Sitting of 5 July 1985

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

  Copyright (Computer Software) Amendment Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Lords amendment: No. I, after clause 1, insert the following new clause:
  " . References in the Copyright Act 1956 to the reduction of any work to a material form, or to the reproduction of any work in a material form, shall include references to the storage of that work in a computer."
  9.35 am
  Mr. William Powell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 2.
  Mr. Powell: Perhaps it would not be inappropiate on this final day of consideration of private Members' legislation during this Session to say that it is an extraordinary and fascinating steeplechase which enables hon. Members who have won the ballot in November to emerge in July with a piece of legislation which, all being well, will be for the public good and which has achieved the support of both Houses. In bringing my Bill to this stage, I have been greatly assisted in the other place by my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State who efficiently and expeditiously handled the conduct of the Bill.
  Discerning hon. Members will notice that these amendments bear a striking resemblance to those which were on the Order Paper in February. For tactical reasons, they were not dealt with on the Floor of the House or in Committee. I am grateful for the assistance that I have received from all parts of the House which enabled the Bill to jump the queue and get out of the way of some controversial private Members' legislation, and for the amendments that at one stage were contemplated being dealt with in this House to be dealt with in another place. In other words, today we are dealing with matters contemplated for this House, but which for tactical reasons were postponed to the other place.
  The amendments are straightforward, especially the first one. Even if I tried, I could not take up much time speaking to it. There was a spelling error in the long title of the Bill when it passed its Second Reading on 22 February, which relates to the word "programme". Many hon. Members are rightly proud of traditional English spelling, and the original spelling of the word
  624
  "programme" was in the English form. The other place has passed an amendment to change the spelling to the American form—without the second "m" and the final "e". Although many hon. Members may be reluctant to accept the amendment, there is a good reason in law why I ask the House to approve the amendment, which is that the American spelling, riot only conforms with international usage, but is approved in our courts. If the House passed a Bill which conformed with traditional English spelling, there is a real risk that a clever lawyer — through my professional background, I know many such lawyers—will say that the Bill does not apply to computer software programs because the Bill does not talk about such programs.
  I ask the House to agree to the first amendment because the courts have approved the American spelling in this connection.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: I hear and understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. Like me, my hon. Friend is an absolute patriot and is devoted to the English language, its poetry, its quaintness and everything else. I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but with his knowledge of the courts and of legal procedure surely he will accept that we should have the English spelling. It is the English language, and this is England. This is the House of Commons of the British people, and it would seem appropriate to pass laws in which we enshrine our language rather than someone else's abuse of our language. Surely my hon. Friend would feel that, were we to go ahead as he initially intended, the courts are not an ass and would eventually settle down and understand that Parliament intended that the English language should be used in its full glory and should not be abused.
  Mr. Powell: The protest registered by my hon. Friend is entirely appropriate, but I hope that he will be content with speaking for the instincts of most hon. Members present today and will not pursue the matter. I assure him that I have accepted the amendment only because I know that the spelling introduced by their Lordships is the correct spelling in law. I would not wish the Bill to run into technical difficulties. I ask my hon. Friend not to pursue the matter, but to be content with that robust and patriotic protest.
  Try as I may, I would be hard put to outline usefully any further reasons for accepting the amendment, and I shall leave it there.
  The other amendment relates to a more substantial matter. The House will recall that it was first raised in the House nearly a year ago by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) in a Bill that he introduced under the ten-minute rule. He was given leave to introduce the Bill, but it did not proceed to a Second Reading. When I had the good fortune to draw a place in the ballot for private Members' legislation, I decided to take up his Bill.
  The Bill which I introduced and which was given a Second Reading on 22 February differed from my hon. and learned Friend's Bill in one important way. His Bill included a definition of the concept of "material form" in relation to computer programs. However, my Bill contained no such definition. Their Lordships decided to introduce what will in due course, assuming that the House approves the amendment, be section 2 of the statute.
  The expression "material form" is a key concept in copyright law. It was used in the Copyright Act 1956 to

  625
  define the acts restricted by copyright, which includes reproducing the work in any material form. That is found in section 2(5) of the Act. It is also used in section 49(4) to fix the time at which a copyright work is made and, therefore, to identify the author. It is defined as the time at which a work is first reduced to writing or to some other material form. However, the expression "material form" is not defined in the Copyright Act as it currently stands.
  9.45 am
  A potential problem arises where a computer program does not start its life in conventional written form. The difficulty is important in commercial terms, because computer programs are often keyed directly into a computer by typing in from a keyboard without first being written down in a conventional form. Therefore, the electrical signals formed in the computer's memory are, in practice, the program's first physical embodiment. Similarly, copying is often carried out by loading the contents of a disc, cassette or other permanent storage device directly into the computer's memory for further processing. However, a special characteristic of the electronic memory of most computers is that it is volatile in the sense that the memory is lost when the power supply is turned off.
  It has been suggested that the electronic representation of a computer program such as that formed in the computer's memory or that displayed on a VDU screen is not sufficiently permanent to be a material form for the purposes of fixing the time at which the copyright work is made, or of establishing the existence of an infringing copyright.
  I shall give the House some examples of the problems envisaged if uncertainty remained as to whether forms in which computer software may be stored or reproduced are not covered by the phrase "material form". First, a programmer creating a program without first writing it down might go out to lunch; a pirate might then come in and print out the program from the computer's memory. If electronic representation in the computer's memory is not a material form, the pirate would be the author for copyright purposes. Secondly, a program entered directly into a computer's memory that was not written down on paper or recorded on tape or disc might be transmitted through a computer network. If it is intercepted by a pirate who prints it out, the pirate might be treated as the original author for the purposes of copyright. Thirdly, an infringer might put a computer program on his own random access computer memory rather than copy it on to a disc or tape and, as a result, may not infringe the copyright.
  The ten-minute Bill introduced by my hon. and learned Friend included a definition of "material form". Unfortunately, when I was preparing this legislation, the view of parliamentary counsel was that it would be impossible to include such a definition that was limited to computer programs without at the same time implying something negative in relation to other copyright work. Therefore, the matter became the subject of substantial negotiations between myself, the computer software industry, which has given me generous support in the preparation and passage of the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I am delighted that both sides have reached an accommodation
  626
  and that it is now possible to incorporate a definition of "material form" into what will become section 2. It will be:
  "References in the Copyright Act 1956 to the reduction of any work to a material form, or to the reproduction of any work in a material form, shall include references to the storage of that work in a computer."
  The amendment was introduced in Committee in the other place on 5 June.
  This is a somewhat technical explanation, but it is important to get it on record why it is necessary because it is not a matter that the House has had to discuss until now. We are now in line with the Green Paper recommendation and the Bill confirms that the act of loading a computer program or any other literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work into a computer without the copyright owner's consent will continue to be an infringement of copyright. The amendment will also confirm that any work, be it a computer program, novel or any other type of work that is written directly into a computer, will qualify for copyright protection at the moment of its creation within the computer.
  It follows that clause 2 is intended to clarify that if any existing work is copied into a computer, of which an important example is the incorporation of an author's work in a computer database, this constitutes reproduction in a material form, requiring the copyright owner's consent. I hope that that will be regarded as a comprehensive statement of why the House should accept my suggestion that we should agree with the Lord's amendment.
  We have reached this stage on 5 July. How long ago the Second Reading in February seems to be. This is the first of the private Members' Bills to be discussed today. There will be others later. I heard on the radio this morning my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) being ambitious and optimistic about the prospects of his Bill, which will be discussed later. The House is interested in the matter that I am introducing, but I hope that it will be possible to reach my hon. Friend's Bill in due course.
  Mr. Marlow: I apologise for leaving the Chamber for part of my hon. Friend's speech, but I had an important and urgent telephone call to make. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that these things happen and understands and forgives my temporary regrettable absence.
  I have looked at the amendment, and while I was out my hon. Friend may have covered the point I am about to make about it. He explained earlier that his first amendment was about mutilating the English word "programme" and turning it into the American word "program". However, I do not see the word "program" in the first amendment. Will my hon. Friend briefly explain something to the House—I regret it if he has done so already—to satisfy my curiosity and my concern about the Bill? If he has not done so already, I should be grateful if he would connect the words of the amendment with his reluctant desire to inflict an injustice on the English language.
  Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend is right about the first amendment. It refers to new clause 1. I apologise to my hon. Friend and I am certain that most of the House was able to follow me in what I said, but in giving my reasons for the two amendments I identified as the first amendment amendment No. 2 and as the second amendment amendment No. 1. I hope that there is not the slightest doubt about what I have been referring to. Not for the first

  627
  time, I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing me down to earth and ensuring that we proceed in both an accurate and a common-sense way.
  The House knows that I regard this as a very important measure for the future of the computer software industry. On Second Reading, I said that estimates show that losses through unlawful piracy and copying of software in 1983 totalled £150 million. In 1984, the sum was almost certainly greater than that. There is not the slightest doubt that the computer software industry has been heavily undermined by the growing practice of commercial piracy. Pending wider reform on copyright law which will come in due course, and which we hope to have the opportunity to discuss in a year or two, this Bill deals with a particularly bad practice that is undermining the industry.
  I and those who have supported me on both sides of the House have not gone to the lengths that we have gone to to pass ineffective legislation. The Bill is intended to bite, and to bite hard into piracy. The House is aware of the existence of the Federation Against Software Theft, which represents virtually all sections of the computer software industry. It has set up a unit whose job it will be to prepare evidence and to bring to the attention of the police and any other public body occasions on which there have been any commercial infringements of this legislation.
  I am delighted to be able to tell the House that a senior, experienced and efficient police officer of the rank of chief superintendent of the metropolitan police has been recruited. He will shortly be at work with a team which he will recruit to bring together all the evidence of piracy. The message must go from the House today to the pirates wherever they may be that their days are over and that hereafter they will face the consequences of their unlawful activities.
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: I congratulate the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) on his Bill. There is nothing further that I can say about the Bill or the Lords amendments, which I support for the adequate reasons argued in the other place. I wish the hon. Gentleman luck in future ballots, but I have one remark to make to him. When one is getting a fair wind in this place, it is better not to remain at sea for longer than is absolutely necessary to complete the journey, for fear of delaying colleagues with other equally important business who have been less fortunate in the ballot and for fear of running into less fair weather.
  Mr. Marlow: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) not only on bringing the Bill to Parliament and through Parliament but on the way that he has spoken. I intervened in his speech, and for the first time in my life had a positive effect on our proceedings in that I was able to help my hon. Friend I am grateful to him for the way that he dealt with my intervention.
  This is an incredibly complex issue and people like myself who were at school before computers became part of our way of life feel that anything to do with computers and computing is of the utmost complexity that is best left to other people. My hon. Friend has taken upon himself the task of introducing this Bill and the amendment. It is a difficult but praiseworthy task which he has done exceptionally well. The House and the country should be grateful to him for dealing with this nuisance. The fact that he got his amendments muddled up is nothing, and simply
  628
  goes to show how incredibly complex this issue is. It is an appalling state of affairs that after a person has done a great deal of work—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. While I am in a tolerant mood, I must remind the hon. Member that we are dealing with narrow amendments and that he must relate his remarks directly to the amendments.
  10 am
  Mr. Marlow: I am attempting to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I apologise if I am straining your patience; the complexity of the subject is to blame.
  Amendment No. 2 deletes part of the title, so that it will read:
  "An Act to amend the Copyright Act 1956 in its application to computer programs and computer storage."
  My hon. Friend's purpose is so to define the title that protection which, sadly, has not been given to those working in computer software will be available to them in future. It is necessary for this protection to be provided in view of the great boom of computers to society. People may work all day and all night only to find that their work has been pirated or plagiarised. A lifetime's work can be rendered valueless.
  Because it is important that that protection should be provided, so it is important that the title of the Bill should be clear, and I am pleased to note that not only will the title be clearer but that it will also be shorter. Anything that we can do to reduce the number of words in the written text — I was about to say that we might also try to shorten our speeches too—is of advantage.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend. The House is indebted to him for the great service that he has performed in this complex and important sphere.
  Mr. Neil Thorne: I, too, have pleasure in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) on having introduced an important Bill which, I feel sure, will be speeded on its way today. I have taken part in a number of debates on this subject and am anxious that nothing should stand in the way of the Bil1's progress.
  My hon. Friend explained, in reply to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), that he had dealt with the amendments in the reverse order. I am not clear, however, why amendment No. 2 is worded in the way in which it appears on the Order Paper. I appreciate that it amends the title, but although amendment No. 2 begins:
  "Line I, leave out from",
  I thought that the Bill commenced with the words:
  "Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty".
  In fact, the line 1 to which my hon. Friend is referring in amendment No. 2 begins:
  "An Act to amend the Copyright Act 1956"
  which seems to begin before the numbering of lines in the Bill commences. I am anxious to ensure, before agreeing to amendment No. 2, that we are doing something that is valid and will not make nonsense of the measure. I am sure that my hon. Friend has taken the best advice from the Table. Will he enlighten me?
  When my hon. Friend dealt with the spelling of the word "program", I was not sure whether he was saying that the High Court had determined that, in future in English

  629
  law, the word should be spelt the American way or whether the High Court had been tolerant about the way in which the word could be spelt.
  Mr. William Powell: In a High Court case a year or two ago, the Chancery Division approved the American spelling for computer programs only, not generally.
  Mr. Thorne: I hope that the High Court will accept both spellings and not confine it in this case. I can think of a number of instances where words are spelt in a variety of ways. One need only think of the greatest literary architect, Shakespeare, to appreciate that a number of different spellings of the same word are normally accepted.
  It would be unfortunate if we tied ourselves down to one narrow concept, although I would not stand in way of the Bill over that. I hope that we shall not be confined as a result of a High Court judgment and find that we are restricting our language to the American form.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): I join hon. Members on both sides of the House in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) on steering his ship through the legislative waters, shortly to arrive at a safe haven.
  As my hon. Friend explained, a large number of people in the computer industry at large, many computer users and software authors will heave a sigh of relief when the Bill reaches the statute book. It will be an important day because we shall eliminate the high possibility that has hitherto existed of software authors being rooked of their rightful rewards and of suffering from the attentions of the pirates.
  The new clause adds an important new element to the Bill and, on behalf of the Government, I warmly support its insertion. I am pleased that the opportunity was taken in another place to improve what was already an excellent Bill by extending its effect in this way.
  The Bill as it left this Chamber for another place some weeks ago was concerned only with the application of copyright law to computer programs. The new clause addresses, in an effective manner, another area of uncertainty that arises out of the interaction between copyright law and computers.
  Despite its admirably concise form, the new clause removes two such uncertainties. It deals with two implications of the new technology on the way copyright law works. It is concerned both with the basic question of whether copyright protection is available to works created in computers, and with the no less important issue of whether the act of copying a copyright work into a computer requires the permission of the copyright owner.
  It may help if I briefly remind the House how the Copyright Act 1956 is structured to provide protection to authors and other creators of original works, or to those who own or have interest in copyright by virtue, for example, of assignment or licence or of their position as employers of the creator. The Act defines copyright as the exclusive right to do, and to authorise others to do, certain acts—known as restricted acts—in relation to the work that is the subject of copyright. One has to look first, though, at the word "work" to determine whether copyright subsists in the first place.
  630
  The Act states that copyright shall subsist in every original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, subject to certain conditions as to matters such as the nationality and place of residence of the author and the country of first publication. This applies both to published and unpublished material. There are no formalities associated with the subsistence of copyright in the United Kingdom. Copyright protection exists from the moment of creation of the work, with no requirement of registration or of any copyright notice on the work itself. Right hon. and hon. Members will know that very commonly — indeed, almost universally in published material — a conventional copyright notice is affixed to works, consisting of a small "c" in a circle, the name of the copyright owner, and the year of publication. I should explain that such a notice does not have any function in establishing the subsistence of copyright in this country. It has two roles. First, it plays a part in relation to the subsistence of copyright in certain foreign countries, most notably the United States of America. Secondly, it provides a visible reminder to the world at large that copyright is being claimed in the work, and by whom it is claimed. Thus it has practical use in this country, but is not a legal prerequisite for copyright protection.
  To return to the question of what constitutes a "work", or more strictly an "original work", the use of qualifications like "literary" or "artistic" does not imply that a work has to have what would conventionally be regarded as literary or artistic merit to attract copyright protection. Aesthetic excellence is not a necessary qualification.
  The courts have long since established this principle, and there have over the years been many examples of works, and types of works, which have been afforded copyright protection as "literary works" without possessing, or indeed claiming to possess, any vestige of literary merit whatsoever. These have included calendars, directories, football coupons, mathematical tables and railway timetables, and many other equally mundane items. More recently, an injunction has been granted on the basis that the sequences of randomly selected letters used in newspaper bingo games are subject to copyright. The common key to the establishment of copyright in all these cases has been that substantial independent skill, creative labour or judgment has been exercised in the creation of the new work.
  My reason for placing such emphasis on this point is to stress the wide range of material that comes within the ambit of copyright protection. When one thinks, for example, of databases — great stores of information brought together, often at great cost, and with great commercial potential for exploitation and dissemination —one can recognise the immense practical significance of the fact that copyright protection has long been regarded as appropriate to this general class of material, to collations of meaningful information. The impact of computer technology in this sector has been immense and revolutionary, and has raised central questions in relation to copyright that the new clause seeks to answer.
  Dr. Bray: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate the support that the Government are giving the Bill, but is the Minister not going rather wide of the amendment?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am listening carefully to the Minister. I hope that he will refer directly to the amendment.
  Mr. Butcher: I was referring to the first of the two questions which the new clause will resolve. That question is, put simply, when someone creates an original new work — a work of the type that certainly qualifies as a "literary work" within the broad meaning of term that I have already discussed — and when that creation is carried out directly in a computer memory, has the work been "reduced to a material form", and does it therefore qualify for copyright protection? The question arises whenever a work is composed by someone typing directly into a computer keyboard. This is one of the key points to which my hon. Friend the Member for Corby addressed himself in moving the amendment. That work may mean a novelist or some other sort of writer typing an article or a chapter of a new book into a word processor, or it may, as I have aleady indicated, mean a scientist, an engineer or a statistician putting together data in a new manner in a computerised database.
  The need for protection in such cases is I believe, obvious, and the principle that such protection should apply is every bit as sound when a computer is used as when precisely the same material is put down, much more laboriously and less flexibly, on paper. Nevertheless, the question whether protection does in fact subsist when a computer is used has not been resolved in the courts, and uncertainty therefore remains. It may be that present law would be found to give this protection already if the issues were tested, but as long as the legal uncertainty remains, creators of new material will lack confidence in such protection. Computer technology needs to be seen as a support to the author, not as a threat to the legal protection upon which his livelihood, and that of his employers, rests.
  10.15 am
  The need for clear protection for a new work while it still rests only in the essentially transient form of computer memory is clear. It is vulnerable, in that form, to misappropriation. This has already been forcefully argued by the noble Lord who introduced these measures in another place, using the example of the creator of new material who left his brainchild on his computer memory while he went out to lunch, to find on his return that someone else had printed it out and had thus undoubtedly "reduced it to material form". That the law as it now stands leaves any doubt at all about the true authorship of the work in these circumstances must clearly be wrong. Therefore, my hon. Friend, in bringing forward the amendment, is doing the House a great service in seeking to eliminate an area of uncertainty.
  Mr. William Powell: My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) raised two issues to which I shall respond briefly. First, he asked whether the amendment, in referring to "Line 1", is directed to the long title. The amendment appears under "In the Title" and refers to the first line of the title rather than of the Bill. I take my hon. Friend's point about "program". I have explained why that form of spelling should be adopted in the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford, South and for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) will not push the matter any further.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Hospital Complaints Procedure Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Hospital Complaints Procedure Bill
    Clause 1

      HOSPITAL COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 6, leave out "Regional Health Authority" and insert
      "health authority in England and Wales and to each Health Board in Scotland"
      10.17 am
      Mrs. Edwina Currie: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 8.
      Mrs. Currie: The prime mover of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), first became interested in the complaints procedure in the National Health Service during his serious illness in 1984. This morning he is in hospital as an outpatient on a dialysis machine. I am sure that we all hope that he is feeling much better already and that before too long it will be possible to find a permanent solution for his illness. Meanwhile, I have been asked to move acceptance of the amendments. I feel honoured to have the opportunity to be associated with this important Bill.
      As the Bill completed all its stages in the House without amendment on 22 February, and virtually without criticism, I should explain why we are prepared to accept all eight amendments. Without the amendments, the Bill will not do what it is intended to do. It would merely perpetuate the present somewhat unsatisfactory procedure for complaints. As the law stands, the Secretary of State., under section 17 of the National Health Service Act 1977., has the power to give directions to the health authorities, and they must comply. My right hon. Friends who have served as Secretary of State for Social Services over the years have taken this duty seriously.
      The result is that we have a plethora of complaints procedures, none of which is entirely effective. The procedures were listed by Lord Colwyn in another place on 17 April. It would be appropriate to read them into the record. Lord Colwyn said:
      "They are: the civil law, with particular relevance to negligence, assault and defamation; the criminal law, with particular relevance to drugs legislation and certification; the General Medical Council and General Denial Council, concerned both with serious professional misconduct and fitness to practice; the ombudsman in matters other than clinical judgment; health circular No. (81)5, which deals with complaints regarding clinical judgments; HM(66)15, which is concerned with methods of dealing with complaints by patients; HM(61)112, which deals with matters concerning the hospital doctor's personal conduct, professional conduct and professional competence; HM(60)45, which is concerned with the prevention of ham to patients resulting from physical or mental disability of hospital staff.
      We have also the service committee and tribunal procedure which is concerned with the general practitioner's terms of service and under which he can be fined or excluded from providing general medical service. Finally, there are the inquiries set up by the Secretary of State under Section 84 of the National Health Service Act 1977.—[0fficial Report, House of Lords, 17 April 1985; Vol. 462, c. 779.]
      Recently, the Secretary of State has made use of the powers under that section in the inquiry into legionnaire's disease at Staffordshire hospital. However, my noble Friend missed out several procedures. It is amazing what one finds once one starts digging. There are also letters to

      633
      the health authorities on complaints procedures of 9 December 1966 and 27 July 1970, health notice HN(78)39 of April 1978. I think that that is an exhaustive list, but I stand willing to be corrected.
      The main document in use is HC81(5), issued in April 1981, which makes it clear that it is a "memorandum of guidance" and therefore has no statutory power. If the Bill has any purpose and if these amendments have any value, that gap will be closed. It is vital that we should have, for the first time, a Bill that firmly states:
      "It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to give to each health authority in England and Wales and to each Health Board in Scotland such directions … as appear to him necessary"
      to achieve a proper complaints procedure.
      I should like to examine the amendments in more detail. If we are to make the Bill work, we must accept all of them. Clause 1 lays a duty on a Secretary of State to exercise his existing power to give directions to health authorities so as to require the establishment and publicising of specified procedures for dealing with complaints in all NHS hospitals. The amendment extends the categories of authority to which such directions will have to be given to district health authorities in England and Wales, health boards in Scotland and special health authorities.
      As previously drafted, the Bill covered only regional health authorities, and therefore applied only to England. There are no regional health authorities in Wales and Scotland, and the Bill is intended to apply in both areas. Regional health authorities in England are not the authorities directly responsible for the management of hospitals. The amendment ensures that the directions required by the Bill to be given are addressed to all authorities with hospital management responsibility. The other amendments follow from this proposed change which alters the Bill fundamentally and will make it much more effective.
      Under clause 1, without the Lords amendments, there will be precious little improvement in the situation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury drew attention on Second Reading. If the regional health authorities were responsible, nothing much would happen, even with the statutory obligations as laid down in the original Bill. It is worth remembering that my hon. Friend's horrendous experience—when he was treated at three different hospitals, none of which appeared to have a complaints procedure and certainly none of which informed him of one — occurred despite the plentiful supply of circulars and instructions which I outlined earlier. We must do better than that.
      The key objective is to pin responsibility firmly on those bodies that run patients' services — the district health authorities. The regional health authorities are remote. In some regions, they cover thousands of square miles. They cover scores of hospitals.
      Mr. Tony Marlow: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend's argument. It was suggested in the original Bill that the matter should be looked after by regional health authorities, but it is now suggested that district health authorities should be responsible. What was in people's minds originally when they thought that this matter would be better dealt with at
      634
      regional level? Will my hon. Friend tell the House why that is so, because there may be potent arguments in that direction?
      Mrs. Currie: I believe that the case was that the regional health authorities were regarded as the prime movers in England and Wales and that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury had not realised that there were no such bodies in Wales. The main contact between the Secretary of State and the health service in the country at large is through the accountability reviews that he exercises during the year with regional health authorities. The Secretary of State does not normally meet the district health authorities. I believe that that is why the regional health authorities were, before the other place scrutinised the Bill, regarded as the appropriate authorities. However, in my view and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, they are not the appropriate authorities. I hope that the amendment will be accepted.
      The regional health authorities may be funding certain activities — for example, regional specialties such as cardiology and kidney transplantation. However, the district health authorities carry the can for what goes on in the hospitals which they are responsible for running.
      The Lords amendments to clause 1 have several other effects. They include special hospital authorities. These authorities are a legacy of the reorganisations of the NHS in 1974 and 1982. They mainly comprise certain teaching hospitals. There are eight postgraduate teaching hospital special health authorities, which were formerly run by boards of governors. They are the hospitals for sick children, the national hospitals for nervous diseases, Moorfields, the Bethlem Royal hospital and the Maudsley hospital, the national heart and chest hospitals, the Royal Marsden hospital, the Eastman dental hospital and Hammersmith hospital. There are various other special health authorities, including the Central Blood Laboratories Authority, the Health Service Supply Council, the National Health Service Training Authority, the Prescription Pricing Authority, the Rural Dispensing Committee, Rampton Hospital Review Board and the Mental Health Act Commission. Whether my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury realised that he had left all those out is a moot point, but they will now be included by these amendments.
      Current DHSS guidance on complaints under HC81(5) applies to those special health authorities that provide a hospital service to NHS patients. The coverage of the Bill as amended would similarly include special health authorities that provide NHS hospital service.
      Not all teaching hospitals are included in the group of special health authorities. The vast majority are run by district health authorities. I have had the privilege of being chairman of the Central Birmingham health authority which had seven teaching hospitals in the midlands, including the celebrated Queen Elizabeth hospital. The teaching hospitals in my area were not covered by special hospital authorities, although there was no technical difference between them. The postgraduate teaching at Queen Elizabeth hospital was similar to the postgraduate teaching at the hospitals to which I have referred.
      It is of the utmost importance that our major teaching hospitals are not left out. When a person is acutely ill, when he has a rare condition that is difficult to diagnose or when he is an "interesting case" and liable to be discussed with students or written up as a research

      635
      exercise, the gap between the patient and the NHS staff, especially doctors, frequently grows too wide. The apocryphal comment sometimes attributed to such centres of excellence is, "The operation was a great success but the patient died." I swear that that comment has been made to me in the teaching hospitals for which I was responsible. That is not good enough. It is essential that the Bill be extended to all such authorities. When the patient is in such circumstances, it is even more important that he knows how to complain, that his family know how to complain on his behalf and that others associated with his care, including his general practitioner, are able to take up the problems. It is essential that a proper complaints procedures should exist and be made available to the patient.
      On Second Reading, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) said:
      "It should be a requirement of every medical school that there is at least a significant period of formal training for young doctors as to how to approach the patient." — [Official Report, 22 February 1985; Vol. 73, c. 1381.]
      I completely agree. I found in the hospitals for which I was responsible that the people in a teaching hospital who benefited most from a properly conducted investigation of a complaint were the young doctors undergoing training. In the middle of all their studies — of anatomy, pharmacology, surgery, anaesthesia and the like — they are not taught well how to listen to their patients. The patient often knows best. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury said on Second Reading, he knew that he was allergic to penicillin. The doctors took absolutely no notice, and landed him in hospital for a further five weeks with a dangerous rash.
      10.30 am
      We all have constituents who have experienced similar difficulties of getting doctors, especially a young doctor, to take some notice of them and to take them seriously when they say where it hurts or what does not suit them, and how they can be better treated. If, by including special hospital authorities, we can take some small step towards avoiding those things happening, we will have done some little good.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): I am following my hon. Friend's argument closely. She is right when she says that patients must be given all possible opportunities to air their complaints against hospitals. Happily, the number of complaints is not too great. Does she agree that, while we are correct to concentrate on ensuring that patients can have their grievances ventilated, we are equally right to stress from time to time that patients also have a responsibility towards the hospitals in which they are treated, and that that responsibility often includes turning up on time, on the right day and at the right place for operations and outpatient treatment? The NHS suffers from a considerable waste of time when patients do not fulfil those responsibilities. There is a social contract between the patient and the National Health Service which both sides should fulfil.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are in danger of getting back to a general debate on the Bill. We must concentrate on the Lords amendments which are before the House.
      Mrs. Currie: I am glad to accede to what my hon. Friend says.
      636
      The third main effect of the amendment is to extend the Bill to Wales and Scotland. I was hoping that we would see some Scottish Members here this morning. It is a pity that there is none. It was always the Bill's intention that it should cover Wales, as clause 2(3) says. However, when my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury originally tabled the Bill, it referred to regional health authorities. It happens that there are no regional health authorities in Wales. The Principality is not covered by a single RHA which answers to the DHSS.
      In England, there are 192 health districts organised into 14 regions. In Wales, there are nine health districts answerable directly to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. There is no regional tier. Therefore, 167 hospitals in Wales — that is the figure at 31 December 1983, and I should be surprised if the DHSS does not know of a few more since then — will be covered by the Bill if the amendment is accepted. It would clearly be unsatisfactory if we did not accept the amendment. We would then have two different systems —one for the English and one for everyone else.
      Mr. Marlow: I take that point. There are ways in which Scottish law and administration are somewhat different from ours and there are good reasons for that. It suits the Scots, us and the Welsh. My hon. Friend has just said that there are 192 health districts in England. I am not sure how many regions there are; perhaps she can advise me. It seems to me a rather heavy job and responsibility for the Minister to have to contact each district. As he is getting in touch with them he has, to an extent, to supervise them to ensure that they are carrying out his instructions. If he makes that connection with the regions, he has a far narrower span of control which is more easily policed and effectively carried out. The regions should be allowed to do the job for which they are in place. My hon. Friend has not yet satisfied that argument.
      Mrs. Currie: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, there are 14 regions in England. As to the second part, that is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is in office for. I am sure that he recognises that he has that responsibility now, but it is not a statutory responsibility. That is what the Bill will make it. He may give directions, and HC(81)5 is a memorandum of guidance. The health authorities do not have to take any notice of it at all. The Bill, as amended, will insist that the Secretary of State gives those instructions and will then insist that the various health authorities take note.
      The regional health authorities will not be excluded by the proposed amendment to clause 1. The Bill will simply refer to health authorities and therefore regional health authorities, district authorities and the other health authorities can be included.
      Mr. John Patten: Is my hon. Friend aware that, as she said earlier, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health and myself regularly meet the chairmen of the 14 regional health authorities to discuss Health Service matters? It is not correct to say that we stop our discussions at that level on complaints or any other related issue, but through regional health authority chairmen we relate to district health authority chairmen. From time to time we meet the various district health authority chairmen in the different regions. There are more than 190 of them. On those occasions we have the opportunity to discuss issues such

      637
      as Health Service complaints procedures. It is important that the impression is not given that we talk only to the regional health authority chairmen on that point.
      Mrs. Currie: That is right. I had the privilege of meeting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at such a meeting about three years ago.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) asked about Scotland. There is no good reason why Scotland should be excluded. There is every reason why Scotland should be part of the Bill. It was the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury on Second Reading. He is delighted to accept the Lords amendments which will extend the scope of the Bill to all parts of the United Kingdom. I understand that it is my right hon. Friend's intention to move Orders in Council that will make the Bill apply to Northern Ireland as well.
      Mr. Marlow: I was not saying, forgive me, that Scotland should not be included. All I was saying was that sometimes Scottish legislation is different from that of England, for good reasons. My hon. Friend is beginning to frighten me. She said that there are 14 regions and 192 health districts. She is saying that the Minister will send out his diktat—let me put it more kindly than that: his ideas and instructions — to the districts and to the regions as to how the complaints procedure should be run. That seems like a recipe for chaos, because the chairman of the regional health authority and the general manager of the district health authority will both be waving their pieces of paper from the Minister. The region will be saying to the district, "We do not like the way in which you are doing it." The district will be saying to the region, "Ah, but I have it in tablets of stone from the Minister."
      My hon. Friend should study any large organisation. The one that I know best from my background is the services. She will find that the general might tell the brigadier what to do, but it is up to the brigadier how he organises his colonels. If the generals start telling the colonels what to do, there is chaos.
      Mrs. Currie: Far be it from me to answer for my hon. Friend the Minister, who I know wishes to intervene at some stage, but my understanding is that we will have a process of consultation after the Bill becomes law, if it receives the assent of both Houses. That will be an extensive process of consultation. The instructions that will be eventually issued by the DHSS to the health authorities in the Bill, as amended, will take into account comments that are made. I hope that they will produce something that is effective, and in view of the requirement for publicity, to which I shall come, will cope with all the problems identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury and the difficulties faced by many of our constituents when they are obliged to go into hospital.
      As there are no Scottish Members present, I shall deal with the matters relating to Scotland in a little more detail. Without the amendments, we should not be able to extend the Bill to the Scottish Health Service, and that would clearly be unsatisfactory. There are 15 health boards in Scotland — 12 for the mainland and three island authorities for Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles. There are no districts. One tier, the health board, is appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State
      638
      for Scotland. The health boards are directly responsible to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and they cover 365 hospitals.
      I have never been in a Scottish hospital. I hope that I never have need of one. My attitude is much the same to all hospitals in Scotland, England and Wales and everywhere else. Any Scottish colleagues who read the Official Report of today's proceedings should not feel discriminated against. The National Health Service owes an enormous debt to Scottish medicine, because there is no doubt that for many years Scottish teaching hospitals have been well ahead of many of their contemporaries elsewhere. Scottish medical schools have led the nation for a long time.
      Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend is treading on dangerous ground there.
      Mrs. Currie: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is about to tell us that teaching hospitals in Nottingham will stand with those of the rest of the nation.
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Of course.
      Mrs. Currie: As many of my constituents are treated there, I agree with him. However, we must recognise that under the Bill, without the amendments, Scottish hospitals would not be included. As the law stands, Scots people would not be assisted by the Bill, unless the House accepts the amendments that I have outlined. They would continue to have the benefit of only the 1977 law and the rather toothless circulars that were sent out as a result. They would continue to have a patchy service with regard to complaints, with some hospitals setting a high standard of producing leaflets telling people what to expect in hospital and how to take up matters that did not satisfy them, and some offering no advice whatsoever and continuing to act as though the patient were merely a case instead of a human being.
      That is not satisfactory. By amending the Bill in this way, we shall ensure that patients in Scotland, along with those in Wales in the hospitals under the special hospital boards, as well as in England, will in future have a complaints procedure that is standard across the nation, compulsory and has statutory force. The procedure should ensure that events such as the horrific incidents described by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury on Second Reading are investigated, put right and dealt with in a manner that can have the confidence and trust of all concerned.
      England had 1,923 hospitals as at 31 December 1983. In total, therefore, 2,455 hospitals would be covered by the Bill if the amendments were accepted, 500 of them added by the amendments. Therefore, the amendments are of crucial significance to the many millions of people being treated in NHS hospitals.
      An important element in the amended clause 1 would be subsection (1)(b). As amended, the clause will ensure that the Secretary of State will be obliged to require all health authorities to publicise their complaints procedure. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said on 22 February:
      "A complaints procedure about which no one knows is of no use to anyone." — [Official Report, 22 February 1985; Vol. 73, c. 1389.]
      I heartily endorse that. This is the first time that health authorities are being told that they must inform patients

      639
      about some features of hospital life. It is the first time that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have been obliged to lay that duty on them.
      We should clarify one or two points about the amended clause. It does not give the patient the right to demand access to his files. It does not challenge hospital security on medical confidentiality. The British Medical Association had some reservations about that in the original Bill. Those matters are being fiercely debated elsewhere, not least later this morning. No doubt the Bill will add to that. However, that is not the purpose of the Bill and the subsection. It says that every health authority must tell patients in all the units for which they are responsible what to do if they are not happy with any aspect of the service that they receive. Up to now it has been said that they "should" tell the patients. Under the Bill as amended, that will be changed to "must". That is a major step forward. It will no longer be possible for the patient to be ignored. It is a most important part of the patients' charter which my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury published last September, and which attracted so many favourable comments at the time. In the circulars sent out under the previous legislation, the Secretary of State has suggested that each health authority should produce a leaflet. The appendix to HC(81)5 made some rather heavy-handed suggestions of what might be included. Paragraph 7 of the circular says:
      "Information booklets should be given to hospital in-patients including, where possible at some suitable time, those admitted through accident and emergency services. These 'hospital booklets' should also be available to patients, on request, in hospital out-patient departments."
      Note the word "should", not "must". We shall put in "must" as th Bill goes through both Houses and enters into law. Suggested paragraphs for use in the booklets for patients are contained in appendix 1 to memorandum HC(81)5, which reads:
      "If you are seeking information when in hospital, the ward sister will generally be the person to speak to in the first instance"—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must relate her remarks to the amendments before the House and not go into a general discussion about the Bill.
      10.45 am
      Mrs. Currie: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to point out merely that, without the amendments, the Bill would not work. It would simply reiterate and re-establish the existing rather unsatisfactory procedure.
      Mr. John Patten: Having been correctly called to order once before by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am fearful of being out of order again. I am sure that you will correct me immediately if I stray over the bounds.
      The amendments relate to procedures south and north of the border, and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) is speaking to them very clearly. Does she agree that one of the issues raised in the circular to which she referred is the most important issue of monitoring, which is covered in paragraph 8? Authorities will have to introduce, both north and south of the border, systematic and effective methods of reviewing complaints. It is no good just having leaflets available. It is important to have the complaints themselves monitored and reviewed systematically.
      Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Without such a monitoring system, the complaints
      640
      procedure has no purpose. It will serve merely to air people's grievances and not correct the problems that led to the grievances in the first place.
      My experience supports my hon. Friend in that. I was a member of the old Birmingham area health authority — a teaching authority, which has since been abolished — in the days when the circular to which my hon. Friend refers was published. We did our best to implement the circular, but, with the best will in the world, we had other priorities at the time, such as getting staff in post, particularly on the reorganisation of the Health Service. There are still hospitals in the group for which I was responsible that do not have such leaflets. It is worth emphasising the importance of ensuring that patients all over the country receive appropriate advice on how to complain. The amendment will ensure that that happens.
      We had most fun at the Birmingham maternity hospital, a teaching hospital, where I had been a patient twice, in 1974 and 1977, when I had my two children. The hospital had an excellent leaflet. As a patient, I was able to make use of it. Subsequently, as chairman of the health authority responsible for the hospital. I was able to improve it, particularly by choosing better photographs. It may sound trivial to tell a pregnant girl to bring her toothbrush and some change for the telephone, but I assure the House that it felt like good advice when we woke up in the recovery room. We were grateful.
      In future, as I understand it, failure to produce an appropriate leaflet will be grounds for complaint, too. I hope that the health authorities do not regard that as too much of an imposition. They should always remind themselves that they run the hospital not for the doctors, not for the convenience of the staff, not alone for the greater gains of medical research or for the reflected glory of being involved with Britain's best-loved institution, but for the patients. The patients are not a nuisance to he kept quiet—they are not a collection of statistics. That is an attitude that we must eradicate.
      Amendment No. 4 is concerned with the Health Service commissioner — [Interruption.] There are eight amendments, and as the Bill had its Second Reading on the nod none of those matters was debated then. It is appropriate that we give proper consideration to them at this time. I hope that the House accepts that.
      Amendment No. 4 improves clause 2 by ensuring that it extends to Scotland and thus covers the whole country. I accept that this is not the place to debate the role of the ombudsman — I do not intend to do so — but it is important that we do not hamper his work in any way. He was set up under the National Health Service Act 1977, and section 116 limits his powers in the following way:
      "Except as hereafter provided, a Commissioner shall not conduct an investigation under this Part of this Act in respect of any of the following matters—

      (a) any action in respect of which the person aggrieved has or had a right of appeal, reference or review to or before a tribunal constituted by or under any enactment or by virtue of Her Majesty's prerogative, or

      (b) any action in respect of which the person aggrieved has or had a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law".

