There was nothing unusual about that.
I was pleased that several noble Lords drew attention to the continued need for nuclear deterrence whether or not we acquire a ballistic missile defence. The United States leaders have explicitly recognised this. As the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, pointed out, President Reagan reaffirmed it at Camp David.
With respect to the noble Lords, Lord Mayhew and Lord Kennet, the SDI should not be confused with High Frontier ambitions of replacing deterrence with defence, leak-proof or otherwise. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked me, too, about the timescale of SDI. I think the noble Lord had it in mind that the SDI programme would move into the hardware procurement stage within the next four years. I think that that is extremely unlikely. The programme is, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, rightly pointed out, a research programme only at this stage. Development, let alone production, could not begin, on the most optimistic assessment, for very many years yet.
Finally, I must address perhaps the most serious aspect of the SDI—its implications, in the words of the Motion, for "global stability and peace". In this context, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, signed in 1972 by the United States and the Soviet Union, is of clear relevance. The Government have repeatedly said that we regard the treaty as an important element in preserving international peace and security, and as a fundamental part of the current strategic situation. It is therefore important to note that neither side has signalled any intention of breaking the treaty. It should also be clear that the treaty permits research into defences against ballistic missiles, and, therefore, that
720
United States research, as President Reagan confirmed on 9th January, is consistent with existing obligations.
But stability goes beyond the question of treaty compliance. To those who argue exaggeratedly that SDI research implies the overthrow of current strategic doctrine, I would reply that the Americans, including President Reagan, have repeatedly stressed that their aim is not to undermine or erode deterrence but to enhance and strengthen it. This was explicitly reaffirmed at Camp David and is a point of paramount importance. I know that some of your Lordships remain unconvinced by the evidence of their own experience of a generation of stability, but the fact remains that deterrence has helped keep the peace for forty years. Whatever prospects—good or bad—that may exist for expanded defences against ballistic missiles, and however fruitful or otherwise SDI research proves to be, there is no doubt that we shall need to sustain and strengthen deterrence into the foreseeable future. That, my Lords, is fundamental to the strategic stability on which both East and West depend.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting debate. I thank the Minister for setting out the position of the Government in his usual careful and accurate manner, treading his usual narrow path between the platitude on the one hand and the indiscretion on the other.
I cannot resume my seat without one further brief comment. I thought until this evening, after more than 30 years of experience in Parliament, that I had suffered every humiliation to which a parliamentary speaker can be exposed. This evening, however, in the middle of my speech, the television lights went out. I attributed this to a technical fault or possibly union restrictive practice. I can think of no other credible explanation! I am most grateful to the broadcasting authorities for broadcasting the first half of my speech, However, I would offer them one word of advice. They do not have to televise the speeches in extenso of noble Lords, but if the television lights are on when a noble Lord begins speaking they should still be on when he resumes his seat.
My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Buses: Assaults on Staff
7.51 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton Lord Belhaven and Stenton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the results of the campaign, recently launched by London Transport and the Metropolitan Police, to step up the policing of London buses with the aim of counteracting violence and threats of violence to bus drivers and conductors; and whether they consider that in evaluating the nature of these assaults and devising counter-measures sufficient notice is taken of the views of drivers and conductors themselves.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, as I am not allowed to do it at the end, I should like to thank those noble Lords who have put their names down to speak.

721
I do not see them all here. I am sorry to say that I have had a message from the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that he is unable to speak although his name is on the speaker's list. That is a great pity because I enjoy listening to him and I enjoy reading his many articles.
The only interest I have to declare in this debate is as a fare-paying passenger on London Transport buses. I dare say that that must be an interest that all your Lordships have, unless indeed any of your Lordships present are multi-millionaires, which I doubt.
Baroness Trumpington: Or are old-age pensioners, my Lords.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, at the outset I should also like to pay tribute to the courtesy I have always met from bus-drivers, conductors and other people employed by London Transport. This is a fairly general experience and, considering the job they do, I think their good manners and friendliness deserve all credit. While on this subject I should like to pay tribute to bus drivers in particular who have always seemed to me to be the safest drivers on the roads of this city. If only car drivers, lorry drivers and, I would single out in particular, coach drivers could drive half as well as London bus drivers London would be a much safer place to go about in.
