Sitting of 14 June 1985

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

    Wakefield Prison
    9.34 am
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg to ask leave to present a petition sent by Mr. Steven Alfred Wilkins, a former constituent of mine, at present in prison in Wakefield prison. It begins:
    To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of Steven Alfred Wilkins sheweth—
    and I should like to read extracts from this long petition. Mr. Wilkins is serving a life sentence. He has spent four years at Parkhurst prison and was then transferred to Wakefield prison. He finds the regime at Wakefield prison unacceptable. He says:
    I find Wakefield prison as oppressive and provocative.
    I feel I am no longer treated as a person but as a prisoner and the quality of life here is such that any unlawful disturbance is welcome in order to break the monotony and create excitement which is suppressed by the strict system here …
    The two opposing systems of Parkhurst and Wakefield achieve different results and create opposite attitudes … For example in Parkhurst category 'A' prisoners move to various activities and functions within the prison along with the non-category 'A' prisoners and are allowed the same freedom of movement within the security of the prison as the other inmates.
    In Wakefield, category 'A' prisoners are escorted as a separate group to all activities such as exercise, workshops, canteen, medicine hatch and other functions. This may sound justifiable from a security standpoint but the effects of this constant supervision are adverse.
    Parkhurst and other long term prisons have shown that such strict supervision is not necessary to maintain security and like other inmates I myself recognise such and it is resented and contributed to a derisory attitude.
    He says that recreation at Wakefield is extremely limited
    because the governor refuses to leave cell doors open throughout the recreation period which consists of only TV, snooker or board games …
    The mental and sociological consequences of this restriction are these; prisoners in such a false and unnatural environment need to maintain during years in prison as near as possible a sense of normalcy in order to stave off institutionalisation and a degenerating of social skills and accepted social standards.
    The restricting of social interaction to TV, snooker and board games is not conducive to the mental and social well being of inmates.
    Not only do inmates need a period of solace away from the ever present observation of staff in order to socialise together in a relaxed manner but need also to maintain their identity.
    There exists here in Wakefield as in other long term prisons a large compound containing a football pitch, volley ball court and ample room for jogging or just walking, but yet again unlike other long term prisons exercise during the weekdays here at Wakefield is restricted to a small yard measuring 83 paces—
    Mr. Speaker: Order The hon. Gentleman is giving us a great deal of detail, but this is a petition, not a speech.
    Mr. Mitchell: It is a rather long petition, Mr Speaker I wish to conclude the extract and present the petition I am reading only extracts.
    Mr. Speaker: Order That is not the procedure for petitions It sounds as if the hon. Gentleman is making an Adjournment debate speech
    Mr. Mitchell: I should like to conclude the extract He says:
    we see it as unnecessary oppression because we know it does not happen in other long term prisons
    All this is seen as insecurity on the part of the authority
    He talks of Wakefield being aggravating, provocative, apathetic and aggressive It produces people who become resentful, rebellious, disrespectful and everything a convict is supposed to be He finishes:
    your petitioner, as in duty bound will ever pray, that the adverse aspects of the system here at Wakefield prison will be rectified in the interests of law and order for the benefit of both, offenders and society
    To lie upon the Table

  BILL PRESENTED

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (FINANCE)
    Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by Sir Geoffrey Howe, Mr Michael Jopling, Mr Peter Rees, Mr Malcolm Rifkind, Mr John Moore, Mr Barney Hayhoe and Mr Ian Stewart, presented (under Standing Order No 111 (Procedure upon Bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenue)) a Bill to amend the definition of 'the Treaties' and 'the Community Treaties' in section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 so as to include the decision, of 7 May 1985, of the Council of the Communities on the Communities' system of own resources and the undertaking made by the Representatives of the Governments of the member States, meeting within the Council of 23 and 24 April 1085 in Brussels, to make payments to finance the Communities' general budget for the financial year 1985 And the same was read the First time, and ordered to be read a Second time upon Monday 17 June and to be printed [Bill 158 ]
    9 40 am
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr Speaker You may recall that during the autumn there was a case in the High Court and an appeal—I refer to the case of Smedley v. the Crown—which had an impact on the procedures and powers of the House This Bill seeks to define retrospectively two agreements made on 7 May, and on 23 and 24 April I give you notice, Mr Speaker, that I may wish to raise the question of the Bill's influence and effect on last autumn's proceedings
    Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice, but the presentation of a Bill is a formal procedure, giving authority for the Bill to be printed Doubtless we shall all know what it contains once it has been printed