      That is very specific.
      The ombudsman is a most important part of the overall complaints procedure. He deals with about 120 cases a year. He can take up any issue, whether it has a medical content or not. Having been on the receiving end, as a

      641
      health authority chairman, I know the thoroughness and fairness of his work. He and his staff do a great service to the people and the NHS.
      Without the amendment, the ombudsman would be rendered helpless, especially in Scotland. He will effectively be out of a job if he is specifically precluded from operating when any other course of action is open to the complainant, whether through legal action, a tribunal, an appeals procedure or whatever. Over time, as the health authorities obey the instructions set out in clause 1 and introduce a complaints procedure and tell people about it, the ombudsman may be unable to take up cases because the Secretary of State and the health authorities have pre-empted him.
      Mr. Marlow: I wonder whether my hon. Friend's constituency experience has been similar to my own. Aggrieved constituents have sought my assistance to put them in touch with the ombudsman but in practice he has been able to do very little for them. As often as not, the resolution of their worries has been outside his competence. That is why the Bill and the amendments are so important.
      Mrs. Currie: Some of the difficulties of dealing with complaints and of getting people to complain correctly and adequately to the right person at the right time were dealt with in the debate in another place. My hon. Friend raises a most important point. Part of the problem is a matter of attitudes. It is surely possible to advise people of the complaints procedure before they go to hospital for planned surgery or treatment. They should receive a leaflet in advance including advice on what to do if they are unhappy or have questions to ask. That advice should cover not just the patient, but his family, his general practitioner, his other medical advisers, and so on. If the patient has that information before he goes to the hospital he is likely to ask the appropriate questions at the right time and the people treating him are more likely to regard him as a human being whose fears and anxieties have to be allayed, not ignored. We must make that point very firmly today.
      As for the powers of the ombudsman, it is worth reflecting that more than 5 million outpatients and, I believe, more than 600,000 inpatients are treated every year. Under the guidance of the Ministers concerned, record numbers of patients are being treated, but there are only about 9,000 written complaints per year which have to be investigated, and the ombudsman deals with only 120.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady said that she did not intend to talk about the ombudsman's duties. She must deal with the amendments.
      Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the ombudsman is prevented from fulfilling the purpose for which he exists and from meeting the needs of complainants, the question whether the situation is best dealt with by the Minister issuing instructions to regional health authorities or directly to district health authorities would seem to be germane to the debate. To that extent—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is an interesting question, but it is not one for me. It is for the Chair to decide whether a matter is in or out of order.
      Mrs. Currie: With regard to amendment No. 4, the law is a little hazy. It is not clear whether the ombudsman would be ruled out of court by the Bill as it stands, but we do not intend to find out the hard way. The clause is especially defective in relation to Scotland. In this context, we are pleased to note and to support their Lordships' amendments, which will ensure that the ombudsman's work in Scotland will continue on exactly the same basis as in the rest of the United Kingdom and that the benefits to which my hon. Friends have referred will be assured.
      In my view, the Lords amendments greatly improve the Bill's effectiveness and are to be welcomed. Under the existing legislation it was possible for my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury to visit three different hospitals without being given any information about complaints procedures and to be a patient for months on end without realising that the Secretary of State had written to all health authorities years earlier advising them to set up a complaints procedure and to tell everyone about it. Indeed, other patients turned to him as a Member of Parliament to take up complaints on their behalf. In other words, the powers that be were able totally to ignore the myriad circulars sent out and the advice of the Secretary of State to the effect that they should have a complaints procedure. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury was surprised to read all those circulars and no doubt that was the basis of his determination to make the procedures statutory and mandatory so that no hospital could make the excuse that it did not have time and had not bothered to establish the necessary procedures.
      This little Bill, with these important amendments, will be a step forward in patient care. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury has asked me to thank all the staff at the DHSS for their assistance at all stages of the Bill. I also thank them for their very effective briefing to me in recent days. My hon. Friend has also asked me to thank all hon. Members who have assisted in the passage of the Bill in both this and the other House, especially the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) who must be singled out for special praise as he has taken a close personal interest in the Bill.
      Finally, I am sure that the whole House will join me in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury for bringing forward the Bill. We congratulate him on his success in the ballot and we recognise the courage and dignity with which he presented his case and with which he continues to combat his illness. We wish him good health and we hope that he will never have occasion to set in train the procedures that he has established in the Bill.
      Mr. Marlow: The Bill is very welcome, but it is important that it should be coherent and that the amendments should be properly considered. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) has said, it is important to include Scotland and Wales—and potentially Northern Ireland as well—so that the whole United Kingdom can benefit from this boon.
      At present, the Minister has power to issue instructions but is not required to do so. In the light of my experience of real constituency problems in this area, I am anxious that the Minister should give the instructions to the right people. The House is frequently concerned with human rights issues, but what happens in the Health Service is not just a question of human rights — sometimes it is a matter of life or death. Those who survive the sad death

      643
      of a loved one are rightly deeply concerned about the circumstances. Sometimes, they fear that something which should have been done was not done or that the concerns of the bereaved have not been properly considered. A constituent whose mother died in a hospital outside the area sought an investigation into the circumstances in the belief that the right treatment had not been given. That may well have been so. The doctors do a tremendous job, but to err is human and mistakes happen. We must consider how complaints of that kind are best investigated in the light of the real burdens of sadness and distress that many of our constituents face.
      Where do we go from here? Do we, as the Bill suggests, require the Minister to send to every one of the 192 district health authorities in England an elegantly phrased edict — knowing my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, it will be both elegant and eloquent —as to how they should proceed?
      11 am
      In Northampton, but not in my constituency, a young girl was recently misdiagnosed and, sadly, died of appendicitis. There was a great deal of publicity and anxiety about the case, and people feel that questions have not been answered.
      Is my hon. Friend the Minister required, in regard to the complaints procedure, to pass his instructions to district health authorities or to regional health authorities? If he gives instructions to DHAs, that means that he is responsible for ensuring that they are carried out. If he gives his instructions to RHAs, he has a proper responsibility to ensure that they are carrying out his instructions, but there are 14 of them. Some of us have been in the Army, industry and management and have heard about something called the span of control. The ideal span or number under a chief is eight. I am aware that my hon. Friend is beyond the realms of normal human beings. He is a gifted and gracious man and I am sure that he could cope more than adequately with a span of control of 14. Nevertheless, I wonder whether, in his heart of hearts—for, despite his great skills, my hon. Friend is a modest man — he feels that he could administer and supervise 192 DHAs.
      Mr. John Patten: I am naturally loth to intervene in this agreeable flood of compliments, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not feel that my intervention should cut him off from continuing in that vein. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that there are great difficulties in Health Ministers involving themselves in detailed management, including management of complaints procedures, in 192 DHAs? Does he further agree that it is therefore important that we should issue general instructions to all health authorities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) said, in so doing trying not to intervene unnecessarily beyond the span of control in the running of those 192 DHAs, or that we should approach the task through our regular contacts with the 14 RHAs?
      Mr. Marlow: I am beginning to be reassured. Perhaps I might bore the House with my experiences in uniform. When I was in the Army, we had things called Defence Council instructions and Army Council instructions, which were sent throughout the service to every unit, however small, The War Office, as it then was, and the chiefs of staff were not directly responsible for or in control of each unit. I should be worried if I thought that my hon. Friend had to manage the 192 DHAs directly.
      644
      It is instinctive for a professional body to look after its own. Disasters are bound to occur in the Health Service, and when they do there is a closing of ranks. There is little controversy about that. If prime responsibility for dealing with the complaints procedure rests within the DHA, responsibility will lie precisely where the ranks will close. It could be advantageous for responsibility to be vested in the higher tier. With responsibility in the lower tier, internal politics and knowledge of individuals—
      Mr. John Patten: I am a bit worried about what my hon. Friend is saying. Is he entirely ignoring the introduction of the new management structure, the appointment of the general manager, Mr. Victor Poge, general managers for RHAs and for DHAs and the appointment of managers at units of management level? Does my hon. Friend agree that that provides a line of management which will enable complaints procedures to be dealt with managerially and outwith any closing of ranks, which my hon. Friend suspects might happen?
      Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend says that I suspect it might happen. I am not suspecting anything in a nasty way; I am reflecting on human nature and how things happen in organisations and institutions. The new management structure is a tremendous step forward. Like him, I believe that it will be massively helpful for the Health Service as, at last, there will be somebody at each level with whom the buck will stop.
      We have a police complaints procedure, and one of the criticisms of it is that it is in-house. The police are involved with people's civil liberties. The Health Service—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman tell me to which amendment he is addressing himself? I see no reference to these details in the amendments.
      Mr. Marlow: The thrust of the amendments is the inclusion of all health authorities as opposed to just regional health authorities. I am seeking justification for my hon. Friend sending his instructions to each hearth authority rather than, as the Bill originally provided, to RHAs.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must address himself to that argument. I have not heard it deployed yet.
      Mr. Marlow: There is anxiety that the police complaints procedure is in-house. I am saying that we should be more careful in the Health Service because we are dealing with matters of life and death. As we are having a complaints procedure, we must ensure that it operates at the proper level. I feel instinctively that the main responsibility could quite properly lie with the RHA, although I accept that, as with Army Council instructions and Defence Council instructions, it is right for my hon. Friend to send his eloquent, elegant and well-written instructions to every health authority in the realm.
      I am sure that my hon. Friend will have a good reply to that question. What is the best method for ensuring that my hon. Friend's instructions are carried through?
      Mr. John Patten: Ultimate responsibility lies with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Social Services, for Wales and for Scotland. Responsibility for the complaints procedure therefore devolves downwards through the health authority network and management structure in the three different countries. I do not see that

      645
      my hon. Friend has a point to make, because the line of responsibility goes up to the three Secretaries of State involved.
      Mr. Marlow: I respect my hon. Friend's point, and I am sure that later he will provide further details that will satisfy even my mind.
      In the NHS my hon. Friend has a management structure, just as ICI, BP, Shell, and Guest, Keen and Nettlefold have a management structure. If, as a supplier or receiver of goods, one had a commercial complaint against any of those firms and wrote to the chairman or managing director, there would be a tendency within the firm concerned to close ranks. That is why we have consumer protection legislation. Splendid though the general managers in the Health Service are, if complaints are made relating to their area, are they the best people to operate the complaints procedure, or would it be better done at a higher level? That is the question that I leave with my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: In case the crowded Benches in the House this morning should give the public at large the wrong impression, I should like to make a brief contribution in support of the Bill in general and the amendments in particular.
      In the 17-line explanation of the purpose of the Bill there are 19 words that we are considering this morning to which the amendments are specifically addressed. Those words are:
      "to establish and publicise, as respects each of the hospitals they are responsible for managing, a procedure for dealing with complaints made by, or on behalf of, patients at such hospitals."
      Given that that is the kernel of the Bill, I do not think that anyone could reasonably suggest that the amendments do anything but emphasise and underscore those objectives. It is right and proper that we should have one law in the United Kingdom to deal with a hospital complaints procedure. Many of us — even after two years in this House—still cannot come to terms with the fact that we do everything three times — first for England and Wales, then for Scotland and then for Northern Ireland. The public must also be puzzled that we have to multiply our legislation in that way. If the Bill simplifies the procedure, I am sure that that is all for the good.
      I do not think that the analogy of generals bypassing their brigadiers and talking to their colonels, in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is fair. Indeed, if that is how they operate, I can understand why the management structure of the services was in such a mess in the first world war. I think that the point that my hon. Friend was trying to make was that perhaps our worthy colleagues in the DHSS should talk only to the regions and not to the districts.
      There are only 14 regional health authorities. My authority is Trent. They are vast organisations. The public might think it more appropriate that the Minister should write direct to the district councils, which are nearer to the grass roots and much more in contact with local people and local Members of Parliament. The Trent region stretches from Sheffield in the north to Leicester, or even further south. Those vast regional authorities employ thousands of staff.
      Mr. John Patten: My hon. Friend is pressing me, as I have been pressed hard by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), on the question of devolved responsibility. Will my hon. Friend accept from me that it is our intention, should the Bill become law, that while all health authorities will be given identical instructions, we regard our relationship as being initially with regional health authorities on the general conduct of business, of which the complaints procedure is but one part, and thence onwards to the district authorities, as laid down by law?
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I accept my hon. Friend's point without reservation. I am sure that the Bill will be accepted in its present form. I welcome and support it.
      11.15 am
      Mr. Clive Soley: In the unavoidable absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), I confirm that the Opposition welcome the Bill as a step in the right direction.
      Congratulations are due to the promoter, the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), who is not very well and cannot be here today, and to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). We must not only congratulate the hon. Lady but you, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your forbearance during a speech lasting 40 minutes in which Scotland was referred to only half a dozen times, when every amendment relates to Scotland. I am not sure who deserves most congratulations—you for your forbearance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or the hon. Lady for getting away with it.
      The hon. Lady also deserves congratulations for striking fear into the heart of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). That is not an easy thing to do. Perhaps it is a forerunner of what may happen when we deal later with the Sexual Offences Bill.
      The Hospital Complaints Procedure Bill is a step in the right direction and we commend its extension to Scotland. We do not need to have separate legislation for each part of the United Kingdom; that is neither necessary nor desirable. The fundamental argument is that there is a need for a proper complaints procedure in the NHS, and that it should extend to all parts of the United Kingdom.
      It is regrettable that there is still no proper democratic system for running the NHS, and that matter needs to be examined carefully. From time to time I receive complaints which can be taken up with the area health authority or the regional health authority and I do not always receive satisfaction, despite the good intentions of those involved. In many cases there is no proper way in which to follow up complaints. I know that from time to time the Minister receives letters of complaint about the procedure and he must appreciate that it is not effective.
      I should like to see the involvement of local councillors who are directly elected. I commend the efforts of Councillor Hugh Thompson in my own area. He has started the first advice surgeries for people with complaints about treatment in the NHS. They are held on a regular basis so that people have someone to whom they can air their grievances.
      I shall be writing to the Minister in due course on another matter which does not fall under the legislation before the House. There are plans in Hammersmith, which is a special health authority area, to close seven wards for the month of August. I have already received several

      647
      complaints from people who will not be able to enter hospital and will suffer extra pain because of the month's delay. The reason for closing the wards is simply to save £100,000. That is the nature of the problem, yet a few moments ago the Minister intervened to say how much the Government were spending on the NHS. The public recognise that there is a real undermining of the NHS taking place and a deterioration in the services provided.
      The Bill is a small but important step towards a proper complaints procedure, and will put firmly on the statute book a recognition of the principle that some form of national complaints procedure is required. But sooner or later the House will have to examine in more detail the administration and control of the NHS on behalf of the people who make use of the services. We should also consider whether it should be separate from local government.
      Mr. John Patten: Our interesting short debate has been notable for the fact that the affairs of Scotland and Wales have been debated without many hon. Members from those countries being present to consider the amendments.
      I join the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). I described him during Tuesday's debate on the NHS as our valiant hon. Friend —and valiant he is. I know that he wished to be here today, but is unable to be present because he is having hospital treatment. He certainly intends no discourtesy to the House by his absence. He has an adequate and elegant substitute in my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie).
      The amendments have been fully examined. Most involve the extension of the Bill to other parts of the United Kingdom, though there are also important issues involving the Health Service Commissioners.
      Clause 1 lays a duty on the Secretary of State to exercise his existing power to give directions to health authorities requiring the establishment and publicising of specified procedures for dealing with complaints in all NHS hospitals. Lords amendment No. 1 extends the list of authorities to which such directions will have to be given to district health authorities in England and Wales, health boards in Scotland and special health authorities wherever they are located. That provision greatly exercised the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South went into the amendments in detail and I complimented her on her speech, which I followed with great care. We are sometimes a little too free with our compliments in the House, just as we are sometimes a little too free with our abuse of each other. When I read what I had said about the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) at the end of Tuesday's NHS debate, I was a little ashamed of myself. I referred to his possible future as a Front-Bench spokesman and used the words of a well-known first world war song to express my regrets that the hon. Gentleman might not be on the Opposition Front Bench in the future. Perhaps I went a little far and, therefore, perhaps I have been a little restrained in my compliments to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South.
      As drafted, the Bill covered only regional health authorities and therefore applied only to England. There are no regional health authorities in Scotland or Wales and it is now intended that the Bill should apply in both those
      648
      countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) complained about our legislative diversity, but the countries that make up the United Kingdom express that diversity in their organisation of the NHS and in other ways, and we have to make appropriate legislative provision for them. However, I understand why my hon. Friend feels that the process takes up much of our time.
      Regional health authorities in England are not directly responsible for the management of hospitals. Lords amendment No. 1 will ensure that the directions to be given are addressed to all authorities that have hospital management responsibilities. I made that point two or three times during interventions in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North. I am grateful to him for having given way because we had a useful debate about the responsibilities of the various health authorities.
      Lords amendment No. 1 extends the Bill to Wales and Scotland, but not to Northern Ireland. In an enjoyable and all too brief speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South told us his views on legislative diversity and said that he always liked to see one law for the United Kingdom. For two and a half years I was Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I was often here at two o'clock or three o'clock in the morning debating Northern Ireland issues. I know that if the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) were here today, he would give a "Hear, hear" to the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South.
      The amendments are technical, but they are important to Wales and Scotland. They are designed to ensure that the Bill can have its intended effect, and the Government support them wholeheartedly. For my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to be able to make directions which will bite on the relevant authorities, the Bill must specify the authorities correctly. As originally drafted, it did not do so.
      Clause 1 refers only to regional health authorities. As has been pointed out time and again in the debate, those authorities exist only in England. There is no regional tier of management alone in Scotland and Wales. Moreover, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North mentioned in his powerful speech, regional health authorities in England do not directly run hospitals. That is the job of district health authorities and of special health authorities to which my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South referred at length, though I should have liked her to develop her comments on special health authorities, because they are neglected bodies. I fear that all too often the public do not appreciate the relationship between district, special and regional health authorities, particularly in London.
      In Wales, district health authorities are the relevant authorities, while in Scotland the health boards run hospitals. The amendment would include those authorities in the Bill. In addition, to the extent that regional authorities are responsible for elements of the management of hospitals, the Bill will bite on them. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North referred to that. I see that he has moved to the Opposition Front Bench; I hope that that is only a temporary aberration.
      The Bill was originally intended to apply only to England and Wales, but the Government and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has had to give his assent. have agreed that it should apply north of

      649
      the border as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury has said that he wishes the Bill to be extended as widely as possible and the Government support that objective. There has been no dissenting voice from England, Scotland or Wales during the debate.
      Lords amendment No. 2, which is also a technical amendment, will include a necessary reference to the legislation governing health boards in Scotland. It will permit equivalent Scottish legislation to be applied in the issuing of directions to health boards north of the border. I commend the amendment.
      11.30 am
      It is important briefly to consider amendment No. 3, which provides for references to health boards in Scotland to be included in the Bill. It is consequent upon the previous two amendments and ensures that the Scottish health boards are referred to in the Bill where necessary. The Government support the amendment. The issue was of great concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North, who, I am relieved to see, is now crossing the Floor, back to his rightful place below the Gangway on the Conservative side of the Chamber. I was worried to see him on the Labour Front Bench consulting the hon. Member for Hammersmith.
      Amendment No. 4 is interesting and ensures that the Health Service Commissioners are not precluded from carrying out investigations, under part V of the National Health Service Act 1977, into cases that have been investigated under any procedures laid down in the directions to be made by the Secretary of State in pursuance of the duty conferred on him by the measure. Those directions should not in any way interfere with the work or the jurisdiction of the Health Service Commissioners. The amendment makes equivalent provision for Scotland, which the Government wholehear-tedly support.
      The offices of the Health Service Commissioners, which will be affected by the amendment, provide an important avenue for an independent review of complaints. Certain criteria must be met before the Commissioners can investigate, but they are not onerous and are intended to ensure that justice is done to both the complainant and those complained against. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South made that point, I am sure that the House regrets that she did not speak at greater length on it. The Bill is not intended to restrict the Commissioners' powers, and it is important that that is widely recognised.
      A strict interpretation of the legislation governing the Commissioners' activities may well have caused
      650
      problems. Therefore, section 116 of the National Health Service Act 1977 prevents any investigation of an action where the complainant has a right of appeal, reference or review by a tribunal constituted under any enactment. If the section were not specifically exempted, it might bite on the procedures to be laid down as a result of the Bill. That is not the intention of the Bill and, therefore, clear provision is made to allow the Commissioners to investigate complaints and to exempt the Commissioners' investigations both north and south of the Border.
      Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are technical amendments to ensure that the interpretations of the provisions applying to Scotland are included. Just as there are different legislative provisions north and south of the Border, so Scotland and England are at times divided by legal language. If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) were present, he would say, "Hear, hear," to that, and stress that it was desirable. The amendments ensure that the Bill will be understood on both sides of the Border, and include necessary references to Scottish law. The Government support them.
      Amendment No. 7 refers to clause 2(3) and deals with the extent of the Bill. It deletes references in the Bill which exclude Scotland. The amendments that we have so far discussed render redundant the exemption of Scotland from the Bill, and this amendment brings Scotland fully within the Bill's scope.
      Amendment No. 8 deals with the long title, which it is important to get right. At present it refers only to regional health authorities, and the amendment provides for the inclusion of references to district and special health authorities in England and Wales, and health boards in Scotland. As drafted, the long title reflects the previously limited scope of the Bill, but thanks to the advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South we have extended that scope. The amendment ensures that the long title accurately reflects the amended Bill's contents, and parallels the wording that has been agreed for clause 1(1) in its references to health authorities in England and Wales and health boards in Scotland. We support the amendment.
      I hope that the House will approve the amendment and that the Bill will pass into law. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, ably and strongly supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South, has advanced the rights of patients to have complaints against hospitals thoroughly investigated within and by the NHS. The Government wholeheartedly welcome the spirit in which the Bill was introduced in February, and hope that the measure will eventually pass into law.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 8 agreed to.

  Local Government (Access to Information) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Local Government (Access to Information) Bill
    Clause 1

      ACCESS TO MEETINGS AND DOCUMENTS OF CERTAIN AUTHORITIES, COMMITTEES AND SUB-COMMITTEES
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 14, leave out "other than the Data Protection Act 1984".
      11.37 am
      Mr. Robin Squire: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 3, 7, and 9.
      Mr. Squire: This is the final stage of a Bill which I am entitled to describe as major. It is major in size, in that it was six pages on Second Reading and is now 36 pages. That is a tribute in itself to the clarifying powers of both Chambers. It is major in effect because it will affect every local authority in England, Wales and Scotland. I pay my respects to and thank my noble Friend Baroness Carnegy of Lour, who gave sterling assistance in another place and enabled the Bill to return to this House. That was appreciated by both me and the Bill's supporters outside the House. I know that she would wish to join me in thanking both the umbrella freedom of information campaign and the community rights project, which have given us a great deal of assistance. Indeed, the Government's advisers have also been of enormous assistance in getting the wording into its correct and final form.
      The effect of amendments Nos. 1, 3, 7 and 9 is that local authorities must not release information where disclosure is forbidden by other enactments. That principle, perhaps predictably, was already built into the Bill, but with one significant exception: the Bill overrode the Data Protection Act 1984. That Act mandatorily protects personal information which would enable an individual to be identified and which is held on computer or derived from computer data. While overriding the Act, the Bill sought in the schedule to give local authorities discretion to withhold personal information whether held on computer or by more traditional methods. Thus, all personal information held by local authorities was afforded similar discretionary protection.
      However, in the light of discussions with appropriate Departments and with representatives of the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, we now all believe that the balance of advantage lies in removing the exception for three main reasons. Before I give them, I should pay tribute to the co-operation that I have received from representatives of the local authority associations, who have laboured long and hard to ensure that the Bill is workable by the local authorities.
      The first reason is that the Data Protection Act responds to public anxiety in that it seeks to protect, as an intentional act of public policy, personal information held on computer or derived from data. It deliberately stops short of attempting to extend protection to personal
      652
      information held in more traditional forms. Therefore, it would be difficult to defend according privacy mandatorily to all personal information held on a computer, or derived from computer data, except information in the hands of local authorities, which would have the aforementioned discretion.
      Secondly, the law would be clearer and more readily comprehensible by local authorities and the general public if the prohibition in the Data Protection Act were maintained for local authorities.
      Thirdly, in practice, a local authority which wishes to exercise discretion over the disclosure of personal information held on computer or derived from data would still be able to do so. It could register, for specified information, a data recipient as narrow or as wide as it wished, extending in the latter case to the general public.
      Those reasons appear to outweigh the case for the exception that was included in the Bill. The local authority associations made it clear that they would prefer the exemption to be removed. Amendments deleting references in the Bill to the Data Protection Act were accordingly tabled and accepted on Report in the other place.
      Mr. Clive Soley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) on his introduction of the Bill. It has been supported by the Opposition and by the freedom of information campaign, to which all hon. Members owe a debt. Indeed, the local authorities have supported it. It is a good step forward, and we welcome it.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: On behalf of the Liberal party, I wish to pay a similar compliment to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire). He picked up the Bill that others had tried to introduce in the two previous Sessions of Parliament. The trio of hon. Members consisted of one from each major party, which shows the all-party nature of the Bill. As last year's sponsor, I am happy that someone else did the work this year, and even happier that the Bill is likely to become law. It is a good Bill and the hon. Gentleman deserves congratulations on the effort that he has put into it. I hope that he will pass on our congratulations to all those who have helped him to get the Bill on to the statute book.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): I am happy to join those hon. Members who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) on a good Bill, which has been made better by the consideration given to it here and in another place. I am grateful for the tribute that he paid to my officials. I add my thanks to them, because it is much easier to reduce the broad principles of legislation than to carry out the detailed and hard slog of drafting a Bill and of searching for the many other Acts which must be brought into line with it. I know that Mr. Douglas McCreadie and his colleagues, with whom my hon. Friend has worked closely, will be grateful for his kind words.
      The Government welcome the Bill and hope that it reaches the statute book without a last-minute hitch. It demonstrates the Government's willingness to listen to and develop sensible proposals for greater freedom of information. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the sterling work that he has done.

      653
      Of course, we all know how the careers of those who begin their parliamentary careers by introducing legislation on this subject develop. I wish my hon. Friend the success that he deserves as a result of this work.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 9, leave out lines 5 to 15 and insert—
      "

      (a) specifying those powers of the council which, for the time being, are excercisable from time to time by officers of the council in pursuance of arrangements made under this Act or any other enactment for their discharge by those officers; and

      (b) stating the title of the officer by whom each of the powers so specified is for the time being so excercisable;

      but this subsection does not require a power to be specified in the list if the arrangements for its discharge by the officer are made for a specified period not exceeding six months."
      11.45 am
      Mr. Squire: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 8.
      Mr. Squire: The amendments are simply drafting changes. Clauses 1 and 2 insert respectively into the Local Government Act 1972 and the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 new sections 100G(2) and 50G(2).They require that a register be maintained of powers exercisable on a contingency basis by officers on behalf of the council. Such amendments bring the provision into line with the wording of the 1972 and 1973 Acts, which refer not to delegation but to arrangements for the discharge of functions.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No 4, in page 12, line 10, at end insert—
      "(f) a combined fire authority".
      Mr. Squire: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 15.
      Mr. Squire: Amendment No. 4 extends the Bill to cover combined fire authorities, which may be constituted in England and Wales as bodies corporate under sections 5 and 6 of the Fire Services Act 1947. No such authorities exist at present, but they could be formed in the future to rover two or more counties. It seems sensible for the Bill to provide for this contingency and thus cover all fire authorities, existing and potential. It is consistent with the Bill's application to police authorities, which are all covered, including combined police authorities as bodies corporate under the Police Act 1964.
      Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 15 are consequential. Amendment No. 6 corrects a slight error in the Bill as it left the House of Commons. It removes the words "and the", which were inadvertently left hanging in the air in section 100G(1)(a), as applied by section 100J(4)(b). This provision requires the maintenance of a register of members of joint boards or joint committees.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 9 agreed to

  Schedule 1

    EXEMPT INFORMATION
    Lords amendment: No. 10 in page 27, line 16, leave out paragraph 13 and insert—
    "13. Information which, if disclosed to the public, would reveal that the authority proposes—

    (a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person: or

    (b) to make an order or direction under any enactment."

    Mr. Squire: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 14.
    Mr. Squire: These are important amendments. Amendment No. 10 substitutes a new paragraph 13 in respect of part 1 of schedule 12A. Amendment No. 12 substitutes an identical new paragraph in respect of the equivalent Scottish provision, which is paragraph 13 of part I of schedule 7A. In each case, the paragraph is qualified by paragraph 6 of part II of the appropriate schedule.
    As amended, paragraph 13 of schedules 12A and 7A classes as exempt information which, if disclosed to the public, would reveal that the authority proposes either to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; or to make an order or direction under an enactment.
    The paragraph is subject to the new qualification in paragraph 6 of part II of schedules 12A and 7A. The purpose of paragraph 13 is to enable a local authority to consider the case for a notice, order or direction and reach a decision on the matter without the person who would be affected by it becoming aware of it in advance, in a case where that person might, as a result, be able to take steps to defeat the authority's purpose. The obvious example is of demolishing a building which was to be the subject of a building preservation notice. Hon. Members will accept that it would be wrong to allow a person who may be thus affected to frustrate the intentions of the authority, assuming that it took such a decision in an ordinary committee.
    The amendment broadens paragraph 13 to include circumstances where the authority proposes to make an order or direction under any enactment. This is because the principle behind paragraph 13 can apply to the making of an order or direction as to the serving of a notice. Inclusion of the words
    "under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person"
    in (a) has narrowed the term "notice". It is unnecessary to include within the provision notices that merely inform the recipient of some matter as distinct from requiring him to do, or not to do, something. For example, a notice served on an owner or occupier saying that a compulsory purchase order had been made would not be covered, because there would be no particular advantage in obtaining that information if one could do nothing with it in advance of the decision.
    Paragraph 13 does not confer new powers on the local authority to impose burdens or restrictions on citizens. It is merely designed to prevent existing powers being rendered potentially ineffective through premature disclosure as a result of the provisions of the Bill.

    655
    Amendments Nos. 11 and 14 substitute a new qualification in respect of paragraph 13 of part I of the schedule. The qualification provides that information falling within paragraph 13 of part I is exempt information if and so long as disclosure to the public might afford an opportunity to a person affected by the notice, order or direction to defeat the purposes, or one of the purposes, for which the notice, order or direction is to be given or made. The new qualification is in line with the principle behind new paragraph 13 of part I. It means that the local authority has discretion to close a meeting under paragraph 13 of part I only where premature disclosure of information to the public might afford an opportunity to the person affected to defeat the purpose of the notice, order or direction. The information will not be exempt once the notice, order or direction has been served or made.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 11 and 12 agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 31, line 29, leave out
    "or the subject matter of the collective agreement"
    Mr. Squire: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 16 and 17.
    Mr. Squire: These are simply tidying-up amendments. Amendment No. 13 corrects a slight mistake in the Bill as it left the House of Commons. The words
    "or the subject matter of the collective agreement"
    were, as the result of an amendment, left stranded at the end of a paragraph that no longer deals with labour relations matters. The amendment merely removes them. Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are of a similar nature.
    Question put and agreed to
    Lords amendments Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 17 agreed to.

  Sexual Offences Bill
  Order for consideration of Lords amendments read.
  11.53 am
  Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That further consideration of the Lords amendments be now adjourned.
  I do so because this Bill, more than most private Members' Bills, embodies matters of great seriousness. It is a far more deep and detailed measure than most of the private Members' Bills with which we deal.
  I raise this point of order because of the time that has been available. When the Bill was last in this House, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department properly said that he would arrange for a debate on importing into the Bill the concept of "persistently", such that it would not be an offence if something happened casually. Only if somebody were persistently pursuing a course of action contrary to the Bill would that be an offence. That debate was duly held in the other place and in Committee there, and it was decided that the Bill would be better with the concept of "persistently". That was the issue of principle debated and decided in the other place.
  As a result, the rest of the Bill became somewhat incoherent. I do not mean any abuse by that, but the rest of the Bill did not run properly and therefore other amendments were needed. The other place tabled amendments on Third Reading. Its intention was to put the Bill in order, but at the same time another concept was introduced into the Bill, and that was "persistently" or by causing "annoyance" or "nuisance".
  These new concepts in the Bill have not been debated in this place. This is a part of the law under which, if the wrong person is picked up, charged and given publicity, it will have the severest effects on his personal relationships, social life, job and reputation. Therefore, we should take the Bill seriously.
  The other place debated the amendment last night and introduced the two new elements into the Bill. It concluded its debate at 33 minutes past 8 last night. This is a deep and important issue. It is a matter that touches closely on the civil liberties of many of our citizens. The Bill gives additional powers to the police. I am not saying that that is wrong, but, before the House agrees to this measure, it should have proper notice.
  Many right hon. and hon. Members are concerned about this issue. Quite rightly, they are concerned to get the Bill on the statute book, but they are concerned also that the Bill does not put their constituents at risk. We may have the right amendments now, but, with the best will in the world, the other place deciding at 8.33 last night what to put in the Bill leaves no time for right hon. and hon. Members, first, to appraise themselves of what is happening, secondly to discuss it with their constituents, thirdly to take advice about what is happening and fourthly, to prepare any argument that they might wish to bring before the House.
  I plead with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, in the constitutional interests of the House and in the interest of how we discuss legislation, whatever the rules of order may say, we should not proceed with the Bill until hon. Members are fully appraised of what is happening.
  This is the last day for private Members' Bills. However, the Government have participated on this Bill.

  657
  I am sure that, as they have taken an interest, time could be made available for a debate to be held later on the subject so that the sensitive issues can be properly discussed. I plead with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and put that point to you.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's submission, but I cannot accept the motion. We must get on with the business.
  "persistently or, subject to section
  5(5A) below, in such manner or in such circumstances as to be likely to cause annoyance to the woman (or any of the women) solicited, or nuisance to other persons in the neighbourhood."
  Amendments to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 1, leave out from 'persistently' to end of line 4.
  (f), in line 4, after 'or', insert 'serious'.
  Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 5.
  Miss Fookes: As we are debating several amendments together, it may be for the convenience of the House if I read out the new form of the clause, assuming that all these Lords amendments are incorporated into it. It will read as follows:
  "A man commits an offence if he solicits a woman (or different women) for the purpose of prostitution —
  (a) from a motor vehicle while it is in a street or public place;
  Or
  (b) in a street or public place while in the immediate vicinity of a motor vehicle that he has just got out of or off, persistently or, subject to section 5(5A) below, in such manner or in such circumstances as to be likely to cause annoyance to the woman (or any of the women) solicited, or nuisance to other persons in the neighbourhood."
  Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has just said, all these points about nuisance and annoyance were debated extensively in Committee here. My hon. Friend was not a member of that Committee, nor, so far as I know, did he seek to be a member of it. It is not correct, therefore, for him to say that this has in some way been sprung on the House of Commons in an injudicious or hasty fashion.
  12 noon.
  Mr. Marlow: I did not say that anything had been done hastily or injudiciously. Nor did I say anything which I thought would put the Bill in jeopardy. I do not mean to be critical or aggressive towards anybody today. My hon. Friend will realise that not every hon. Member is on every Committee. Hon. Members may have other activities to attend, or they may be on other Committees. It is not possible for all hon. Members to be on all Committees. Nor should it be possible for that to be the case.
  I do not think my hon. Friend is saying that, because an hon. Member is not on a Committee—given that we all have constituency interests and are concerned for the welfare and civil rights of all our citizens—he should not take an interest in a matter. If, therefore, my hon. Friend was making an inference in what she said, I hope that she will withdraw it.

  Sexual Offences Bill
    Clause 1

      SOLICITING OF WOMEN FROM MOTOR VEHICLES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROSTITUTION
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 6, leave out from "(1)" to end of line 7 and insert
      "A man commits an offence if he solicits a woman (or different women) for the purpose of prostitution—"
      Miss Janet Fookes: I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 11, at end insert
      Will she, in explaining this group of amendments, say whether amendment No. 2 applies to subsection (1)(a) and (b) or only to (b)?
      Miss Fookes: I was alluding only to what I believe are established facts. I meant no other inference.
      Before dealing with points that hon. Members may wish to raise, I will outline the purpose of the Lords amendments, which I accept, and then deal with any queries arising out of them. Although the Lords amendments substantially change the original clause about kerb crawling, they still contain two points which were important to me from the outset.
      First, there is a specific offence applying to those who use motor vehicles, as widely defined, for the soliciting of women for the purpose of prostitution. This is such a nuisance in certain areas of some big cities that it is important that that point should be at the heart of the Bill in clause 1.
      Secondly, the principle—again, a principle to which I attach great importance—is maintained that, where a woman has a single approach made to her by a kerb crawler and is thereby upset and annoyed, she has redress under the clause.
      The other place, however, attached two safeguards, which are alternative safeguards, and I hope that they will allay the misgivings that were expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House when the clause was presented in its original form.
      The first is that one will have to show that the man was soliciting for the purposes of prostitution, which, in my view, is a severe test in any case. In addition, the word "persistently" is included—either one woman or more than one woman—and that deals effectively with the point made by those who felt that an innocent man—perhaps asking the way, which seems to be the classic example that we are given—might be accused, tried and perhaps convicted unjustly. I appreciate why, in forming a new criminal clause, hon. Members were seeking to safeguard the innocent. The element of persistence does so.
      The second alternative test or safeguard reads:
      "in such manner or in such circumstances as to be likely to cause annoyance to the woman … or nuisance to other persons in the neighbourhood."