The rising incidence of assaults on bus crews cannot be separated from the increasing lawlessness of the times in which we live. That could be the answer which my noble friend might give to my question: "What is all this about? It is happening everywhere!" I have thought about this, but for the life of me I cannot see that it would make things any better. Try saying that to a bus conductor who has just been beaten up. In my view, we all have to think very hard about this violence. We have to think harder than we have been thinking. But that does not mean that I intend to attack the authorities who, so far as I can see, are doing their best in a difficult situation. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that so far they do not appear to have the answer. Here I would say that perhaps there is no solution, but I think that is too pessimistic an assumption and I do not subscribe to it.
My object in asking this Question is to call attention to a grave and scandalous situation and to elicit a reply from my noble friend, to which I look forward with interest. Also, with some humility, I shall put forward a few suggestions myself.
We should try to see what the situation is about and for that purpose I quote briefly from the London Weekly News of 14th July last. The quote states:
"This year up to 3,000 ticket collectors, bus drivers, conductors and station supervisors will be assaulted while going about their business. If you are a ticket collector on London Underground's Saturday night shift you have a one in fifty chance of being beaten up".
I could quote more but that is enough. It shows a situation which is—or ought to be—beyond the bounds of public tolerance. I do not know how much more of this there has to be before our public transport system begins to break down, but it is clear enough to me that the public servants are carrying a burden of fear and stress which we have no right to impose upon them. There is a clear obligation on every one of us, not just on Her Majesty's Government and the police,
722
to do everything we can to protect these people who are serving us and the public interest with courage and loyalty.
I now come to the second part of my Question, which is how much notice is being taken of the views of the drivers and the conductors. I expect that my noble friend will tell us that these views are being listened to. The unions are in close consultation and, as representatives of the workforce, they in turn talk to the management and listen to their members. I do not doubt any of that, but I enter a small caveat; that is that I am not sure that this is how unions are regarded by their members nowadays—that is, as representatives and tribunes of the people. I suspect that there is a growing tendency to lump unions and management together as "them". I am sure that this is so. It may be unfortunate; it may be yet one more example of the cussedness of human nature, but it is none the less something which should be taken into account when dealing with this problem.
I know that measures are being taken, and my noble friend will no doubt tell us what they are. Safety screens for drivers are one of the devices I have seen, but I have to say—not because I want to say it but no discussion of law and order at this time can be complete without its being mentioned—that there are people, happily not in your Lordships' House, who do not appear to be so well disposed as the Government, the police and the unions involved.
The political attack on the police has been gathering momentum for the last few years. This is something quite new to our body politic and to me it is utterly deplorable. It does no service in this situation to equate criminal violence with the police violence necessary to contain it. Yet this is being done all the time. There has also been the fact that violence in the miners' strike has denuded police forces all over the country, and that must be to the detriment of our hard pressed public servants in this city.
There is an imperative obligation on all those in public positions to protect those who serve us. Politics should not enter into it and in the past they never did. Those who seek to challenge public order on questionable gounds of workers' solidarity or on any other grounds whatsoever bear a heavy burden of responsibility.
I do not pretend to be any sort of expert on counter measures. I can only make one suggestion which has occurred to me personally. I was in New York in 1979, which is some time ago but I imagine they still operate the same system on their buses. From memory the bus driver was in a sort of cage. I do not think anyone could have assaulted the driver even if he had wanted to. There was a machine beside him for coins and a turnstile. One had to put two quarter dollars into the machine and move through the turnstile into the bus. If one did not have two quarters in one's pocket one could not travel. Once on the bus, a passenger could travel two stops, 70 stops or as far as the bus went for those two quarter-dollars. No change was given, and to change buses one had to go through the whole procedure again, so it would cost one dollar to take two buses.
From what I have learnt of incidents in London a lot of trouble comes from the large variety of fares charged. I have seen a report from London Transport

723
News relating to assaults on staff at Cricklewood and Willesden garages, where it is stated that in 1983 there were 61 assaults on staff at these two garages, more than half of which involved disputes about fares. This is a high proportion and I urge my noble friend to consider the possibility of charging flat rates with no change given. I have no doubt that this would be unpopular to start with, particularly with those going on long journeys, but it appears that the citizens of New York have got used to it and perhaps the citizens of London and other cities in this country might, too.