    Government's Policy for Science
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]
    9.41 am
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): Today I shall concentrate on the utilitarian aspects of civil science. However, I first recognise and pay tribute to the noble function of scientific research in expanding our understanding of the world in which we live and, indeed, our understanding of the universe. I also realise the excitement, slog, frustration and satisfaction that those who devote their lives to scientific research face.
    The Government spend about £2 billion a year on civil scientific research and development, ranging from pure or fundamental science at one end of the spectrum to the most applied work—for example, product development—at the other. I am responsible for about half of that expenditure — rather more than £1 billion — which supports research and the related training of highly qualified manpower in the universities, the polytechnics, in other institutions of higher education and in and through the five research councils.
    This system is known as the nation's science base: it provides our national research capability and trains the highly qualified manpower essential for our increasingly science-based society.
    In parallel with that, and interacting with the science base, the Government spend as much again—about £1 billion—on applied civil research, as set out in table 2.1 of the annual review of Government-funded research and development for 1984, which is directed to solving specific practical problems or to supporting the development of specific policies. About one tenth of this research is contracted out to research council establishments, and additionally some is commissioned direct from universities and polytechnics. In addition to all that taxpayers' money for civil research, huge sums are devoted by business to civil research, and there are significant additional resources which are given by charities, most of which are medicine-oriented.
    In 1971 Lord Rothschild drew a distinction between applied research for which, by definition in his analysis, there had to be a non-scientist customer, and basic research where he acknowledged the choice of lines of research had to be left to scientists. Lord Rothschild's review led of course to the transfer of control for some applied work—and the money that went with it—from the research councils to Government Departments which stand as customers or proxy customers for this work under the post-Rothschild arrangements.
    Lord Rothschild recognised, however, that there was a grey area between basic and applied work, which he called "general" research: this is research with clear potentioal for wide-ranging applications in industry, medicine, and so on, but where it is too early in the development of the work for specific applications and products to have been clearly specified. Lord Rothschild left responsibility for this kind of research to the research councils. These days it is usually called "strategic" research. Some 40 per cent. of the research supported by the research councils is strategic research; a further 20 per cent. is applied; the remaining 40 per cent. is basic pure research as conventionally understood.
    1126
    I mentioned those statistics to counter the impression which seems to have gained ground in some quarters since Lord Rothschild's report that civil science in the universities and the research councils, because it is largely not applied research or development, is somehow irrelevant to and remote from the practical world No one reading the latest advice to me from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils entitled "Science and Public Expenditure" published yesterday could labour under that impression for long In its advice the board points to many examples of strategic work being undertaken by the research councils, in many cases in collaboration with industry, which is clearly of the greatest potential importance for the British economy
    I shall pick out a few examples the work of the Science and Engineering Research Council on chemical sensors, the development of which could revolutionise the monitoring and controlling of industrial processes, and on low-dimensional structures, precisely tailored materials with novel properties and with a wide range of potential industrial applications, the Natural Environment Research Council's deep geology programme, relevant to the location and extraction of the United Kingdom's natural resources, the Medical Research Council's pioneering work in clinical molecular biology which could revolutionise medical practice, and the Agricultural and Food Research Council's expanding food research programe which is exploiting advances in molecular biology, biochemistry and biophysics to improve our understanding and control of micro-organisms
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State undertake to look at the proposed dispersal of the national yeast culture collection? I do not expect an answer from him in the middle of his speech, but, as it is a serious matter, will he consider it?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I shall certainly inform myself, and write to the hon. Gentleman However, the research councils are treated as autonomous bodies that make their own decisions as to how to spend the taxpayers' money which I, under advice, distribute to them Subject to that, I shall look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman
    One of the themes which the Advisory Board for the Research Councils develops in its recent advice to me is the close interdependence of strategic and applied research, and of basic and strategic research Although it is convenient for some purposes to define research using these terms, we must not forget that the different kinds of research feed off each other, that progress in applied and strategic research depends on advances in fundamental understanding in the related basic sciences The advisory board advises caution in the use of the strategic and basic labels because it suggests erroneously that
    "a clear boundary can be drawn between relevant and curiosity orientated research."
    But, as the board goes on to say in its report:
    "Most branches of physics and chemistry are of strategic importance in relation to the engineering and chemical industries, and almost all fields of biology from molecular genetics to mathematical ecology are potential contributors to medicine, agriculture, food processing and environmental management Science is now so pervasive and the application so widespread that most basic science is relevant to the practical needs of society"
    More than ever in the past, scientific research is now the essential basis for industrial innovation. As the