      659
      Again, that deals effectively with the bitter grievances of residents who find that their ordinary lives are disrupted by kerb crawling by numbers of different men coming into the area. I hope that it will give much needed relief to areas such as Bedford hill, parts of Tooting, Southampton, parts of my constituency of Plymouth, Drake and other areas of the country. They have looked for redress for long enough. I hope that they will find it in the way in which the clause is now formulated.
      Also of interest to the House—this also applies to the question of additional safeguards—is the addition that has been made in the other place about the Crown prosecution service. When we discussed the measure before it went to the other place, I pointed out that the independent prosecution service would afford an additional safeguard against over-zealous police prosecuting a man who might be innocent. I did not think that that was a great risk, but I accept that others thought otherwise.
      The result of that matter being dealt with as part of this group of amendments is that the new service, which will be independent of the police, will have to be in operation before that part of clause 1 can be effective. I understand that it might come into operation at different places at different times, but the Minister will be able to give more authoritative information about that than I, a Back-Bencher, can do. This will provide a final and effective test and safeguard against any wrongful accusations or trials in court.
      I will not delay the House by dealing with one amendment which is consequential on another.
      Two amendments standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North have been included in this group. His amendments would toughen up the clause to such an extent that it would be almost impossible to bring any prosecution with any chance of success. To that extent they are unacceptable, but I will explain in more detail why that is the case.
      My hon. Friend's first amendment suggests that in place of "nuisance" the term "serious nuisance" should be in the Bill. I gather that over the years there has been a clear understanding in the courts of what "nuisance" means and that it is not to be taken lightly. To import the additional adjective "serious" would, in my view, restrict the operation of the clause to such an extent as to make it unworkable. For that reason, I could not accept it, although I understand the reason for my hon. Friend wishing to introduce it.
      I have explained why the annoyance or nuisance test is useful and why it meets the wishes of residents and women in particular areas who are subjct to the nuisance. To remove it would weaken the Bill unacceptably. Therefore, I must advise the House not to accept the two amendments standing in my hon. Friend's name.
      The new package, to which their Lordships gave considerable time and effort, represents a reasonable compromise between those, like myself, who were anxious to see that an effective clause was in place to deal with the nuisance of kerb crawling and the objections of those who felt that innocent men might inadvertently be caught up in a new criminal offence.
      Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend has eloquently set out the position. She will recall that I asked her whether amendment No. 2 covered both paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1).
      Miss Fookes: The plain answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes, it does.
      I think that I have covered adequately the various points of importance in their Lordships' amendments. I warmly commend them to the House.
      Mr. Marlow: First of all, can I draw attention to the remarks of Lord Wigoder in another place? The Bill has gone through the other place, and we are all desperately trying to rewrite the whole of it. The point that I am making is that we have received from their Lordships—I make no complaint about this—a Bill that has been substantially changed. What we are here to debate is whether the changes are the right changes and whether or not they produce the right Bill.
      Can I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) on bringing this measure to the House and, despite alarms, scares and ups and downs, getting it to this stage? I think that we all agree that in some parts of the country there is a very severe nuisance caused and areas of considerable blight as a result of the habit of kerb crawling that has grown up. I wonder whether it would be appropriate to stress this by referring to some remarks made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). My hon. Friend drew attention to what it is like to live in a red light district. She went on to say that she was pleased to say that she had never had the misfortune to do so herself. However, it appears that she has received many complaints from constituents. She said:
      "When kerb crawlers have created a red light district it is as if a blight were over the whole area. I cite the example of a woman who was waiting outside her daughter's school to bring her home. She was accosted by two prostitutes who told her, in the foulest language imaginable, to get off their patch … That happens constantly in that sort of area. A young girl was called over to a car by a man who was kerb crawling. The driver exposed himself, which frightened the child and she ran away." —[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 27 February 1985, c. 72.]
      These are the sort of things that happen in these areas. I have no doubt that in such areas other forms of crime thrive as well. If my hon. Friend's Bill will rid our country of this blight, I think that we should all be grateful to her.
      There are areas where prostitution takes place. There is an element in Northampton but not so much in the area of the town that I represent. I do not think that it has reached the level that was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston in Committee. I think that in those circumstances — the police will probably agree — the police have sufficient and adequate powers to deal with the problem. When the problem has reached the proportion that makes it a nuisance, under the existing law, they have managed to deal with that nuisance. However, there are other areas and those other areas do need, perhaps, the protection of the law; they do not need the protection of morals. I do not think that our constituents are asking us here to take a moral view. They are asking us to prevent abuse and nuisance. They are asking us to do it in such a way that we are not in danger of introducing injustices.
      I know that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), who is on the Opposition Front Bench, is quite rightly concerned about police powers. I know that he will

      661
      be looking at the Bill as it is likely to be amended and as it has been amended by their Lordships to ensure that any additional powers that are given to the police are necessary powers.
      12.15 pm
      This is an ambitious area for a Private Member's Bill. It is not an area that is completely devoid of controversy. Where we have an area that is not devoid of controversy, we must be very careful, obviously, how we proceed, particularly when a Private Member's measure is involved.
      One thing that has obviously concerned me and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) is the possibility of injustice taking place. In this particular area, it is not just a matter of somebody going to court and being found guilty when they are innocent. Of course, that is bad enough but that is not the injustice that we are basically concerned with. In this particularly sensitive area one is concerned about the possibility that an innocent man may be picked up, may be charged, may be brought to court and then found to be innocent. The fine that might have been involved would be as nothing compared with the effect of that charge, innocent though he be, on his reputation. It could have a catastrophic effect on a man's marriage. It could have a catastrophic effect on a man's family life.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman but he must relate his remarks to one of the amendments that is before the House. I invite the hon. Gentleman to do so.
      Mr. Marlow: The amendment that I am referring to, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is Lords amendment No. 2, which introduces the concept of nuisance or annoyance. I seek leave to speak also to my amendments, which are (a) and (f). What we have in amendment No. 2 is that a man will commit an offence if from a motor vehicle or whatever he
      "persistently or … in such manner or in such circumstances as to be likely to cause annoyance to the woman (or any of the women) solicited, or nuisance to other persons in the neighbourhood."
      We had a long debate in the Chamber—I think that a similar debate took place in Committee — about the inclusion of the word "persistently". My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State felt that to include the word "persistently" would be to weaken the Bill and to make it to that extent inoperable. However, he did agree that the problem had been debated in their Lordships' House. We are, of course, very grateful to them for that. Their Lordships have a great deal of expertise on this subject. There are many Law Lords and lawyers in another place who have been involved in the courts and know the problems that come from the courts. Their Lordships decided in Committee that "persistently" should be imported into the Bill.
      The Bill then had problems, so further amendments had to be introduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Drake has said that the amendment that suits the purposes of the Bill is No. 2. We now not only have "persistently"—it is not "persistently and" but "persistently or". The "or" is
      "in such circumstances as to be likely to cause annoyance to the woman (or any of the women) solicited, or nuisance to any other persons in the neighbourhood."
      662
      I am concerned to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister precisely what is meant by that clause. I am particularly concerned about the safeguard
      "subject to section 5(5A)".
      I am sure that when my hon. Friend the Minister catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker he will have quite a lot to say about that.
      The amendment reads:
      "in such manner or in such circumstances as to be likely to cause annoyance to the woman (or any of the women)".
      I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to tell the House why we have to include the words "to be likely" and why it cannot just be left
      "in such manner or in such circumstances as … to cause annoyance".
      In other words, why cannot we have a provision that makes it an offence actually to cause annoyance?
      What is likely to cause annoyance to one individual is quite different from that which is likely to cause annoyance to another individual. Some people are happy-go-lucky, carefree and relaxed. Some people are a little nervous, a little concerned and a little agitated. By their nature, they are more likely to feel an annoyance than others. What construction would the courts normally put on this? Do they expect a reasonable person in a reasonable state of mind to be reasonably annoyed? Some people, even with the best will in the world, are fairly fractious.
      Amendment No. 2 states:
      "or nuisance to other persons in the neighbourhood."
      What is "nuisance"? My hon. Friend the Member for Drake told us that it was a well-known concept in the courts, but I am not a lawyer. How grave does a matter have to be for it to be a "nuisance"? If a dog fouls a pavement outside the gate of one's house, is that a nuisance? If someone drives a car slowly up the street in which one lives, is that a nuisance? If a man parks his car in one's drive and spends 15 minutes chatting up five prostitutes and making leery remarks, and the reactions between the man and the prostitutes are offensive to people in the neighbourhood, that is obviously a nuisance. If many people are bobbing around a district looking for prostitutes, jamming the streets, making noises and blowing petrol fumes around the place, that is a nuisance. Where does one draw the line?
      I have tabled an amendment which refers to a "serious" nuisance, because I can understand that concept. A serious nuisance causes distress and inconvenience and is a factor that creates a blight in an area. I await the comments of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with interest.
      The Bill has been massively and properly amended by the other place. It is a sensitive issue. If the legislation has been wrongly drafted, the lives and reputations of innocent people could be blighted. The Bill is necessary, and I look forward to hearing the explanations of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.
      Mr. Matthew Parris: The first debate in Standing Committee was on my amendment No. 2 which would have inserted after the word "prostitution"
      "in a manner likely to cause nuisance or offence."
      The amendment was fully debated in Standing Committee, but I was not able to persuade hon. Members that it was a sensible improvement.
      The next debate was on whether the element of persistence should be imported into the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr.

      663
      Howard) and I argued that it should be. We were unable to persuade the Standing Committee that that was the right change to make.
      The House of Commons agreed to let the other place take another look at the matter, and it has done so. Their Lordships have imported into the Bill both the element of persistence and the element of likelihood to cause nuisance or offence. It would be churlish of me to say that that does not represent precisely the improvement that I wanted.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is a little unhappy about the element of likelihood to cause nuisance or offence. I understand his fears, but we proposed the importation into the Bill of the element of persistence not because there was an inherent viciousness in persistence which could not attach to a single act but because a person, by being persistent, was more likely to cause nuisance or offence. If the element of persistence is included, there is less likelihood of an innocent person being prosecuted.
      If it has to be shown that a person is causing nuisance or offence, that reduces the possibility of an innocent man being prosecuted. In that case, we must clearly define just what it is about persistence that we seek to proscribe. We seek to proscribe the offensive potential of persistence. Although I understand the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North, I do not object, for those reasons, to the importation of a likelihood to cause nuisance or offence or to the importation of the element of persistence.
      Mr. Marlow: One tries to be careful in this place, and I do not think that I ever said that I was against the importation of a nuisance or annoyance. I was concerned about how this provision was made. The matter should be properly debated and given the safeguards of new section 5(5A). This is a matter on which I need significant reassurance from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. Although my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and some of my other colleagues are in the Chamber, many of our colleagues are not. It is up to us on their behalf to take an interest in what is happening.
      Mr. Parris: My hon. Friend is right. We need reassurance on that point. If my hon. Friend's amendment (b) had been selected, I would have supported him, if necessary in the Division Lobby.
      We might seek some reassurance on the likely prosecuting policy of the new prosecution service. I understand that there have been discussions as to the type of advice that might be given. I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State says on this matter. He might well offer my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North and me the reassurance that we seek.
      I would not go as far as Lord Denning did in the other place on Third Reading when, referring to the Crown prosecutor, he said:
      "He will not prosecute an innocent man, or anything of that kind." — Official Report, Houe of Lords, 3 July 1985; Vol. 465, c. 1281.]
      His contribution to the evolution of English jurisprudence has been immense — and I do not doubt that it will continue — but I think that he goes further than even the most radical of us would wish to go. I would not assume
      664
      that, because the new Crown prosecutor prosecutes, the man involved is to be taken as guilty. I hope that the House does not assume that either.
      We were unhappy about a number of aspects of the Bill in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading. We let the matter go to the other place for another consideration. Their Lordships have in large measure made the changes that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe and I sought. It is right to acknowledge that the Bill has been greatly improved in the other place, that these amendments are right and that, taken all in all, with these amendments the Bill will be a useful addition to the statute book.
      Mr. Clive Soley: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) got into considerable trouble in Committee and elsewhere for pushing hard on the door that he has just said has opened a little. I was involved in putting forward amendments that referred to "nuisance". The hon. Gentleman got into a great deal of trouble while I did not — I suspect because I am a member of the official Opposition while he is a member of the unofficial opposition. This supports the old theory that one's opponents are in front and one's enemies are behind. We had the unedifying sight of the Conservative party attacking its own members for not sticking to the party line.
      12.30 pm
      In fairness, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West has pursued the issue determinedly and in a principled way. I stick by my initial position that I put on the Floor of the House and in Committee — that we are trying to reach the right balance between protecting the rights of individuals and minimising the risk of wrongful conviction with the rights of people in some parts of the country who suffer from men driving or walking around their areas trying to find women whom they think to be prostitutes. Those areas tend to have many prostitutes. It was recognised that that was a problem.
      I still take the view, as I did when we began to discuss the Bill, that we are attempting to deal with a complex problem by dealing with only a small part of it. As I have said on a number of occasions, the problem is not one of prostitutes per se. All hon. Members know that it is not and never has been an offence to be a prostitute. It is an offence to solicit for prostitution in a public place.
      We need a much more detailed programme to enable prostitutes to meet their clients without causing a public nuisance. That is the core of the problem that we still have not resolved. At the same time, I recognise, as Members on both sides of the House do, that there has been a problem in some limited parts of the United Kingdom.
      One of my anxieties, which is shared by a number of my hon. Friends and one or two Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West, is that we are legislating for England and Wales as a whole on a problem that affects parts of the country only. That is always a danger that we should avoid if possible. I made suggestions in Committee and on the Floor of the House as to how we should deal with the matter, but it is not appropriate for me to go over that ground again.
      The House of Lords has, to some extent, come to our rescue. We were struggling to find a form of words which introduced the concept of nuisance to people who lived in the areas that we were discussing. I put it to the Minister

      665
      that I thought it possible to find a form of words which would enable residents who felt that there was a nuisance to give evidence to a court or, alternatively, some form of drafting which would enable that nuisance to be made explicit in the Bill. The House of Lords has managed to do that.
      In doing so, the House of Lords has introduced the concept of persistence. The Opposition have mixed views on the issue of persistence. There is a feeling that a person should not have to commit an act more than once for it to be an offence. If something is an offence, it is an offence on the first occasion. The act should not have to be committed two, three, four or more times to prove that it is an offence. That has always been an argument against persistence.
      We have the problem because "persistence" was introduced in the concept of prostitution in the first instance. It is always instructive to bear in mind that that was done with good intentions, as so often in this place — to protect women, it was thought, from wrongful conviction. The idea was that a woman should be warned at least three times by the police before she could be charged with being a prostitute. That has resulted in women being taken before the courts and described as common prostitutes. To be described in court as a common prostitute, it was accepted that one had already been warned three times about one's behaviour. We are now introducing the concept of a "common kerb crawler". That is the problem that arises from using the word "persistent". It shows the difficulty of legislating on this matter coherently and consistently.
      I believe that the Lords amendment improves the Bill, for many of the reasons given by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West. I am still not happy with it, for all the reasons that I have given previously, but I accept that it may be the only way we have of dealing with the problem in the parts of the country that have been mentioned.
      I look forward to hearing the Minister — if I may have his attention for a moment while I refer to him. There is anxiety about whether the Bill will be used wrongfully. Perhaps the Minister will give the House a commitment that the figures showing the number of people arrested, charged and convicted will be made available to the House so that we can see how the Act works over a period.
      I understand that the Minister is also prepared to give a commitment to the House about the guidance given to the prosecution service. With the Lords amendments and those commitments from the Minister, I do not wish to delay the Bill's passage.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): May I first say how grateful I am for the helpful way that hon. Members have addressed the task of considering the Lords amendments. I shall try to respond as fully and cogently as I can to the points that have been raised, because it is important that those matters are considered with care. As we all acknowledge, the House should never take lightly the creation of a new criminal offence. Given the careful consideration in both Houses, no one can say that it has been taken in anything other than a most careful way.
      Before getting down to some of the details, I think that it would be churlish not to pay the warmest of tributes to
      666
      my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) for the skill and determination with which she has taken the Bill through the House—
      Mr. Ian Mikardo: And a bit of luck.
      Mr. Mellor: I was going to come to that.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Drake has also kept in touch with the Bill's progress in the other place, where it was piloted through by a distinguished predecessor, Lady Vickers, who for many years was a most distinguished representative of the city of Plymouth, as my hon. Friend is now. I welcome the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) to his place because he has played a constructive role in the discussions. As he said, my hon. Friend also required a bit of luck, but a bit of luck in a good cause is something that we can all welcome. In the end, I suspect that one of the principal reasons why hon. Members wanted the Bill to go through was not simply that it addressed a serious problem in a serious way, but the respect and regard that they have for my hon. Friend and their wish that she should be gratified in her legitimate desire to change the law in this sensitive area.
      When the Bill was conceived, it was designed to create three different offences. That followed careful examination by the Criminal Law Revision Committee of the present state of the law on sexual offences, particularly in relation to the harassment of women in public places. The committee took seven years to consider those matters. We recognise the difficulties that faced the committee in making judgments that are not just legal — I remember the point made by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar on that. It is not just a lawyers' paradise. We are making social judgments, too. It was in recognition of that that the Policy Advisory Committee on Sexual Offences was established, which consisted of people from social services and education, probation officers, psychiatrists, and so on, who were intended to broaden the ambit of the discussion and ensure that the legal discussion did not just fasten on the narrow lawyers' interest, but took account of the wider social implications.
      I recognise the matter that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has been at pains to point out throughout the Bill — that, while the Criminal Law Revision Committee is considering the whole of the law on sexual offences, the Bill deals with only a narrow part of it. I understand why he and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) have said on several occasions that it would have been better if the Bill had dealt across the board with the criminal law on sexual offences, particularly the vexed question of the extent to which prostitution may be permitted in today's society. In an ideal world, I feel sure that that is what we wanted to do. However, so difficult is the consideration of the law on prostitution that it has not even been possible yet for the Criminal Law Revision Committee to conclude its deliberations on that matter.
      The difficult decision that my hon. Friend the Member for Drake had to take, and with which we in the Home Office assisted her, was whether the problem of kerb crawling and some of the associated difficulties had reached such a peak that it could not be left on the shelf to await the receipt of further advice. The inevitable difficulty, particularly in a congested Department such as the Home Office, is finding a place in the legislative programme for a major and full-scale reform.

      667
      I felt that there was an element of urgency about the matter, which was impressed on me by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who is not here but who has taken a great deal of interest in the matter as the hon. Member representing the Bedford hill area. In an Adjournment debate in February last year the hon. Gentleman raised the problem of kerb crawling in his and other areas in very strong terms. He said that, having banged on the door of just about every Minister at the Home Office, he believed that action could no longer be delayed. On that basis—rightly, as I am sure the House agrees — I asked the Criminal Law Revision Committee if it could bring forward its consideration of the kerb crawling aspect of the law on prostitution so that its report would be available in the summer of 1984. If any hon. Member was then minded to bring in a Bill on the subject, as my hon. Friend the Member for Drake subsequently was, the House would be able to pass a law on the matter far more quickly than would otherwise have been possible. I am very glad that the Criminal Law Revision Committee was able to do that and that its advice was set out in such straightforward terms.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Drake then had to decide whether to follow the advice of the Criminal Law Revision Committee or whether to take a different approach to the problem. She was persuaded — like the Criminal Law Revision Committee and, I believe, the whole House — that the time had come to address the problem of kerb crawling and that one could no longer take the attitude taken in the 1957 report that the problem had not yet become so serious and commonplace as to justify making kerb crawling a criminal offence. The balance of convenience has plainly changed and the Criminal Law Revision Committee was right to recommend a change in the law.
      The question which aroused controversy both here and in another place was how the law should be changed to strike the difficult balance between providing the relief from this problem that women in many areas undoubtedly need and taking account of the difficulties which arise in sensitive matters of this nature as we have done on previous occasions by introducing the concept of persistence into other statutes relating to sexual behaviour in recognition of the fact that the risk of a miscarriage of justice, which may arise under any criminal statute, is perhaps a greater risk in this area of the law.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Drake elected to follow the advice of the Criminal Law Revision Committee and to create three offences. The first deals clearly and unequivocally with the problem of kerb crawling and makes it clear that if a man solicits a woman from a motor vehicle for the purpose of prostitution an offence is committed. That obviates the need to rely on the rusty old blunderbuss of the Justices of the Peace Act 1361 which, apart from many other drawbacks, can result only in binding over. The intention is not to jam the courts with kerb crawlers but to send out a clear message that kerb crawling is a criminal offence and thus to deter many people who might have indulged in the practice while it remained hedged about with equivocation.
      It was recognised that in the case of offences occurring in the street but unrelated to kerb crawling by motor vehicles a requirement of persistence was appropriate, as is already the case in the parallel provisions relating to homosexual soliciting. The fact that persistence is required in the case of people on foot but not in the case of those
      668
      soliciting from motor vehicles has struck some hon. Members on both sides of this House and in another place as rather odd and there has been legitimate and persistent debate on that aspect at every stage of the Bill. I make no complaint about that, and I know that others will make no complaint about the fact that I have a very firm view on the matter to which I still hold.
      The revision committee then considered the more difficult problem of whether solicitation of women in a manner likely to cause fear, irrespective of whether it was related to prostitution in a street environment, should be an offence. It recommended that it should, and my hon. Friend the Member for Drake took up the matter. That was far and away the most difficult proposition among many difficulties in the Bill. It has been recognised generally here and in another place that, although the advice of the revision committee is worth while, we were not wholly persuaded that it would be appropriate to broaden the scope of the Bill to include cinemas and other places where, perhaps, the case for change is not so clear-cut.
      Because of the extraordinary happenings on those two Fridays a couple of months ago when the Bill died and was revived, we did not take out clause 3. It was taken out in another place and we shall have an opportunity to give that our blessing later.
      12.45 pm
      I am glad that there was discussion of clause 4—the increase in penalties — in another place because the matter has not been subject to amendments, although some have been proposed. It is a grave and potentially dangerous anomaly that the penalty for indecent assault, which can be committed by a serious sex offender, is only two years. The courts have drawn attention to the fact that such a sentence is wholly inappropriate and that it could be in everybody's interests, including the offender, to confine an offender and to increase the penalty to 10 years.
      The increase in the penalty for attempted rape from seven years to life imprisonment would, but for a proviso in the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, already be in place. That Act rightly took the view that, because the intention is always to commit the full offence, to be guilty of attempt, the intention must be more serious than the act. As the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar, who is nodding assent, knows, somebody can be convicted of murder if he intends to cause serious bodily harm but he cannot be convicted of attempted murder unless he intends to kill. On advice from the revision committee, the House took the view, in 1981, that the penalty for an attempt should always be the same as the penalty for the completed offence on the basis that that left the courts with proper discretion to sentence.
      Attempted rape was left out of the 1981 Act because the revision committee was considering the merits of that offence. It was thought right to leave the matter as it was so that it could be taken up in a full-scale review of sexual offences, to which the hon. Member for Hammersmith looks forward. Time has passed and the pond has perhaps got a little murkier. It is not appropriate to leave this gap any longer. A dangerous sex maniac might not succeed in carrying out the full act of rape, but he might have such a history of offending that, having committed the rape, he would have been sentenced to life imprisonment.
      As the Minister who deals with life sentence matters, I know that some of the most difficult cases on which to make a decision about release are not the homicide cases

      669
      but the non-homicide cases in which people, when at liberty, have been driven to acts of ever-increasingly serious sexual misbehaviour. Without going into the matter in too much detail, it is surely an anomaly that in dealing with distinctions of millimetres on the question of when attempted rape becomes rape, the courts should have their hands tied. Therefore, I am sure that the changes that have been made will be widely welcomed.
      We are principally concerned with clauses 1 and 2. I have made clear my view that to import any consideration of persistence or of nuisance and annoyance would weaken the impact of the Bill. My views were accepted in this House but not in the other place, although I was glad to see that that most distinguished of common lawyers, Lord Denning, took the opportunity in the debate — as obviously one hoped that he and others like him would — to make clear his view that that was the right approach.
      The process of legislation, particularly on private Members' Bills, involves each of us giving the best advice that we can to the House, but if others choose to disagree and their view prevails, it is then up to us all to make the best that we can of the new arrangements, and certainly not to stand in the way of the Bill proceeding because it does not represent what one would personally regard as the best arrangement.
      Their Lordships, having taken their decision about persistence, then made certain amendments which enabled the Bill to be a workable Bill. Therefore, I am not grudging in my acceptance of it or in my recommendation that we should accept it. I am warm in my feelings towards the Bill, although I would have been positively steaming about it if I had had my way entirely. But that is life.
      In the debate in the other place the issue of persistence was considered. Several peers took part in the debate, some with legal qualifications, others without. However, we do not want our debates to become blighted with apartheid in the sense of Members having or not having legal qualifications. After the debate, by a majority of 33 to 26, the decision was taken to insert the word "persistently."
      After that there were deliberations in the other place and also outside. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Drake played some part in those deliberations. We tried to see whether, the decision having been taken that the element of persistence was needed, there was a case for introducing a parallel offence which, in a very specific case, would not require the element of persistence. We wanted to ensure that the Bill would be workable and deal with the central problem that had been troubling all of us so much.
      There are two competing problems with which we are concerned. The first is the blight upon an area where prostitutes operate openly in the streets and where there is kerb crawling by potential clients. The prostitutes are happy about that but, obviously, not the rest of the community. Several hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, West and Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), have had the quite legitimate concern that one single act could be misinterpreted by an over-zealous policeman. Inevitably, the prostitute herself would not be available to give evidence, being happy about the transaction, and it would be wrong to blight someone's prospects, career and future
      670
      family life — matters to which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North has referred eloquently today and on other occasions — on the basis of one equivocal incident. For that reason, it was felt necessary to have the clear safeguard that such an incident should have to happen twice.
      However, having agreed with that view, their Lordships recognised in their intensive discussions that that would not deal with the other major problem that has caused us so much concern and led many people to want to change the law, which is the situation where the woman who is the object of the solicitation is not a prostitute, but an ordinary woman — one's sister or wife, or someone else's daughter — going home or to visit a friend and not dressed in a way that could be described as extravagant or sexually provocative.
      Polls in Bedford hill and many other parts of the country showed that such women were regularly being propositioned, and their pleas for redress are every bit as intense as those of people who are embarrassed by the fact that their home street has become a haunt of known prostitutes.
      If such a woman had been the subject of an unwarranted approach, probably in abusive and insulting terms, it would be wrong to require the same thing to happen to someone else before there were any means of redress. The recognition of that fact has united us. We have all been troubled about that matter, however we may differ about the ways of building in safeguards. I know that that aspect worries my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North, and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West put it well in Committee when he said:
      "I can see that to embarrass a woman gravely or to inconvenience her seriously may be enough of a crime to warrant prosecution. Many women, particularly those who live in London and in the areas where the problem exists, are inured to such solicitation and are probably no longer put in fear by it, simply because it happens so often, but that does not mean that it does not offend or inconvenience them, or that those who solicit should not be prosecuted." — [Official Report, Standing Committee C, 20 February 1985; c. 7.]
      There was common ground in their Lordships' consideration of finding a way whereby innocent women — our wives, sisters or mothers; the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) showed how catholic is the taste of some of these gentlemen when she recounted a personal experience of a kerb crawler—can be protected.
      Equally, their Lordships wanted to be sure that vexatious and improper prosecutions would not arise. That is why the concept of nuisance and annoyance was exhumed, as so many parts of the Bill have been exhumed from time to time, and inserted in parallel with the concept of persistence, so that if nuisance is caused to persons in the neighbourhood or annoyance is caused to the woman, there is no reason why a criminal penalty should not ensue. That is the proposal which their Lordships ask us to accept.
      There need to be safeguards. The fact that the words "nuisance" and "annoyance" have been inserted makes it virtually inevitable that there will have to be evidence from either the woman who was the victim of the solicitation or a local resident who clearly saw and heard what was going on. The safeguard is built in by the need to establish nuisance or annoyance and not merely the fact that the act of solicitation took place.
      I appreciate that, as many hon. Members and noble Lords have said, perhaps we should take advantage of the recent creation, with all-party support, of an independent

      671
      prosecution system to ensure that, even more than anyone could claim today, there is an objectivity in the decision to take a case to court, given all the implications that follow from that and about which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North spoke so eloquently. There is a case for providing that only in the most exceptional circumstances should a case under the nuisance or annoyance provisions proceed without a non-police witness being available.
      As my noble Friend Lord Glenarthur pointed out, the Director of Public Prosecutions is ready, if the House thinks it appropriate, to give guidance to Crown prosecutors about the operation of this part of clause 1. The guidance would be along the lines that where the charge alleges annoyance to the woman solicited or nuisance to other persons in the neighbourhood, it should, save in exceptional circumstances, be supported by the evidence of someone other than a police officer, and, wherever possible, by that of the woman herself. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North sees that as a step forward. It binds in to the point that I made clear to the hon. Member for Hammersmith when we last considered the Bill — that we shall monitor the number of cases that are put to the independent prosecution service as being worthy of prosecution, the number it decides to prosecute, and the number that result in conviction. Those three sensitive figures will show whether the Act is being properly applied.
      1 pm
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North that we should not put innocent transactions, such as asking directions, in jeopardy. We have had to strike a balance between wanting to protect women and wanting to protect men from unreasonable prosecutions. After all our efforts, I believe that we have struck that balance, and obviously I hope that hon. Members agree.
      Before I deal with some of the detailed points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North, I wish to pay warm tribute, not merely to those in this Chamber who have helped to ensure the passage of the Bill, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West who, having recognised how much progress has been made, spoke warmly in support of the proposition today, but to those in the other place who have played a leading role in ensuring, at some difficulty to the procedures of the other place, that the Bill was debated two nights running this week so that it could return to this House in time.
      Lord Denning gave the wise advice that one would expect from the foremost common lawyer of the century. There was considerable assistance from the Opposition Front Bench, especially Lord Mishcon, who was ably assisted by Lord Elystan-Morgan, who was the most reluctant to accept the arrangements, but in the end was willing to do so. I am grateful to him for that, as I am to Lord Houghton, for whom I have a particularly high regard because of our joint work on animal welfare and experimentation—issues with which my hon. Friend the Member for Drake is also intimately concerned. He was undoubtedly unhappy about some elements of the Bill, but he determined that sufficient had been done to change it to his satisfaction. I salute him for a typically courageous and principled approach to the matter, which has been echoed by my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire,
      672
      West and for Northampton, North. Lord Harris, a former Minister of State, Home Office, Lord Wigoder, a distinguished practitioner in criminal law, and, last but not least, Lord Monson all took part in intensive discussions and helped to bring the Bill through to this stage.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North has properly asked telling questions about what exactly the Bill means. I want to deal with his important and valuable points. He reminded us that clause 1 will read as follows:
      "A man commits an offence if he solicits a woman (or different women) for the purpose of prostitution (a) from a motor vehicle while it is in a street or public place; or
      (b) in a street or public place while in the immediate vicinity of a motor vehicle that he has just got out of or off, persistently or, subject to section 5(5A) below, in such a manner or in such circumstances as to be likely to cause annoyance to the woman (or any of the women) solicited, or nuisance to other persons in the neighbourhood."
      The first point that we must make about that is that it creates two alternative ways of bringing the offence. The second point that should be emphasised is that, to show that what we say about the role of the independent prosecution service is not just window dressing — I strongly commend this point to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North because it goes a long way to meeting his points about the innocent not suffering — clause 5(5A) states that this part of section 1 should not come into force until the independent prosecution service is operating in the area. Therefore, I have entered into a meaningful commitment today. There is no risk of the law being enforced for about 12 months in some cases, and possibly longer in others, by arrangements that are not in accordance with the new framework that we have established. That shows the good faith that we have been anxious to establish.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North asked me about nuisance. One reason why their Lordships were attracted to the proposition which, in its final form, emerged from discussions in which the lead was taken by Lord Denning and by First Parliamentary Counsel, was that we should distinguish between what must be proved in relation to the woman solicited and the neighbourhood, because their interests are different. For the woman, we wanted an offence of annoyance, and I shall come to my hon. Friend's pertinent questions about how that should be tested in a moment. As for the neighbourhood, we are talking about nuisance, not annoyance, because nuisance to a place is the commonly understood, familiar tool in the courts. It is much better to cleave to words which lawyers are accustomed to using in other contexts than to use new words.
      My hon. Friend posed several carefully thought-out questions, and I do not believe that it is ducking the questions to say that it is impossible with this, as with any other issue of fact, to give a conclusive answer. Such issues of fact must be determined by the courts, which will consider the background to the alleged offence, basing their consideration on the way in which they approach nuisance in many other contexts. The word "nuisance" is found in civil and criminal law. Nuisance is a question of fact, and the court will investigate all the circumstances of the case: when it happened; the manner in which it happened; the effect of what happened; and whether all the circumstances lead to the conclusion — this is the key point — that the nuisance was material and substantial.
      The damage — this is the reinforcement which my hon. Friend seeks — must not be merely sentimental,

      673
      speculative, trifling, temporary, fleeting or evanescent. I have not dug that list of words out of "Roget's Thesaurus", they have come from cases in which the courts have said, based on the way in which they have dealt with the concept of nuisance, that it must be none of those things. The framework exists for a common-sense recognition of what nuisance is.
      We come to the equally difficult point of the objectivity of the complaint. My hon. Friend is troubled by the possibility of a woman being excessively worried by what would be regarded by others as perfectly normal approaches, and that that woman could wreak havoc with the career of a man who simply drove up to her and asked, "What is the way to the public house?" The woman could say that she had been approached in a way that gave her the right to complain under the offences contained in the Bill.
      The key to this is the use of the words "likely to", which I know trouble my hon. Friend. I believe that the words "likely to" will ensure that a properly objective test is applied. We do not want a definition of nuisance or annoyance that varies with the length of the individual's foot. We want the courts to be able to say, "Would a person of reasonable firmness, placed in a similar position, be caused annoyance?" In other words, was it likely, and would a reasonable person in the offender's position know, that such an approach was likely to cause annoyance?
      Mr. Marlow: The amendment says:
      "likely to cause annoyance to the woman".
      Does that imply a woman of reasonable firmness or the actual woman involved in the incident?
      Mr. Mellor: That is a perceptive question. I believe that it means likely to cause annoyance to women. It does not mean that the court would take into account the particular circumstances of the woman, unless those circumstances were obvious. If the incident involved a woman with a white stick, the court would be entitled to take account of the fact that it is more likely that some words would cause annoyance to a disabled person, who in any event would be disoriented by any approach, than to a woman in full possession of her faculties.
      I believe — and, what is more important, some of the distinguished people who have been mentioned as being involved in this believe — that an objective test is being established. It is proper and helpful for my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North to ascertain this. I agree that if the House were not satisfied that this was an objective test, it would be entitled to be sceptical, but there is an intention that there should be an objective test, and I think that that intention has been properly carried into effect with the wording.
      Mr. Parris: Does my hon. Friend's argument work the other way? Suppose that a woman was not offended or annoyed, perhaps because she was a policewoman, although in plain clothes. If the solicitation was such that, had she been anyone other than a policewoman inured to this kind of thing, she would have been annoyed or offended, would the solicitation be likely to annoy or offend her?
      Mr. Mellor: That would follow, but the element that is different, and that we have added by way of a safeguard, is that no longer are words of solicitation for the purpose
      674
      of prostitution enough in themselves. They have also to be of a kind likely to cause annoyance. In other words, they have to go quite far.
      A purely innocent member of the public might find that any words of solicitation were likely to cause annoyance, so the differences in some cases may not be great. However, it is important, because it gives a firm basis to the contention that lies at the heart of this matter — that there should, wherever possible — and only in exceptional circumstances not — be available a person who is not a police officer to give evidence. If these people are so offended that they look to us for redress, they have to be prepared to play a part in getting redress. They cannot slough off that responsibility on to others. We have achieved that, and changed the position.
      I hope that what I have said satisfies my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North. I am happy to give way to him if I can be of any assistance to him on any other points.
      Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his patience, his careful exposition of the position, and the way that he has taken account of the points that I have made. I feel that the safeguards that he has suggested stand a good chance of achieving what both he and I are seeking to do. I congratulate him on what he has done.
      Mr. Mellor: That is a most handsome remark for my hon. Friend to make. I am extremely grateful. It has been no hardship to deal with these points because they are essential to our consideration of the Bill. It is right that these matters should be properly looked into. I have always been concerned to see that everyone recognises that in the end — I had to learn this lesson as much as anybody else — the process of getting the Bill right is one of give and take. All of us will come with different views, and we shall not get everything we want.
      My hon. Friend has made it clear that he is anxious only to test whether the Bill meets the worries that he legitimately has. I am glad that he thinks that I have satisfied him, and I thank him for his useful contribution, now purged of any suggestion that it was based on malevolence towards the Bill's future. I thank him for the interest that he has shown on previous occasions. The Bill strikes a balance that all new criminal legislation would do well to achieve—a balance between effective controls of activities which the criminal law should address and effective safeguards for those whose activities should not be drawn within its scope.
      1.15 pm
      The message which I hope we are able to send out this morning is that the buying and selling of the services of a prostitute must not take place in and around the homes of ordinary people who wish to go about their daily lives without the nuisance and offence that is caused on an intolerable scale in many inner-city areas.
      The message also goes out in the Bill that serious sexual offences will be adequately punished as a result of the increases in the maximum penalties which clause 3 effects. I consider both signals to be important and worth while.
      Mr. Soley: I am sure that it was inadvertent, but given that the Minister is sending out a message, he might wish to reconsider the phrase he used about the buying and selling of the services of a prostitute "in and around" homes. The Bill does not apply within the home. He may wish to clarify that.
      Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman is right. We are dealing with the public manifestation of the problem. I am grateful to him for following my remarks with care enough to correct me when I am incorrect.
      We have managed to build in the safeguards that the House wanted, while doing what my hon. Friend the Member for Drake and I consider to be absolutely paramount — sending out the message that kerb crawling is an offence. The fact that the Bill covers one approach to a woman who is caused nuisance and annoyance — and which is shown by objective analysis to have been an offence — means that people cannot go kerb crawling thinking that they can have one bite of the cherry and that, so long as they get that right, there will be no problem.
      We have been greatly assisted by the other place in our consideration of these matters. I commend to the House the amendments that their Lordships have suggested.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

    Clause 3

      SOLICITING A WOMAN IN A MANNER LIKELY TO CAUSE HER FEAR
      Lords amendment: No. 4 leave out Clause 3.
      Miss Fookes: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The purpose of the amendment is simplicity itself. It seeks to delete clause 3, the essential substance of which reads:
      "A man commits an offence if he solicits a woman for sexual purposes in a manner likely to cause her fear."
      Their Lordships have been good enough to honour an undertaking given by me, in consultation with the Minister, to this House before their Lordships considered the Bill. It was felt that the clause could give rise to serious concerns and that perhaps it went too wide in what is essentially, I still think, a useful proceeding to ensure that a woman has redress when she is put in fear by approaches from a man for sexual purposes of whatever kind. We recognised that that was a worry and it was understood that we would not press it. This amendment achieves that, and I am grateful to their Lordships for making it.
      There have been numerous excitements with the Bill, both here and in the other place. It may date me to refer to a splendid little wireless programme in the days of my childhood entitled "Dick Barton, Special Agent." From 6.45 pm to 7 pm this hero had the most exciting adventures. Sure enough, at half a minute to 7 o'clock he would be within an inch of losing his life. That happened every night. I felt like that myself when I had several narrow shaves with the Bill. Indeed, there were several this week.
      When I say that I am grateful for the assistance that I have received, I am not reciting those words without
      676
      feeling. I am intensely grateful for the assistance that I have received from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and others who have been helpful to me from the very beginning of the Bill's passage. Those others will know who they are. I am grateful also to those who were willing to sponsor the Bill. It is quite an undertaking for a private Member to carry forward such a measure, bearing in mind that it seeks to create more than one new criminal offence.
      I am grateful, of course, to those who served as members of the Committee. I thank especially Lady Vickers, who had such a distinguished career in this place. Lady Vickers' part in the Bill's passage through both Houses involved her in a great deal of work and some anxiety. I am grateful to those of their Lordships who gave a great deal of their attention — many of them have great experience of criminal matters and matters of life generally — to the Bill.
      I am happy that the Bill retains the essential features which it was my intention to embody in law from the beginning. I hope that the Bill will be satisfactory to the hard-pressed residents of red light areas who have suffered for many years from the increasing menace of kerb crawling.
      During the Bill's passage through Parliament I have been impressed by the number of letters that I have received and by the meetings that I have had with residents' associations, especially those from Wandsworth. I learned a great deal in the course of the proceedings and it is with the greatest pleasure that I commend the amendment to the House.
      Mr. Marlow: I hasten to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) that I am not rising a la Dick Barton because I think that the amendment requires another 68 minutes of debate. I rise purely to say, as one whose activities might have implied some disagreement with some of her proposals earlier in the proceedings, how grateful the whole House is to her and how grateful the country will be that she has tackled this problem in the way that she has, and that she has brought forward a measure which I think the House now believes will deal with this problem, this blight, which affects many of our inner-city areas.
      Although my hon. Friend might have been concerned about some of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) and I were making, we were concerned purely to see that there was no danger, in a new criminal law, that innocent people could be brought before the courts and their reputations and lives blighted accordingly. I feel that we have now reached a stage when my hon. Friend's requirements have been met and the innocent are no longer in danger. I would like finally to say that I congratulate my hon. Friend on her courage and persistence and on getting it right.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 5 agreed to.