We have all the machinery of crime prevention, of creating systems which seek to avoid violent situations or confrontations, and on the police side there is the business of catching criminals and improving methods of doing so. However, I cannot avoid the problem of what happens when the criminals are caught and convicted. Only last Thursday in this House the matter was raised by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, in an excellent speech. To my mind, and I believe it is a view widely held, sentences on criminals, particularly on violent criminals, are not severe enough in this country. Noble and learned judges and magistrates in your Lordships' House told us last week that this is not so; but they are there in the courts. They are doing the sentencing, and they ought to know what they are talking about better than we do. I understand what they are saying. Come to think of it, it is exactly what they would say.
I realise that I am on rather dangerous ground here, but I might risk reminding our noble and learned judges that in this instance they are judges in their own cause. Of course, they think it is all right because they are the people who are doing it; they are honourable men and women, and they would not pursue a course if they did not think it was right. Nonetheless, it is the case, as I have said, that there is grave public concern about the leniency of sentences. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor told the House on Thursday that complaints about this were reaching him in increasing volume. To paraphrase what he continued to say—and I hope that he will not mind if I put it as an implication—he implied that there was no smoke without at least some fire.
Noble and learned judges, and notably the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, blamed this concern on press reports of proceedings. But my experience is that it is not only that. I have heard people directly concerned, who have been involved in these barbarous incidents and in the court proceedings which followed them, saying exactly the same thing. They may not have access to confidential files on the accused, but they do have access to the victims and they know of their suffering. There is a gathering feeling—and I know this to be true—that innocent victims of crime are sentenced by their assailants far more severely than the criminals are sentenced by the courts.
But, of course, I am on a sticky wicket here because I am supposed to be asking my noble friend what he intends to do about it. Having listened to the debate last Thursday on Clause 22 of the Prosecution of Offences Bill, the answer seems to be, "Very little". Even when the Government come up with a mild and (one might say) half-baked proposal like that in Clause
724
22, they are instantly assailed in your Lordships' House by the whole weight of the legal establishment. Our legal procedures are so deeply engrained that it seems to me that nothing short of a revolution would change them—and from where I sit I certainly do not want a revolution.
Perhaps a little humility might help here, my Lords. I wish we could stop hearing noble Lords and others saying that we have the best legal system in the world. That may or may not be so: but all I would say here is that if that is so, and judging from my personal experience of our legal system, God help the rest of the world! As things are, and in relation to the widespread view that sentences on violent criminals are not severe enough, it seems to me that the only answer, if we agree that we do not think that sentences on violent criminals are severe enough, is to go on saying so. I would ask my noble friend this one question: Does he agree with this; and, if he does agree with it, will he go on saying so?
I shall finish where I started. This matter of assaults on public transport employees is a most serious one, and it will not just go away. At its worst—and we may come to this, though I hope we do not—it could result in the breakdown of our system of public transport. After all, a man or woman employed in the public service on a bus or a railway should not feel every day that he is "going over the top". This is not, and cannot be allowed to become, a war situation. Yet the stress imposed at the present time on many of these people is such that it is a very close imitation of war. I realise that the Government and the authorities involved are taking the situation seriously, and I await with great interest, and indeed with hope, the reply of my noble friend.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am certainly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, for putting down this Unstarred Question. I hope that it will not only draw attention to the seriousness of the problem but I hope also that it will give some reassurance as to the steps that are being taken to deal with the situation. I was particularly pleased to note the tributes that the noble Lord paid to the staff of London Transport buses, and I think that that will be very much appreciated. The Question deals with London. Although the problem exists throughout the country, the severity of the assaults and the number of incidents are greater in the London area.
On this matter, I am advised, and have been advised, by the Transport and General Workers' Union, and I had a helpful consultation the other day with two of their most responsible officials who deal with the transport crews in the London area. I was particularly pleased that they were not only concerned with the situation as it affects bus crews but also as it affects passengers. I understand that assaults on London buses have exceeded 1,000 every year over the past six years. In fact, in 1982, the figure was 1,240; and in 1983 it was 1,157. They have analysed the assaults for the first six months of 1984 which amounted to 455, and as the noble Lord implied the largest number were disputes over fares, over passes, and so on.