  Licensing (Amendment) Bill [Lords]
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  1.24 pm
  Mr. Michael Colvin: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third Time.
  I should like to pay tribute both to Lord Harmar-Nicholls for bringing forward this measure in the other place and to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) who formally moved the Second Reading and assisted the Bill through its Committee stage, which was not too controversial or arduous and lasted about 15 minutes. Because the Bill had slid through the House so quickly, you may be prepared, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to allow us to say a little more about it on Third Reading than would normally be the case.
  This is a modest measure, but we must bear in mind the important part that the entertainment industry plays in our nation's economy. The contribution of hotels, restaurants, dance places, café entertainment and many public houses is significant and extremely valuable. In our balance of payments, the invisibles earned by these sectors are second only in total to those earned by banking.
  In a limited number of those hotels, restaurants, dance halls cafés and public houses where entertainment and food are provided, it is possible under present legislation to apply to licensing magistrates and, having justified a need, to be granted special hours certificates or extended hours certificates, which result in those establishments being able to continue to sell liquor and part of the general entertainment between 12 midnight and 2 am, instead of finishing at midnight. The certificates extend business for only two hours. The applicants must demonstrate to the magistrates that there is a need. The certificates are available for 310 of the 365 days in the year, which leaves 55 days in which they cannot be obtained. Fifty, two of those days are Sundays, which leaves three days — Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter Saturday. The Bill is concerned only with those three days. It will extend to those days the same privilege that is given to the other 310 days. We have all accepted that privilege. It is practised in Scotland. We are talking about another two hours of business on three days only, or another six hours of drinking a year. That is not very much.
  The measure is important because alcohol consumption is such a controversial subject. Any discussion of liquor licensing and permitted hours inevitably returns to the Erroll Committee's report of 1972, Cmnd. 5154. Since then, there have been two attempts to pass a Bill providing more flexible hours — the first was introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and the second by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor). Both attempted to extend the hours from 11 am to 11 pm, primarily to give flexibility. This is what the licensed trade has been reqesting for so long. The Bills attempted also to allow children under 14 in to pubs, and perhaps it was for that reason as much as any other that they failed.
  Nevertheless, the debate about those Bills in the House and outside showed that there is anxiety over increasing alcohol consumption and pressure has been brought on the Government by various bodies, notably the National Union of Licensed Victuallers. I should declare an interest because I act as a parliamentary adviser to that organisation. I should, perhaps, also declare an interest as
  678
  a licensee, although I am afraid that the Bill, as it stands, will not have much effect on public houses. Representatives of the tourist industry and the breweries have also made representations about making our licensing laws more flexible as has happened in Scotland.
  "Drinking Sensibly", published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in 1981, recorded that there were indications that extended permitted hours and Sunday opening in Scotland had not resulted in any increase in total consumption.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Member should be careful. I do not wish to seem to be too intolerant, but he is aware that on Third Reading we are required to confine our remarks to what is in the Bill and not what might have been, compared with other legislation.
  Mr. Colvin: I stand corrected, but I believe that the Bill should be viewed in the context of the wider licensing laws. That is why I think that you will find, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that everything that I say will have a direct bearing on the measure before us. I shall, however, keep my remarks as brief as possible.
  The subject of flexible licensing hours is relevant to the Bill. The key points are, first, that the present licensing law was designed to meet the social and economic conditions prevailing shortly after the first world war. That is a long time ago, and the time has come for some reform.
  Secondly, the circumstances are now dramatically different. There are new work patterns, greatly increased social expectations and a vastly increased public demand for up-to-date catering and leisure facilities. Those are, of course, growth industries. We are interested in jobs. Those are labour-intensive industries and should be encouraged.
  Thirdly, the ability to provide better services to meet customers' requirements is generally inhibited by the present rigid system of permitted hours. That is another reason why I welcome the Bill. It will give customers further flexibility on at least three days a year.
  Fourthly, the retailers most disadvantaged by the present system include over 78,000 small businesses — independently owned and tenanted public houses, restaurants and hotels.
  Fifthly, in Scotland the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, which was introduced following the Clayson committee inquiry, introduced a wide measure of flexibility that has resulted in social and economic benefits.
  Sixthly, many public houses in Scotland have changed their character since the new law. They now offer much more food, better services and general amenities.
  That is an important point to bear in mind because under the Licensing Act 1964 the section that the Bill aims to amend limits the provision to catering outlets, hotels and other such establishments offering food and entertainment. In many cases, our public houses do neither. When passed, the Bill might be an incentive to our public houses to broaden the scope of the services that they offer. Many more now offer food, but to offer food and entertainment generally would not just widen the scope of their own businesses but would be good for the economy generally, and would enable them to benefit from the Bill's provisions.
  Mr. Clive Soley: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with great care. He knows that when he talks about a growth area, he is talking about

  679
  increased sales. He knows that there is also a massive growth area in the problems associated with alcohol abuse. Therefore, can he say a little more about those problems and that growth area, and put it in the context of the growth area of employment, income and so on?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) will not be tempted down that road. I have been very flexible and tolerant so far. We have strayed a long way from what is in the Bill. I hope that we shall get back to it.
  Mr. Colvin: I shall not reply directly to that question. I hope that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will forgive me. Nevertheless, he has raised an important point. It is in the context of alcohol abuse that the debate on more flexible hours is being conducted. That is why the next point that I wish to make is relevant.
  Government statistics have suggested that there has been a massive drop in drunkenness offences in Scotland since the new law was introduced, which must be partly as a result of the flexible hours system. A survey was carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, and it is worth quoting the summary at the end, which says:
  "The preliminary anaysis … has shown that an increase in alcohol consumption occurred in Scotland between 1976 and 1984, and that the increase was almost entirely contributed by women … Since consumption by men did not rise between 1976 and 1984 it seems unlikely that the increase in women's drinking is a direct consequence of the changes in licensing legislation, but rather that it results from a change in Scotland to a more relaxed attitude towards drinking in general, and in particular towards women's drinking. It is perhaps because of this more relaxed approach to drinking that more women now drink in public houses, and that the extensions to licensing hours brought about by the 1976 Act tend to be seen as having led to more sensible drinking, rather than as offering a temptation for people to drink more."
  That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
  Mr. Soley: Keeping within the rules of order, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the research on that project, which I welcome, is not as complete as we should like. Surely one of the principal guides to which the hon. Gentleman should address himself is not charges of drunkenness, which are not a good indicator, but the number of cases of cirrhosis of the liver, which have increased, although only marginally.
  Mr. Colvin: I do not think that I dare answer that question. You were lenient, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in allowing me to slip in a reply to the hon. Gentleman's previous question.
  No doubt, if the Minister is so minded and has a word in the ear of the Home Secretary, we may see a Bill in the House before long during which we can debate in detail the matter that the hon. Member for Hammersmith raised.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Does my hon. Friend accept that only the most extreme temperance fanatic could argue that the passage of the Bill would lead to an increase in alcohol abuse? We are dealing with only three days out of the whole year.
  Mr. Colvin: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why none of the temperance fanatics are present today to argue against the Bill. They have read it and seen that it is modest in what it attempts to do. Therefore, they are happy to see it go on to the statute book.
  We should like a system of licensing that is on more flexible lines. I look upon the Bill as the first step down
  680
  that track. A more flexible system would enable premises retailing alcohol to adjust their trading arrangements to meet the needs of local communities. For example, the extensions granted for summer trading might be different from those granted for winter trading. The system should take account of the vastly different work patterns—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We had better stick to Good Friday, Maundy Thursday and Easter eve.
  Mr. Colvin: The Bill seeks to begin to bring in a more flexible system on Good Fridays, Maunday Thursdays and Easter Saturdays. Our hotel and licensed trades are already renowned for the service that they give. The Bill will allow them to offer a better service on those three days. I am glad that the Government see no need to object to these modest proposals, but I must have a suspicious nature because I wonder whether, rather than regarding the Bill as the thin end of the wedge and the beginning of more flexible licensing hours, the Government hope that if they agree to these proposals they will manage to keep the licensed trade quiet for a few more years. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will confirm that the Government regard the Bill as the first step towards a more flexible system. Detailed analysis of the Scottish findings will provide the evidence required to support the introduction of a further Bill before long. It may be too late for the Queen's Speech this year, but perhaps in 1986—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must deal with the Bill before the House today and not with Bills which may be before the House at some future time.
  Mr. Colvin: In conclusion, I believe that the House unanimously welcomes the Bill. We regard it as a first step, though unfortunately a tiny step, towards a more flexible licensing system and we very much hope that the Government see it in the same light and not merely as a way to keep the licensing lobby quiet for a few more years. There has been growing concern on both sides of the House about the need for a more flexible licensing system. All the evidence from law enforcement officers, doctors and the trades concerned is that a more flexible system would be beneficial. We shall, therefore, be justified in giving the Bill a Third Reading.
  1.42 pm
  Mr. Greg Knight: To put the Bill into perspective we need briefly to consider existing licensing legislation. I say that en passant, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is amazing that although the common law imposed no restrictions at all on the sale of intoxicating liquor we now have a complicated and archaic web of legislation on permitted hours which vary in their application to public houses, restaurants and clubs.
  Anyone who is unsure whether the Bill should receive a Third Reading has only to consider that Scotland, Ulster, the Channel islands and virtually every other country in Europe all have more tolerant and flexible licensing hours than we have. Most solicitors regard licensing law with dread. The 93rd edition of Paterson's "Licensing Acts" summarises the legislation relating to licensed premises and covers a large number of Acts of Parliament, including the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979, the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Acts and the Licensing Act 1964 which the Bill seeks to amend as well as various Weights and Measures Acts.

  681
  I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) that the Bill is an extremely modest measure. Under the 1964 Act, a limited number of hotels, restaurants, dance halls and cafés where entertainment and food are provided can apply to the licensing magistrates for special extended hours certificates allowing them to continue to sell liquor as part of their general entertainment between midnight and 2 am. I gather that, in London, they can go on until 3 am. A growing number of people find such a provision most useful. Extensions for two hours are available for 310 out of the 365 days in the year. That leaves 55 days for which certificates cannot be applied for, of which 52 are Sundays. The Bill does not affect Sundays but merely deletes from the 1964 Act Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter Saturday. If the Bill were accepted, the law in England and Wales would be in line with that in Scotland.
  The Bill has been described as modest. That is something of an over-statement. It was said in another place that we should take care about what licensing provision we allow during Easter as it has special religious significance. Sections 70 and 76 of the 1964 Act should not apply to Easter, it was argued. Most people regard Easter as a holiday. Sporting events such as motor racing are permitted and we are entitled to ask why discotheques and restaurants which are allowed to stay open until 2 am at other times should not enjoy the same privilege during Easter.
  The Bill does not amend general licensing hours and the 52 Sundays that I mentioned will not be affected. It merely irons out a quirk in our law, and I hope that the House supports it. In Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said that he would not oppose it. I hope that the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) means that the House will pass this modest but welcome Bill.
  1.48 pm
  Mr. James Couchman: This is indeed a modest little Bill and I shall confine myself to making a small speech on it. It alters the law regarding Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter eve only in respect of the limited number of licensed premises which benefit from an extended hours order or a special hours certificate. The Bill brings the law in respect of those three days into line with the rest of the year apart from Sundays.
  This is a sensible tidying up and I do not object to it in principle. I shall certainly not press any objections to a Division, but I have some apprehensions about this being considered a crumb that can be thrown to licensees to stem the strong tide in favour of major reform of licensing laws, especially in respect of public houses.
  It might be appropriate for me to declare — I have done so before — my interest in the licensed trade. I run a small company with five public houses, of which I am licensee. None of those houses is affected by the measure, because none of them has either an extended hours order or a special hours certificate. I am perhaps unique in the House in that I have personally managed a public house with an extended hours order. I did so for four years. I was encouraged by the police to take out a special order. They
  682
  were objecting to the fact that I was regularly applying for special orders of exemption to extend my normal hours for the functions that I was then running in my public house.
  There is a curious anomaly in the Licensing Act 1964 which excludes the three days — Good Friday, Maundy Thursday and Easter eve — with which we are concerned in the Bill. Therefore, I welcome the measure, which was introduced in the other place, because it will have a tidying-up effect. However, we shall have to be careful because there is clearly a need to look at the question in the round.
  There is growing and increasing pressure upon Members of Parliament and the Government to introduce major legislation on licensing matters. I know that you have been extremely tolerant, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in allowing us to speak a little widely today on the measure. That is perhaps because we have too few opportunities in this House to speak on the need for the reform of licensing legislation.
  I hope that the Minister, in replying to the debate, will also widen his remarks, because I am a member of an organisation which is known under the acronym of FLAG — Flexi-Law Action Group. It is a national organisation in which all the major trade interests are represented, from the National Union of Licensed Victuallers to the Brewers' Society, the National Association of Licensed House Managers and all sorts of people. We welcome all kinds of reform of the licensing law, and the Bill is one little piece of reform.
  The measure will affect businesses other than public houses. Therefore, it is particularly relevant that FLAG should take an interest in the reform. We are keen to see major reforms and hope that we shall get them within the not too far distant future. We hope that the results of the review of the Scottish experiment, as it is called, will shortly be made known to us, and that there will be a positive reaction to the effect of the Scottish experiment, which was introduced following Dr. Clayson's report.
  Special hours certificates and extended hours orders affect premises which provide musical entertainment — frequently live music and disco — and food at the same time, and those premises are frequented by the young. I understand the concern of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) about alcoholism, because it is the young who make most use of such premises, and they seem to have a good deal of money to spend on entertainment. They are perhaps the least responsible in the use of alcohol. Therefore, it is a proper matter for concern.
  In supporting the measure, I look forward to major reforms coming before the House so that we may have a proper debate on licensing law reform and on permitted hours.
  1.54 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: I reiterate what I said in Committee. I shall not oppose the Bill, which is too small to have a dramatic effect. However, it involves flexibility of opening hours and the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) openly admitted that he saw it as a first step on the road to greater flexibility.
  The problem with following that road is that all the evidence from around the world suggests that greater flexibility leads to greater abuse. My message to the House is that, although I am not against more flexibility in opening hours, I oppose tinkering with licensing hours in

  683
  the absence of a national alcohol policy to deal with the problem of abuse. Conservative Members speak with great eloquence and at considerable length about the advantages of the Bill to the trade, but they do not take into account the consequences of the increased availability of alcohol.
  Mr. Couchman: The hon. Gentleman shows a proper concern for alcoholism. However, does he agree that the book by Davies and Walsh called "Alcohol Problems and Alcohol Control in Europe" suggests that permitted hours are but a minor factor among the causes of alcohol abuse and alcoholism?
  Mr. Soley: The overall evidence is that greater availability leads to more problems. The book says that there is evidence to suggest that greater flexibility can lead to more responsible drinking. I have said previously that that can happen. The problem is that when we tinker with one aspect, such as flexibility of opening hours, and use Bills as steps towards something more, without taking other necessary actions, we run risks.
  If Conservative Members do not give greater attention to the problems caused by alcohol abuse — we are dealing with a major drug which has a far bigger effect than heroin on our society, in terms of the number of deaths and injuries, social problems and so on—they will run into considerable opposition from hon. Members who know about the problems caused by alcohol abuse.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Is not the hon. Gentleman overstating his case? The Bill deals with only six hours in a year.
  Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman could not have heard me when I said that I would not oppose the Bill because it was such a minor measure. I went on to pick up the comments of the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside, who said that the Bill was a step towards more flexible licensing hours. I said that that was not a bad thing in itself, but that it was a dangerous course to follow in the absence of an alcohol policy.
  Mr. Colvin: The hon. Gentleman raises a fundamental and important point which the licensed trade views with great concern. He mentioned availability of liquor, but we are debating a Bill applying to outlets such as hotels, licensed entertainment establishments, cafes and public houses — all places where responsible proprietors supervise drinking.
  The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the enormous growth in the number of off-licences, which have increased by 11,000 to nearly 42,000 in the past 10 years. Perhaps many supermarkets are fairly responsible, but far too many off-licences—often they are little more than corner shops, and even garages are involved now—sell drink far too readily and often to children who are under age. That ought to be stamped out.
  Mr. Soley: If it were in order I would treat the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside to a repeat of previous speeches in which I have emphasised that availability has become a major problem, primarily because of the introduction of supermarkets into the licensed business. My complaint against the licensed trade is not that it is unaware of the problem, but that it often deals with the problem by throwing out the people who are the problem. Not long ago the House passed legislation to give licensees the power to restrict access to people who have troubled them in the past. The trade tries to deal with the problem
  684
  by keeping people with an alcohol problem outside licensed premises on the streets, where those people are a problem to other people. The trade must look at the matter more carefully.
  I well understand why the trade calls for such a measure, and I do not intend to oppose it. However, the trade is not yet considering sufficiently seriously the problems caused by alcohol abuse, which, as the Minister knows, is increasing dramatically. The Scottish evidence is much more ambivalent than the hon. Gentleman made out. There is certainly a small increase in cirrhosis of the liver, which is one of the best indicators of an increase in alcohol abuse. In future the hon. Gentleman must Day greater attention to that problem, and to the various bodies which are far less well funded than the brewing industry, the Wine and Spirit Association and the Scotch Whisky Association, but which are expected to pick up the pieces of a major national problem.
  2.1 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): Until this afternoon little has been said about the Bill during its passage, which has surprised me slightly because any measure which deals with entertainment on days of religious significance would normally be expected to meet with comment, if not opposition, from those anxious to preserve traditional respect for holy days. Perhaps it is a sign of the times that no such qualms have been voiced.
  It has been said that the Bill is a modest measure, which is how many people will regard it; and it is also true that it will have only a limited effect. It relates to the hours during which certain licensed premises and registered private members' clubs can serve liquor and provide entertainment on the three days of the Easter weekend. Its effect would be to allow, but not require, licensed premises and registered clubs which provide entertainment and food to serve alcohol for the same hours on Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter Saturday as apply on a normal weekday. Those premises, instead of closing their doors at midnight on Maundy Thursday and Easter Saturday and at 10.30 pm on Good Friday, would be permitted to remain open until 1 am, if they hold an extended hours order, or 2 am — 3 am in parts of London—with a special hours certificate.
  The purpose of the liquor licensing legislation is to control and regulate the sale of alcohol. However, the particular restrictions which apply to late night opening over the Easter weekend, and which have the dual effect of prohibiting the sale of alcohol and the provision of entertainments, arise solely because of the religious significance of those days. Successive Governments have taken the line that it must be a matter for individual conscience, and the will of the House, whether restrictions relating to days of particular importance in the Christian calendar should be relaxed. I said in Standing Committee that the Government are neutral on this Bill and that we have no objection to its proceeding on to the statute book, if that is the will of the House, as it seems to be. That remains our position.
  The proposals in the Bill will affect only the minority of premises licensed for the sale of alcohol. It can be argued that even this modest measure does no more than bring the licensing legislation into line with that governing other forms of entertainment. Neither the theatres nor the cinema licensing legislation, for example, imposes any

  685
  restrictions on the opening of those premises on Maundy Thursday, Good Friday or Easter Saturday. Nor are there any specific restrictions relating to the Easter weekend on the opening of casinos. Thus, it is lawful for casinos to be open from 2 pm to 4 am every day, except on Saturday, when the terminal hour is 3 am in London and 2 am elsewhere in England and Wales. It cannot be said, therefore, that the relaxations on licensed premises in this Bill are inconsistent with other areas of licensing, for which the Government have overall responsibility.
  There will be those in the House and outside who will criticise this minor legislation on the grounds that it does not go far enough and that we need more radical reform of the licensing law rather than a piecemeal approach affecting only some days — [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] My tired old ears have picked up the odd "Hear, hear" from the Benches behind me. I have some sympathy with that argument, but it should not prevent us from considering minor amendments when they are shown to be desirable.
  As to the more general reform of the law—I refer here to the much-debated issue of flexible licensing hours —hon. Members will be aware that it is currently under review. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that, before reaching a decision, he will wish to consider carefully the reports of the surveys conducted by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys into the effects of the extension of permitted hours brought about in Scotland by the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, together with all relevant data on the indicators of alcohol abuse. The full report, which will include the results of a survey of public house licensees about their attitude to licensing legislation, will be published later in the year.
  The Bill proposes modest relaxations for three days of the year, enabling those seeking entertainment to purchase alcohol for a few more hours, until 1 am or 2 am. As I said, the Government are neutral. Whether the restrictions on the supply of alcohol and the provision of entertainment should be relaxed is a matter for the individual choice of hon. Members, but if, as one suspects, this Bill gets its Third Reading today and becomes law, the Government will certainly not oppose it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  Reform of the House of Lords Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  2.6 pm
  Dr. John Marek: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I have it in Command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
  Dr. Marek: First, may I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the message from the Queen, and I apologise to him for detaining him in the House on what is now a procedural matter.
  The reform of the House of Lords has been talked about for many decades, but nothing has been done. The last serious attempt to reform the House of Lords was with the Parliament Bill in the late 1960s, which was roundly defeated by a coalition across party lines. I should say that I do not believe it was a good measure.
  However, it is inexcusable that, in what we call a democracy, one of the two main legislative Chambers is not an elected body. If one is born in the right bed, one can take part in the legislature of the country. If one is not born in the right bed—that includes everyone in this House and, except for about 1,500 people, everyone else in the country—one cannot take part in the legislative process. We must start to consider how to make Britain a true and total democracy. Unless we reform the House of Lords, we cannot call ourselves a complete democracy.
  In "Vacher's", one sees a list of members of the House of Lords. There are three peers of blood royal, two archbishops and 25 dukes. I could spend much time talking about the 25 dukes, but I shall not. There are 28 marquesses and 157 earls and countesses. As far as I am aware, none of those people has any special — [Interruption.]
  The thunderclap that we have just heard leads me to believe that I should tread carefully during the next few minutes.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Divine retribution.
  Dr. Marek: None of those people has any special abilities to take part in our legislative process.
  After that, we come, in order of seniority, to 104 viscounts, 24 bishops and 864 barons and baronesses. Well over 1,000 members of the other place are there because of fortuitous circumstances. The exceptions are the life peers and peeresses, who may be appointed because of some expertise or ability, or the help that they can give the Government of the day or, more rarely, the Opposition of the day, in running the business in the other place. This cannot be the right way to proceed in a democracy.
  One has to pay a price for democracy. Members of the legislature have to be elected. One may end up with members who may not be the best that one could possibly have. However, in a democracy, election is the only way. This House is not perfect. I am not perfect and I do not think that any hon. Member would say that he was perfect, in command of all arguments and could give an unbiased

  687
  and honest judgment on any matter. We all fall down on occasions. On the other hand, we have been elected, and we have the trust of the electorate that for one Parliament they will expect us to use our judgment to the best of our ability.
  There are no electors to send anybody to the other place. It can introduce legislation, and change and impede legislation from this House. Out of the 1,000 Members in the other place, not many play a part. At the most, it is a couple of hundred, and not many are there day in and day out. I have been looking at the House of Lords Handards and I have found that two or three dozen Labour Members and five or six dozen from the Government Benches take a regular and active part in the proceedings there.
  We can go two ways. Given that we want a democracy, and that there is something to be said for an elected system, should we abolish the House of Lords completely or should we try to make it an effective body? My party believes in total abolition of the House of Lords. If there were a Bill to that effect before the House, I would support it. However, it is not one of the major items of legislation that will be passing through the next Parliament under the next Labour Government. We can either make the House of Lords effective as a revising chamber, or we can abolish it completely.
  Mr. Greg Knight: The hon. Gentleman has just said that his party's policy is to abolish the House of Lords, and if a Bill to that effect were introduced he would support it. How does he square that with an article that he wrote in the Western Mail on 22 February when he said, "Abolition will not do"?
  Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman apprehends my next point. I can square my remark. Abolition will not do, for one reason. I should like to see an effective revising chamber and I should like more elected members of either House to keep control over the Executive. I do not believe that 650 Members of Parliament are sufficient to control the Executive in all the many decisions that are taken. I am not saying that the decisions are taken unaccountably, but they are taken without elected Members knowing about them unless a particular Member has an interest in something and happens to be in the right place at the right time to ask the question. An elected representative may then be able to influence a decision. By and large, however, we have the Civil Service, quangos, boards and nominated bodies which run the country and it is impossible for 650 MPs and between 100 and 200 of their Lordships to try to keep effective control over the Executive and the Civil Service.
  My view, which should command thought in the House, is that we need greater numbers. To achieve that, we should reform, rather than abolish, the House of Lords, although I should be happy to agree to its abolition, simply because we do not have democracy there. Generally speaking, one must be born in the right bed to be a member of that place.
  The House of Commons is the primary legislative Chamber, so that the House of Lords must be the reforming Chamber. Therefore, the Lords should not challenge this House, and for that reason the powers of the other place can remain roughly as they are, although I could be persuaded that the powers should be changed in either direction.
  688
  An important reason why this House keeps its primacy is that it is based on representation, on the single-Member constituency, and Members of the Commons have contact with their electors and are responsible to them.
  If we wish to keep this House as the primary instrument for legislation, we must do something about elections to the House of Lords. One method would be to have large constituencies so that Members of the House of Lords could not be identified with any area. To achieve that, we would need a form of proportional representation. For that reason, the Bill suggests the single transferable vote for elections to the other place. PR is beloved of the alliance parties, and it is a pity that Liberal and SDP Members are not here to discuss this matter.
  What will happen if the Bill is not placed on the statute book and nothing is done about the matter? Sooner or later there will be a Government with a sufficient majority to get their way. Such an Administration may go for total abolition. But if the House of Lords were not abolished, it might be changed in such a radical way that there would not be a general consensus in this House about its composition. It is likely in the future that a Government with such a majority will be in power.
  I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House realise that the House of Lords needs reforming. We should do it by means of a consensus which would gain general acceptance from the people. We could do that even in a Parliament such as this, in which the Government have an enormous majority. If we do not do it, sooner or later —because it needs to be done—a Government with an enormous majority may do something which we do not like.
  2.18 pm
  Mr. Michael Portillo: I scarcely recognise the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), so brief has he been in his remarks today. I congratulate him on presenting his case in a few minutes. I was used to sitting opposite him in the Standing Committee on the Transport Bill, and in those deliberations we suffered long hours at his hands—or should I say at his mouth?—as he kept us in our places, sometimes entertained but sometimes less entertained.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What a dreadful thing to say of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Portillo: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wrexham on making such a brief contribution today, yet putting his points lucidly. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) wishes to speak, so I shall not detain the House for long because I am sure that the great British public are looking forward to hearing from him. I am sometimes perplexed how it is that the Labour party's first instinct when faced with a problem is to turn to constitutional reform. I fear that it does so with a disregard for the consequences. When the previous Labour Government found themselves in difficulty, constitutional reform was their immediate knee-jerk reaction.
  There was disagreement over whether Britain should be in the EEC and the Labour Government's reaction was to hold a referendum. Although that was a constitutional innovation, that did not bother them, as it got them off the hook on which they found themselves. Subsequently, they had problems in maintaining a majority with their allies in

  689
  the House. That meant that they were willing to contemplate setting up assemblies for Scotland and Wales and to hold more referendums. Again, they acted without regard to whether those actions would be good for the long-term constitutional health of the United Kingdom. They found a way of getting themselves out of a tight corner politically and they were willing to throw constitutional tradition and history to the winds in the interest of self-preservation.
  The Labour party is proposing once more either the abolition of the House of Lords—as I understand it, that would make the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) perfectly happy—or the reform that is proposed in the Bill, which amounts to abolition and the establishment of a different House.
  Given the present state of the Labour party, it is interesting to look for clues in ascertaining what led it to devise such a scheme. The first clue is that the Bill proposes that the new House should be elected regularly every five years. We are moving from a position in which a Parliament has a maximum life to one in which elections fall regularly on a certain date. Why should the Labour party want that? I suspect that it knows that it will lose general election after general election and that it is looking for an opportunity in mid-term, when there are protest votes that we know about of a sort that I believe were displayed even yesterday, to have a different House elected and possibly to capitalise on the votes that may be swinging around. In effect, it is a call by the Labour party for a recount. If it loses a general election, it wants a second bash at it when it has a second House. I understand that the Labour party is keen on second bashes. I believe that it called for a recount in the Brecon and Radnor by-election but to no avail.
  The second possible clue lies in the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the GLC. When these authorities are abolished, the Labour party will be deprived of great areas where a protest vote could be lodged between general elections. Areas of control were passed to the Labour party by those who wished to register their feelings in a mid-term contest. With the abolition of these authorities the Labour party is left wondering how it will be able to make mischief during the long periods when Labour Members have to sit on the Opposition Benches, the Labour party having lost the previous general election once again.
  I find many features of the Bill surprising although I understand why the Labour party has embarked upon it. If the hon. Member for Wrexham wishes to intervene to explain what he means by the passage in the Bill which reads:
  "the exercise of political power, much of it in secret, by those who do not derive their authority from the people",
  I shall be willing to allow him do so. I cannot understand what that means. The House of Lords is, for the moment, the more public of the two Houses in this Parliament. It is the one which is now seen by those who watch television.
  Dr. Marek: I shall intervene, only briefly as we have only seven minutes in which to debate the Bill. I am not suggesting that the House of Lords exercises power in secret. However, the Executive, the Civil Service and other bodies exercise their power in secret. That is the meaning of the preamble.
  Mr. Portillo: I believe that the hon. Gentleman will think, on reflection, that the drafting of his Bill was slightly confusing on that point. I am grateful to him for setting us right.
  I have spoken to many of my constituents since the proceedings of the House of Lords have been televised and many of them say that they realise now for the first time what a splendid place the House of Lords is as presently constituted. They realise for the first time that the other place has a residue of expertise to deploy on important issues.
  That reminds me of the time when I was involved in the consideration of a patents Bill, which came before the House about nine years ago. It would not be unfair to hon. Members to say that at that time there were very few Members who had an understanding of the subject. However, in the House of Lords there happened to be two or three of the leading world experts on patents, who were able to bring their expertise to bear. They gave the Bill a much more mature and thorough consideration than it might otherwise have received. This is only a small example of what happens so often with their Lordships.
  Of course, their Lordships do not attend every debate in the way that hon. Members do in the House and their interest in a particular subject is not always 100 per cent. Their Lordships are distinguished in different fields. The majority were given seats in the House of Lords because they had distinguished themselves. The Labour party continues to nominate people to that House on that basis — often because they have a political expertise and because, as working peers, they will help the Labour party and show the same talents and abilities that they showed either in this House or outside politics.
  I think that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and I have the same desire at heart — to safeguard democracy. Those are the terms in which the hon. Gentleman couched his argument and I have taken his words at face value, something I find it hard to do. The Labour party is afraid of the independence of the House of Lords. During the past few years, Labour Members have seen that the House of Lords is willing to consider carefully and independently the legislation that comes from this House. Constitutional reform by the abolition of the House of Lords would merely be the prelude to a much more devastating constitutional reform. With the House of Lords out of the way, our ability to stop that devastating change would be that much more restricted.
  2.26 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) has introduced this Bill. The House should promote a public debate on the existence of the House of Lords. I am surprised that Conservative Members oppose the Bill. However, when the Leader of the House informed the House of the Queen's consent to the Bill, I detected some note of resignation in his voice, because the House of Lords has been more trouble to this Government than it has been to other Governments. But for the House of Lords, the local government abolition legislation might have travelled much further. That demonstrates not the democratic credentials of the other place or its desire to promote democracy but how reactionary the Government are with their majority in the House of Commons and how determined they are to force the destruction of democracy in so many aspects of life.
  Mr. Cecil Franks: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the view that, in the absence of an effective Opposition to the Government in this Chamber, the House of Lords has assumed the mantle of a de facto Opposition?
  Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman has only just come into the Chamber, but he obviously has not had a chance to hear the results of the Brecon and Radnor by-election. I think that his party understands that there is enormous opposition both inside and outside Parliament to the Government.
  When I show guests and people from overseas around the Houses of Parliament and explain to them how the House of Lords came into existence, they cannot believe that in a democratic society we hand legislation to people whose sole fortune in life has been to be born into a particular family or at a particular time. Even worse is the patronage that goes with the make-up of the House of Lords through the appointment of life peers. My guests say to me, "Why does your country, which prides itself on being so democratic and having a democratic parliamentary system, allow this ridiculous anachronism to continue?" To allow hereditary peers to have a say in the legislative process is a ridiculous anachronism. As far as I am aware, hardly any country allows a hereditary form of government. Why should we allow it here?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham has done us a great service in putting the Bill forward. I might have some disagreements with my hon. Friend on the methods of election of a second Chamber or on the justification for having a second Chamber. I very much agree with him, however, that we cannot justify in a democratic society allowing this undemocratic obstacle to be in our path.
  Every time that there has been a major constitutional reform it has been as a result of the House of Lords' obstructionism, be it the people's Budget of 1910 or the other, later examples. It is important that that obstruction be removed. I firmly believe that a future Labour Government, elected as they will be at the next election, will be obstructed by the House of Lords, because the House of Lords represents economic and social interests that are fundamentally opposed to the interests that the Labour party represents and that a future Labour Government will represent after the general election.
  I find it surprising that none of the—
  It being half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Tuesday 16 July.

  STANDING CHARGES (ABOLITION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 25 October.

  COMPANIES (POLITICAL DONATIONS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Second Reading what day? No day named.

  POLITICAL PARTIES (INCOME AND EXPENDITURE) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  SOCIAL SECURITY (COLD CLIMATE ALLOWANCE) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  PLANNING AUTHORITIES (RESTRICTION OF LIABILITY) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  RECREATIONAL GARDENING BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 25 October.

  GREATER EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 25 October.

  BUDGET BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO FUEL BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CHOICE OF ELECTORAL SYSTEMS) BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  ROAD RACES (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1977 (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  MINIMUM WAGES ETC. BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  WORKING CONDITIONS OF GOVERNMENT TRAINEES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  REFORM BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  COMPANIES (PROCEDURE) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the Bill has not been printed, I shall not propose the Question. Second Reading what day? No day named.

  YOUNG PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  YOUTH CHARTER BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  EMPLOYMENT OF YOUNG PEOPLE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  HANDICAPPED YOUNG PERSONS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (POLITICAL EXPENDITURE) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the Bill has not been printed, I shall not propose the Question. Second Reading what day? No day named.

  HORSES AND PONIES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 25 October.

  MEDICAL ACT 1983 (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 25 October.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (MINIMUM AGE) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 25 October.

  PENSIONERS' HEATING AND COMMUNICATIONS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the Bill has not been printed, I shall not propose the Question.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 25 October.

  CROWN IMMUNITY (REMOVAL FROM WORKPLACES) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the Bill has not been printed, I shall not propose the Question. Second Reading what day? No day named.

  CONSUMER GUARANTEE PROTECTION BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the Bill has not been printed, I shall not propose the Question. Second Reading what day? No day named.

  SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES FROM GARAGE PREMISES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputry Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  CO-OWNERSHIP OF FLATS BILL
  Order for Second Rading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Bill has not been printed, so I shall not propose the Question. Second Reading what day? No day named.

  TENANTS' PROTECTION (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 25 October.

  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE (SERVICE OF NOTICES) BILL
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[David Clark.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must point out to the House that it is unusual to take a Committee stage immediately after Second Reading on a Friday.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION INFORMATION BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [26 April].
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Debate to be resumed what day? No day named.

  PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ELDERLY IN HOME OWNERSHIP BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  MINERS' AMNESTY (GENERAL PARDON) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Friday 25 October.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill?
  Mr. Corbyn: Yes, Sir.
  Second Reading deferred to Friday 25 October.

  Exporters (Government Aid)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
  2.37 pm
  Mr. Michael Morris: This debate is, in a sense, round three in the Conservative Back Benchers' attempt to kill off the Byatt report and to persuade the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to get his act together and produce an export strategy. Rounds one and two went to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior). As luck would have it, the timing of the debate may prove to be particularly apposite because the topic of the Government's help to exporters is reported to be on the Cabinet agenda, and at the beginning of the week we had the announcement of 200,000 new training places for our young people, which was particularly welcome. I should like a good number of those 200,000 young people to be in manufacturing industry and helping to improve our exports.
  Seventeen years ago, before I came to the House, I wrote a pamphlet for the Bow Group, called "Helping the Exporter". Not a lot has changed since then, I am sorry to report. In that pamphlet we recommended changes in finance, targeting and organisation. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I have worked in the far east and I now regurlarly visit south-east Asia, my last visit, which was in January, being to Sri Lanka and Indonesia, with a brief stop-over in Malaysia.
  I have seen business at the sharp end and I have the utmost praise for our people both in the private sector and in the diplomatic service. They all do a fantastic job in the steaming heat of the east. They have to contend with competition from France, Germany, Korea and Japan. The tragedy is that when they return home they seem to have to engage in endless hours of negotiation with the British Government.
  The record of our three leading competitors gives a clear picture of what we are up against. In 1983 our aid programme was less than half that of France, Germany or Japan. We tied 54 per cent. of our aid to British manufactures while Japan tied 64 per cent., Germany 66 per cent. and France no less than 82 per cent. to their manufactures.
  For years, we have believed in direct grants. Our competitors have sold on the basis of soft loans, thus making the money go further. We are very slow to learn. For example, our mission in Indonesia reported nine months ago that the Indonesian Government would accept only soft loans and not grant aid. We insisted on trying to put together a package of grant-aided work and lost the power project for which we were pitching. We have only just begun to respond to that clear message from the Indonesian Government. I hope and trust that Minister Habibi of Indonesia will be made especially welcome when he visits this country next week.
  Our overall budget for soft loans is currently £66 million. I believe that China alone warrants £100 million. That is the kind of amount that our competitors are directing to that market. Against our £66 million, France and Germany have more than $1 billion available for soft loans and Japan has $2·5 billion. The contrast between those figures would be laughable if it were not so serious.

  697
  Why do we always have to match our competitors? Why cannot we take the initiative for once and go for the business? I do not blame the Overseas Development Administration for that. It is not the ODA's area of expertise. It should be a function of the Department of Trade and Industry and the budget should be controlled by that Department.
  The evidence given by the Export Credits Guarantee Department to the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, suggested that management were being asked to achieve the impossible. They were told that they had to break even and to pay off old debt and yet be competitive with foreigners when interest rates in this country were at an all time high. I acknowledge that there is now a consensus rate but not everyone abides by it, especially for capital projects. When the ECGD increases its premium rate to particular countries—for example, Thailand, which is a category B market and thus has a good credit rating—the countries concerned may regard it as a slight. I doubt whether MITI, the Japanese equivalent or COFACE, the French equivalent, have to go through the procedures that beset the ECGD.
  As for the British Overseas Trade Board, what other country would cut its main promotional arm just when it is achieving success? The Government may say that a 2 per cent. real cut is not a great deal, but converted to Singapore dollars when exchange rates are moving it becomes a great deal more significant.
  Perhaps I might relate the sorry tale of a small exporter in Nether Heyford in my constituency. This chap was unemployed but set up business on his own. His company, Petalgold Ltd., provides golf equipment. Golf happens to be one of my hobbies, but the Japanese love their golf. My constituent showed initiative and exhibited in the sports show in Japan in 1985 and collected orders to the tune of just over £30,000. He applied to go on the 1986 fair and was told that it had been cancelled. We shall never succeed if we approach the matter on a one year in, one year out basis.
  My hon. Friend the Minister has been helpful to the footwear industry. It is a difficult industry as it comprises many small firms. It normally shows at six trade fairs but, because of the cut in the British Overseas Trade Board, it has been told that it can show at only three. That is not fair treatment and it does not help British exporters.
  Some people say that we cannot afford more, but I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee which investigates twice a week what has happened to public money. We have seen huge losses and examples of misspent money. We have received evidence about big crashes such as De Lorean, and await detail about medium-sized losses such as Lear Fan and unknown losses such as the Sinclair C5 vehicle. There are dozens of examples of public money going down the drain, a significant amount of it having come from the Department of Trade and Industry.
  People in high places tell me that civil engineering contracts produce little benefit to the United Kingdom. I have asked for some detailed figures on a contract that arose out of some discussions that I had in Indonesia in January—the Marika Hydra project. It is a joint British-Swedish project. Its value is £321 million, of which the United Kingdom's share is £175 million. It falls into five categories—civil engineering of £108 million, of which
  698
  the direct UK content is £75 million, mechanical and electricals of £51·5 million, of which the UK content is £44·6 million, design of £5 million, of which the United Kingdom content is £4·9 million, supervision of £6·5 million, which is all to the UK, and third-country purchases of £2 million. That produces a total UK content of £131 million out of £173 million—a ratio of 70:30. It will create employment in the UK but, on 13 May, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor wrote to the chairman of Heavy Electrical Machinery saying that, despite further evidence that that body had sent to the Chancellor about the benefit of follow-on orders, he had
  "asked my officials to study further the details you have presented but I fear my immediate reaction is that your evidence contains nothing to alter the approach we have adopted since the preparation of the Byatt report in 1982."
  That response is not adequate.
  The Treasury is bad, but the Department of Trade and Industry has also been dilatory since 1979. I dropped in on Sri Lanka in January and discussed the Samanala Wewa project. I raised the issue with the Foreign Office 18 months ago and again in January. The Prime Minister discussed it when she was in Sri Lanka and armed with detailed figures 12 weeks ago. There has still been no decision.
  There might be people in high places who think that companies such as Balfour Beatty get an unfair share of ATP, but they are the companies with get up and go. Contracts are too often lost because that element is missing. They are also lost because of lack of funding. It is not enough to have the right goods in the right place at the right time. Hawker Siddeley has given evidence to the Department concerning five contracts that it has missed. I just hope that the Samanala Wewa project does not go the same way.
  I realise that my hon. Friend will be restricted, not least as his right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is away in south-east Asia. Normally, I would have fulsome praise for the activities of my right hon. Friend, but I cannot help but reflect that Ramadan has just finished, that there is now the "Eid" festival in that part of the world, and that trying to sell in south-east Asia now is like trying to sell in London during the Christmas recess.
  It is time that the Government got their act together in areas such as south-east Asia. We need to recognise and understand the legitimate aspirations of the Association of South-East Asian Nations, and that quantum leaps in technology are being made in Indonesia and Malaysia. We must recognise the sheer size of trade with Singapore. As long as we have a system of five different decision-making bodies — the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury, the ODA, the Foreign Office and ECGD—we shall fail. We need to be single-minded.
  We should set up, perhaps on a trial basis and perhaps just in south-east Asia, the post of trade commissioner for the region. The concept was originally used in the old Board of Trade, and it could be developed. I can envisage a senior man aged about 50, supported by an assistant and a secretary, at a cost of about £250,000. He or she, experienced in trade, could be responsible for establishing a strategy in a region and ensuring its implementation.
  My hon. Friend has been tolerant, as always, and I hope that he will show a degree of understanding. I end with a quotation taken from a publication that I shall refer to shortly. It says:

  699
  "The Malayan market—great potentialities for British trade and manufacturers—it is the key position which if held and consolidated will ensure for the future a dominant position for British Commerce and Manufacture".
  The source of the quotation is "The Crown Colonist" and the date is April 1931. Does nothing change in Britain?
  2.51 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): The short answer is yes, it does. I hope to give my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), who has great expertise and enthusiasm in export matters, some reassurance that the Government are flexible in their approach to these questions, and that we are anxious to do whatever we can, within our budgetary constraints, to help to improve the performance of our exporters.
  Before dealing with the specific points of my hon. Friend's speech, I should like to put it to him that we are talking today about a job creation programme. Much attention is being focused, within our national political debate, on the need to create more jobs in the United Kingdom, and I put it to the House that there is one job creation programme that has been singularly undiscussed over the past few months and years. It is that number of jobs which can be created by increasing our share of world trade.
  We are told that the United Kingdom had about a 14 per cent. share of world trade in manufactures, goods and services in 1964, but by 1978 our share had gone down to 8 per cent. Each 1 per cent. represents a loss of about 250,000 jobs. Therefore, it can be argued that in a job loss programme during that period we exported 1·5 million British jobs. The Department of Trade and Industry and my hon. Friend have a common cause and should combine in trying to achieve one objective. We should recognise that the biggest job creation programme on which the United Kingdom can embark is that programme which, through increases in competitiveness, can help us to import back into the United Kingdom those 1·5 million British jobs. When the Government go on and on about competitiveness, they do so on the basis of a job creation programme.
  My hon. Friend said that his remarks were topical. They are very topical in the political context. One of the more regrettable and unfortunate problems of timetabling in the House is that we have not had time in recent months to discuss this very important job creation programme.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this subject. Exporting and increasing our percentage of world trade are vital parts of the nation's economic activity. I know that, like my hon. Friend, many representatives of industry are concerned about the changes to some of the export services that are supervised by the British Overseas Trade Board. The debate provides the opportunity to reaffirm that the Government remain committed to a programme of export support and to explain clearly our policy approach.
  Government support for exporters takes three main forms. The first comprises the export services under the guidance of the BOTB, and that is the area on which a major part of our debate is focused. The BOTB services offer a wide range of support. Some provide information; others, such as the trade fair and mission programmes, provide practical and financial help for companies seeking to establish themselves in overseas markets; others provide help in rather specialised areas such as foreign technical requirements and export documentation.
  700
  The other principal forms of Government support, which must not be forgotten, are the aid and trade provisions to which my hon. Friend referred and other support for major projects, along with the services of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.
  Let me spell out the main objectives and policies of the export promotion programme under the guidance of the BOTB. The main objective is to use the resources to stimulate additional exports — a point which is sometimes lost on some of the Department's client companies — which are exports that would not have come about without the export services and assistance offered by the Department and the BOTB.
  A further aim is to cut the cost of breaking into new markets by providing companies with certain information and technical services that are most efficiently provided centrally and using the unique resources available to Government. The services are basically available to all companies and cover all overseas markets. We do not want to say, "Whitehall knows best where a firm should sell its goods or services." However, to be cost-effective, we must achieve some selectivity by type of firm, by market and by concentrating on the period when help is most needed. For example, there is, to a large extent, concentration on small and medium-sized firms.
  Trade fair support is particularly attractive to smaller firms and nearly three quarters of users have fewer than 200 employees. It is also more effective to concentrate support on newcomers to markets, in the belief that, once companies are established in markets, the operation should not need a continuing subsidy from public funds.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the example of a new, young and vigorous company going to Japan, taking part in a trade fair, but not being able to follow that up with a second visit. I understand that, although we have to look carefully at those who may make more than the number of visits that our budget can bear, our limit, which is interpreted fairly loosely, of about four visits comes close to satisfying our objective of giving firms a sufficient initial boost to allow them to work under their own devices and finances subsequently.
  I have already said that some activities are more efficiently carried out centrally to exploit, for example, the unique information and assistance network provided by the commercial sections of our embassies and high commissions abroad. We aim not to compete with the private sector but to operate in other areas to achieve our objectives. For example, much of the detailed operation of the trade fair and mission programmes is handled by chambers of commerce and trade associations. Where export market research is needed, we contribute to the costs of professional research by the private sector. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office overseas posts are encouraged to make as much use as possible of banks, local chambers of commerce and British business groups.
  On the question of organisation, when my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade returns to the United Kingdom I will draw his attention to the appropriate section in Hansard in which my hon. Friend described his interesting idea about regional trade commissioners. My hon. Friend will not expect me to give an instant answer to that proposal. Although the idea has been expressed before, it is certainly worth putting to my right hon. Friend, who will undoubtedly wish to reply at an opportune moment.

  701
  By way of emphasising the importance of the various forms of support, I wish to say that, given the rapid improvement in our performance as exporters, it is correct for the Government to see where they can best help those who most need help in this period of general improvement. It is surely correct for us to assess the targeting of our aid and its efficacy, and to take what we may discover from the monitoring of our measures and put it into any amendments we may wish to make in future.
  In that regard, I shall now turn to soft loans, with which my hon. Friend dealt at some length, and aid and trade provision. The Government recognise that some countries may prefer loans to grants supplemented by export credits. We are discussing with the financial community what mechanisms might be devised for providing soft loans. I assure my hon. Friend that we are taking top flight advice from the City. We may wish to determine the role that the banks or capital markets can play in providing the funds that may be necessary, as already happens with ECGD-backed contracts, thereby reducing calls on public expenditure. As ever, there is a place for the private and public sectors to work in partnership. I can tell my hon. Friend that ATP support is now available for China, but at present only in the usual ATP grant form. Moreover, the funds available are limited within the present ATP provision.
  On ECGD, my hon. Friend pointed out the risk of offending some nations if the league table, in terms of the classification of cover proffered, is presented clumsily. That is a serious point for the Department of Trade and Industry to consider, and I shall certainly draw it to my right hon. Friend's attention. It is a perfectly worthy point for my hon. Friend to make, as he is interested only in defending the interests of British exporters who may feel offended by downgrading or the proclamation of second division status. We shall certainly study that.
  Let me stress that the Government have twin objectives. They are firmly committed both to promoting United Kingdom project interests, and to the need for greater international restraint and openness in the use of soft finance. The latter is inevitably a long-term objective. We recognise that in the meantime British companies pursuing project business on the international market must be protected against the practices of other Governments in softening the terms of finance. The projects and export
  702
  policy division of the Department of Trade and Industry was set up with the specific purpose of focusing Government support for firms seeking worthwhile project business overseas. The main instruments of financial support in addition to the ATP are ECGD's fixed rate export finance scheme, and the overseas projects fund from which support can be provided on a repayable basis towards certain pre-contractual costs.
  I began my speech by describing why improvement in our foreign trade performance is important for job creation. May I put on the record some data that have been scandalously under-reported during the past few weeks? Exports of goods and services were the fastest-growing component of United Kingdom output in 1984, together with fixed investment. They are forecast to continue to grow strongly in 1985. Exports of non-oil goods and manufactures—this is an area of current interest to the House—reached all-time highs in volume terms in the first few months of this year. Excluding oil and erratic items, the volume growth for exports of manufactures in 1984 was 10·5 per cent., and for the three months to May the volume was 11 per cent. up on the comparable period last year. Incidentally, on the same basis, the volume of imports has increased by only 5 per cent.
  The House will agree that it would be helpful if those who comment on the trade figures pointed out that these dramatic figures are probably the biggest increases for 10 years. Of course, exporters have achieved those impressive figures, not the Government. Government support measures can contribute on the margin, and I should stress that our contribution is still useful, especially in helping small firms. Recent studies to examine the impact of several BOTB services suggest that companies using them in one year will win additional export business of more than £2 billion.
  I have every reason to conclude on a positive note. I agree with my hon. Friend that increasing our share of world trade will help us to embark on the best possible job creation programme. I welcome my hon. Friend's positive suggestions. If he believes that there are some points to which I have not responded comprehensively this afternoon, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will get in touch with him when he returns to the United Kingdom.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Three o' clock.

WALES
  Wrexham (Job Creation)
  Wrexham (Job Creation)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Soviet Union (Baltic States)
  Soviet Union (Baltic States)
  Compensation
  Compensation
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Exports
  Exports
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Company Liquidations
  Company Liquidations
  Water Reed
  Water Reed
  Shipbuilding (Intervention Fund)
  Shipbuilding (Intervention Fund)
ENVIRONMENT
  Wild Birds (Habitat Protection)
  Wild Birds (Habitat Protection)
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Environment Minister
  Environment Minister
  Retail Developments
  Retail Developments
  Stockbridge Village Trust
  Stockbridge Village Trust
  Football Spectator Violence
  Football Spectator Violence
PRIME MINISTER
  Endangered Species
  Endangered Species
  EC (Agricultural Spending Limits)
  EC (Agricultural Spending Limits)
  Northern Africa (Food Aid)
  Northern Africa (Food Aid)
  Law Lords
  Law Lords
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Political Asylum
  Political Asylum
  Women (Protection)
  Women (Protection)
  Embarkation Information
  Embarkation Information
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Police Officers
  Police Officers
DEFENCE
  Low Frequency Communications
  Low Frequency Communications
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Exercise Brave Defender
  Exercise Brave Defender
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Drug Misuse
  Drug Misuse
  Health Education
  Health Education
  School Leavers (Reading Ability)
  School Leavers (Reading Ability)
  Further Education
  Further Education
  Teacher-Pupil Ratio
  Teacher-Pupil Ratio
  Education Committee Co-optees
  Education Committee Co-optees
  Teacher Statistics (West Midlands)
  Teacher Statistics (West Midlands)
SCOTLAND
  University of Aberdeen
  University of Aberdeen
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Dentists
  Dentists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Psychiatric Hospital Buildings
  Psychiatric Hospital Buildings
  Hospital Statistics
  Hospital Statistics
  Mentally Ill and Handicapped People
  Mentally Ill and Handicapped People
  Mental Hospitals
  Mental Hospitals
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  List D Schools
  List D Schools
  Migration
  Migration
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Pay Statistics
  Pay Statistics
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
  Youthaid
  Youthaid
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Housing Conditions Survey
  Housing Conditions Survey
NATIONAL FINANCE
  European Monetary System
  European Monetary System
  Leasing Companies
  Leasing Companies
CIVIL SERVICE
  House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975
  House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Dispensing Doctors
  Dispensing Doctors
  Abortion Pill
  Abortion Pill
  Dentists
  Dentists
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Dental Fillings
  Dental Fillings
  Cumberland Infirmary (Domestic Services)
  Cumberland Infirmary (Domestic Services)
  Food Additives (Letter)
  Food Additives (Letter)
  State Earnings-related Pension Scheme
  State Earnings-related Pension Scheme
  Elderly Persons
  Elderly Persons
  Heating Addition
  Heating Addition
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Board and Lodging Rules (Exemptions)
  Board and Lodging Rules (Exemptions)
  Blood Transfusion Service
  Blood Transfusion Service
  Tobacco Industry (Advertising and Sponsorship)
  Tobacco Industry (Advertising and Sponsorship)
  Benefits (Uprating)
  Benefits (Uprating)
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  District Health Authorities
  District Health Authorities
TRANSPORT
  Wheel Clamping (London)
  Wheel Clamping (London)
ENERGY
  Natural Gas Grids
  Natural Gas Grids
  Wylfa Nuclear Power Station
  Wylfa Nuclear Power Station
  Nuclear Installations (Safeguards Inspections)
  Nuclear Installations (Safeguards Inspections)
  Plutonium
  Plutonium
  Sizewell Inquiry
  Sizewell Inquiry
  Sellafield (Plutonium)
  Sellafield (Plutonium)
  Magnox Reactors (Spent Fuel)
  Magnox Reactors (Spent Fuel)
  Plutonium Exports
  Plutonium Exports
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Butter Stores
  Butter Stores
  Cow Fen, Cambridgeshire (Drainage)
  Cow Fen, Cambridgeshire (Drainage)
  Fishing Offences
  Fishing Offences

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

Docklands Light Railway
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress is being made on the Docklands light railway running from Tower Hill to the Royal Docks.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I understand that construction of the Docklands light railway running from Tower Hill to Island Gardens and Stratford, which the Government approved last August, is proceeding satisfactorily and we expect the railway to be in full operation by mid-1987. I also understand that London Regional Transport and the London Docklands Development Corporation are preparing plans for submission to the Government in due course in connection with a proposal to extend the railway to the area of the Royal Docks.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. Do Her Majesty's Government consider that this project and its success so far is a good example of what is known as "turnkey" contracting, in which contractors can design, manage and build a project, thus saving a lot of time, labour and materials?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Indeed, my Lords; all parties agreed that the turn-key approach, which involves a package deal covering both the civil engineering works and the mechanical and electrical engineering aspects, was to be preferred. It offers significant advantages in terms of tight project management within an agreed timescale and cost limits.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, will the noble Lord enlighten us a little about this turn-key approach? It sounds a very remarkable operation.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I think it means that the developers agree with the contractors that at the end of the day basically they have the project and they can turn the key on it and there you are—it is all complete.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this is a perfectly normal term for projects of this sort? May I also say that what he said about the extension to the Royal Docks is of great interest in relation to the development of Stolport, and people on all sides of the House will be pleased to hear that that part of the project is being given reasonable priority?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and I entirely agree with him.

Football Teams: Overseas Ban
11.8 a.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will support the Football Association in their attempts to persuade FIFA to lift their ban on English football teams playing abroad.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): My Lords, as I told the noble Lord in my reply on 27th June, it would not be appropriate for the Government to become involved in this issue.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that reply, but I regret the negative approach that the Government have adopted in this situation. Is the noble Lord the Minister aware that quite recently I have been in personal contact with some of our finest post-war ambassadors for football, such as Sir Matt Busby, Mr. Joe Mercer and Mr. John Charles, who are respected all over the world and who all think that the FIFA worldwide ban is totally unnecessary? May I further ask the Minister whether he is aware that FIFA will be reconsidering this ban on 10th July? I believe that some form of support from the Government would help to rebuild what a lot of us now consider a completely spurious loss of confidence.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I note with interest the contacts which the noble Lord has had with people in the sport. As I say, we believe it is a matter for the sport itself to consider.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the Government interfered at the beginning? The Government made some very strong statements about the proposed ban, and in fact the Prime Minister herself was very voluble on this question. Does he agree with me that it was not the teams which needed banning but the spectators? Perhaps the Government can do something about that.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I can only repeat that we think that the question of how the sport should be conducted is primarily a matter for the people who organise that sport to decide. If the law is broken then of course it is a matter for the Government to pronounce on how the law should be enforced.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that when most blanket bans are applied they contain anomalies? Will the noble Lord the Minister bear in mind, for instance, the plight of my own local football club, Tottenham Hotspur—of course I say that with a Tyneside accent. Will the noble Lord the Minister acknowledge that for clubs such as Spurs and many others the income and prestige which accrue to them and their country from their overseas tours can be very seriously affected by such a ban? For instance, a club such as Spurs, when it has an ordinary home game employs 200 policemen and 300 stewards, and such clubs are therefore eminently respected. Will the noble Lord the Minister further agree that there is

1399
a responsibility on the Government, if not directly then certainly indirectly, to try to ensure that clubs with such good reputations are protected? The innocent are entitled to justice as well as justice being meted out to offenders.
Lord Elton: My Lords, misbehaviour of the sort that we have seen on a number of occasions by football supporters abroad brings no prestige to any club whose fans support it in that way. There is a pronouncement by the international body which runs the whole of this sport which has banned English club teams from playing abroad as a result of the misbehaviour of some of those fans. In my view it is for the sport itself and those in this country who support it to prove to that body by their actions and conduct that it is time to remove the ban. It is not for the Government to urge that body to do so against its judgment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there can be no difference of opinion as to the desired behaviour of spectators at foreign matches? Is it not a fact that the Government declared their welcome for the decision, and they cannot disown their responsibility? The ban covers not only famous clubs, such as the one my noble friend referred to, but also small clubs such as my own, Leyton Orient, which has just been dropped into the Fourth Division. It has played abroad with no spectators whatever leaving the country with it, and that ban is also applying to it.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the international governing bodies of the sport have no doubt taken the steps that they consider to be most appropriate and effective. The Government, for their part, recognise the importance of particularly sensitive matches. We believe that it is not for us to protect the interests of clubs which now add their distinction to the Fourth Division—such as those of the noble Lord—as an individual class, but to leave those matters to the sport itself to regulate.
Lord Plant: My Lords, many chairmen of football clubs have said that much of the hooliganism has been inspired by the National Front and other groups. Have the Government anything to say about those allegations, and if so what are they going to do about it?
Lord Elton: My Lords, your Lordships will know that there is a inquiry into the causes of football violence in this country and also into the particular incidents which gave rise to the ban. The latter is being conducted by the authorities in the country concerned and your Lordships would not expect me to anticipate it. When we know what the facts are, of course we shall be able to make a judgment on them.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the violence would not have arisen had the Football Association and the Football League been much tougher after the riots that we had in Chelsea earlier in the season?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think that I ought not to be drawn into an analysis of causes when I have just said that we should await the outcome of the report.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the Government continue to give full weight (as I am sure they will) to the bad effect that it would have if the British Government were seen to intervene with the international governing bodies of football to gain the withdrawal or the shortening of the judgment that they have already come to?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think that I have said that four or possibly five times so far.

Control of Secret Service
11.15 a.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: 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 introduce legislation to establish parliamentary control of the secret service.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, the Government do not consider such legislation to be necessary and have no plans to introduce it.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, refused to answer my Written Question on 2nd July asking on how many Members of Parliament MI5 holds files? Is it not evidence of the need for more effective parliamentary control if Parliament cannot even discover how many of its own Members are under surveillance?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, may I take the second point, which is a more general one, first? My right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary take extremely seriously their responsibility for satisfying themselves that the security service operates entirely within the letter and the spirit of its directive. They are accountable to Parliament for that responsibility just as they are for the discharge of their other duties. In line with the policy which successive Governments have followed, it is not the practice, and it would not be in the national interest, to disclose detailed information about security matters. I take exception to the noble Lord's response to the Answer which my noble friend gave on July 2nd. I think that it met the points adequately.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we should not bring the British intelligence service under closer parliamentary control and therefore more into the open while the Soviet Union and its surrogate states are expanding the training of terrorists and assassination squads, not only within Russia but in their surrogate states such as Cuba, Libya, Lebanon, South Yemen and elsewhere?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I have the greatest sympathy for the comments which have just been put forward by my noble friend.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us in which democracies the secret service or its equivalent is under parliamentary control?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have an answer to that question. I shall be pleased to write to the noble Lord when I find out.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that if parliamentary control were exercised over the secret services they could hardly remain secret for very long?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I cannot dispute the noble Lord's logic.
Lord Caccia: My Lords, it is difficult to deal with this question and to know precisely what is meant by "parliamentary control". If it means more open inquiry into the activities of the secret services (plural), does the Minister not agree that the example of the United States, where there is more senatorial investigation into the CIA, illustrates the dangers involved in that sort of procedure?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I have sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, and I would agree.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in the absence of information rumours abound? It is said, for example, that there are Members of Parliament who are under surveillance or on whom there are files; that they include ex-Ministers; and that they are all members of the Labour Party. Without actually giving names, would it not be desirable for Parliament to have a few facts? After all, in a democracy are we not entitled to know?
Noble Lords: No!
Baroness Cox: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that successive Governments have taken the view that it is not in the national interest to comment on the detail of security matters. Your Lordships will recall that as recently as 16th May (at column 1295 of Hansard) my noble friend Lord Whitelaw made it clear that there were occasions when it was not possible for Ministers to be as forthcoming as they might wish to be. I hope your Lordships will agree that we should adhere to that principle.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that honourable Members of another place and noble Lords do not require an extension of parliamentary privilege so that they would be treated differently from any other member of the country when it comes to the inquiries of our security authorities?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for that very pertinent and helpful contribution.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will your Lordships permit me to ask a final question on this matter? May I suggest—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to agree that it is possible to institute
1402
parliamentary control through the Privy Council, or in some such way, and that it is desirable to do this? I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that the situation cannot be left as it is, for the simple reason that there is evidence that the secret services are out of control.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I cannot disagree too strongly. The Director-General is responsible directly to the Home Secretary for the proper and the efficient working of the service. This means that the responsibilities of Ministers and of the Director-General are clearly defined and unequivocal. We should be very cautious indeed about the creation of new bodies which would risk blurring the present very clear train of responsibility.

Public Streetworks: Horne Report
11.21 a.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect to publish the Horne Report on the Public Streetworks Act.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have not yet received the report of Professor Horne and his team. We expect to receive it in the next few weeks and will take an early decision about publication.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. I should emphasise, and ask him whether he agrees, the importance of having as soon as possible a report which will do something to eliminate the constant digging up and reinstatement of streets and the great inconvenience caused to people. This is in addition to the very excessive expense due to the repetitive digging of holes in the streets. Will he accept from me that there are 20,000 holes a year dug in the roads of Westminster alone? Indeed, three of them are immediately outside your Lordships' House—for the third time. The gas board started again last night. Although the procedure requires 28 days' notice to be given to the council—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the question is: can my noble friend believe that, as the water board claims, 95 per cent. of these holes are emergencies and only 5 per cent. are planned work?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, those are matters which of course Professor Horne has been investigating in his review. Unfortunately Professor Horne was taken ill last year, but I am glad to be able to say that he is better now. That caused a delay in our receipt of the report. As I say, we expect to receive it within a very short time from now.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, as no one else seems to want to ask a question on this matter, perhaps I may ask the Minister this. Is he also aware that delays in reinstatement involve traffic delays and also damage to vehicles passing over unrestored roads? Does he agree that any collaboration to speed up these processes must be desirable?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. I hope that when we receive this report, Professor Horne will have found some solutions to this matter.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the Government read again the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology on the digitising of maps? This will go some way to assisting local authorities in finding where the holes in the ground should go the first time, instead of the second or third time. Are the Government aware that members of the Select Committee are somewhat upset that the Ordnance Survey is not pressing ahead with this important matter as fast as it should be?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall certainly again draw the attention of my right honourable friend to the Select Committee's report.

Airports Policy
11.24 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne) rose to move, That this House takes note of the White Paper Airports Policy (Cmnd. 9542).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Perhaps I may say at the outset how much I am looking forward to the maiden speeches which we are to hear today. When we last debated airports policy in February I was perhaps guilty of underestimating your Lordships' enthusiasm for this subject. Several noble Lords sought my assurance that your Lordships would have a further opportunity to debate airports policy once my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport had taken their decisions on the planning applications for the development of Stansted and Heathrow airports. Four months later, I am pleased to be able to open this debate and bring to your Lordships' House a particularly comprehensive and constructive White Paper. In February several noble Lords referred to our inability as a nation to put an end to years of heart-searching and take the necessary decisions about the future of our airports. The planning decisions have now been taken and the White Paper on Airports Policy presented to Parliament by my right honourable friend on 5th June lays the framework which will take airports policy into the 1990s.
In the debate in February, your Lordships well recognised the importance of the aviation industry to the national economy and I think it is worthwhile restating just how important it is. Aviation directly
1404
provides for some 85,000 jobs nationally and many more in the tourist industry, bearing in mind that almost two-thirds of inbound tourists travel by air. Expenditure by air travellers visiting the United Kingdom together with civil aviation earnings amounted to over £6 billion in 1984. We have not only the world's favourite airline but two of the world's four busiest international airports. It is not a position which we should relinquish to our competitors abroad by failing to provide the vital infrastructure that the aviation industry needs.
Yet that is what we would do if we were not to provide for further airports capacity in the South-East to meet the forecast shortfall in the early 1990s. This the inspector at the airports inquiries made clear. There were two applications before my right honourable friends: a proposal to develop a fifth terminal at Heathrow and a proposal for expansion at Stansted. Further expansion at Gatwick was not an option proposed at the inquiry, but I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, and perhaps also my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will have something to say about that. The Government are aware that there was considerable support for a fifth terminal at Heathrow. Your Lordships will be equally aware that Uttlesford District Council's planning application to develop a fifth terminal was turned down in accordance with the inspector's recommendation. To be frank, the proposed development was inadequate in several respects. In addition, as the White Paper makes clear, the Government are not convinced that a fifth terminal would provide the capacity required when it is needed. It is certainly not feasible on the right timescale while the Perry Oaks site is occupied by the sewage sludge disposal facilities and while no one knows whether and to where it could be moved.
Heathrow, a remarkable airport in many ways, operates on a constricted site. It is markedly smaller than other international airports with comparable passenger throughput and is not surprisingly therefore one of the most congested airports in the world. The problems of road access to Heathrow are also well known, both to passengers and to the local people. As the inspector to the inquiries remarked,
"Unless the facts are faced and some attempt is made to solve the problems, the long-term consequences will be dire indeed."
I therefore hope your Lordships will welcome the Government's decision to invite the Thames Water Authority and the British Airports Authority to commission a study of the options for releasing the site to the airport, and their decision to commission a study of possible improvements to road, rail and Underground access to Heathrow.
With all these existing problems, it was clearly not possible for the Government to commit themselves to a fifth terminal before solutions had been found. But there are other factors to take into account. The Government's policies to increase competition between airlines on domestic routes and to ensure access to Heathrow for domestic services from regional airports, combined with growing consumer demand for commuter route services, is slowing down the trend towards larger aircraft. This means fewer passengers per aircraft than was expected earlier, and higher flight frequencies. It is therefore quite possible

1405
that runway capacity will be exhausted before terminal capacity, and, indeed, Heathrow's runways are already operating at capacity for a large part of each day. I might add, in passing, that these trends also affect Gatwick, but to a lesser extent. On present forecasts, full use of that airport's planned terminal capacity of 25 million passengers per annum is unlikely to be achieved until the late 1990s because average passenger loads are growing more slowly.
The effect of these constraints is to bring forward the date when additional airport capacity will be needed in the South-East, and to require the next major tranche of capacity to be provided where there is runway capacity to spare. The case for a fifth terminal at Heathrow is premised on the assumption that average aircraft loads at that airport will continue to increase with no substantial increase in the number of aircraft movements. But that case is, quite simply, not proven. For all these reasons, we cannot rely on Heathrow for the answer to the capacity problem in the mid-1990s.
Some relief will, of course, be afforded by the decision not to impose a limit on air transport movements at Heathrow. This has met with a mixed reception. The Government understand the reliance that had been placed on an ATM limit as a means of reducing noise disturbance. But, after careful examination of all the evidence, we were obliged to agree with the inspector that an ATM limit would have a barely perceptible impact on the noise climate and that this small difference was outweighed by the need to make the best possible use of such an important national asset. This does not mean that the concerns of local residents have been disregarded. On the contrary, the Government have committed themselves to doing everything practicable to ensure that the noise climate continues to show improvements. Significant reductions in the areas most affected by noise have come about through Government efforts in recent years and we are determined that these benefits should not be diminished. I should like to stress, in particular, that the Government have no intention of removing restrictions on night flights.
This brings me to Stansted. The inspector concluded that the capacity needed to meet demand in the South-East at the right time could be provided only at Stansted. My right honourable friends agreed and granted permission for the development of a terminal and associated facilities with a capacity of 15 million passengers a year, as recommended by the inspector. However, given the uncertainty about the rate of growth of demand in the longer term, they regarded the immediate expansion of Stansted to a capacity of 15 million passengers per annum as premature and they have therefore imposed a planning condition limiting the development in the first phase to between 7 and 8 million passengers. On present plans the new terminal will open around 1990, but it will take some time for traffic to grow to fill this capacity. At present Stansted has a throughput of only half-a-million passengers a year and a capacity of about 2 million passengers a year. The timing of subsequent phases of development will, of course, depend on the growth of traffic. The Government believe that a flexible approach is needed to enable the right capacity to be provided when it is required.
Quite separately from the phasing of the physical development, the Government intend to impose controls over the use of the airport. They will seek an early opportunity to introduce legislation which will enable my right honourable friend to establish limits on air transport movements at airports. His intention is to impose an ATM limit at Stansted commensurate with the first phase of development. Any increase in the limit would be subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament, by means of the affirmative resolution procedure. This will enable your Lordships to decide, with the other place, on the level of traffic at Stansted in the light of all the relevant factors.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but it is not correct to say that we have the right to decide because, of course, we do not vote against affirmative orders in this House. We have the right to discuss, but we do not have the right to decide.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have described the parliamentary procedure that will be adopted. As your Lordships will be aware, there is a fair history to these things. I can remember some pretty unpalatable resolutions of your Lordships' House in connection with aviation matters, not least one of those moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, some years ago.
The Government recognise that the environmental problems associated with airport development extend beyond the airport's boundaries. The proposal for a phased development will enable the local planning authorities to programme the associated development of housing and other facilities as the need arises and thereby ensure that the character of the surrounding towns and villages is not jeopardised. Furthermore, the Government are particularly concerned to minimise disturbance from aircraft noise. I am sure that all of your Lordships, no doubt outside the House rather than inside, would agree with that commentator who remarked,
"I have often lamented that we cannot close our ears with as much ease as we can our eyes".
As regards aircraft noise, the Government are determined to do everything practicable to minimise disturbance. Quiet take-off and landing procedures and noise preferential routes will be continued, and supplemented, around Stansted, by a noise insulation grants scheme along the lines of those already in place at Heathrow and Gatwick.
In February, many of your Lordships expressed the view that regional airports were well equipped for growth and that they should handle a greater share of the traffic. Indeed, they are, and they should. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has all along been keen to encourage the use and development of regional airports so that they meet the maximum demand they can attract. It is a policy that has worked. At Manchester, of the 33 international destinations scheduled for this summer, 14 have been provided this year; of Birmingham's 15 European destinations, four are new this year; while of Glasgow and Edinburgh's 16 destinations, five are new this year. However, the regional airports cannot absorb the growth in demand for air services in the South-East.
The question was examined in detail at the airports inquiries because one of the alternatives put forward to

1407
the development of Stansted was the expansion of the regional airports. The White Paper deals with this point in paragraph 4.10. I shall quote from it because it summarises clearly the Government's views on this matter:
"The Inspector at the Airports Inquiries rejected the contention that provision of more capacity in London would prevent growth of regional airports or that faster development of regional airports would remove the need for more capacity in London. The Government agrees with his conclusions, and cannot accept a policy of inhibiting growth of traffic in the South East in the hope that it would divert traffic to the regions. Restricting the capacity of the London airports would penalise the travelling public, inhibit competition between airlines and seriously damage the country's prospects, without bringing the suggested benefits to the regions".
Perhaps it is appropriate at this point to note the similarity of these conclusions with those reached by the Labour Government in their 1978 White Paper on Airports Policy. This states, in paragraph 21, that,
"the Government rejects the suggestion that the air transport industry should be subject to the damaging restrictions on its operations which would be the outcome of the forced diversion of traffic to regional airports".
The fact is that successive Governments have rightly recognised that failure to provide the airports capacity required where it is needed will only benefit other European airports, notably Schiphol, Paris and Frankfurt. They are competing strongly for the long-haul international traffic which has made London the world's most important interlining centre. If we failed to provide the capacity or attempted to implement policies aimed at forcefully diverting traffic to the regions we would be undermining our aviation industry and the many jobs and foreign currency earnings that go with it.
But the Government are determined to encourage the growth of regional airports. As my right honourable friend said when opening the debate on airports policy on 17th June in the other place, regional airports need more flights, not more concrete. The Government's initiatives to liberalise route access will continue to help the development of services from regional airports, and in their negotiations with foreign governments the Government will give full weight to the interests of regional passengers. The five-year plan for growth being drawn up for Manchester airport indicates our determination to help identify opportunities for growth and to do as much as we can to assist in promoting a rapid development of the potential of regional airports. This is one of the major objectives of the Government's airports policy. Manchester is particularly important as the gateway international airport for the North of England.
However, the White Paper does not just stop there. Having laid down policies which will provide the capacity needed in the South-East and the services needed in the regions and in Scotland and Wales, it goes on to propose far-reaching changes to the structure of airports—that is, privatisation of the BAA and the restructuring of the major local authority airports as plcs. As your Lordships know from your recent debate on the matter, not everyone supports the opportunities and benefits that the introduction of private capital will bring. However, the Government firmly believe in reducing the role of the state and we are convinced that the way to run substantial businesses—as many airports are—is in a professional,
1408
businesslike way, within a commercial framework. These changes should ensure that British airports have the flexibility and the encouragement for innovation to maintain their leading position in world aviation.
Some regulation will be necessary to ensure that airports do not abuse their monopoly position and that charges are fair and non-discriminatory. In the light of recent events I should like, first, to reassure noble Lords that after privatisation the regulation of security will continue to be administered by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. New regulations will also be necessary to ensure that airports act in accordance with our international obligations. Legislation will be introduced to establish the regulatory framework, in which the Government envisage that the CAA will play a major role, particularly on regulation of charges, together with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Regulation will be kept to the minimum necessary, but in the privatised future we cannot do away with it altogether.
The Government's policies which we are considering today seek to protect our leading position in world aviation and create the right climate for continued growth, while minimising the effects of airports development on local people and their environment. When the inspector's report was published last December many commentators repeated, with some pleasure, his ringing condemnation of governmental vacillation on this issue over the last 20 years. Equally happily, they went on to quote him again.
"Any decisions",
he wrote,
"will be perceived as unacceptable by a large number of people".
This Government have taken the inspector's advice. He recommended that decisive action should be taken as expeditiously as possible. This the Government have done. Our strategy is realistic. It builds upon the existing London airports system and encourages growth in the regions. It sets out to achieve cooperation and not confrontation between important sectors of the industries involved. It avoids unwarranted disruption of the structure of the air transport industry, but secures a capability to provide capacity on a flexible basis for the remainder of the century. It is a well balanced and far-sighted solution and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the White Paper Airports Policy (Cmnd. 9542).—Lord Trefgarne.)
11.43 a.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am certain that all noble Lords will welcome this opportunity to debate what may be the framework of legislation and regulations dealing with what is—and here I agree with the noble Lord the Minister—one of our most important and vital industries: civil aviation and our airports. Together with the noble Lord, I am certain that we all look forward to the two maiden speeches. I should like to say how pleasing it is to see so many speakers on the list on a Friday afternoon when we have some sunshine; it indicates the importance of this subject.

1409
I want to avoid a repetition of the debate on the inspector's report which we had early this year. However, I have reviewed what I, the Minister and others said on that occasion and I find that there is very little need to change what I said during that debate. I stressed then that there is a conflict of interests. We cannot ignore the interests of those in the particular areas affected, but it is a harsh fact that many people see the solution as being the development in someone else's area.
There has also been a substantial publicity campaign of vested interest, including two publicly-owned undertakings, the BAA and BA, with their massive newspaper advertisements, which I hope will he borne in mind when people talk about publicity by other bodies. There have been considerable criticisms from Government supporters of the inspector's recommendations.
I believe that the White Paper is a very clever political presentation. It leaves many of the inspector's proposals in limbo; it softens some of the controversial proposals in the inspector's report without actually rejecting them. In effect, the White Paper centres on the question of future demand but, as I said in our February debate, there must be future planning and assessments of future passenger levels, runway capacities and air transport movements. However, even the inspector's report showed that various bodies give varying and sometimes conflicting estimates of future demand. I would remind your Lordships that the inspector referred to the vagueness of forecasting and said that the forecasting of the size of aircraft and the number of passengers should involve considerable caution. In fact, the inspector said that all estimates should be treated with caution. This morning the noble Lord the Minister said that the size of aircraft and the number of transport movements may not be of the order forecast. Therefore, even the Government recognise what the inspector has said: that some of these estimates should be treated with caution.
The White Paper conveys doubts about the future size of aircraft and passenger demand. I shall not take time to quote it, but the longer-term uncertainties of these factors are set out in paragraph 4.5 on page 7 of the White Paper, and that should be read carefully. Table 5 on page 13 gives the effective capacity of the four London airports, taking account of runway constraints. It shows what is called demand planning values, a matter which has been explained by the inspector in his report. It gives a current surplus capacity of 4·5 million. In 1990 the surplus could be only 2·5 million. However, in 1995 there could be a shortage of 4·5 million. These figures must be borne in mind when we consider some of the proposals in the White Paper, particularly for the substantial additional capacity proposed for Stansted. The noble Lord the Minister has said substantially what the Secretary of State said in another place on 17th June:
"We have provided for 1995 and allowed room for expansion. We need not commit ourselves before we have to, but equally it would be senseless not to retain the capability to meet the demand, if it happens". [Official Report, Commons, 17/6/85; col. 36.]
All that sounds reasonable. However, it also gives rise to apprehension both on environmental and on safety grounds. In particular what worries me about
1410
the White Paper is that it contains not the slightest indication that, if there should be the demand, the time may not arrive when someone says, "Enough is enough: we just cannot proceed with further development in the South-East". Surely there cannot be a limitless meeting of an expected demand in the South-East. Someone somewhere must say "No"; and then the consideration must be: What shall we do?
One only has to read the speeches of Members of Parliament of all parties representing constituencies in the Heathrow area to appreciate the present effect on people's lives; and some have said that people cannot tolerate any more. Despite ten definite statements made by the Government since 1979 rejecting the possibility of a fifth terminal at Heathrow, this still remains a possible option in the White Paper, and that will provide for a maximum of 53 million passengers per annum at Heathrow.
Even the British Airports Authority report for 1983–84—and I refreshed myself on this only last night—made clear that the authority opposed the application for a fifth terminal because what it wants is an additional runway, which it is argued could only be provided at Stansted. All these arguments are set out in various pages of that report of the authority, and particularly on page 76, which I shall not trouble your Lordships by reading.
It expresses some of the problems which would arise if there should be a fifth terminal at Heathrow. On this side of the House we do not want to see the fifth terminal at Heathrow, but should the Government decide to proceed with a fifth terminal after their various reviews, I must urge that this should not take place without either the strict adherence to the number of air transport movements (the Government have just lifted it) to 275,000 per annum, or positive action being taken on a drastic reduction of aircraft noise.
It is interesting that the Government intend to apply a limit on air transport movements at Stansted apparently on noise grounds and interference grounds, but can readily lift the one that it put on at Heathrow. One would like to have an explanation of that. Should there be, regrettably, development of a fifth terminal, this must be accompanied by considerable improvements in road access, and should not proceed in any circumstances without the definite provision of a rail link, with finances not necessarily falling upon British Rail.
The Minister has not satisfied me on why there is a decision to set aside the repeated assurances on the 275,000 maximum air transport movements at Heathrow before there is a guarantee of quieter planes. I would refer noble Lords to paragraph 8.9 on pages 40 and 41 of the report. Why have the Government rejected as unrealistic the inspector's clear recommendation that lower noise limits should be introduced on 1st January 1986? The Government have set that aside and at the same time they have lifted their limit on ATMs.
It appears that one must accept that the siting of the second terminal at Gatwick prohibits a second runway there. This is reaffirmed in the White Paper, and no doubt the noble Baroness will have something to say about that. The Government say that that particular undertaking will be firmly adhered to. But they can so

1411
easily set aside their assurances on the 275,000 ATMs at Heathrow, and would also be prepared, if necessary, to set aside their ten previous definitive statements rejecting a fifth terminal at Heathrow. I think there will be a general welcome, or acceptance, of the proposal to increase the capacity of Luton, which, while small, will assist to reduce this possible shortfall.
So now we move to Stansted. Here I must declare, in case people believe otherwise as it is known that I live in metropolitan Essex, that I do not believe that I shall be in the flight path area. Therefore, I am not speaking because of any direct interest. All I would say is that I have cycled, walked, motored, all around the delightful Rodings area—which will be affected by Stansted development—for the best part of 60 years. It is one of the best unspoiled areas close to London. The Government say that only Stansted provides a real opportunity for additional capacity. As the noble Minister has said, Stansted now has a terminal capacity of 2 million, yet even now throughput of passengers is only half a million. It might be interesting to ask the Minister, seeing that there is the demand at present and with the subsidised charges at Stansted, why there are only half a million people taking up the present capacity of 2 million there. I hope noble Lords will keep in mind what I have said about Table 5 on this possible shortage.
Most people, even those who have been most active in opposing Stansted development, I think would accept development up to say 5 million per annum. But we have heard this morning what the Government are proposing—a first phase limited to 7 to 8 million. But the White Paper goes on to say in paragraph 5.27:
"timing and capacity of further phases up to 15 mppa will in practice depend on the rate of growth of demand and the contribution made to handling the demand by the other airports in the London system".
Therefore the White Paper presents us with the possibility of Stansted going up to 15 million passengers per annum. That, my Lords, will be unacceptable. That ought to be made thoroughly clear.
In Paragraph 5.35, on page 23, the White Paper even visualises the possibility of development at Stansted to take the maximum capacity of its single runway up to 25 million. That would be an appalling monstrosity which I hope no noble Lord in this House would be prepared to accept. And yet the Government are prepared to do it if the demand, they say, is there. This brings me back to one of my earlier points: is someone prepared to say at some time, "Yes, civil aviation is vital to this country, but further development in one area of this country cannot go on unabated and must be dealt with in another way"?
How will the traffic mix at Stansted be determined? Who will decide this? How will airlines be persuaded to move there, seeing that at the moment they are not moving there with subsidised charges? One good thing about the White Paper is that it suggests that the question of subsidised charges will no longer apply. Is there to be any consideration of the auction of time slots at Heathrow, or bargaining between different air lines? I hope that the Minister will refute the possibility of either of those happenings taking place.
1412
Stansted is linked to the whole question of regional airports. I think most noble Lords will recognise that any development of any kind at Stansted, even up to 7 to 8 million, will require an improved road system; the provision of the rail link to which I have referred; and all the necessary urbanisation which would have to take place, which would cost a substantial sum. Most people estimate that it would be a figure of something like £½ billion. Of course there will be bitterness in the Midlands and the North that this amount of money is again to be spent in the South-East.
It is argued that 75 per cent. of passengers using the London airports originate in the South-East. I am not allowed to quote the actual speeches of Back-Benchers in another place, but I refer to a speech of Mr. Alfred Morris, Member for Wythenshawe, who drew attention to the fact that CAA surveys classify passengers on the basis of where journeys began on the day of the survey. He said that would include regional and foreign tourists who are forced to use London airport even though they spend very little time in London. I noticed that that point was not answered by the Minister replying to that debate. Maybe the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, can deal with it. The body which represents the local authority airports argued that whereas 94 per cent. of incoming tourists fly through London airport, only some 40 per cent. stay in London overnight.
There are many words in the White Paper about possible support for regional airports. I was pleased to see in paragraph 12.11 on page 57 that:
"The Government recognises that too many travellers from the regions are forced to use South East airports".
That is something which we have been saying for many months and which has been contradicted by the Government.
The White Paper has many sympathetic words about the regions. The Minister quite sincerely expressed those views today, but how far will the Government use their muscle on bilateral agreements to endeavour to increase the number of international scheduled flights into regional airports? It is not enough to say that the Government will give encouragement. I noticed a Written Answer in the other place given by Mr. Michael Spicer in reply to a Question about whether we had discussed with the Governments of the United States of America and of Western European countries the provision of scheduled air services to the regions. He said:
"It is for overseas airlines to decide on commercial grounds whether they wish to serve Birmingham and east midlands airports. At present we have no plans to discuss the possibility of such services with the United States Government, though we are always prepared to consider carefully any proposal put to us."—[Official Report, Commons, 20/6/85; cols. 224–5.]
The Government have said that they will consider any demands created by the airports. But what effort are the Government themselves making to increase the number of airline flights to the regions?
A fifth terminal at Heathrow and the development of Stansted to 15 million, never mind up to 25 million, would considerably damage the development of regional airports. I hope the Government will be more positive in saying what they will do in practical measures to increase airlines going to the regional