However, of particular concern is that 109 of the 455 assaults in the first six months of last year were

725
muggings and hooliganism—the hooliganism particularly of groups refusing to pay. The issue is raised, I am assured, regularly at union branch meetings. All the assaults are monitored by the union, and the union's four divisional officers meet the management of London Regional Transport every fortnight to discuss the question of assaults. This is proper representation and they are very appreciative of this opportunity to discuss the matter regularly with the management of London Regional Transport. But the issue affects recruitment and also affects the retention of staff. I am told that the turnover of bus staff is 10 per cent. a year. When one considers the training that is given, particularly for drivers, a turnover of 10 per cent. is a bad waste. Not only do we have the problem of unsocial hours which affects bus crews but we have the problem of the increasing severity of assaults.
An interesting point was given to me that over the past five years, 90 per cent. of the unofficial strikes on London buses have been occasioned as a result of assaults and only 1 per cent. because of schedules. I can assure noble Lords that it used to be the problem of schedules, of timekeeping, on which there were always short unofficial strikes.
I was pleased to note that the union officials—and these are responsible officials in the London Region—paid a tribute to what they said was the enormous assistance given to them by the Metropolitan Police. Every garage has a Metropolitan Police inspector allocated for liaison purposes and the garage can contact that inspector at any time. It was particularly emphasised by the union officials—and they welcome this—that when new constables are enrolled part of their training is going down to the local bus garage to talk to the crews and to the union representatives. Also they are asked to take a look at what they refer to as the "moving beat"; in other words, to get on the buses and talk to the crew. I think this is excellent. It builds up confidence, and I hope that that can be encouraged.
London Transport introduced emergency radio links and alarms. I was pleased to see that in the business plan, which was published in December, of London Regional Transport (which has now taken over from London Transport) they confirm that all buses are now equipped with emergency radio links and alarms. I am assured that there is what they call the "red code" where the driver can contact directly the control at Baker Street and, at the same time, another inspector is alerted at Scotland Yard.
All this is encouraging; but I was concerned to note from the London Transport report for 1983—which I re-read—when they were commenting on the move to install radio links (and they had already been fitted at that time in quite a number of buses) that although the number of assaults in 1983 fell by 7 per cent., the severity, as measured by the number of cases resulting in absence from work, worsened significantly.
I am assured that the fear of conductors about the actions of passengers started to develop in the early 1960s, but the problem has now transferred to passengers themselves, who are being assaulted, and not just the crews of the buses. Assaults most frequently arise from questions involving fares collection. The union tell me that in 1982 47 per cent.
726
of cases arose from various aspects of the collection of fares. In 1983 the figure was 49·5 per cent.
Obviously, the development of travel cards is of great help, because it means that there are less cash transactions. I do not know whether the noble Lord the Minister can tell me whether consideration is now being given—because he will recall that in the 1984 Act, we approved an amendment (and the GLC wanted this inserted)—to cover the problem of collecting penalty fares. Regarding collecting penalty fares—when already we have the terrific problem over the collection of ordinary fares—the noble Lord would be a very brave man in the circumstances to attempt to deal with that.
Many incidents occur at night as the public houses and other licensed establishments close. I think that is fairly understandable. They also occur when discos close. I do not know what arrangements there may be to find out when these discos are closing or what plans can be made to deal with the problem.
Many of the worst assaults in terms of seriousness of the injuries, take place at that time of night. However, what is also of great concern is that very substantial numbers of incidents take place between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. as the schools and colleges are closing. The union has suggested that ways and means ought to be considered of getting schools involved. Visits could be made to schools to try to get a community attitude to their own local routes and efforts could be made to encourage pupils to visit the local garage and talk to the crews. Other ways ought to be considered of tackling these problems, in view of the growing number of incidents involving students taking place between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. when the educational establishments close.
Muggings are increasing, and in the past two years the staffs have been greatly worried about the increasing use of knives—not just being used physically, but being used as threats. Statistics show that the incidents are highest against conductors—and I think we can understand that—it becomes a particular problem with double-decker buses. There are still many double-decker buses with conductors on them, and there is a need for some form of quick communication between the conductor and the driver to indicate when there is trouble. I do not believe there is such an arrangement at the moment and perhaps this is a matter which could be considered.
I am told that there are now 5,000 buses within London Regional Transport, of which some 3,000 are one-man operated. These buses are on 63 per cent of the routes; but that does not mean that they represent necessarily 63 per cent. of all buses. The problem is that two thirds of the one-man operated buses are double-deckers, and generally the driver is safer. However, I am told that on many routes even the driver will think very carefully before he challenges people who come to him to pay fares, or he will avoid getting involved in arguments.
Obviously, on all double-decker buses, the passengers are increasingly at risk, whether the buses are one-man operated or not. It may be thought that the one-man operated buses provide the most safety because the doors are operated by the driver; but there has to be an emergency switch fitted to the doors and

727
it has to be one that can be seen and it must be accessible. Some of the villains know this. Therefore, groups will antagonise passengers and there will be attempts to mug them. The emergency switch is operated by the gangs and they are off the bus before anybody can do anything about them. I understand the problem is that, despite the close liaison with the police and all the measures that are now being taken, only some 20 per cent. (or one in five) of the persons involved in the assaults are apprehended.
The Question does not deal with the Underground, but I should like to raise one point in this connection, because I believe that the Minister and London Transport will have to give serious consideration to the development of unmanned Underground stations and the problem of developing one-man operated trains without guards—because we could find ourselves really inviting the same sort of thing which exists on many of the New York underground routes. There will be the problem of the unmanned station, with only three or four persons getting off the train, and muggers will be about.
I welcome, and I know the union welcomes, the committee that has been established by the Home Office to look into these matters, I understand on a national basis. While we do not want undue haste so that the thing is skimped, I would urge the need for speed and would echo what I believe the union has pressed for—that the Department of Education should be involved in the Home Office committee. That ought to be done, in view of the problem that we have of students being involved in many of the incidents. I understand that the union has submitted a memorandum, but I will not go into the details of it tonight.
One point, however, I am concerned about and the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, raised this point—the point of having a physical barrier between the driver and the passengers so that the driver can deal with a cash transaction but there is a barrier of some kind. Many drivers do not want this segregation from the passengers and I think it is a matter that will have to be considered with great care. I hope too that the Home Office committee will seriously consider what sort of publicity campaign can be conducted in the radio, television and other media. A lot of care will have to be taken over this, but I believe it is a matter which ought to be considered.
There is one last point, my Lords. The cost of equipment and all these other matters, as well as the cost of sick pay and compensation falls on London Regional Transport. I understand that the figure is approaching £2 million a year, when everything is taken into consideration. Should this fall upon LRT, or should the Government make an additional grant of some kind?—for this is, after all, a social problem and while London Regional Transport are attempting to cope with it, with the assistance of the police and other bodies, it seems to me that this is something which ought to be done. I think everyone will agree that everything possible should be done. We cannot expect men and women to have to accept assaults as part of their normal job. Somehow, we must encourage a situation where passengers can use buses and, I hope, Tubes, without the fear of assaults and attacks.
8.19 p.m.
Lord Mountevans; My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, for the lucid way in which he has introduced his Question this evening. I share his interest in the fare-paying passenger and heartily join him in paying tribute to the London Regional Transport staff. I am no less grateful, as I am sure many of your Lordships will be, to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for pre-empting many of my thoughts this evening.
My first approach to the topic is made against a number of preconceptions—the behaviour of the drunk after closing time, which has been touched on; robbery as a motive; gangs of youth out for an evening in pursuit of what they conceive to be fun. We have all read and heard of such violence. We have heard of the Kilburn Triangle. But as both the noble Lords, Lord Belhaven and Lord Underhill, have demonstrated, the facts are really very much different.
The problem arises not only out of over-consumption and the licensing laws, not only out of fare disputes nor even out of intent to rob. As has been said, it has two peaks, schools finishing and pubs closing, but it goes on all day long. In terms of schools closing, I wonder whether it is not violence in response to what, perhaps, should not in this Chamber be called peer-group pressure, but violence in reaction to the disciplines of the classroom or perhaps, sadly, to the lack of such disciplines.
Is the violence a reflection of frustration—the frustration brought about by having somewhere to go and something to do, but no means of achieving one's objective because there are no means of getting to the point that one is trying to reach? The bus is a long time coming and when it does come the assailant takes out his anger on the first LRT employee he sees, and thus one has another instance of the violence that we are discussing this evening. Better policing can counteract this threat, but does not the answer lie to no small extent in a better service?