1413
airports, rather than just expressing hopes and saying that they will give encouragement.
The only other point I want to deal with is one which the Minister did not deal with at great length. What are the real arguments for selling off the British Airports Authority's airports to private interests? The arguments in the White Paper seem to me to be very flimsy and reflect more the political ideology of the Secretary of State rather than any practical reasoning. What other modern country has its major airports completely in private hands? Perhaps the Minister can tell us. I understand that even the United States of America does not have that situation. Ministers have said time and time again that the BAA is doing a splendid job. I, along with other noble Lords, was at the topping out of the fourth terminal at Heathrow and heard the praise that was lavished on BAA by the Minister. Also its record on financial responsibility has been good. I am pleased that the BAA is to be sold as a single entity, and when we debate the Transport Bill next week maybe people will keep that in mind when the Government propose to carve up the NBC, because the two arguments will be similar.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that the principle of cross-subsidy which exists within the BAA is totally contrary to the principle of cross-subsidy for the buses which it is sought to abolish?
Lord Underhill: Absolutely, my Lords. To be fair, the Government have said that they will ensure that there will be no cross-subsidy particularly as there is now at Stansted. But why form seven separate companies? If the Government are satisfied at present with BAA, with its financial operation and its efficiency, why form seven separate companies? Do we want to see those seven separate companies competing against each other? Surely that would be an idiotic way to run an airport system.
We have the threatened interference with local authority airports which are already in danger due to the decisions taken on the abolition of the metropolitan authorities which affect some of these airports. I do not propose to deal with Scotland, since my noble friend Lord Carmichael will cover that later.
In conclusion, the White Paper has somewhat patched up the inspector's proposals to make them more acceptable to the critics in the Government's ranks, but it leaves the economic and social imbalance between the South-East, the Midlands and the North. Incidentally, there is reference in the White Paper to Manchester, but very little reference to Birmingham international airport, which also has great potential. The White Paper leaves considerable apprehensions about the future, in particular the possibility of Stansted being allowed to drift upwards and upwards into a situation that would be intolerable.
12.7 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, we on these Benches particularly welcome the opportunity of saying how glad we are to have the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, back with us today and we are pleased that he is back in time to take part in this debate. It is true
1414
to say that we agree with a good many of the points that he has made. Obviously, we are looking forward to the two maiden speeches we are to have today. Having looked up various details, it seems to me that one will have a Manchester flavour and the other possibly a Scottish flavour, and so I do not doubt that our debate will be widened.
There is no doubt that the Secretary of State for Transport has been most skilful in presenting the Government's Airport Policy White Paper. However, I believe that it has a fundamental flaw and that we need have had no development at present at Stansted. Perhaps I may say straight away that I consider further development to be unnecessary, because Stansted has a present capacity of some two million passengers per annum with a throughput of some 500,000 passengers per annum and many of us believe that the surplus capacity of some 1½ million should be taken up before any further development is undertaken.
In presenting the Statement in another place on 5th June the Minister obviously could not give definite figures, but estimated the approximate cost of the first phase of development, to a maximum of seven to eight million passengers per annum, as being £270 million, plus some £2 million for local roads and about £50 million for rail infrastructure. I ask the House to note that Mr. Ridley added that it may not be economic to provide a rail link. I believe that development at Stansted without a rail link would certainly not be viable.
At the moment Stansted is sustained by cross-subsidy from Heathrow and Gatwick—a matter to which I shall come later. However, as a matter of interest I have been checking through the inspector's mammoth sessions and I noted that he was far from pleased that he had been presented with evidence making no statement about the rail link and its costs. In fact, early in January 1982 the inspector said that he thought that he had been placed in an intolerable situation because of this and asked the Department of Transport to get something done about the matter. I think it is probably apt here once more to pay tribute to the inspector, Mr. Graham Eyre. I myself and, I am sure, a great many other people were impressed with his impartiality and his thoroughness. We thank him for all the work which he undertook.
If I may revert to what I said at the beginning, I believe that the fundamental flaw in this skilfully presented policy is the proposed development at Stansted starting from the refusal to lay down a second runway at Gatwick and resisted tooth and nail by the British Airports Authority. It is necessary to state the facts about this, and perhaps the House will bear with me if I am succinct and give only facts and not opinions. These have to be on record to make my case.
They number three only. The first is that as the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation responsible for the decision in June 1954 to develop Gatwick as a major international airport, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, declared that Gatwick was designed as a two-runway airport, adding that experience throughout the world had shown that a minimum of two runways is a basic requirement for a major airport. That was in a letter to The Times on 5th June last.

1415
The second fact is that the county planning officer of West Sussex County Council, writing to The Times on 31st May stated:
"It is by no mischance that the British Airports Authority abandoned its proposals for a second runway and sited the second passenger terminal astride its former alignment".
The third fact is that in the House on 23rd May 1984 I was told in answer to a Question that,
"the present Government were not consulted about the agreement and are not parties to it. That being the case, the Government cannot be bound by its terms".—[Official Report, 23/5/84; col. 221.]
The agreement was that entered into by the British Airports Authority and the West Sussex County Council, but unfortunately the Government omitted that statement from paragraph 5.22 of the White Paper that we are discussing today.
Hence it follows that the Government themselves are preventing the laying down of a second runway. As The Times said in its leader on 6th June, speaking of Government policy:
"It prematurely abandoned the intended second runway at Gatwick, and subsequent events have made it almost, though not quite, impossible to retrieve that beneficial proposal".
Well, my Lords, I am still trying to retrieve it.
But I come now to perhaps the most serious matter of all, that of safety. I raise it only after considerable thought. There are grave fears in aviation operational circles that Gatwick's single runway will not be able to handle the 25 million passengers per annum projected by the British Airports Authority. The House may know that currently Heathrow is handling just over 30 million passengers per annum using two of its three runways. Gatwick at present is handling some 14.2 million passengers per annum and expert opinion has told me that at peak times the operational congestion on the runway is severe. Exceptional measures have to be taken to enable departing aircraft to meet their slot times. These are, in effect, international airspace reservations, with very precise timings. To miss a departure slot can mean a delay of an hour or more.
My experts—and I hope that this does not sound too grand a description—doubt that aircraft operational aspects and resultant operational strictures reach what they term "political places". When they go on to say that there is hardly a practising air traffic controller and pilot who will not say that at peak times the Gatwick runway is unsatisfactory, adding that well-documented air safety incidents support this, I feel that the time has come to bring the matter into the open.
Apart from, or in addition to, being a Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is a qualified pilot and I am sure he will recognise the seriousness of what I am saying. Obviously the Government will investigate what I have been told and doubtless they will request the Civil Aviation Authority to produce and check records dealing with operational hazards at Gatwick Airport. Additionally to the records, could inquiries be made among pilots and controllers so that our minds may be set at rest? If there are problems—and I have a certain amount of evidence—may I say for the record that there is plenty of room for a second runway outside the present perimeter to the south or southwest having fewer obstacles that those put forward by
1416
the Government when refusing to build one to the north. May I—
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, before the noble Baroness continues, I wonder whether she would be good enough to say who these experts are who produce these views.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I would not. May I come now—and I hope that the hearts of noble Lords in the Chamber will not sink—to the 37-page document dated 5th June 1985 from the Departments of the Environment and of Transport to McKenna and Company headed, "Proposed development at Stansted Airport" and supplied to us when we collected the White Paper. I certainly am not skilled at deciphering lengthy legal Civil Service documents and I may well have got it completely wrong. If the Minister will help in some clarification I should be appreciative.
I would wish to weary the House with as little quotation as possible, and the Minister will have the document on his file. On paragraph 98.5, page 29 states:
"Notwithstanding the requirements of any other condition of this permission no development authorised by this permission shall be begun until a scheme of construction work in relation to preliminary site works has been submitted to the local planning authority and approved."
We then have five subsections. Paragraphs 98(8) and 98(9) on page 31 deal with dates and limits for development application.
According to these paragraphs is it correct that applicants for approval of the details of the first phase of the development have a period of five years in which to make such application? Secondly, is it correct that this first phase of the development, if permitted, must be commenced before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission? If my interpretation is correct, it would seem that considerable delays could arise. Will the Minister, when he comes to reply, elucidate these points to the House?
I mention all this because of a problem stressed, I think, more than any other in another place and raised by me in this House on 11th February and 5th June: the maintenance of Stansted by cross-subsidisation from Heathrow and Gatwick to the detriment of regional airports and particularly of Luton. I wonder whether the House is aware that last year Stansted had a deficit of approximately £4 million. The exact figure was £3·88 million. As one of the Manchester Members remarked in another place, this was an average subsidy of £8 per passenger. I know—because I have read every speech in another place, and it took me some six hours to do so—that the Secretary of State said that there would be no subsidisation under his plans. But he did not say when this subsidisation would cease. And now perhaps the Minister will understand why I have been raising the question of time limits.
It is good to know that the Government have by implication at last condemned the policy of the British Airports Authority in the matter of cross-subsidisation, even though it has taken a long time for them to do so. But for how much longer is this to continue? That is my question to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and I await his answer at the end of our

1417
debate today. What disturbed me, in studying the debate in another place, was the number of times Mr. Ridley seemed unable to answer this question. All he could say was that in advance of legislation he had no power to take action. I take the line, and I believe many Members in both Houses would agree with me, that if the Secretary of State were to tell the British Airports Authority that he wanted the cross-subsidy stopped and stopped now, something would be done.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Spicer, in another place, speaking of the Civil Aviation Authority (at col. 135 of Hansard), said:
"[It] will be given new powers to ensure above all that airport charges at Stansted are related to costs and that the BAA is not able to attract business from airports in the north by predatory pricing."
My Lords, obviously we have a choice: Mr. Ridley, Mr. Spicer, the Civil Aviation Authority and the British Airports Authority, whose policy has been condemned. Both Houses of Parliament and the regional airports will be watching to see how speedily action is taken and how genuine is the Government's concern.
Having reached this stage, I thought that I must try to say something good about these proposals. But here I have a difficulty. For example, it is good of course that the proposed ATM limit at Heathrow has been withdrawn. But of course the Minister had no choice. This was so obviously an attempt to railroad Stansted through the Commons via a back door that the standing committee concerned refused to make progress. On 9th May (at col. 465 of Hansard) the Civil Aviation Bill containing this limitation was withdrawn. It was withdrawn quietly, and the information was given in a Written Answer.
It is good of course that the British Airports Authority is to be required to sell all surplus land; but would the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, comment on the question of planning blight? At the time it was felt by many people that the British Airports Authority purchased this large area with undue haste and against strong representations from people concerned. What now is to be the position of those financially affected by the Government's decision to sell? Is any compensation to be offered?
Only last night I received additional information about the worry of people living in the area around Stansted concerning the size of the area covered by the compulsory purchase order issued by the BAA and published on 13th June. In spite of the assurances given by the Secretary of State, these residents feel—and indeed I think Mr. Ridley admits—that this area is that designated for capacity development of 15 million passengers per annum. The Secretary of State declares himself satisfied that this large area of land is required notwithstanding the proposed limitation on capacity to some 7–8 million passengers per annum. It is small wonder that the people I have been talking about have a very real anxiety, and I hope the Minister will note the reason. It is because they feel that the BAA will try to have its way by one means or another—and those are their words, not mine. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that that is not a very enviable reputation to have acquired.
As I made clear on 5th June in reply to the Government's Statement, we on these Benches welcome the Stolport decision and also the proposal to
1418
control the monopoly aspect of airport charge We welcome the decision on the Perry Oaks sewage works and hope that the Thames Water Authority and the British Airports Authority will bring to completion as soon as possible the joint study they have been asked to commission. We do not welcome the decision to make a public monopoly a private one, and perhaps the Minister would confirm or otherwise the fact that the British Airports Authority represents a huge monopoly; namely, some 80 per cent. of all our air passenger traffic. If that is correct, do the Government really believe it to be in the best interests of this country and of our aviation industry to sell overall control? The charter airline industry is in danger of being overlooked. We fear for its future security of tenure at Gatwick, where it has been largely responsible for building up this airport to the major international position that it now holds.
Finally, I return to where I started: Stansted. It may well be that we are not too late. I think that the Government must now consider this being a white elephant, whatever the British Airports Authority may say. As many Members have said already, Stansted does not pay its way and has a present capacity surplus of 1,500,000 passengers per annum. Surely it would be better and wiser to see this total capacity of 2 million passengers per annum fully taken up and unsubsidised—I repeat, my Lords, "unsubsidised"—before spending millions of pounds on further development.
Secondly, there seems to be universal consent that rail links are crucial to Stansted. Yet the Secretary of State himself has said that it may not be economic to provide a rail link. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne: do the Government believe honestly that Stansted can prosper, unsubsidised and without a rail link? Also, am I right in thinking that British Rail will be expected to foot the bill for any extension or is it anticipated that the cost will be met by the British Airports Authority or by the Ministry of Transport? I rather imagine it will be British Rail, but it would be helpful if the Minister could clear up these details when he comes to reply.
Does the Minister really wish to help the regions? That question has been asked by many Members in another place and not only by Members from the North. Surely it is inevitable that the level of investment envisaged for Stansted must mean less being done in the regions. Additionally, present proposals will lead to a further drain of flights away from the regional airports to the South of England. Mr. Ridley said that British Rail was examining the case for a rail link to Manchester Airport concurrently with the option at Stansted. He expected the latter study to be completed before the end of this year and the one on Manchester sooner than that. As the House probably knows, Manchester has been begging for this rail link for some 10 or 12 years. A small spur of line could link the airport to excellent communications, main line and motorway, thereby greatly improving both potential and profitability. I can assure the House that there is no question here of such a link not being economic.
We on these Benches should like the rail link to Manchester Airport to be a firm commitment now. That would give the airport, the region and

1419
Manchester a tremendous boost. Would this not be one way for the Government to show their genuine concern in regional development by indicating their support in advance for the Manchester link? It would be something concrete, benefiting a wide area: something that would be permanent. We all know that the Government have been making much play about new routes. The Minister mentioned it today and I was glad to note in the House earlier this week the figures stating that regional airports were getting busier. But these can be taken away when governments enter into political bargaining one with the other. As was remarked in another place, "history shows this can happen". We suggest that the Government offer something concrete now.
I believe that the sad story behind all this is that the Secretary of State has had to blur the issues and postpone firm decisions in order to get his policy through another place. He has bowed to pressure from the British Airports Authority who have been determined to have Stansted however many expert and public enquiries have found against the proposal. He has refused to allow Gatwick its full potential while the Government's stated position is that they do not consider themselves bound by an agreement to which they were not a party. Surely, having stated this, the Government should have had the courage to press on and ignore local political pressure.
Eventually this second runway will have to come. Why not now? The roads are there; the rail links are there; and, above all, the space is there. Gatwick has everything except the goodwill of this Government. A second runway would cost a great deal less than the proposed Stansted development. It would be viable economically and it would allow Gatwick to develop to its full potential.
In the debate in another place on 30th January there was almost total condemnation of the proposal to develop Stansted as London's third airport. The White Paper we are discussing today is a most skilful package designed to diffuse that opposition. But the hard decisions have been merely postponed and one day all this will come home to roost.
12.31 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, before I speak on the subject of airports policy, may I say how grateful I am for the kindness shown by all Members in all parts of this House to a very new Member? I happened to be introduced on 11th June of this year, exactly 50 years to the day since a fellow Tweedsider, John Buchan, the first Lord Tweedsmuir, was introduced to your Lordships' House. I cannot help recalling that John Buchan, as a famous novelist wrote a book called The Thirty-Nine Steps. It was fiction. I feel that when we are dealing with airports policy, a discussion which seems to have gone on for 20 years without any real decisions, we are talking about fact, perhaps a factual book entitled One Hundred and Thirty-Nine Steps. I hope that we are reaching the top of those steps now. I applaud the decision of the Government to get on and produce a comprehensive policy at this stage after so much debate. As my noble friend the Minister said, 85,000 jobs mean a lot of people employed in the aviation industry alone and
1420
they require, indeed they are entitled to expect, a clear lead from the Government at this stage.
I have worked all my life in travelling. I have sold for my living. If I did not sell, employees did not have work. As has been pointed out earlier in this debate, budgets, sales forecasts can be wrong, but they have to be made. I would just remark that competitors are fickle people as well. I think that the underlying principle in the Eyre Report is that the customer comes first. If I want to take a flight to Paris, I do not usually book on a flight to Lyons. I think the net result of casting a blind eye to the wishes of the customer from abroad, in particular, will mean a boost for the airports of Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris.
I was grateful to hear my noble friend the Minister give his assurance this morning that a pricing system will in future exist that will not distort the demand for air transport between Britain's airports. They call it transparent accountancy. There will, no doubt, be many more words spoken today on Stansted and the problems of cross-subsidy, but I have heard disparaging noises regarding the Government's treatment of the regional airports from many people who have listened and know a lot about airport policy in general. I am heartened, however, by people who are actually working in the industry, and in particular the Chief Executive of Manchester Airport, who said that the White Paper was good news for Manchester and good news for job prospects in the North-West of England. I am also very interested to read in today's paper that British Midland have announced that they have a profitable route running from Leeds-Bradford Airport to Heathrow; no mean achievement. There is a big increase in passengers owing to more frequent and faster flights using DC9 jets. On what I would say is a very short flight, this must help that airport with its extended runway and its increasing number of flights to survive, to be economical, and to serve the area as it should.
There is, however, one area to which I should like to turn for just one moment. It is fact; it is here, and it is a problem. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, might like to agree on this point, because I know that in the past she has had something to say about it. I travel regularly to Heathrow by tube; 18 stops, one change. When it is rush hour, it is very busy and one has to strap-hang. I do not think it is particularly impressive for customers, visitors to the United Kingdom—and we must bear in mind that two-thirds of foreign tourists come by air to Britain—to have to subject themselves to these conditions. The contrast in the comparison between the Gatwick Express and the Heathrow tube is enormous. I should like the Minister just for a moment to consider the words of the White Paper where it says:
"Such a link is unlikely to be financially viable on current assumptions".
There is a limited amount that can be done to improve the road network to Heathrow. I understand that a study of options is now under way. I hope that that study will be fruitful. I hope that if we are bearing customers in mind we shall realise only too well that, yes, we have an underground that runs right into the airport, but surely there must be a better way to satisfy those who carry a lot of luggage, probably bringing children with them to this country for the first

1421
time—and first impressions do matter. I shall not go into the question of rail links to Manchester—there are people in this House who are far more knowledgeable about that particular aspect of policy than I am—but I would say that it is something that ought to be considered very seriously indeed in the whole of the airports policy that this Government are putting forward.
As has been alluded to earlier, I come from Scotland. I am a Scot. I have worked in Scotland all my life. I welcome the White Paper, and particularly some of its aspects relating to Scotland. The shuttle services from Edinburgh and Glasgow, owing to the enormous uplift in competition which has helped pricing and the service, are something not to be talked down. Over the last five years there has been a great improvement and an enormous increase in the number of passengers using those services. As to Prestwick and the Freeport, we wish them well. But there is a hard sell ahead and I hope that the Government's decision will be proved correct when it comes to be reviewed in 1989.
There is, however, one area which concerns me greatly, so far as Scotland is concerned, and here I welcome the Government's attitude to the lifeline routes to the Highlands and Islands. I hope that before very long Inverness will not be considered a lifeline route. It should not be, because the growth of industry and population in that area will surely mean a viable airport in Inverness. I know that Scottish Office support is considerable through the taxpayer, and the scope for savings in franchising, management, etc. under the CAA may be possible. But of one thing I am absolutely convinced, and it is that, in the overall consideration of airport policy in the United Kingdom, the lifeline links to these far-flung places is an essential part of the United Kingdom network, and should never be given up. I know them only too well because I travel a lot on them myself, and I also know that, although the numbers of population may be few in those areas, they rely very heavily on airport links.
In conclusion, I agree with the views expressed by both this Government and, I believe, the Labour Government in 1978, when they said:
"We will not avoid the need for additional airport capacity in the London area".
I think that is correct, because customers must be allowed to go to the destination of choice. Let us ensure in the United Kingdom, against a background of European airports expanding capacity ahead of demand, that we do not lose our prime place. We must remain in the lead.
12.42 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, it is a very great privilege and pleasure for me to be able to follow the noble Lord who has just contributed such a distinguished maiden speech to our deliberations this afternoon. He has expressed himself with cogency and with an ease which many of us might envy, and I am sure that all of us will welcome his further contributions to our discussions in the months and years to come.
I also have great pleasure in sitting behind my noble friend Lord Underhill, who has returned to our Front Benches this morning. We have missed him very much
1422
indeed. I am in an unusual position—and I share the position with the noble Lord whose maiden speech we have just enjoyed—because, for a change, I find myself largely in agreement with what has been said from my own Front Bench. That is a welcome situation which I hope both of us will be happy to have repeated in future. I have one point of disagreement with my noble friend, and I shall touch on that in a moment.
But I should like, first, to refer to a point which he came to more properly than I am doing at the end of what he had to say. He spoke with regret, as indeed I do myself, about the Government's decision to extend their ideological mania into this area. The notion that it is a good thing to privatise airports authorities and, in particular, this airport authority, seems to me to be one where the theory of the whole thing which I understand the Government hold is surely taking precedence over what would be reasonable practice.
I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will say about that. I rather hope that, with his experience, the reverse will occur and that he will be able to tell us very shortly that on this particular subject, at any rate, he disagrees with the Government and hopes they will leave it in public hands. If he does not do that, in which case I will be disappointed—and it will not be the first time—I hope that my noble friend who is to wind up for us will tell your Lordships that a Labour Government will rectify the situation and will restore public ownership as quickly as possible.
I say that because, if there is one area where it is desirable to have a public interest rather than a private one, it is that of the monopoly, as the noble Baroness said. If one has to have a monopoly, it should be a public monopoly rather than a private monopoly. This is particularly the case in this instance, where the cross-support which one airport can quite properly give to another—there is nothing at all wrong with that—can be much more easily and properly done in the case of a public authority than in the case of a private one. My knowledge of this matter does not equal the depth of knowledge which the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, has—few of us would think that we could match the range of her knowledge of the subject—but it extends over a long period and what I wish to say to your Lordships this morning concentrates on one main issue.
I have a personal interest, as distinct from my noble friend, in the fact that I live under the glide-path to Heathrow and have done so for the last 25 years. So I have personal knowledge of what it has been like during that period. What has been happening is that, while successive Governments have dithered about what they were going to do on this subject, no action has been taken in practice. The consequence of that has been that a build-up has taken place inexorably, year after year. Movement after movement has concentrated on Heathrow and, in terms of both noise and number, the situation under the glide-path has become absolutely intolerable. I can go along with the noble Lord in saying that we can, at least, congratulate the Government on coming to a decision. We can discuss among ourselves whether or not it is the right one, but, at least, they have tackled the problem and have said that they intend to do something, though not precisely what the inspector recommended.

1423
What I think the Government are saying about those thousands, perhaps millions, of people who endure the problem of aircraft noise at Heathrow is rather equivalent to what sometimes used to be said to beleaguered units during the war; that is, that they will bring them all possible aid, short of actual help. This is precisely what the Government are saying here, because there is a contradiction. On the one hand, they say in paragraph 4.10:
"The Government … cannot accept a policy of inhibiting the growth of traffic in the South East in the hope that it would divert traffic to the regions. Restricting the capacity of the London airports would penalise the travelling public, inhibit competition between airlines and seriously damage the country's prospects, without bringing the suggested benefits to the regions".
But they also say on page 62:
"The Government will continue to support the use of noise-related airport charges".
The secret of getting people to go where they do not want to go—and this, after all, is what it is about—is to make it cheaper for them to do so. Therefore, one reason why I think it is desirable for this whole matter to remain in public hands is that it is right and proper for a public authority, which has taken into consideration the public interest, to say that it will make it expensive to land at Heathrow, and cheaper to land elsewhere. If you do that, you can, without any effective procedure of regulation and control, divert the traffic in that direction.
What about the other London airport? So long as Heathrow is relieved a little, I would not mind whether it was Stansted or Gatwick. Personally, I think it should be both. I have long taken the view that a second runway at Gatwick is desirable from many points of view—from the point of view of aircraft safety, apart from anything else. Regardless of whether having only one runway is dangerous in practice, anybody who knows anything about air transport realises that the existence of a second runway available for use if by any chance the first runway should be out of action is a tremendous reassurance; and it should be at the airport at which one is proposing to land, not at another one some miles away. It would be a good thing to have a second runway at Gatwick. It would also be a good thing to develop Stansted as well. I am pretty sure that before long my noble friend Lady Fisher will be putting forward the claims of Birmingham which, after all, is not all that far away. But there is no reason at all why we should not make it attractive to aircraft operators to diversify and use different landing points in this small country of ours. Great benefit would ensue.
To sum up, I am saying that the Government's position is like that of a doctor who is looking at a patient who has chronic bronchitis which is getting worse and worse all the time. The Government are rather inclined to say, "Oh well, he's had it a long time. He will have to put up with it. Somebody over here has a slight cold and he really ought to have our attention. After all, if we are not careful, he might get upset and we must look after him." The situation at Heathrow is severe and is getting worse. What the Government propose here is inadequate. Personally I was sorry to see that they abandoned the limitation on movements. That was, to say the least, a little unfortunate.
1424
Again I congratulate the Government on taking a decision. Let that decision be a multifarious one. Let them say, "Yes, we will"—I do not think it will cost much more—"have a second runway at Gatwick. We will build up Stansted. We will in fact distribute the nuisance of aircraft noise". In distributing the nuisance of aircraft noise they will also distribute the benefit and prosperity to those areas which are sorely in need of it. It is that policy, which is rather fundamentally different in one single sense, but in general terms not fundamentally different all through, that I urge upon the Government. I urge them to take the view that it is time something was done about Heathrow. I hope that their action will result in aircraft noise being spread over a wider area. I hope, too, that there will be incoming flights to different parts of our own island, with all the advantages, disadvantages and benefits that that will involve.
12.53 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, it is by no means easy to speak on the complex and controversial matter of airports policy in a maiden speech while observing the long-established conventions of this House, but I am encouraged by the splendid example which has been given by the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, who has also made his maiden speech today.
Perhaps it will be safest to begin with a reference to history long past. I should like to take your Lordships in imagination to a spot on the Manchester ship canal a couple of miles from its terminus in the Salford docks. At Barton, where the great 19th century spring bridge now spans the canal, one can think back to the mid-18th century when the Industrial Revolution was in its infancy. It was at that time that the Duke of Bridgewater enlisted the services of the remarkable engineer James Brindley, the man who constructed a new canal to carry coal from the duke's mines across what was then the river Irwell and into the heart of the growing urban centres of Manchester and Salford. There the new factories were growing which were to turn these cities and surrounding Lancashire towns into cotton capitals of the world, creating much of Britain's wealth.
Transport—canals, and later railways—played a key role in the growth of that Industrial Revolution now ended. Transport—road, rail and, crucially, air—now has a major part to play in meeting the great problems currently faced by these older industrial areas in the Britain of today. It is to be welcomed that the White Paper before us clearly recognises the role that airports play in the economic life of a depressed region. Paragraph 2.5 of the White Paper states that,
"an airport also creates employment which will give rise to a demand for additional housing and other facilities and services. The beneficial consequences of such development are likely to be widespread".
During the debates in recent years on airports policy many of us living in the north of England have put forward the view that such a policy must recognise the great regional disparities in our country at the present time, the socioeconomic divide between north and south and the grave dangers which this can bring to our cohesion as a nation. The North of England Regional Consortium was formed in 1981 to ensure

1425
that adequate attention was drawn to these vital matters before final decisions were taken, especially over the development of Stansted as London's third airport. Its aim is to promote a policy which encourages the regional airports, particularly in the north, to meet their full potential.
Perhaps it is not irrelevant to tell your Lordships that churches in the north of England have to some extent been involved in this debate. As one of the presidents of the Greater Manchester County Ecumenical Council I wrote to the Minister some two years ago along with my Roman Catholic and Free Church colleagues. We expressed the view that the further development of Manchester international airport was vital to the future of the area and the wellbeing of our population. We urge that such investment should be concentrated in the regions rather than in the South-East, with its comparative prosperity. Your Lordships will I am sure be aware of some of the facts underlying the assertion that there is a north-south divide which must be taken into account when airports policy is being determined.
Unemployment is of course widely spread in Britain, as we know, but the northern regions are suffering to a far greater extent than the South-East. The Northern region now has an unemployment rate which is no less than 8 per cent. greater than that of the South-East, caused by the great decline in manufacturing industries in recent years in what were once the heartlands of the Industrial Revolution. I am well aware that there are limits to the contribution that regional airports can make to arresting industrial decline. I also know the argument that airport passengers and airlines cannot all be directed into conforming with a national policy framed with social objectives in mind. These matters are well examined in the White Paper now under our consideration.
I note the Government view, quoted by the noble Lord the Minister, that restricting the London airports would among other things,
"seriously damage the country's prospects, without bringing the suggested benefits to the regions".
That can be found in paragraph 4.10 of the White Paper. But there is no doubt that the better use of regional airports can make a real contribution to the regeneration of depressed economies, encourage new economic activity and so create new employment opportunities. Perhaps I may give one specific example. A multi-national company is far more likely to locate a new development in the great conurbation stretching from Liverpool through Manchester and Salford and across the Pennines if it knows that its senior executives can travel easily and directly to overseas destinations from regional airports, Manchester in particular, rather than have to go to Heathrow or Stansted.
There are therefore a number of features in the White Paper which must be welcomed in the light of the considerations I have been putting forward, even if many of us might wish that the paper had gone even further in encouraging the regions. We see here a framework for a regional airports policy, a clear recognition of Manchester airport as a regional hub airport and a gateway for long-haul services, an acknowledgement for a potential for tourism in the regions and restrictions on the development of
1426
Stansted. All these points are to be warmly welcomed and many of us hope that the main lines of this policy will be implemented in the years ahead.
However, there are a number of questions which need answering and which create anxiety still in the industrially-depressed areas of the north. One is the matter of controls on the development of Stansted. Unless those are adequate, the proposed policies on the development of regional airports, particularly Manchester, will be damaged.
Although the White Paper proposes planning permission limiting the size of the first phase terminal building at Stansted and limits on aircraft movement per year, I ask whether they will be sufficient to act as a constraint on the development of Stansted in the days ahead. There is also anxiety—and this point has already been well explored by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton—about the extremely low charges at present obtaining at Stansted because of the substantial cross-subsidy from Heathrow profits which according to my information is equal to £6 per passenger. I noted with interest the figure of £8 that was mentioned. It must be asked whether that subsidy is fair to the development of regional airports in the immediate future, especially those under authority control.
In regard to Manchester Airport, another area of some anxiety concerns the granting of licences to foreign airlines. The White Paper recognises the fact that foreign airlines have a role complementary to British carriers in developing the Manchester hub. Those who care for the development of Manchester Airport, with consequent benefits for the northern region as a whole, look for speedy and sympathetic consideration of applications from foreign airlines for direct flights to Manchester. Finally, there is no firm promise, as has already been noted in this debate, of investment in the all-important rail link with Manchester Airport—something that has been begged for over the past 10 or 12 years.
At the beginning of my remarks I took your Lordships, in imagination, to a spot on the Manchester Ship Canal, as a reminder of the importance of canal transport in the years of the Industrial Revolution. The people who now live in those areas have immense problems over unemployment, housing, education and social services. However, it would be a mistake to end my speech on emphasising the problems alone. These are days of opportunity and there is vigour and enterprise in abundance in the north of England. It needs encouragement from the development of a sound airport's policy, for the benefit of all.
1.2 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my first and most pleasant duty is to offer the congratulations of your Lordships to the right reverend Prelate who has just resumed his seat after an immensely impressive maiden speech. I am sure all noble Lords recognised how excellent was the right reverend Prelate's grasp of the problems of the people in his great diocese. I am sure they will be grateful that he devoted his maiden speech in your Lordships' House to this subject and to their needs.
It is to me, as a member of the Church of England, very gratifying, as showing the modern approach of

1427
that church, that the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate should be devoted to airports policy. It shows that the Church moves with the times. If I may add another personal note, after our experiences of the past few weeks it is a very real pleasure to be able sincerely to congratulate a right reverend Prelate on a speech.
I should like also to congratulate most warmly my noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden on, again, a most excellent maiden speech dealing with realities from his knowledge of particular parts of our country. I was very touched by his reference to the Highlands and Islands airports for which a few years ago, as chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, I was directly responsible, and of which I have the most pleasant memories.
I know that my noble friend will feel, as I do, very great pleasure at the way in which those scattered airports—the smaller of them very lightly staffed—have coped so successfully with the problems of distance, of climate and of economics, and have prevailed. I am particularly glad in that context that my noble friend the Minister recently informed us that his department's idea then of taking those airports away from the Civil Aviation Authority has now been abandoned and that they will remain in the hands which have shown themselves so competent in developing those airports.
This is a very important debate. In joining in the very sincere welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, on his return to our councils, and in congratulating him on looking so very well, I am delighted to say, after his illness, I repeat what he said: that it is a considerable indication of your Lordships' assessment of the importance of this subject that on a warm Friday afternoon, after some weeks which have not been the least preoccupied in the history of your Lordships' House, so many noble Lords have put down their names to speak on this subject. It indicates—just as the right reverend Prelate's speech indicates the modernity of approach of the established Church—that your Lordships' House is fully in touch with the enormous importance of civil aviation to our country's development.
I shall now turn to a measure of criticism of the line adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. He may allow me to say that he seemed somewhat restrictive and somewhat grudging in his approach to the provision of proper facilities for British civil aviation. Indeed, the noble Lord said that there had to be a limit, and that demand could not be limitless. I find that approach a little depressing.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, I was referring not to the possibility that we might need to meet demand throughout the whole of the country, but to the possibility that at some point there might have to be a measure of restriction in the south-east, if there was continuous demand.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I fully take that point and I shall come to deal with it at adequate but I hope not inordinate length.
1428
I take a different general approach from that of the noble Lord. Civil aviation, with which I have had some association on two occasions in the past, is an activity which this country does extremely well; in which we are adept, skilful and successful; and in which our future is almost unlimited. It is a sunrise and not a sunset industry. It is an industry in which expansion is the order of the day. It is not an industry that goes hands outstretched for a subsidy from the state, but one that goes for competitive activity, is prospering, is growing, and is expanding.
I suggest to your Lordships that civil aviation is an industry which, from the point of view of the whole economic future of our country, we should back to the limit. This is where airports policy is so crucial. Unless we provide civil aviation with adequate airports, it cannot grow. As one noble Lord has said already, if we do not provide in those parts of this country to which airlines believe their passengers want to come landing facilities and reasonable standards of comfort, efficiency and speed, then a great many of the international airlines will go to other airports. I am thinking particularly of those which the noble Lord mentioned, and they are very clear in my own mind: Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt. All of those airports—particularly Schiphol—are setting out very energetically to attract the long-haul North Atlantic and Far East traffic.
If your Lordships will consider where that may lead, it is not only that we shall miss out on those particular flights, and those particular passengers, coming to our country. It will mean also that the odds are that our airlines will lose those passengers to foreign airlines which cater more fully with the foreign airports I have mentioned. It is therefore absolutely crucial to the development of this great, growing and successful industry that we should provide fully for the needs of airlines by way of airports.
"That is all very well", say noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Underhill said it a moment ago—"but why not provide it in other parts of the country?" You cannot, simply by providing a nice airport, force airlines and their passengers to go to places that they do not wish to go to, and it is a fact that the majority of long-haul international passengers wish to come to London. They do it for a variety of reasons: partly because London is a great business centre and they come on business, partly because it is a great tourist centre and they come as tourists for pleasure. They come, too, because London has admirable means of communication, including interlining flights to other parts of the country, which are greater in extent than at any other airport centre in the country; and to those parts of the country which cannot be reached very easily by air, such as the south coast, rail facilities are available.
So it is not a question of saying that you can neatly plan and that it would be a good thing to have airports in the provinces taking more and more of the London traffic, and therefore the growth of the London airports will be stunted. If you do that, you will simply stunt the growth of the traffic, and that would be a most serious matter. I am all in favour of the development of the regional airports; indeed when I was at the CAA I did my best to forward it. I very much wish that the spirit and approach of the right reverend Prelate the Lord

1429
Bishop of Manchester would infect some of his brethren in other parts of the country where public opinion seems to be so antipathetic to the introduction and expansion of airports. I should have thought that the right reverend Prelate's approach, with its practical grip on the fact that a developing airport is one of the best generators of good employment that can be found, was one which would set an example to other people in other parts of the country. The noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, pointed to the opposition that is met whenever one tries to develop an airport and I experienced this when I was the Minister concerned with the original decisions to develop Gatwick. Every sort of environmental interest is ranged against you, and it is well organised and vocal. When, as in this case, you have an alliance of those who take the opposite view of airport development, but want the airport development in their area, it makes it a singularly difficult matter to handle.
From my experience over Gatwick, may I convey to my noble friend one small piece of practical advice which he may want to contemplate? I know he knows Gatwick, so he may know the story. When we took the decision to develop Gatwick in the summer of 1954 I managed to obtain from my right honourable friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer permission to buy, at district valuer's price, any land adjoining that which we needed for the airport where, because of the starting of the airport, the owner desired to leave. I am happy to tell your Lordships that that concession cost nothing. A lot of people went, but they disposed of their land for a great deal better price than that of the district valuer; because, of course, if you introduce an airport of this weight and calibre, then the oil companies, the tourist companies, the airlines, the pilots' messes—all the related interests—require property. They put up the value of property and they put up the need for employment. Indeed, to make one more personal reflection, I recollect that a couple of years ago I was asked to go down to the Gatwick area to open a new housing development there which had been necessitated by the fact that the number of jobs in and around Gatwick was such that accommodation was urgently needed for the labour that was being brought in. In the Britain of today that is a very happy situation, and I would commend it particularly to those who are now objecting to the development of Stansted.
I shall add only one further word before I leave Gatwick, and that is to say that I found myself, not for the first time, in full agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, and, what is much more rare, in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, on the suggestion of a second runway at Gatwick. I need only to say—I do not want to waste your Lordships' time with this—that two runways were in the original plan, which was well thought out and carefully considered, and, as I have ascertained from Parliamentary Answers of my noble friend, there is no airport in the world with the prospective passenger movements of Gatwick which operates on one runway only. Some of them have two runways, some may have three and some may have four. It is therefore taxing one's credulity a great deal to believe that Gatwick will develop satisfactorily and safely on a single runway.
1430
I know that there is this foolish agreement which the British Airports Authority signed some time ago—under another chairman; I should make that clear—with the West Sussex County Council; hut that does not bind the Government. I do not know whether it would bind the successor company that takes over Gatwick, but even if it does, it is an agreement which surely can be dealt with by way of compromise, since the damages which could be said to flow from a breach of it would be very small indeed. Indeed, it could be argued that the West Sussex County Council would suffer no loss but would gain from the further development and the increase in rateable values of properties in their area.
So I say to my noble friend—and it is not simply because it has been for some years a belief of mine, but on the cold facts—that it is a great pity that the Government do not help to deal with the problem of airports in the south by going ahead with the second runway at Gatwick. There is room for it, though they probably will have to take in additional land. But to go ahead with one runway will hazard the development of the airport. I understand it is already causing difficulties. If an aircraft misses its slot for take-off, because it is held up for some trivial reason, it may be an hour or more before it can get another place in the queue for take-off. It is that kind of thing which, in this very competitive industry, discourages an airline from operating from there. I say this with great confidence. My noble friend knows all about aviation and all about Gatwick and he is far too good a Minister to admit to his own beliefs in this; but I know that when one is talking to him at least one is not talking to the deaf.
Finally, I want to congratulate the Government on their courage in coming forward with the main Stansted decision. It is not unamusing that it is just over 21 years since the Government of which my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel was Prime Minister decided on the development of Stansted. So none can accuse Her Majesty's Government of indecent haste in coming forward with this decision now. But it is quite plain, on the traffic figures and the traffic forecasts, that, nothing having been done for some years—and the record, I think, of all Governments in respect of airport developments over the last few years is not one of which any of them can be proud—the only way of dealing with the immediate problem, by which I mean the problem of 1990 or so, is by the urgent development of Stansted. It is the only way it can be done quickly enough.
Therefore I hope that this proposal will go ahead and that as few hostages to fortune by way of commitments about second runways and so on will be taken. In fact if Stansted is a success we ought to reinforce success, and if it catches on, as I hope it will, then we ought to welcome its expansion. I welcome very much—and I say this also with gratitude to my noble friend who may well have had something to do with it—the abandonment of the foolish 275,000 air traffic movements a year limit which it was sought to impose on Heathrow. Deliberately to restrict the use of that enormous asset and to inconvenience the travelling public in so doing would have been an act of utter folly. I am very glad indeed that it has been withdrawn.

1431
Noble Lords opposite will say, "Oh, but what about those who live under the flight path?", of whom, it so happens, I am one when the aircraft land towards the west. It cannot make all that much difference when in the 17 hours out of curfew there is already an average of 700 movements a day. The effect of another 100 movements on those suffering from the noise will be very marginal. On the whole I doubt whether the ordinary citizen will even be able to tell the difference.
One regrets the nuisance of noise, although as aircraft develop that is becoming less acute, but it is perhaps worth pointing out that the great majority of the houses round Heathrow were built and occupied since the airport started, very often for the reason that the occupier had good work in and about the airport. It is essential in the national interest that we should make the fullest use of Heathrow. I hope that the exploration of the issues with the Thames Water Authority and the British Airports Authority about the use of Perry Oaks goes ahead. That is not a short-term solution; it is a fairly long-term solution of the problem. I hope that we shall have a coherent policy involving going ahead with Stansted, pushing on with the possibilities of the fifth terminal at Heathrow, pushing ahead with the second runway at Gatwick and, at the same time, doing all that we can to help the regional airports.
I have one final word of consolation for those who have pleaded their case. The more that British civil aviation develops the better for all airports, including the regional ones. The more aircraft that come into Heathrow the more interlining flights—as we have even heard today—to Bradford and to other provincial cities. It would be a very short-sighted view—and I say this again to your Lordships—to think that by crippling the provision of airports where they are most wanted, and crippling therefore the development of British civil aviation, we should benefit anybody, least of all those who by their enterprise in running airports are seeking to serve the civil aviation industry. I therefore wish my noble friend, in the very interesting years that he has ahead in this development, all good fortune, just a bit of luck and perhaps even just a little more wisdom.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I point out to him that if the development of Stansted is not to relieve the frightful aircraft noise over Heathrow, the enthusiasm of a large number of people for the development will be very much less than it is at the moment?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: All right, my Lords.
1.23 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, and to the right reverend Prelate on their maiden speeches. I shall perhaps concentrate a little more on the inclinations of the right reverend Prelate than those of the noble Lord. That is perhaps a reversal of the way that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was leaning. As my noble friend Lord Jenkins said, I shall be making quite sure that Birmingham is on the airport map. Why should I not? The Government
1432
White Paper has far-reaching implications for the West Midlands. The level of investment either currently envisaged or proposed for the South-East must have an effect upon the depressed areas, including, as the right reverend Prelate said, anybody who lives north of Watford. If there is a limit to the amount of Government expenditure, if money is spent on enlarging Stansted there will be less to spend in other parts of the country. Once again we find this divide.
The Minister gave a figure of 85,000 for those employed directly or indirectly in the aircraft industry. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, elaborated at length on that and told us how many more people may be involved with the extension at Stansted. The noble Lord, unfortunately, may not know whether the figures I am about to give are correct. Ah! he has finished his conversation. I was referring to him and I should have hated him not to hear.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. The noble Lord opposite was kindly taking up a point that I made in my speech, so it was not wholly irrelevant. But I apologise for apparent bad manners.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I also apologise to my noble friend.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Thank you very much, my Lords. They were two nice apologies. I shall repeat briefly what I said for the noble Lord. He amplified the employment figures which the Minister gave of those already employed in the aircraft industry—in transport and in other subsidiary aspects. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, went into detail of how further jobs would be involved if Stansted went ahead. That is what perhaps concerns us. More jobs will go to areas where there are already greater job opportunities than in many parts of the country. It behoves those of us not from the South-East to speak on behalf of people who are less fortunate. In the West Midlands unemployment is creeping up to 17 per cent. of the region's population. The regions could easily benefit from future investment and it would make a tremendous difference.
I take Birmingham as an example. The authority has built a new airport and gone all out not only to try to capture more travel facilities for the public but also to enlarge its cargo-handling capacity. In doing so it is trying to create more job opportunities. Products can be moved faster by air to Europe or to the United States. We see the White Paper as jeopardising job opportunities in the West Midlands and in all the other depressed regions. Between now and 1995 the White Paper allows for an increase in the effective capacity of London airport from 51 million passengers per annum to 70 million and over. That is allowing for the development at Stansted and a further expansion at Luton. The result will be to continue the circumstances in which traffic is naturally attracted to the South-East where the airlines are more than happy to continue operating.
Many noble Lords see The House Magazine, and I shall quote from it. The vast majority of passenger demand will be coming from the tourist industry and

1433
therefore perhaps from chartered aircraft. On 28th June The House Magazine had a one-page article by a spokeman for British Caledonian. He said:
"However, if Gatwick is to fulfil its role and be truly competitive, there must be effective follow-on policies for the logical distribution of traffic among the London airports. Our earnest recommendation is that priority must be given to dedicated year-round scheduled services, with charters, including our own, progressively moved to Stansted".
Does that really mean to say that we are going to expect more and more of the charter flights to go further and further away from the passengers who want to use them? Sixty per cent. which is the figure already given in that article, of the people using Gatwick are to be further inconvenienced because 60 per cent. of the people who are at the present moment using Gatwick are travellers from the north of Gatwick. These people are to be further inconvenienced for further travel to Stansted, which is a much more difficult airport to get to than even Gatwick is. Perhaps I may say that anybody who uses Gatwick airport at the present moment to go on package holidays during the summer months, because of its location, because of the early morning mists, is more often than not delayed for an hour or two hours. The noble Lord looks puzzled. I speak from experience.
Lord Trefgarne: So do I, my Lords,
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, then perhaps mine is more recent than that of the noble Lord. It was unfortunate. Perhaps I may also say that for those of us who have to travel to Gatwick at present, the early morning flights are much more expensive. That is because one has to take hotel accommodation overnight. There is no way that one can get from any of the regions to Gatwick to catch a aeroplane at 6, 6.30 or 7.30 in the morning. This obviously means that it is much more expensive for people travelling from the regions.
One of the points that I think is also particularly disturbing is this. Tour operators, through their travel magazines, are very often offering flights from regional airports. People make their bookings in quite good faith that they will leave from Birmingham or the East Midlands. They quite often find that four or five weeks after they have made their bookings, they receive letters saying that their flights have been cancelled and that they have been re-routed to Gatwick. This is most unfortunate. One has to either demand one's money hack or put up with the inconvenience.
However, Birmingham airport is a new airport. It has great opportunities for tourists who do not want to come only to London. If one speaks to many American tourists, I think one will find that when they have been to England once and they have done what they call "a London" on their first trip, on their second trip they like to visit the rest of the country. One of the main venues that they visit is of course Stratford-upon-Avon, which is very close to the Birmingham area.
Other noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, have said how important it is to have a good rail link; how important it will be, if Stansted is to be successful, for it to have a good rail link, and how important for Manchester to have its rail link built. I would support that. However, at Birmingham the rail
1434
link is already there. There is a train service that runs every half an hour from Euston to Birmingham, stopping at Birmingham International Airport before it reaches Birmingham New Street station. One could not have a better service than that. It takes an hour and 20 minutes to get to Birmingham International station. One alights at the station, turns left and proceeds for about 100 yards before boarding the MAGLEV service. MAGLEV is an electric magnetic overhead coach which takes one straight from Birmingham International railway station to right inside Birmingham airport. Thus, there is no need for a link to be built. The links are already made there.
Perhaps I may also say that Birmingham New Street Station is an intercity station and practically all the intercity rail networks pass through the Birmingham area. Even if one can only get as far as the Birmingham New Street station from all parts of the country, one can connect with a train to Birmingham International Airport every 10 minutes. So one could not have a better interlocking service than that. Thus, there is no need for rail links to be built in the Birmingham area.
The emphasis that the Government are giving to encouraging the use of airports is very welcome. The bilateral negotiations are welcome. However, surely the Minster is not satisfied that they are sufficient at the present time. As other noble Lords have said, the present structure of fares has to be considered. There are massive differentials which can apply between London area fares and those from the regional airports. Quite obviously this has to be tackled. If the fares are to be much more expensive from the regions, it is quite obvious that the people will try to take the cheapest air fare possible. The Minister admitted that fares are discriminatory. I think it is incumbent upon the Government to answer this point. Perhaps the noble Lord, the Minister, will be able to do so. Can we envisage a date when this will be changed? It is important for the regional airports to know at some stage when they will be level pegging.
It is also important to bear in mind what other noble Lords have said: that Stansted is very heavily subsidised. I shall not use the figure of 6 per cent. or the figure of 8 per cent. I shall use the information that was given to me that the subsidy is the profit from the duty-free shops at Heathrow and Gatwick and that is what keeps Stansted going. I would not know whether that is 6 per cent. or 8 per cent. but that was the information that was given to me.
I should like to draw attention to the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Underhill. This is a cross-subsidy. We shall be talking about cross-subsidies, I suppose, in the next few days in relation to buses. Buses of course have cross-subsidy because they feel that those subsidies should be used for social purposes. I think that will be what we on this side of the House will be saying. However, we cannot say that it is intended to use the subsidy at Stansted for social purposes. I do not think anybody's imagination can stretch that far.
I shall conclude by saying this—and this is where I went along with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, regarding the Civil Aviation Authority. If the Government are sincere, it behoves the Civil Aviation Authority to be charged with the need to promote the growth of services to the regional airports.

1435
The regional airports are already there. They are there to be made use of. They are existing assets. I envisage that the Government in the future should be taking great care that these are used to full capacity.
1.40 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, as this is a Friday and there are still another nine or 10 speakers due to take part, by which time our proceedings will have advanced fairly far into Friday afternoon, I shall seek to be as brief as possible. I should like to congratulate most warmly my noble friend Lord Sanderson, particularly for his mention of the north-west Highlands. It is almost impossible to exaggerate the importance of air services for the people who live there. There is no hospital in the north-west Highlands to speak of. Anyone who is ill is brought by aircraft to Glasgow. This is a great social service of enormous importance. It is impossible to exaggerate the change that it has brought to the area. I also much enjoyed listening to the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Manchester. He said what is fundamental—that the whole economy depends upon transport. That element, if I may say so with great respect, is underestimated in the White Paper.
We are really discussing today a framework for the next 25 years, perhaps longer. It is important to remember that if we get this framework wrong we cannot afterwards correct it. I should like to take one example of where such a framework has gone seriously wrong. I refer to what the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, said about Gatwick. A friend of mine founded Gatwick about half a century ago. Many people were establishing airports then. He chose Gatwick deliberately because of its close proximity to the railway. He saw the significance of that. I can only say that those in authority—I suppose that that means those within the department responsible for civil aviation—should have made Gatwick the central airport for London. That chance was lost, perhaps irretrievably lost. But it is important to remember.
I am a little sorry that more has not been said about the attitude of flying control or regional control. It is only through the efficiency of this body that the concentration of aircraft in the neighbourhood of Heathrow becomes possible at all. It may be argued that such has been the advancement in equipment that this is all quite simple and that there is full control. It matters not. I am unfamiliar with the advances that have taken place. I should however, have liked to hear the comments of those carrying this responsibility.
The problem is that at one end of these islands we have spare capacity, while the South-East is grossly overcrowded. I do not myself feel very attracted to Stansted as an airport. It has no economic base of great value to serve. Access is frankly, appalling. I drove on one occasion from London in order to travel via the Hook of Holland to East Germany. I would much prefer to go through Checkpoint Charlie than to travel through the north-west of London. It is the worst exit of any from London. And, let us be quite frank, it will take years to clear up. People complain about the access to Heathrow. It is infinitely better than access to Stansted will be over the next 40 years.
1436
Much importance is also attached to the train service. I invite your Lordships to imagine what will be the situation with 10 million people going to Liverpool Street to catch the train to Stansted. I do not know what the City of London thinks. But it is an appalling prospect. It is very badly situated. I wonder also what will be a safe period to allow for transferring from Stansted to Heathrow to catch another aircraft. I would say that it will be four to five hours. For all these reasons, Stansted is not a particularly good choice. We are told that it is the only choice. My guess is that it will not prove to be extremely popular at all.
I wish to emphasise that what is revealed in Mr. Graham Eyre's conclusions and repeated in the White Paper is that people of London are privileged. Mr. Eyre says:
"Passengers wishing to fly out of the London airports system should not be forcibly diverted to other airports and, in any event, there is no sensible mechanism available or likely to become available which would achieve such an aim".
For years, I took the train from Edinburgh and then boarded an aircraft to take me to America. Everyone does this. They have been doing it for years. Why should London people be grossly overprivileged? I can see no reason. Twenty per cent. of the population live in London. What about the other 80 per cent? Not enough consideration has been given to them. Then, there is this terrible threat that they might go to Frankfurt. Many aircraft from the Far East stop at Frankfurt in any case on their way here. I thought that this little added threat showed the narrowness and the inconsequence of some of the arguments put forward for concentrating on London.
My main point is that the absence of proper communications from the great industrial areas of this country, from Scotland and elsewhere, is a serious disadvantage that we suffer. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, has talked about Birmingham. I agree. There should be adequate services from that centre. Yet it is argued that people will not want to go there.
I am afraid that I do not accept what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said. He mentioned one argument of interest. He said that people want to go to London for morale purposes. That is, I believe, true. A number of countries want an air service to London. It sounds awfully important. But is it in the economic interest of this country to some extent to starve the northern industrial areas of this important and essential line of cummunication? I do not wish to give an absurd example. But let us suppose that the London and North-Eastern Railway had stopped at Newcastle on the ground that there was no demand for it to be extended to Edinburgh. The railway would have been a gross and extravagant failure. In fact, this does happen. If you travel up the M.6, it stops at Carlisle. To my mind, the whole emphasis should be placed on developing the northern part of the country.
I wonder, too, whether this concentration on London is even to London's advantage. Most of us will recall the start of the development of new towns—by Sir Stafford Cripps, I think—in different parts of the country. So far as I know, this policy has been a great success. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, is, I believe, engaged in building one herself. Do we want to continue the process of all roads running to London, all railways running to London, causing congestion in

1437
our streets here that is becoming increasingly intolerable? The noble Baroness talked about road works and the added difficulties that were caused. I believe that this has an anti-economic effect on the efficiency of London. It is of the utmost importance that London should become less congested. The proposal that we are now discussing will increase congestion. I know that the Government are not wholly unaware of this and that they make a number of promises about what they will do for the regions. I shall only say this. I remember very vividly the late Lord Portal, Marshal of the Royal Air Force, saying that when the Government stated that they would do their utmost to do something, what they really meant was they would do the least they could get away with. I hope, however, that they will take the matter much more seriously than appears to be the case from the document before us.
1.48 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I, too, should like to open my remarks by congratulating our two maiden speakers, the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, not only on their speeches but also on the sincerity and the well-informed nature of those speeches. It seems to me that too often in this country we find ourselves in a situation where market-place demand of whatever kind cannot be satisfied by the public sector. Smear tests and the treatment of those consuming illegal drugs, and indeed the prevention of such consumption, are two rather sad examples. The problems posed by coach traffic demand for access to central London are perhaps a more relevant example. But all three are cases where demand is outrunning a publicly-provided facility.
I was delighted to welcome the statement which was repeated by the noble Lord the Minister when the White Paper was published. Now that I have had an opportunity to read the White Paper, I can only re-emphasise that welcome for a document which has addressed itself squarely to ensuring that, in this particular instance, supply will be available when demand, based on available forecasts, arises.
As an idea, Heathrow's Terminal 4 just saw the light of day in March 1976 in a British Airways Authority strategy document, and present plans call for that terminal to be brought into operation in February or March next year—10 years from concept to operation. With timescales such as these in the airport industry, it was essential that the Government addressed themselves to the provision of airport capacity in the South-East of England in the future. Having argued for Stansted when we last debated the inspector's report, I welcome the decision which the Government have taken.
As the noble Lord the Minister said in opening today's debate, we must protect the strength of our airline and tourism industries. We must defend London's position as the world's air traffic gateway, and we must ensure that that traffic is not diverted to competing countries because our South-Eastern airports are saturated. For me the decisions regarding Stansted, Stolport—which has hardly been touched on today—and Luton will protect the national interest and deserve our strong endorsement.
1438
It has been argued that provision of additional capacity in the South-East will be detrimental to the growth of our provincial airports. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill—and I, too, am delighted to see him back among us and in full voice—addressed himself to this topic in terms of provincial passengers being forced to use London airports. However, further investment in provincial airports will not resolve that particular problem. There is a superb airport at Prestwick, but its existence does not by itself bring in the aircraft or the passengers; nor indeed does it encourage traffic out of Scotland to overseas destinations.
Cardiff International is an excellent airport but whenever I transit, it seems to me to be a staggering example of over-investment in over-provision, a fact which is brought out in the table of utilisation in the White Paper. Liverpool is another case in point: it is an enchanting 1930s airport, but it has no planes.
I have discussed the situation with those who manage Plymouth airport and they feel—obviously they have a vested interest in Stolport—that interlining over London rather than direct foreign services is their way ahead. On the other hand, Newcastle is actively pursuing new international schedules to add lustre to its 50th anniversary this year, not least in co-operation with the British Airports Authority and others in exploring the possibility of through European routes serving two British provincial airports.
I am confident that traffic through provincial airports will continue to grow and that the Government's investment and licensing policy as detailed in the White Paper will encourage this growth. However, if London interlining offers scope for growth, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he can amplify the remark in paragraph 11.10 on page 52 of the White Paper that fair access to Heathrow and Gatwick for domestic carriers cannot easily be reconciled with those airports' status as international hubs?
Have the Government any further views on ensuring the preservation of this essential access? For those provincial airports which are making a conscious effort to develop international traffic—and, because several noble Lords have mentioned tourism, may I say parenthetically that among the northern airports it would seem very much easier to get money to take expensive advertisement in The Times than it is to raise money to develop serious tourism promotions for the North of England—may I ask the Minister to give us an update on progress in bilateral negotiations with European and other governments? The topic is raised in paragraphs 6.31 and 6.38.
Several noble Lords have touched upon the problem of surface access to our airports. While welcoming the proposal for improved access to Heathrow, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that a rail link was being canvassed and indeed was costed in the early 1960s, and I should like to ask the Government to push on in this context with the same vigour as they have shown elsewhere in the White Paper. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in hoping that the cost of Stansted will not fall solely on BR and solely on BR's ability internally to fund its investment. Perhaps one should consider the practice indulged in elsewhere in Europe

1439
in the Stansted context, and, if the British Airports Authority is to contribute to the cost of transport infrastructure to the airport perimeter, it can certainly co-operate and explore ways of contributing to the cost of the rail access, which I believe to be essential to Stansted's eventual viability.
Turning to the Manchester links, I wonder whether a rail link will serve only to divert to Manchester much provincial traffic, detailed in paragraph 6.32 of the White Paper. Will Manchester's future growth be fuelled by diversion from other northern airports? Lastly, I wonder whether there really is a case for even investigating a railway station serving Prestwick, given that Prestwick's future beyond the late 1980s is uncertain and may, I fear, become more so when separate accounts are published and cross-subsidy banned.
I have sincerely welcomed this White Paper and the policies that it enshrines. I congratulate the Government and wish them well, not perhaps in getting the show on the road, but rather on getting it off the ground.
1.56 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating both the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Sanderson on their excellent speeches. Although, unlike my noble friend Lord Sanderson, the right reverend Prelate is not a fellow Scotsman, nevertheless Manchester is much nearer to Dundee than it was because for the last two years since Air Ecosse has operated from Dundee airport, and provided I have not had a very late night, I have been able to see the local aeroplane out of the window on its way to Manchester early in the morning. The existence of this inter-regional service has already done much to help with local business and employment, and I should like to endorse the right reverend Prelate's remarks on that point. On the problem of providing proper lifeline services to the Scottish Highlands and Islands, I should equally like to endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Sanderson.
Irrespective of the nature and details of current Government proposals, it is heartening to note that the need for a clear airports policy itself is not in order to arrest any decline or failure within the British aviation industry, but rather to establish for the foreseeable future the best ways of dealing with its success and healthy growth pattern. One of the main criticisms of the White Paper to which noble Lords have referred has been that the development of new capacity required by the 1990s should not have been planned for the South-East of England, as it has, but instead should have been allocated to the regions which suffer higher unemployment levels and which suffer less good living conditions. Certainly it is the case that capacity at regional airports as a whole is under-utilised. Another fact is that about one quarter of passengers who now use London airports have origins or destinations other than in the South-East. However, even if a significant percentage of this proportion were able to be transferred from the London area to a regional airport, it is estimated that London area demand would still outstrip its capacity during the 1990s.
1440
On the questions of how, where and when to proceed with this further development in the London area, which constitutes the second main criticism of the White Paper, the choice of Stansted for phased expansion over the next 20 years is surely a sensible decision. Of course events as they unfold in the 1990s might reveal the execution of the present plan for Stansted, and maybe its first phase alone, to have been premature. Judging by detailed forecasts concerning demand and capacity, on the other hand, that is unlikely.
However, even if events did come to reveal this, spare capacity other than at an enlarged Heathrow airport will still be necessary to the London area in order to cater for numbers and categories of flights beyond the 1990s. Clearly Gatwick has a very important part to play in long-term plans and there is the separate problem there of safety, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter have already referred. Yet action taken now with Stansted, accompanied as it is by guarantees to limit the scale of the operation and to protect the local environment, can serve to remove much uncertainty and to reassure the industry over this important and long-term planning issue. However, while the decision to develop Stansted makes good sense it should be asked as a separate question whether enough is being done to stimulate the growth of aviation in the regions. The number of passengers there in 1984 was about 22 million. The forecast for the year 2000 is 43 million at an average annual traffic growth rate of 4 per cent.
Regarding a strategy to maintain these levels and, if possible, to improve upon them, it will be generally agreed that the Government should continue to work for new short-distance and new long-distance international flight connections with regional airports. If airlines are always encouraged to compete for whatever services may exist, then passengers can hope to enjoy further reduced prices over a wider range of airports. And the present air traffic ratio between London and the regions of roughly 75 per cent. to 25 per cent. respectively can hope to change to some extent in favour of the regions without working against market forces, and without inhibiting unnecessarily the potential growth pattern of either grouping.
Turning to the question of Scottish airports, taken together the four main ones made a profit of about £4 million last year. But Prestwick in its own right made a loss, and has done so since 1980. One reason for this given at that time was the termination of Laker flights to the United States. Among other grounds now for believing that airlines can be attracted back to Prestwick is the present tendency, welcomed by the industry, for smaller aircraft to fly longer distances.
Does my noble friend the Minister agree that every effort should be made to help recreate the numbers supported by Prestwick in the 1970s of about 400,000 passengers a year? Would he also agree that as part of the campaign to assist that airport a railway station should be constructed at it on the existing Glasgow to Ayr line?
In contrast to Prestwick, Edinburgh and Glasgow airports, which deal with domestic and European flights, have performed particularly well recently; and a principal factor accounting for the 11 per cent.

1441
growth in 1984 over the previous year for traffic on the trunk routes between London and Scotland has been the introduction of British Midland and the healthy competition which it has given.
Another important category of course consists of smaller regional airports. Until 1983 Dundee Airport hardly ever accounted for more than 8,000 passengers a year. But this annual figure rose to 22,000 for both 1983 and 1984, during which time Air Ecosse have operated regular services to Heathrow and to Manchester, which I mentioned earlier. As a result of the increase in flights, local commerce and industry have already benefited. Coinciding with this, and run by the SDA, the Tayside region and Dundee district, the Dundee project, which has established free enterprise zones in the city, is now about to develop another at the airport itself, where proximity to the city is a great advantage.
On future prospects it is considered that the airport could now attract and support a significant volume of air freight and a number of direct flights from abroad. Yet such endeavours are currently inhibited by Customs and Excise procedures. Owing to the potential impact on local business and employment, would my noble friend the Minister agree that certain Customs and Excise restrictions should be revised in order to accommodate benefits as outlined in this case, and in order to accommodate similar potential local benefits where they arise in the cases of other small airports in the United Kingdom?
On the whole, current Government proposals considered today provide a useful framework for the efficient management of different categories of airports near London and in the regions. As a result there can be every hope that British aviation will continue to make a significant contribution in the years ahead to many parts of the economy, including the tourist industry, to prospects for new local business and employment, and not least to opportunities for leisure and travel.
2.4 p.m.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl will understand if I do not attempt to follow his interesting speech, particularly about Scotland, both because I lack the detailed knowledge and in the interests of time. I have every confidence that my noble friend Lord Carmichael will deal with some of the interesting points he made. I should like to join all those in all parts of the House who have welcomed hack my noble friend Lord Underhill. I should also like to express my congratulations on the two excellent maiden speeches that we have been privileged to listen to today. The fact that we had two maiden speakers, and the width of this debate in your Lordships' House on a Friday, indicates the great importance of the subject we are discussing.
I should like to congratulate the Government on at least making a decision. I make it clear that this lack of decision-making involves not just the present Government but has been shared by Governments over a long period of time. I rather regret that the decision is in the nature of a compromise and that, as my noble friend Lord Underhill said, a lot of difficult and controversial matters have either been fudged or left in limbo, but at least we have a decision. As a
1442
Permanent Secretary told me many years ago, a decision in Whitehall is almost as rare as golden nuggets. I never found any such nuggets, and I am bound to say that in my view we did not have as many decisions as we should have had.
It so happened that as Minister of Aviation I received the first inspector's report on Stansted as long ago as 1966. It had already been announced, however, that the Ministry of Aviation was to be wound up, and its civil aviation functions were going to the president of the Board of Trade. At that time of course there was no Board of Trade but there was a president; and that indicates how long ago it was. Although my inclination in 1966 would have been to say, "Yes, we should go ahead with the development", in fact no such thing happened and we have had a whole series of public inquiries, and indecision, and the rest.
The only field in which, so far as I can see, we have exceeded in the number of public inquiries is roads. Unfortunately this tendency for everyone to seek a public inquiry about everything under the sun is symptomatic of the decline of this nation's industrial and competitive capacity over the last decades. To sum it up, I would say that for everyone who is trying to do something there are at least two people, and usually many more, determined to stop them.
At least it is significant that we have a decision. While I regret that in assessing our aviation needs so much emphasis has to be placed on the south-east, it is a fact of life that that is where people want to come to and to go from. My noble friend Lady Fisher was concerned about Birmingham. The reason, I suspect, that flights going to or from Birmingham were cancelled was that there were insufficient passengers for that charter and several had to be put together where the passengers come from in the south-east area. The economic facts are such that if one does not have passengers one cannot afford to run services.
I will not develop the argument in detail, but we ought to profit from the lessons learnt from what has happened to sea tranport, particularly sea freight. Rotterdam now enjoys a large part of the business that previously used to come to London and Liverpool. It is now an entrepot where loads are broken down and distributed all over Europe. Many people and much freight that might have come here if we had continued to have satisfactory services will go direct to Europe and not come to this country if we make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to do so.
While I understand and accept that the Stansted development has to be phased, I rather regret that it cannot be made clear that for planning purposes regard should be paid to the increased number of 15 million. I agree with the wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, at the time of Gatwick, in taking steps to safeguard the necessary land that might be required. I should hope that both at Heathrow and at Stansted similar provision will be made. I agree completely with those who regret and seek to minimise aircraft noise. Internationally, quite properly with the development of technology, we shall have quieter aircraft.
The noble Lord was concerned with the development of Gatwick 30 years ago. Twenty years ago I was receiving deputations from people in the Gatwick area, presumably on land that the noble Lord

1443
sold at a profit. When visited by a deputation of some 20 or so on one occasion I said that I could understand the problem if they had been living in the area before the airfield was created and had had to suffer the noise and inconvenience. I asked, "How many of you lived there before the airfield was started?" In fact there was not a single one: all had moved there later. If someone buys or takes a house on the edge of an airfield he must surely expect a certain amount of aircraft noise, and of course this has happened.
Another instance of the same problem arose when I was faced with having to decide where the perhaps rather noisy American tanker aircraft, the KC 135s, should be sited. These were necessary to ensure that the NATO reinforcement capability should be placed in this country, and Greenham Common near Newbury was one of the proposed possibilities. Although that airfield has been reserved as a military airfield since the end of the war for the possibility of American use and reinforcement, the planning authorities have allowed new houses to be built all round the periphery of it. In retrospect, it may be true that the residents would have preferred that use to the new use for cruise missiles and the associated protest movement. But clearly steps should be taken to safeguard the immediate periphery of airfields from building so that people can be protected from moving into an area where they have to suffer the increased problem of noise.
The main point I want to make in this debate is that I greatly regret the decision to privatise the British Airports Authority. I was the last Minister directly responsible for airfields. I think the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, previously had to exercise that responsibility, because I took office between the passing of the Act and the Act coming into effect. But I am sure it has been a great success. I do not share the view that some Members opposite and a larger number of members of the Government take that competition provides a magic formula for industrial growth and efficiency and a panacea for all problems.
While I accept that there is room for argument as to the extent to which our industries and activities should be privately owned and to which they should be publicly owned, I feel that transport is an outstanding case where there is a need for monopoly and for a monopoly that is publicly accountable. At least, I welcome the fact, contrary to the fears that were expressed, that if the British Airports Authority is put up for private ownership, it will be put up in one piece and not be split up into seven parts as was suggested. With my noble friend Lord Underhill, I cannot see the possible point of seven subsidiary companies, nor can I see any point in requiring the local authorities to form their local airfields into public companies under the Companies Acts.
I believe—and this is a point which no doubt will arise in the next days when we are discussing the current Transport Bill before the House—that, in transport, if one is to provide a service there must be elements of cross-subsidy of a character which it would be a dereliction of the duties of directors of a privately-owned company to undertake. If, as I believe, in transport you need public monopolies, they should be, in my view, publicly accountable. There is
1444
an even stronger case for not repeating the mistake that has been done in the case of British Telecom, which has merely transferred a public monopoly into a private monopoly. Indeed, I wonder how they can comply with the requirements of the Companies Acts in drawing up a prospectus to sell these shares, having regard to the powers that it is indicated, quite properly, will be given to the Secretary of State to regulate the whole character and the number of aircraft movements, and to the Civil Aviation Authority, of which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was a distinguished chairman for a long period of time. I do not dissent from their having responsibility. Listening to the clap of thunder outside, I hope that my remarks are not responsible for this external reaction! It may be that something in Wales has given rise to it; I am not sufficiently informed. But, as I say, I do not dissent from the Civil Aviation Authority's having the power to regulate charges so that the monopoly situation will not be exploited.
At the same time, I think there is bound to be a conflict of interests between the directors, who are bound by statute to consider, first, the interests of their shareholders and, one hopes, those of their employees but have no responsibility at all for public policy. It could be that decisions either by the Secretary of State or by the CAA, might make it impossible for the company to earn the profit that it would otherwise wish to do. There is a further complication in regard to having the proper development (as I suggested) in terms of the acquisition of land. Such a commercial company would not have the powers of compulsory purchase and, in my view, would not have the means of controlling the planning. I hope that they will not be obliged to resort to the anachronistic and expensive procedure, every time they wanted a little bit of land, of having to produce a Private Bill and have it voted through both Houses of Parliament.
All these matters ought to be fully considered further. As I have said, I fail to see how an honest prospectus could be put out to sell the shares with all these reservations on the powers of those who would be responsible for administering the company. I agree completely that in the public interest we need regulations to carry out the necessary development and control of aviation, but I believe that it should be done by a public and not by a private monopoly. I hope, but with not much faith in the case of this Government which decided to privatise the Royal Ordnance factories, that they will have second thoughts about this matter.
2.19 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I should like to join with others in congratulating the Government on this White Paper which, I think, goes a long way towards satisfying the demands of one of Britain's most successful service industries. The White Paper, I believe, has struck a good balance between service to the community and the travelling public, concern for environmental issues and the maintenance of the prosperity of this great airport complex which is so vital to Britain's industries. If I make some remarks in the course of my speech which seem like special pleading, I should confess at the outset that Heathrow airport is in the constituency which I represent in the

1445
European Parliament and I see the area in North-West London as being the central point in the hub of Britain's communication network with the outside world, and particularly with the other nine European Community countries. Therefore I make no apology for putting forward in particular the case for Heathrow and the surrounding district.
I agreed with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, when he said that you cannot force passengers to use an airport they do not want to use. He went on to say, "They want to come to London". I would go further, and say that they want to come to Heathrow. It was the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who remarked on the fact that only half a million people at the moment use Stansted, even though four times as many could. I wonder how many will use Stansted even after the proposed developments are put into effect.
The fact of the matter is that, with the best will in the world, there will never be fast communications from central London to Stansted or to Gatwick as are, and could be, available to Heathrow. Heathrow must remain as the most convenient and substantial airport not only for central London passengers but also for those from the west country and the midlands. Our road and rail network makes that an inevitable fact of life. The exit points of the motorways M.4, M.25, and M.1 all prejudice one in favour of Heathrow.
Sadly, though, as my noble friend Lord Trefgarne pointed out, Heathrow suffers from one great disadvantage: it has reached saturation point. There are only two runways—two wonderful runways—in use at Heathrow. We wish that there could be a third, but it is not on to create that. There just is not the land available and the only way that a third runway could he built would be by wholesale destruction of housing in the vicinity in a way which would be unacceptable locally and nationally.
Noble Lords have pointed out that the number of 275,000 movements per year has already been passed at Heathrow, and we cannot really envisage going much beyond that at that great airport. We will not be able, in spite of the tremendous improvements over terminal facilities at Heathrow to get a 400,000-movement demand into a 300,000 Heathrow pot. Therefore one has to look for ways to improve Heathrow within its present capabilities. Of course I hope that the proposals for Stansted and Gatwick will go ahead so that some pressure will be taken off Heathrow by the proposals put forward by the Government. But Heathrow, I think, must remain as the No. 1 nodal point, and the proposal that I am about to make will help that to be the case.
Up to now I do not think anyone in this debate has mentioned Northolt Airport, which I remember from the days of my youth as being the main London airport. Over past decades it has been used as a RAF station and in recent years a small number of business aircraft have begun using Northolt. I welcome the proposals in the White Paper for facilities in and out of Northolt for business aircraft to be simplified and improved. In particular, I welcome the new rules put forward that make it easier for passengers from other European Community countries to pass through Northolt without complicated immigration special facilities having to be made available. I believe that it would be possible to exploit Northolt on a level slightly
1446
beyond that proposed in the White Paper. The White Paper envisages only an expansion of business movements, I believe up to a maximum of about 15,000 to 16,000 a year; three times the present level. I believe that it might be possible to envisage a service of small short-haul, low-noise aircraft flying into and out of Northolt at least up to the level of a Stolport—perhaps a little beyond it.
We know that certain aircraft are acceptable to local people, even in a built-up area, because of the very moderate threat that they place on the environment, particularly as regards noise. The de Havilland Dash 7 is the best known aircraft in this category, but there is also the Short 330 and 360 and the ATP. All these aircraft are suitable for short haul and, I believe, would not arouse great objection from environment pressure groups or interests in the areas of Hillingdon, Brent and Harrow that surround Northolt airport. I would emphasise that a number of these turboprop aircraft are still in use at Heathrow. They fly to such modest—in distance terms—destinations as Norwich, Birmingham, Cornwall and Newcastle.
I wonder how efficient it is to have aircraft of this type flying into and out of Heathrow. They use up a very large amount of runway time because of the time they take to land and take off. In short, they rather block up the works on the two runways available at Heathrow. I wonder whether it would not make better sense to have some of these domestic and short-haul aircraft land at Northolt airport. I dare say that a whole host of objections will immediately leap to the minds of noble Lords. What about air traffic control, the length of the runway at Northolt, the lack of immigration customs facilities at Northolt, and passenger terminal buildings? I believe that none of these objections is incapable of solution. In particular, I have in mind the possibility of building, if you like, a Terminal 5 or a Terminal 6 to feed the Northolt sector and to make Northolt usable in tandem with Heathrow.
It is a great pity that the Hayes bypass has not been built already. Promises were made about the Hayes bypass years ago. I hope that in spite of the demise of the Greater London Council—which most of your Lordships applaud—the Hayes bypass will still go ahead. It could be used as a link between Northolt and Heathrow, and a bus shuttle service between the two airports could be arranged on a regular basis. I put it to the noble Lords that it would be no more inconvenient to travel from a Terminal 6 at Northolt to Terminal 3 or Terminal 4 for an onward medium-haul or intercontinental flight, than to travel from Terminal 1 to Terminal 4 for an intercontinental flight, because the journey would take about the same amount of time.
The proposal, then, is to use Northolt as an overflow point for a certain type of flight; domestic shorthaul aircraft, which do not disrupt the environment and to which there are not strong objections from the local people. I believe that this would consolidate the three boroughs of Hillingdon, Harrow and Brent as the hub of Europe's links with the European Community and other countries. It would provide greater capacity for the Heathrow area or the Heathrow-Northolt complex which would thereby be created. I believe that this is a possibility which the Government could

1447
well consider on top of the views put forward in their White Paper, and I ask my noble friend if he will indicate to the House whether he will be prepared to examine the feasibility of it.
2.31 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I begin, as most other noble Lords have done, by extending a very warm welcome and congratulations to the two maiden speakers in our debate. I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, had to say and I look forward to enjoying on many future occasions what he has to say, because he undoubtedly speaks with knowledge, wisdom and wit. If the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so, I listened with even closer attention to the remarks of the other maiden speaker, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I intend to strengthen and consolidate the case that he made so excellently. He demonstrated quite clearly, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, that he is a modern model of a bishop, which I find all too refreshing, in his willingness and ability to make a case on behalf of the people whom he seeks to represent. I look forward very much indeed to hearing the right reverend Prelate on many occasions in the future.
This is the second opportunity we have had since the turn of the year, to debate airports policy and in the earlier debate I had the privilege and opportunity of making a contribution. In January we commented on the Eyre report and today we debate the Government's response. In any context, but particularly in this context, a debate in your Lordships' House is a very important debate indeed.
I read the report of a comparable debate in another place, and I was particularly struck by the remarks of my right honourable friend Alf Morris, the Member of Parliament for Wythenshawe, who spoke on that occasion, although he wears other hats, as the chairman of the North of England Regional Consortium. He spoke powerfully and with passion and conviction, because he leads what is not only the case for the north, but an all-party case for the north. He was able to deploy parliamentary concern, but also great parliamentary skill and flair. He knew what he was talking about.
He dramatically drew the contrast between the fortunes of the people of Eccles and Esher, of Failsworth and Farnham, of Wythenshawe and Windsor, of Salford and Stansted, I believe that the way in which he drew the Minister's attention to the problems facing those people—real people living in real places every day—is something that needs to be read into this debate.
When your Lordships' House debated the Eyre Report a number of contributions were made underlining the demand made in the other place for an imaginative policy for regional airports development. In my submission, noble Lords must judge the adequacy of the Government's response in the light of that specific demand. The response must also be judged in the way in which it makes a contribution to one of the major problems facing the north—the growing disparity among the economic and social fortunes of regions of this country.
1448
A further factor is whether the development of Stansted on the scale described in the Government's White Paper is necessary and is in the wider national interest. I live in Edmonton/Enfield. Residents there are well aware that if indeed there is undue excess development at Stansted they will certainly face noise pollution, road congestion and environmental distress and disturbance. I take nothing away from what other noble Lords have said in terms of the possible benefits flowing from the development, but those are some of the detrimental effects. That is why the Enfield Preservation Society, which speaks on these matters with authority and stature, expressed grave disquiet about what might be in the White Paper.
Stansted has become a symbol of the North/South divide. Never before has a single investment decision generated such outright opposition and hostility from all walks of life in the regions. Resolutions opposing Stansted have been adopted in Conservative constituency associations. A resolution was adopted at the Conservative Central Council meeting earlier this year in Newcastle, which is my home town. It is Labour Party policy and the policy of the Alliance Parties to oppose a major development at Stansted. Employers' federations and the chamber of commerce have taken a similar view. The trade union councils in Yorkshire, Humberside, the North-West and the North oppose Stansted, and more than 600 firms and business people have expressed similar views. They are all concerned at the fact that Britain is being, shall I say, "South-Easternised"; with major road investment in London, new towns in the green belt, a second Dartford tunnel, 60 per cent. of new firms going to the South-East, more centralised decision-making in Government and industry, the Channel tunnel, the closure of branch plants outside the South-East, reductions in regional aid and on housing and environmental improvement, and in some areas of the region—the Northern region—one person in three unemployed. The list is endless and depressing. Stansted was rightly seen as the last straw breaking this camel's back. It is a tragedy that the Government have failed to respond in the broadest possible terms to the point I am making about regional disparity. I urge the Government to make a statement on the disparity and to allow a full debate to take place at the earliest opportunity.
The regions are rightly concerned that the limitations on the development of Stansted agreed upon by the Government are only a sop to environmental and regional interests. I have a question for the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, which he might like to answer in closing this debate. If he and his colleagues in Government are prepared to afford Parliament the opportunity to agree to any further expansion at Stansted beyond 7 million to 8 million passengers per annum, why was not a similar opportunity afforded to Parliament to agree to the initial expansion? If only to achieve consistency this should have happened. It will be no answer if the noble Lord says that such a course would have brought the planning system into disrepute. I can think of nothing that has brought the system into more disrepute than allowing one of the biggest single investment decisions to be taken for many years to be considered as though it was a proposal to build a garden shed in the green belt. If we are to learn anything from the Stansted saga, surely it