I should like to ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he can shed any light on the motives which underlie the attacks which we are discussing tonight, and also whether he can confirm or amplify the contention of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that although this problem is not unique to London it is very much more frequent in London. If this is so, does one reason not perhaps lie in the fact that services outside London are often very much more reliable than those which we enjoy in the capital? While a recent campaign to step up policing is to be welcomed, I wonder whether it is not a palliative for a regrettable situation rather than an attempt to get at the underlying problem. I am convinced that a more efficient and reliable service would make a similar contribution to reducing the frustrations of travel in London and would thus serve to give our bus crews a safer working environment.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord raised this Question this evening and I am also very glad that we shall shortly hear from the Minister about the progress of this campaign described in the Question and about what they propose to do to

729
make travel by bus less risky and to clear it of violence. We are concerned in the main with the bus staff but I should not like to say that we can distinguish the staff from the public and from the passengers, who are all concerned with the same problem although the question is more precisely drafted.
The key, in my view, must be policing at its best. People need not think that you can solve any problem of this sort just by thinking, "more men, more power". That is not enough. It has to be a wiser plan than that. Buses which are on difficult roads are notorious to police everywhere and policing such routes is very difficult in manpower. Those concerned have to decide how much money they are prepared to spend on those services in comparison with other services.
For example, men cannot do the same job at the same time. Men in uniform may be necessary, to appear in popular streets where there is a lot of traffic, shopping and people walking. They want to see men in uniform. On the other hand, in plain clothes they will not catch thieves. They may drive certain thieves away but they will not catch thieves, and this is not a job for one man alone. Very often a police constable does not know how many men there are kicking up a fuss on a bus. And, lastly, we have to think of the poor staff.
Think of the problems that a police constable in plain clothes may find when he gets on to a bus because there is trouble. You can just imagine the situation when there is one woman conductor who does not know what to do when she has identified a thief or has two drunken men on top. It is a problem which has to be met by instant policing.
Over the last few years we have heard that the position has been transformed by the two-way radio. I think that I heard a noble Lord say that the whole fleet is now equipped with these radios. I thought that the scheme was only part of the way through. But it is very important and it must be of enormous advantage to the morale of the staff, who feel that they can rely on it.
I am not being critical. I never was, but until recently the British transport police were just not strong enough to do the whole job everywhere in London. It was not expected that they would do because the job would be shared with the Metropolitan Police on many of these busy routes. It was just the same when I went to Washington DC two years ago and found two forces both policing in the same streets; one was the City of Washington Police and the other was what they called the Metro Transit Police. The system is simpler than ours but I think it is a better solution than just having one main force responsible for the buses on main streets—not that that prevents any constable who notices what is going on from doing what he considers is his duty.
I want to make just one suggestion. We ought to make more use of special constables. I have seen them used of an evening in our Midland cities wearing uniform and in pairs on the popular streets when there are a lot of people around. I think that they could be of very great help to morale because the public complain that they never see a blue uniform. I am sure that if they are properly looked after and given adequate training they will be very happy doing that job and will be extremely useful, so I hope that that suggestion will not be forgotten.
730
This whole business of policing is very costly and we are all inclined to underrate the difficulties and the costs of solving the problems, which will take some time. But this is something on which we have clearly made progress this evening and we are grateful to the noble Lord. I hope that it will not be too long before we have another occasion like this when it will be possible for us to hear again of further steps forward and to hear that improved figures are very much on the way.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Belhaven for raising this important topic and for giving us the opportunity to respond to the points that he and other noble Lords have raised. First, I should like to express the Government's very deep concern about the incidence of assaults and violence on public servants of all types, and I shall be explaining later the action being taken to assess the problem more generally and to consider what action might be taken to alleviate it.
However, the Question asked by my noble friend relates particularly to London Regional Transport bus staff, and it is an unfortunate fact that they are among the front line as regards assaults and violence to public servants. This is a matter which the Government and London Regional Transport take very seriously indeed. I should say at the outset that there is no simple solution—if there were, it would have been adopted long ago. The fact is that assaults and violence reflect the society in which we live, and it is an unfortunate fact that violence against the person has been on the increase in recent years. As regards London Regional Transport, I was appalled to learn that there are nearly 1,200 reported assaults a year on buses in London and that about 800 result in time off work. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, gave us some more detailed figures which I must admit I did not have. I can assure the House that the Government support London Regional Transport in taking any measures it feels appropriate to deal with this problem.
I come now to the first part of my noble friend's Question about whether the Government are satisfied with the actions of London Regional Transport and the Metropolitan Police as regards the policing of London buses with the aim of counteracting violence to drivers and conductors. I should explain that prior to 1984 the formal responsibility for policing the buses rested with the London Regional Transport section of the British Transport Police, who were responsible for policing both the Underground and the buses. I understand that in 1983 in the region of 20 officers were allocated to policing the buses. However, with effect from 1st January 1984 responsibility for policing the buses was transferred wholly to the Metropolitan Police and, since that time, a number of actions have been taken to help combat the problem of assaults to bus crews.
In the first place, following a successful experiment in North-west London the Metropolitan Police now encourage their officers to "hop on a bus" during the normal course of their duties. This is a complete reversal of previous policy and has had the effect of considerably increasing the police presence on buses during 1984. In addition, the Metropolitan Police

731
have regular liaison meetings with LRT at all levels; all assaults on bus crews are monitored, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned; policemen are encouraged to visit local bus garages; the training of the Metropolitan Police includes developing an understanding of the problems relating to assaults on bus crews; and LRT training staff have visited the Metropolitan Police training establishment to discuss the problem. I should also mention that the Metropolitan Police enjoy free travel on the buses during their off-duty periods, which is also of some benefit in providing moral support to the crews.
I think it is clear from what I have said that the responsible bodies directly involved with this issue, London Regional Transport and the Metropolitan Police, are doing all they can to ensure that, in so far as policing can help alleviate the problem, relevant action is being taken. I understand that as a result of this activity a number of arrests have been made which would not otherwise have been made. It would be misleading, however, were I to suggest that this action has had a dramatic effect by way of a reduction in assaults on bus crews. It is too soon to know what the long-term effect will be. The fact is that the incidence of these assaults cannot be predicted, and, as I am sure your Lordships will recognise, it is just not physically possible to maintain full police surveillance of all buses.
What I can say, however is that from the point of view of the morale and confidence of London Regional Transport staff the campaign has shown considerable success. London Regional Transport and the police hope that the campaign will result in more tangible benefits in the future. As I indicated at the start of my speech, however, there is no simple solution and increased policing is only one aspect of trying to alleviate the problem. There are many other steps which are being taken by London Regional Transport, or which are currently being evaluated, which it is hoped will bring about a reduction in assaults.
In the first place, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned—and I can assure my noble friend Lord Inglewood on this point—all London Regional Transport's buses are now fitted with two-way radios which enable assistance to be called if needed. They also have an alarm sysem involving flashing lights and a klaxon horn which can be operated by the driver. Secondly, all new entrants undergo a special course in public relations attitudes to prepare them for the potentially violent situation and to suggest means by which such situations could be defused.
As was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, London Regional Transport is experimenting with the use of screens to protect the drivers of one-person operated buses from assault. There are obvious advantages of such screens in respect of assault protection although reservations have been expressed about possible safety hazards from the driving viewpoint. The design and use of such screens is being carefully evaluated by London Regional Transport.
A further measure which can help reduce assaults is the introduction of more one-person operated
732
vehicles. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, quoted some statistics. I have some statistics, but I am not sure whether they entirely tally with what was said by the noble Lord. My statistics show that while conductors currently form only 30 per cent. of operating staff they experience about 71 per cent. of assaults, with little distinction being shown between men and women. A comparison carried out by LRT of conductor buses with one-person operated buses showed that conductors were more than four times more liable to assault than driver operators. London Regional Transport currently has 54 per cent. of its buses under one-person operation and aims to increase this proportion to 66 per cent. by the spring of 1986. Consideration is being given to extending that proportion further, but only where it is suitable for the particular routes.