1449
is the inadequacy of the conventional planning system for projects which raise major national issues. I trust I have the support of many noble Lords when I express the hope that the Government will take the opportunity to think through the implications and perhaps bring forward some proposals in the not too distant future.
As I said, I live in Enfield which is but 10 miles from Harlow. I can tell the noble Lord the Minister that there is great concern in Harlow about the development of Stansted, from this standpoint. There may very well be benefits financially and in other ways, but people are concerned as to where the future expansion of Harlow, taking account of Stansted, will come. It can come either to the South-West of Harlow, which is towards London, or to the North-East of Harlow, which is towards Stansted. The Minister should know that from the representations I have had, if expansion is to take place it should be to the North-East towards Stansted.
I shall turn now to some of the specifics of the White Paper. It is gratifying that the Government have grasped the nettle that subsidies to Stansted should be limited; that any investment in the infrastructure of the area should be both economical and cost effective. That is a major step forward. Having said that, I would add that there remains concern that under the structure put forward in the White Paper for the London airports it will still be possible for Stansted to be given more than a helping hand. The regions demand the elimination of subsidy, and of that the Government should have no doubt. The regions tell me that they will be looking very closely at the fine print of the legislation in the autumn, to test the Government's sincerity on this vital matter.
I welcome the thrust of the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Fisher of Rednal, especially when she mentioned in passing the issue of consolidation: the extent to which individual passengers, having hooked their holidays, are very often told, at scant and disgracefully short notice, that they have to leave from another airport, on another day, and at another time. They are sometimes told that they will even have to fly to a different resort. That is called "consolidation". The noble Baroness mentioned very fairly how fed up are the travelling public. The Ilkeston Consumer Cooperative Society, which is very well known to me, informs me that during a short period earlier this year, 1,000 of the bookings it made were subject to variations from the precise details of the holidays booked. We also have the problem of mounting evidence that surcharges are made for currency and oil price fluctuations. There may be a case for such surcharges, and this is not the occasion to debate them. I speak in the presence of not only my noble friend Lady Fisher of Rednal but also of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton. They are both closely concerned with consumer matters. No doubt those problems will not go away and we shall return to them at some future time.
The biggest test of the Government's sincerity will be in relation to what they say about the regional airports. The recent history of regional airports has been dogged by the unfulfilled promises of successive Governments. A regional airports policy that makes a genuine contribution towards eliminating disparity is
1450
not simply a paper exercise. It demands a social commitment by a host of people to make it work. It demands also an open skies policy.
When airlines seek to exploit market opportunities in the regions, there should be no need for all-party campaigns over something like a 12-month to 18-month period to allow carriers such as Singapore Airlines to be allowed to operate from Manchester airport. The Government should welcome such airlines with open arms. A regional airports policy demands additionally the promotion abroad of regional tourist attraction. It is not enough to say in the White Paper that the Government look to airlines and tour operators to exploit tourist opportunities, when it is the Government's policy to promote solely London abroad.
Tourism policies need urgent review. I hope it will not be too long before the inquiry headed by the noble Lord, Lord Young, completes its work and this House has an opportunity to debate its conclusions. As ministers in another place made clear, the package received a mixed reception in the regions. That was because it is a very clever package. There is no doubt that the efforts of the North of England Regional Consortium has imposed drastic changes in the proposals originally put forward in the Eyre Report. Equally, there is no doubt that there exists deep concern that the South East is once again receiving all the investment, leaving the regions with only promises and crumbs. We want words translated into action. The requirements for a positive regional airports policy have been identified. The regions are ready to play their full part. It is now up to the Government to prove that they are ready to play their part. The North of England will be watching the Government every step of the way. Finally, it would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the Northern Consortium for the campaign it has promoted and which I have been happy to support. The Government must now be worried that the North no longer has any intention of being just good losers.
2.45 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsey and Abingdon: My Lords, I also should like to congratulate the two noble Lords who have made maiden speeches this afternoon, and wish them well. I hope that we shall hear them on many occasions in the future.
We have had a long and constructive debate on a very important subject, and it is my intention to speak to your Lordships for only a minute or two. All the points in the White Paper which needed airing have been taken into account by previous speakers, and we are waiting for the winding up speeches to conclude this Friday afternoon. The conclusion that we have reached in this and previous debates is that, though everyone knows where Stansted is, no one wants to go there. I for one, belong to this school of thought and I have not changed my views over the years. I shall just mention that throughout the 1960s and 1970s I lived within 10 miles of Stansted and it is understandable therefore that I have followed the progress of the Stansted saga from the Roskill Report down to the present White Paper.
We are discussing today the implications arising from the recommendations of Her Majesty's

1451
Government. I congratulate the Government on this White Paper and would like to raise just one or two points in relation to Stansted and another point in respect of the Scottish Lowlands airports.
As regards Stansted and its surface access feasibility, referred to in section 5.29 of the White Paper, it is described as a high quality access location. I should like to tell your Lordships that I have to contradict that statement. Having spent 20 years driving in the area and trying to get into London, I know from experience that it is not a high quality access location so far as London is concerned. Even with the arrival of the M.11 and the completion of the M.25 and the possible extension of British Rail's access to the airport, which is subject to the ability of British Rail to finance this project, I still think that with the numbers involved, increasing from the preliminary estimate of 7–8 million to 15 million and possibly 25 million, it is just not on. I do not think the Government have done a proper study on this aspect and I must return to the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, as I backed her up in our debate last February, that the second runway at Gatwick is the only alternative.
I turn now very briefly to the Scottish Lowlands airports in which I have more interest possibly because I now live nearer to Glasgow and Prestwick than to Stansted. In this White Paper there seems to be a double standard in respect of regional airports. I say this because Stansted, as has already been explained this afternoon by many speakers, is subsidised by Heathrow and Gatwick, whereas Prestwick is not. They are both described in the White Paper as international gateway airports.
I ask my noble friend to give me a clear answer to the question of why is it that Prestwick is limited to international flights only? In section 6.34 to 6.37 of the White Paper, where it refers to Scottish regional airports, the Government state that Prestwick will be subject to a Government financial review in 1989, if it does not make it on its own. Why cannot Prestwick be allowed to have a limited number of domestic flights within the United Kingdom, especially to the South-East? I should be pleased to hear from the Minister if there is a reason why that cannot be done. I note that both Edinburgh and Glasgow are being allowed to increase their short-haul European flights.
In conclusion, I would just say that I am pleased that the Government have decided to keep the BAA under one holding company when it is finally privatised. Otherwise I congratulate the Government on the White Paper.
2.50 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, there are two reasons why I shall be brief: first, because most of the points have already been covered; and, secondly, because there are celebrations beginning in which I want to take part.
A noble friend of mine was unkind enough to ask as we started the debate whether I considered that if there were by-elections simultaneously in Twickenham, Richmond, Saffron Walden and one of the Surrey constituencies Maplin would suddenly come back on the agenda. If the Government or the noble Lord ever
1452
considered the reprieval of Crickhowell as a way of winning by-elections, they have changed their view.
It is inevitable, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said—and I, like everyone else, welcome him back to our deliberations—that we go somewhat over the same ground that we went over in our last debate on the air report. At that time I referred to forecasts. I was most interested to hear what the Minister had to say about the projections for Heathrow and the questions of larger aircraft. In fact the trend seems to be slightly in the other direction at the moment and that has an impact on the need for a fifth terminal.
I think that we have to be extremely careful about turning forecasts into planning decisions. Even if they are by the most expert people, forecasts do not always turn out to be correct. For instance—dare I mention it again!—public opinion polls do not always indicate the right result, even on the day of a by-election. I must say that Mr. Worcester has sauce on his face. Whether his prediction was deliberately intended to be inaccurate I find difficult to say; but it is time that we looked at some of the forecasts on which people make decisions.
There are other matters which are not treated in any great detail or at all in the White Paper—for instance, the impact of the Channel tunnel on traffic movements in the South-East of England in the future. That is a long way away, and it may have a relatively limited impact. Certainly the reference to Stolport is greatly welcomed. Although it will not have a major impact on the totality of air traffic movements in the South-East, it is an important aspect. I was fortunate enough yesterday to go down there to look at the site. It is derelict today, and it is very sad when one thinks back to the great days of merchant shipping in this country; but it is extremely impressive to think that it is to be resurrected and turned into an important gateway to this country. It will take only a maximum of something like 1 million passenger movements a year, so it will not impact on total traffic movements. Nevertheless, in the near future it will be an important facet of business travel in and out of greater London.
The Government, towards whom I feel a certain benevolence this afternoon, as your Lordships will understand, have not turned up such a bad report as one might have feared. They to have to a certain extent grasped the nettle in the way in which governments have not done in the past. I think I said in the last debate that I should not like to have been the Minister of Transport dealing with this problem. It is not an easy problem. I think the Government have dealt with it as best they can.
I think that to a certain extent there are some cosmetic things in the report. As many noble Lords have said, the decisions on Stansted are not as straightforward as they appear on the surface. Once there is a rail link into Stansted, then of course inevitably the development will go to 15 million or even 25 million movements a year, although in fairness to the British Airports Authority, they have now said that it is certainly not their intention to think in terms of the larger figure in the future. I hope that that will be the position.
It is very difficult to conceive of Stansted being a successful airport, as various noble Lords have said,

1453
without a rail link. Yet, once there is a rail link, and particularly if the terminal is built on the eastern side of the runway and the rail link goes in a tunnel underneath the runway, then it is almost essential that the maximum number of movements that the runway will take is reached in order to pay for the cost of that rail link.
Again, the road links into Stansted are totally unsatisfactory, not at the Stansted end but at the London end. Albeit that it is possible to feed into the M.25 circuit and the North Circular Road and so on, nevertheless direct access into London by road is almost impossible, even at the moment. To contemplate going by bus from here to Stansted is more than flesh and blood can stand.
It will be interesting to know what will happen to the M.25 and that traffic if, as we hear in this morning's paper, the Ministry is contemplating privatising the tolls on estuarial crossings. It seems to me that the cost of the Dartford Tunnel, which is now an integral part of the M.25, will become rather expensive. We all know that estuarial crossings do not pay for themselves, and if they are to be privatised, the cost of tolls will be increased enormously. Thus, there are a number of different facets to this whole planning process and this whole forecasting process which we still need to consider in more depth.
So far as Heathrow is concerned, I must say that I welcome the move of the sewage works, although I still maintain my total reservations about the possibility of a fifth terminal at Heathrow. It is not possible to contemplate that unless there is a proper rail link and unless greater consideration is given again to the road traffic movements coming into London and around that part of the M.25. For all kinds of reasons, including the one that the Minister mentioned, I do not see the possibility of a fifth terminal in the foreseeable future and I cannot feel sorry about that.
Much emphasis has been placed on regional airports. I welcome both maiden speeches today. It is the convention that none of us speaks of maiden speeches after the next immediate speaker has given the good wishes of the House, and yet we all seem to do it all the time so I do not see why I should be refused that privilege. Both maiden speeches were excellent. However, if your Lordships will forgive me, I have more interest in the speech of the right reverend Prelate, being a Mancunian myself in my origins and, as I think I have said before to your Lordships, having a sentimental attachment to Ringway. I was at the opening of that airport in 1948 when the latest aircraft were on view, in the shape of the new bomber, the Fairey Battle, which I suppose dates me. I believe that Manchester has a tremendous future. I think that the city fathers in those distant days did a very good job in laying out that airport. I should certainly want to see it as a hub of activity for the North-West region. I do not delude myself, however, that this is going to answer the problems of South-East England. It will marginally, but it will not solve all the problems.
We come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that there must come a point when we have to say to ourselves, "Can we afford, in environmental terms, to go on putting more and more people into the South-East of England?". I believe that in contemplating that lies part of the answer to the
1454
problems of Manchester. We are, in volume terms, talking largely about the tourist trade. Some of the most beautiful parts of the country lie within easy distance of Manchester airport. What is needed is for the tourist boards to be given encouragement and finance to put together the sort of packages that will entice Americans in particular to make their entry into this country via Manchester.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I can speak on behalf of the tourist boards. I have worked in this dimension. We have tried hard to do this. As I said in my speech, advertisements in The Times have tended to be a rather more appealing way of spending money than the assembling of finance for this sort of marketing programme. I would also point out that this year's boom in North American visitors does not consist of those who are prone to explore other parts of Britain. Many of them are first-time visitors. They are spending their time in London. In the fullness of time we hope that if they enjoy their stay in London, they will come back in five or 10 years' time on a second visit when they will be prone to visit the North of England.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord says. I would have thought that his remarks tended to underline the point I was making. It is precisely to encourage those people to come into the north that more finance is needed to put together the sort of packages that will be attractive to first-time visitors to this country. I give an instance that was suggested by the people of Manchester. The Lancashire coast and the Scottish coast have some of the finest golf courses in the world. A package tour which encouraged Americans to do a tour of those golf courses would be very attractive. However, because of the degree of fragmentation of the tourist boards, that sort of thing, I understand, has never been done. It is being done, if at all, by the people at Manchester airport themselves. That sort of imaginative idea, with a little Government backing, could produce results.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, it has been done, and, funnily enough, it was done by the noble Lord's beloved Manchester—I am sorry, Lancashire—in the first instance, not by Manchester airport.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful for that correction. But it needs to be done rather more than on a county basis. It is bringing the counties together that has been the problem for Manchester. Individual county tourist boards have been operating very much on their own. One needs to bring together North Wales, Lancashire, Cheshire, Yorkshire and the lot to encourage this sort of input. I still say that this is not going to solve the problems of the south-east.
There are other things that would improve the situation in Manchester in relation to licensing, particularly of American airlines. There has been reference to Singapore Airlines. That was a very silly case. There is need to examine the Bermuda II arrangement under which it was agreed, I understand, that Manchester could be a departure point for United Kingdom airlines but not a reciprocal point for United States airlines. The rail link to Manchester has been

1455
mentioned at some length. It is a very short spur that is needed. I have no doubt that with these developments Manchester could become the focal point of a considerable amount of air traffic.
Birmingham has been dealt with admirably by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal. I tend to think of Birmingham as London's fourth airport. This is a matter that needs to be fed into Government thinking. It is far better to go to Birmingham and catch the train for Euston than to try to drive in from Stansted. The whole question of rail links is crucial to airport policy. The reason that people are happier with Gatwick today is that you can get on a train at Victoria and travel quickly and cheaply right into the terminal. Therefore, I very much subscribe to the view, mooted by my noble friend and indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that if there is any possibility at all of a second runway at Gatwick—on which I rather poured cold water on the last occasion we debated this—by all means let us go ahead, because Gatwick is one of the most attractive airports in the country at present.
The Government are to be congratulated on grasping the nettle. We are a very long way from having solved the problems of our airports. We have to do much more thinking about the extent to which we are prepared to sacrifice the environment in the south-east of England to even greater numbers of people, even though those people bring prosperity to the area. We must draw a line somewhere and say that we cannot afford the destruction of our environment to continue any more, even if we are somewhat poorer in the future than we otherwise might be. There is a greed factor here which we must examine. This has been a very useful and wide-ranging debate, but I am certain that we shall return to the subject many times in the future.
3.6 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I think that we are all grateful that we have had this debate today, although once again we are going over a great deal of the ground that was covered in a much earlier debate, supplemented by the Statement that we had some weeks ago. I believe that it is due to the persistence of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, that we have had this debate today, and we should be grateful to the noble Baroness for that.
After the first mention of maiden speeches, it is not normal to say anything further about them. However, it would be very wrong of me not to welcome back my noble friend Lord Underhill, who has obviously almost returned to his old robust self. My noble friend is a very deep well of information, particularly when dealing with the subject of airports. It is also important to note that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who made his maiden speech today, spoke importantly to the subject and gave a view on something that is really basic to the whole debate—the regional aspects of the north-south division, which seems to have been developing in this country.
I feel a certain privilege in mentioning the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, as he comes from the same part of the country as I do. He and I are frequent straphangers on the way to Heathrow, which is another
1456
important point that has been raised in the debate. I hope that within about an hour I shall be hanging on to a strap, or even perhaps be lucky enough to have a seat, on the way to Heathrow. However, as has been said in the debate, at most times of the day when going to Heathrow it is almost impossible to get a seat.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, whose views I have always found to be extremely original—and I have learnt a great deal from him since I came into your Lordships' House—also spoke of the importance of access to airports. Both noble Lords, together with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, spoke of the importance of the Highland routes and of Highland airports. Last month I had the great privilege of taking some English visitors to the beautiful island of Barra. We did not go by air because we wanted to experience the sea journey, which is very nice in the summer. It was a calm day and the sun shone, but I can understand that the fact that the sea journey takes six hours would not enable the island to develop to any great extent. We took advantage of going round in the post bus and spent some time at the airport.
Those are two examples of community involvement in making a place accessible to a great many people to whom otherwise it would not have been accessible. It also makes life on the island that much more tolerable than it would be if the only way of reaching hospital, as a noble Lord mentioned, of taking advantage of higher education or even of doing major shopping was by undertaking a six-hour sea journey. We spoke to many of the islanders. It is not that they use the airport a great deal; it is the fact that it is there which gives them the feeling that they have contact. This is important to them.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, talked about the difficulty of getting to Stansted, and other noble Lords have also mentioned that difficulty. This must also apply at some point to Heathrow. If you are going to develop Stansted you must have dedicated rail links with perhaps two or three stops, and not the 18 stops that there are on the way to Heathrow picking up general commuter traffic. They will have to be dedicated. We do not yet know the figure for Stansted. Is it going to be 8 million, or 15 million, or ultimately going up to the 25 million?
The White Paper, at 11.9, quotes the inspector's report. It says:
"Stansted … will have the primary role of accommodating such services as are to be transferred from Heathrow and Gatwick and of providing facilities for new airlines concerned to set up and operate leisure oriented services in the London airports system".
It looks as though the long-term logic of Stansted will be that the shuttles, and the Inverness and other services from airports in the rest of the country, will ultimately be slid into Stansted. If we did not have a dedicated rail service from Stansted into London it would be a great boon to British Rail, and particularly if they brought in their advanced passenger train on both the East and West coast lines.
My noble friend Lord Underhill asked at the beginning of this debate—and he was pulled up about it—a question of how far one can go in the South of England. The last time I spoke on this subject I said that I was not in any way anti-London. I accept that London is one of the great cities and one of the great capitals of the world, and will always attract a large

1457
number of people. But if you continually assume that this is the only part of the United Kingdom you will be trapped into the fact that you can never think outside it. You will always have to put more and more in to make life more tolerable there. My noble friend Lord Underhill tried to emphasise this.
A reasonable example was given by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, when he asked, what do we do with the coaches in London? A point of saturation can be reached, and coaches in London are now reaching saturation point. You are suddently needing to find a way of dispersing them, or of finding other ways of dealing with them and getting them away from the centre of London. Despite the fact that they bring in a great deal of money and are essential to tourism, they have reached a point of saturation where we have to do something about the situation. Many of us believe that the same applies to the congestion that more and more airports and more and more passengers will suffer in the London area.
We are told that even internal passengers are nearly all anxious to come only to Heathrow, and that few want to go from the regional airports and particularly on long distance flights. I doubt this very much. I doubt whether much attention has been given to it. I am rather sceptical of the bland assumption that if people from, say, the United States, or the Middle or Far East, cannot land at London Airport, they would go to Frankfurt, Schiphol, or Paris, rather than Manchester or Birmingham. If I were going to America I would look for the nearest airport from where I could get a reasonable land service. When the air traffic controllers were having difficulty I could understand the planes going to Schiphol or de Gaulle, but that would be an airways decision and not a passenger decision. I can hardly believe that a passenger coming from Washington specifically to Britain would necessarily go to Schiphol because he could not land at Heathrow. Not enough attention has been paid to this.
The figures I have from the Civil Aviation Authority on internal passengers who come to Heathrow need a great deal more investigation. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, was amused with the polls, and obviously there is room for scepticism about them. I believe more investigation is required on the figures given for international flights leaving Heathrow and for where the passengers come from. It is said that 68 per cent. come from the South-East, 3 per cent. from Scotland, 1 per cent. from the North and 2 to 3 per cent. from the Midlands. I doubt these figures. I know it is extremely unreliable to use one's own examples in making assessments. I am sure that noble Lords who have already spoken about their experience of Heathrow and about travelling from Heathrow will seldom travel to Glasgow or Edinburgh without seeing many other fellow passengers carrying duty-free goods—more than in the figures given in the assessment by the Civil Aviation Authority. I know that this is not reliable, but it is a rule-of-thumb way of making assessments. Every week when I travel down on the aircraft many more than one or two of my fellow passengers are going abroad. It seems that it is all the other passengers.
My noble friend Lord Mulley said that one of the great things about the White Paper was that the
1458
Government had made a decision. I do not believe that it was an easy decision; it must have been a very complicated decision to make. However, we shall have the build-up at Stansted of the original 7 million increasing to 15 million and then, who knows, to any figure suggested. I accept that this matter has to return to Parliament for ratification, but as was pointed out by one noble Lord, this is a very unsatisfactory system under which to make such an important decision. The other place was given an hour-and-a-half for discussion on this subject. We have had a discussion but we have no control over the matter in the sense that by tradition we are unable to vote against it.
The Government still have time to think of solutions. For example, what is the reason for not having a second runway at Gatwick? Is it because of a certain undertaking, or is it, as I have been told, a technical impossibility. We must consider the question of the shifting of a huge complicated sludge works at Heathrow, but I cannot see where there are technical difficulties at Gatwick. It would be interesting to receive an answer on this from the Minister.
If the Government decide to go ahead with Stansted, I hope there will be no question of doing so without immediately providing a rail link. The Government have made a decision and we are grateful for that. They should leave the British Airports Authority on its own to get on with this matter, without trying to privatise it. However, as has been said by many speakers this afternoon, if they are to privatise it, it should be privatised as a going concern, as an entity. There would be nothing worse than to have competing airports, to have Gatwick, Stansted and Heathrow in this corner of the south-east competing with good airports with plenty of capacity in the north of England.
I am grateful for the opportunity to have heard this debate. I shall read at leisure some of the important points that have been made by other noble Lords.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, when I replied to our debate on the inspector's report on 11th February I was not able to respond to many of the points made by noble Lords for fear of prejudicing the quasi-judicial role of my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport, who had to take the difficult but necessary decisions on the Stansted and Heathrow planning applications. But these decisions have now been taken and announced so that that constraint no longer applies. Consequently, I hope to be very much more helpful than I was on that occasion in dealing with the questions that have been raised in today's debate; although in deference to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the celebrations to which he now plans to proceed, I shall try not to do so at inordinate lengths. It has been a long and arduous week and I would not wish to make it more so.
The noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Carmichael, if I may say so, manfully defended their party's policies particularly with regard to the regional airports. However, I was glad to detect a more moderate tone in their contributions than that which prevailed in the other place where the honourable lady who spoke for the Opposition referred to our

1459
proposals as "a slap in the face for regional airports". The more balanced reaction that we would have expected—and indeed received—from noble Lords at this end of the corridor is therefore very welcome. The regional airports, particularly Manchester, have professed themselves satisfied with what the White Paper has offered and with good reason. Moreover, the policies that the Government have put forward are not far removed from the statements made by the last Labour Government, particularly in their White Paper in 1978. I ventured to quote some of those words in my opening remarks.
So far as the policies of the Alliance parties are concerned, the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, put forward a shopping list of proposals during our debate last February, almost all of which have been met. They asked for the withdrawal of the proposed air transport movement limit at Heathrow; and that has been done. They asked for expansion of regional airports, particularly Manchester; and that has been done. They asked for limited development at Stansted as the need arises; and that we have done. They asked, too, for a second runway at Gatwick, which we have not done; and they asked for caution on a fifth terminal at Heathrow until means had been found of improving surface access; and that, too, we have done.
Perhaps I may now turn to some of the points that have been raised during the course of this afternoon which—
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, if I may intervene, I think that it is time that the Government ceased to take any credit for the withdrawal of the ATM limitation. They had no choice. The standing committee refused to make progress and the Government just had no option but to withdraw.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if the noble Baroness wishes to take that view, then she is entitled to do so.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, if the Minister wishes, I shall give him the column numbers of the Hansard of the Commons where this was withdrawn quietly by a Written Answer.
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords, it was withdrawn; but the noble Baroness said that we had no choice. I would not accept that for a moment. However, in any event that is what she wanted and that is what we have done.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I do not mean to become a nuisance but it is really and truly not correct. Standing Committee F in another place refused to meet until the Minister had withdrawn this ATM limit. If he refers to the minutes of that Standing Committee, the Minister will see that that is the case.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am well aware of the proceedings which took place in another place on this matter but I come back to what I said just now: that the removal of this limit is what the noble Baroness had in mind, I understand, when she spoke in
1460
February, earlier this year; and that is what the Government have done. I hope that she does not seek to pursue me for that.
My Lords, there are several inter-related reasons, nonetheless, why an ATM limit at Stansted does make sense. This matter was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in his earlier remarks. Generally, the White Paper explains the role that the Government see for ATM limits in the context of traffic distribution between airports serving a single catchment area. ATM limits will enable the rate of traffic growth at airports to take due account of an individual airport's potential, the developments at other airports and the impact on local residents and the surrounding areas. In other words, ATM limits are a tool for controlled and balanced traffic growth.
Perhaps I may now continue with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. He expressed some doubt as to whether demand would grow at Stansted from its present level of half a million, which has stayed low even with the cross-subsidy, to which some take such exception. The answer is that demand in the London area has grown at a rate of 8 per cent. compound over the last 24 years. Last year it grew by some 10 per cent. When there is no room at Heathrow and Gatwick for new services or operations, traffic will need to be accommodated. Stansted and, to a lesser extent, Luton will help in that respect.
In a related question, the noble Lord asked what would be the traffic mix at Stansted—I think that point was also in the mind of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton—and which airlines would go there. The inspector saw it initially as catering for low-cost leisure traffic, mainly charter, but with room for scheduled services as well. That is how Gatwick started and that is the basis on which most of the regional airports have developed. The Government will seek the advice of the CAA on traffic distribution between the London airports, and of course the aviation industry will be consulted.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, also asked me about privatisation. There are no major airports overseas in private hands at present, but that is no reason for not privatising United Kingdom airports. United Kingdom civil aviation is a world leader and we must look ahead, not back at early development days. The BAA will be set up as seven airport companies under one holding plc, to achieve, among other things, transparency of accounts and to inhibit cross-subsidy.
Turning now to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, she referred in particular to the timing conditions in the Stansted decision letter. The position is that outline planning permission has been given. The details must now be negotiated by the British Airports Authority with the local planning authority. The decision letter provides for work to begin either within five years of outline planning permission—that is to say, five years from 5th June 1985—or two years after detailed permission is given by the Uttlesford District Council. The planning law provides for reference to the Secretary of State if necessary, to prevent indefinite delay. These conditions (that is, the five-year and the two-year conditions) are, I am told, normal provisions such as apply to any planning consent.

1461
The noble Baroness also suggested that the delay of the Stansted development might delay the ending of cross-subsidy. As my right honourable friend made clear, the Government expect the first phase to be completed by 1990 and that charges at Stansted will increase steeply as soon as construction starts. Furthermore, the BAA proposals for investment would be expected to show an acceptable rate of return. However, as the noble Baroness has herself pointed out, traffic there amounts to only half a million passengers per annum at present, despite the low charges—Luton in fact has 2 million passengers per annum—and this does not suggest to me that it is an important factor at present, although it may be later.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I am sorry to keep interrupting, but if the noble Lord goes fast I shall not be able to ask him. I asked him about two very important points. The first was when the cross-subsidisation of Stansted would cease quite definitely; and the second point I asked about was whether he believed honestly that Stansted was viable, unsubsidised and without a rail link. Will he answer these two questions?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have a great wad of material in front of me and all of that will emerge from the answers I shall give in due course. The noble Baroness also raised the question of the rail link to Stansted. That could indeed be a very desirable development but it must await British Rail's evaluation. If it proves justified in financial terms British Rail will wish to invest in it, and I see no reason why m), right honourable friend should not approve the investment. Clearly such services, if priced at the right level, can pay for themselves, provided of course that there is enough traffic.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, also asked me about the second runway at Gatwick. Of course she and I have discussed this matter before. So far as that is concerned, the noble Baroness has said that from the point of view of the aviation industry and the customer, to develop Gatwick only as a single-runway airport is a mistake. However, it would be equally mistaken to fail to take into account the impact of a second runway on the people of Horley and Crawley and indeed on the people of Charlwood, whose homes would probably disappear. The White Paper states that the Government believe that this impact would be unacceptable. Furthermore, because Heathrow and Gatwick are so close, air traffic control constraints make it uncertain whether in fact the second runway could be fully used. For these reasons I have to say again to the noble Baroness that the Government do not see a second runway at Gatwick as either desirable or practicable. I know that this answer will also disappoint my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter who drew attention to the constraints of Gatwick's single runway.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to me and has made reference in his very recent remarks about air traffic control. Is the noble Lord aware of the fact that the original Gatwick plan with its two runways was taken in full knowledge of all the air traffic control problems involved?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I would not want to dispute that, because of course the noble Lord was intimately involved in that consideration nearly 30 years ago. But I imagine that my noble friend would agree that air traffic control considerations in those days, taken as they were so long ago, may well look very different today. Indeed, as I said in my opening speech, and as paragraph 4.22 of the White Paper states, the terminal—that is, the second terminal at Gatwick—is not likely to be used to full capacity until the mid-1990s. This does not mean that Gatwick will never reach the 25 mppa that the terminals can handle, but that it will take a little longer to achieve than we at one time thought. This, together with runway constraints at Heathrow, reinforces the need to provide additional runway capacity in the South-East and justifies the decision to develop Stansted, an airport which already has a full-length but under-used runway.
Perhaps I may now deal a little further with the question of cross-subsidy which was very much in the mind of the noble Baroness and on which she questioned me again just now. I well understand the concern on this matter. The White Paper envisages safeguards against it; and I should explain what we have in mind. Subsidy to airports is not a new issue which arises only in relation to Stansted. All airports which are being developed have to lay out cash to build terminal facilities, roads, drainage and other services. They must fund this investment either from charges or from other sources. Stansted is in exactly this position. Now that development is approved, we should expect the BAA to increase the traffic charges to reflect the cost of providing the new facilities.
We understand that the BAA will be reviewing their charges with this in mind, but they clearly cannot finance the whole of the investment from charges on the existing traffic. They will need to borrow in the early years of the development and repay the money later from revenue. It is the intention that this borrowing, whether from internal funds of the BAA or from elsewhere, will be at commercial rates. These arrangements will actually be more stringent than those which obtained when the local authority airports were being developed. For example, Manchester, Birmingham and others received capital grants from the Government towards investment during the early years of their development.
There is then the question of losses. There is no intention that Stansted should make continuing losses. There is no reason to suppose that a private sector BAA would want to subsidise any of its users; and the arrangements that we shall put in place for the regulation of airports will, in any case, provide safeguards against predatory pricing to attract traffic. They will ensure, for example, a framework for fair competition among all the United Kingdom airports so that no airports can be damaged by price cutting by others, and that the charges related to costs are fair and non-discriminatory. Powers which we intend the CAA to have will be included in the Bill which we shall be introducing at an early opportunity. Of course, your Lordships will have a chance to consider that in detail.
While on the question of BAA airports, may I refer to a point made by my noble friend Lord Dundee, particularly about Prestwick which is indeed currently

1463
making losses. We have made it clear that we look to the management of the BAA, and to the other interests, to improve its financial performance, using its considerable advantages. My right honourable friend's decision to maintain Prestwick as the designated gateway for long-haul services to and from Scotland will remain, but it will be subject to review in 1989 in the light of improvements in Prestwick's financial results. That decision will not be affected by the arrangements that we shall be making on cross-subsidy, which will not prevent temporary losses being incurred in these circumstances. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, asked me about regional services from Prestwick. There is really no reason why those should not develop now. There is no constraint upon those; merely the wishes of the airlines to mount such services in the light of the modest traffic.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, is my noble friend really contemplating closing Prestwick in 1989? May I also ask him why it is that for 20 years no station has been put beside Prestwick, although the railway runs right past the aerodrome? Those are two questions to which I should like to have some kind of answers.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the proposal is that in 1989 we should look again at the future of Prestwick, in the light of whatever may happen between now and then. The fact of the matter is that in recent years Prestwick has made continuous losses of a quite considerable kind and, clearly, it is not right that those should be allowed to continue indefinitely. There are some signs that those losses may be reduced or even eliminated in the years ahead, and if that happens I am certain that Prestwick will have an assured future. But I do not think there is any panacea to the problems of Prestwick, like, for example, the construction of a railway station, but doubtless that would have some benefit if it were to come to pass. The important solutions for Prestwick would lie in additional traffic feeding additional services, so that the airport would not continue to make the sort of losses that it has made recently.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, made something of the noise climate around Heathrow. The noble Lord explained that he has lived in the area for 25 years and, of course, he represented a constituency which is just to the east of Heathrow for a number of years as well. But I am not sure that the situation is quite as bad as the noble Lord imagines. The White Paper in paragraph 8.3 and table 10, makes clear that the noise climate around Heathrow has actually improved quite considerably since 1974. For example, the area within the 35 NNI contour, which is generally regarded as representing the onset of disturbance, has fallen by over 300 square kilometres in that time. This is largely due to the Government's efforts on noise certification of jet aircraft which aims to reduce aircraft noise at source.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, asked about progress on bilateral negotiations on air services. There are three liberal bilateral agreements in place with West Germany, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Discussions are now under way with
1464
Italy, Switzerland, France and Scandinavia. It was announced in the other place last week that negotiations are to begin shortly with the United States Government on the basis on which United States airlines can fly direct scheduled services to Manchester. That point was raised by at least one other noble Lord as well—
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the aircraft noise problem, will he recognise that, while it is true, as he says, that by various means the contour has been improved, if under these proposals Heathrow is allowed to continue to grow the improvement which has been secured will once again be threatened and, therefore, the actual fact of large numbers of aircraft flying over the capital city is, in itself, an undesirability?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I understand the fears of the noble Lord in this matter. But I think I can assure him that in technical terms, anyway, the prospects are for a steady improvement in the noise made by aeroplanes, and I believe that there will be a steady improvement, too, in the noise environment around Heathrow.
Returning to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, I would add that the noble Lord also sought an assurance that domestic operators would continue to have access to Heathrow. I am pleased to be able to give him that assurance. The Government recognise the importance of Heathrow to domestic route networks and have no intention of denying domestic operators continued access.
Perhaps I may return again to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Dundee and, particularly understandably, perhaps, to the problems of Dundee aerodrome. He asked me especially about the Customs problems. I understand that the Customs and Excise have recently announced that they are reviewing the criteria for the provision of duty-free shops at airports. Whether that will include the provision of such a facility at Dundee I am not certain, but my noble friend will no doubt ensure that appropriate consideration is given to that. But I think my noble friend really had in mind the procedures for passengers, cargo and the like proceeding through Dundee airport, and perhaps I may be allowed to look into that problem and write to my noble friend.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked why the Government did not allow Parliament to take the decision on Stansted. The answer is that the planning procedures used do not provide for parliamentary decisions. When the Government invited the BAA to bring forward proposals for developing Stansted in November 1979, Parliament agreed that these proposals should be the subject of a wide-ranging planning inquiry. This inquiry has taken place. It lasted 258 days, hundreds of witnesses were heard and thousands of documents considered. The Government then took the very unusual step of publishing the inspector's report in December last year. The report was fully debated in the other place on 30th January, and then in your Lordships' House on 11th February. The Government listened to and bore in mind the

1465
views of Parliament as witnessed by the White Paper, but the formal planning decisions under the planning laws enacted by Parliament were for my right honourable friends.
My noble friend Lord Bethell made some interesting points about increasing the civil use of Royal Air Force Northolt. We recognise that Northolt is an extremely valuable facility which in certain respects is being under-used. At present civil use—about 15 movements a day—is well below the ceiling agreed some years ago. That is why the Ministry of Defence and other Government departments have taken a number of steps to encourage greater civil use, and they are mentioned briefly in the White Paper. I think that my noble friend has some more ambitious plans in mind, and he referred to these. I shall certainly give such plans further consideration alongside the similar proposals which I have received from the civil aviation industry. But it would be necessary for any expansion scheme to show a commercial return, to incorporate adequate environmental safeguards and to be fully compatible with the continuing military use of the airfield. That may be hard to achieve.
Finally, I was asked about rail access. I think many noble Lords had the problems of Stansted in mind. As your Lordships will know, we have asked British Rail to look at this matter. Work is needed to establish what type of rail link would be financially justifiable, taking into account traffic forecasts and phasing of development. We have invited British Rail to undertake a detailed study of the options with the British Airports Authority. It seems likely that a more modest rail scheme, probably operating into Liverpool Street, as does the present rail link, would show a satisfactory financial return rather than the more expensive scheme which was proposed at the inquiry. But there are one or two other possibilities as well and those will all no doubt be taken into account.
This debate has made clear the diversity of the problems with which my right honourable friends have had to grapple. I think they are to be congratulated on what their decisions and the White Paper have achieved. The Government have provided for the capacity that will be required in the South-East to meet the clearly foreseen levels of demand in the mid-1990s with the capability and flexibility to provide more if required. We have provided a framework for the development and growth of air services to and from regional airports with a firm commitment to further positive action to achieve that. In short, we have provided for a national airports policy. In addition, we have proposed a radical restructuring of both BAA and local authority airports. By privatising BAA and enabling major local authority airports to introduce private capital if they wish, we are opening the gates for expansion, innovation, customer responsiveness and continued success. The White Paper represents a good deal for all the United Kingdom's airports, for local people and the environment, and not least for the consumer. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before four o'clock.

  AGRICULTURE: GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE
  AGRICULTURE: GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE
  ADAS: CHARGES TO USERS
  ADAS: CHARGES TO USERS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: PUBLIC BODIES' TRADING RESULTS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: PUBLIC BODIES' TRADING RESULTS
  TAX RECEIPTS 1979–84
  TAX RECEIPTS 1979–84
  FORESTRY COMMISSION: CONSERVATION DUTIES
  FORESTRY COMMISSION: CONSERVATION DUTIES
  BRITISH RAIL: PUBLIC SERVICE OBLIGATION GRANT
  BRITISH RAIL: PUBLIC SERVICE OBLIGATION GRANT
  BRITISH RAIL ENGINEERING LTD: FUTURE OPTIONS REPORT
  BRITISH RAIL ENGINEERING LTD: FUTURE OPTIONS REPORT
  FOLKESTONE-HONITON: ROAD IMPROVEMENT
  FOLKESTONE-HONITON: ROAD IMPROVEMENT
  NORTHERN IRELAND: EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
  SOCCER SPECTATOR VIOLENCE
  SOCCER SPECTATOR VIOLENCE