The statistics also show that by far the largest area of dispute leading to assaults and violence is the issue of fares and change. Clearly, therefore, a fares structure which is as simple as possible will help considerably in reducing the opportunity for disagreement. As your Lordships will be aware, London Regional Transport has introduced a simple zonal fare system which, together with a considerable increase in off-sales of bus tickets and the introduction of photocards for children between the ages of 14 and 16, should help considerably in reducing the areas of potential conflict. My noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton suggested that a flat fare, as in New York, with no change given, may help to alleviate the problem. I am grateful to him for that suggestion. I believe, however, that there are a number of difficulties in the way of adopting it. The problem with London is its geographical spread and the fact that many of the routes are very lengthy. In order to have a flat rate, it would be necessary to increase the minimum fare considerably. This, in turn, would discourage short-hop journeys, which at present make up the majority. The implementation of such a proposal would require a very considerable increase in subsidy. I understand that LRT has experimented with my noble friend's other suggestion about accepting only exact fares on the buses. It found, however, that this can cause great annoyance to the public and is likely to increase the likelihood of assaults.
I have mentioned only a few examples of the type of measures which are being taken or are under consideration by London Regional Transport in trying to alleviate the problem. In evaluating these measures, to return to my noble friend's Question, I understand that full and regular consultation takes place between LRT management and staff. Apart from formal negotiations with the unions, there is a London Bus Committee consisting of full-time union officials as well as lay representatives of the drivers and conductors who are directly elected by the platform staff. This committee meets LRT bus management at district and head-office levels monthly, and more often if need be, to discuss any matters affecting the buses. There is therefore full opportunity for the views of drivers and conductors to be represented, and these are taken fully into account by London Regional Transport.
My noble friend Lord Belhaven raised the question of tougher penalties. I can tell my noble friend that persons convicted of serious offences of assault are already, liable to a maximum penalty of life

733
imprisonment. It is also now the case that prisoners serving sentences of more than five years for offences are unlikely to be granted parole. It is sometimes difficult for courts to take account of the long-term effects of injuries when deciding the appropriate penalty. Victims should therefore give the best infomation possible at the time of the hearing. I hope my noble friend will forgive me if I do not comment on the progress of the Prosecution of Offences Bill through your Lordships' House, particularly of Clause 22.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, raised a number of points. Penalty fares and the question of the implementation of penalty fares is still under consideration by LRT; as he said, it was in the 1984 Act. As the noble Lord indicated, it will need to be handled with great care and LRT is taking into account all the very difficult considerations that go with it.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned visits to schools. LRT has from time to time sent representatives to schools either at the request of the school or where problems were being experienced in particular areas. There is no continuing programme but this is one of the matters which will be considered by the working group. On the proposals for unmanned Underground stations, again I can say that LRT will carefully consider the question of possible violence in any proposals relating to bringing these in.
I cannot give the noble Lord much encouragement with regard to special grants to LRT: we have no plans to do that, as the noble Lord no doubt expected me to say. The trouble with special grants is that they too easily develop into general grants under another name. The Government feel that the planned level of grant is adequate for all LRT's functions.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, mentioned discipline in the classroom and the frustrations resulting from that. I have covered the question of visits to schools, but when the noble Lord says that a better service might perhaps help, it is LRT's objective to provide as good a service as they can and that is one of the features in the plan—to improve the service and reduce waiting times at stops. We hope that will be achieved.
My responses have been concentrated on London Transport because the Question was directed to the action being taken by LRT and the Metropolitan Police. As I mentioned at the start of my speech, however, this problem is wider than London. In these days, it is wider than the problem of assaults on transport workers. In response to a request from the TUC for an inquiry into the problems of assaults on public employees, the Government have set up an inter-departmental committee under the chairmanship of the Health and Safety Executive to consider the problems, and in particular to stimulate joint consideration by managements and unions in the sectors affected of measures taken so far and likely to be effective in the future.
As part of that exercise, the problem of violence to staff on railways is being examined by an advisory committee on railway health and safety. In the case of bus staff, the Department of Transport has set up a working group with representatives from trade unions, bus operators (including LRT), the police, and
734
relevant government departments. I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that the Department of Education is among them.
I understand that it is the intention that the final report of the working group will examine the best practices currently in use by bus operators to combat violence and perhaps offer some new suggestions which individual operators, including LRT, may wish to consider adopting in the light of their particular problems, organisations and resources.
I will say again to my noble friend who raised this Question, and to noble Lords who have taken part, that I am most grateful. We have heard some very useful suggestions and I can assure noble Lords that consideration will be given to all the views expressed.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before nine o'clock.

  AMUSEMENT ARCADES
  AMUSEMENT ARCADES
  SUBMARINES: DAMAGE TO FISHING GEAR
  SUBMARINES: DAMAGE TO FISHING GEAR