    1127
    advisory board argues cogently in its report, technological innovation in our traditional industries and the development of new high technology industries is essential if we are to maintain and, moreover, improve our prosperity. It might be argued — and I believe some people have argued—that the urgent priority for national energies and expenditure is industrial innovation and that scientific research should in the meantime take a back seat. But industrial innovation without an underpinning research capability is not a realistic option. As the advisory board says in its report, the pace and sophistication of scientific and technological advance is now such that to introduce the technology, one needs trained people, including active researchers in the corresponding basic science. Additionally, it may in future become more difficult to borrow technology developed overseas, because the increasing awareness of scientists and industry the world over of the commercial potential of research seems likely to inhibit the free circulation, to which we have become used, of the results of scientific endeavour.
    Therefore, I view with some concern reports that increasing numbers of our brightest scientists are leaving this country, perhaps for good, to take up research appointments overseas. I stress that the healthy interchange of scientific skills across the world is entirely to be desired. What is not so healthy is if it tends to be a one-way traffic. The impression is that the loss of our brightest scientists is not being balanced either by the return of British scientists or by immigration into Britain of overseas scientists. In other words, there is a net brain drain.
    That opinion has not been reached on firm evidence. The advisory board is conducting a quick survey of university research groups to collect hard information about the net brain drain, and it hopes to give me its results at the end of August.
    It is not sufficient for the Government to invest money in civil science—
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Bearing in mind his remarks, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be in order and a good idea for the Government to consider encouraging repatriation of British scientists to this country?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I well remember that in the 1950s we asked a civil servant—I cannot remember his name; I think it was C. P. Snow, was it not?
    Dame Judith Hart: It was C. P. Snow and Mr. Harry Hoff.
    Sir Keith Joseph: Indeed it was. We asked them to try to persuade British scientists to return, and that had some success. I do not know whether the current position demands similar action or how effective it would be. However, I note my hon. Friend's comments.
    It is well known that this country's track record in exploiting the commercial potential of our scientists' inventions has been poor. A number of factors are essential for successful exploitation. First, there must be a climate —almost a culture—within our society that encourages enterprise. There must be a receptive attitude by industry, embodying enterprise; there must be availability of risk capital; there must be links between academic researchers and industry; and there must be awareness by academic researchers of the commercial potential of their work.
    1128
    Great strides have been made in recent years in building bridges between academic research and business. A considerable amount of the credit here must go to the research councils which have developed collaborative programmes of research with industry, commerce and business.
    For example, since 1977, the Science and Engineering Research Council has established special programmes with industry in areas of technology such as polymer engineering, biotechnology and the application of computers to manufacturing engineering. Its teaching company scheme, supported jointly with the Department of Trade and Industry, has been notably successful in helping to develop active partnerships between higher education institutions and manufacturing companies and encouraging able graduates to train for careers in manufacturing.
    The Science and Engineering Research Council's co-operative awards in science and engineering scheme— CASE—offers a type of research studentship where an industrial organisation joins with the university in defining a project and supervising student's progress.
    The Medical Research Council currently has some 100 inventions licensed or under exploitation by the British Technology Group and some 50 exploitation agreements made directly with commercial organizations. It is planning to set up a new collaborative centre for research that will offer a consultancy and advisory service for industry.
    The Natural Environment Research Council works closely with British industry to secure overseas contracts, especially in the environmental consultancy and resource survey areas.
    The Natural Environment Research Council's institute of oceanographic sciences has developed a device — GLORIA—which allows researchers for the first time to survey the ocean floor—vital for the siting of offshore structures and the laying of submarine cables and pipelines. Shortly before Christmas, the council signed a £12 million agreement with the United States geological survey to use the device to survey the entire US coastal waters.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: The right hon. Gentleman is outlining a survey that is of very great interest. There is an emphasis on the industrial aspecl— the application of science Will he consider where that must originate? Surely it must come from our universities. Yet there is a tremendous problem in our universities because our young scientists find it difficult to obtain established posts. That is a relatively new position; it did not occur a few years ago. I am talking from personal experience because my son is a scientist. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, if he does not obtain a post of that description in this country within the next year or so, he will go abroad.
    Sir Keith Joseph: I certainly acknowledge the problem, but to some extent it has been mitigated by the Government's new blood scheme, which has been welcomed by the universities. I note that the number of appointments that they would like to make significantly, though not dramatically, exceeds the number of vacancies that they expect during the equivalent time. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's valid point.
    I was giving some examples of the research councils' work. The Agricultural and Food Research Council has

    1129
    recently developed a sophisticated new technique for chilling meat carcases which will save the country £12 million a year in energy costs, and a new technique for controlling the amount of nitrogen fertiliser used by farmers which will save British horticulture £7 million per annum and reduce environmental pollution from excess use of nitrogen fertiliser.
    Progress is also being made in increasing the links between researchers in the universities and industry, though here there is further to go. The Government, for their part, have confirmed that universities' earnings from collaboration with industry will not be penalised in the determination of allocation of University Grants Committee block grant. We have ended the British Technology Group's monopoly of first refusal on research council-funded inventions and endorsed the proposed transfer of responsibility for promoting commercial exploitation from the research councils to universities, with delegation of responsibility wherever possible to the individual researcher. We are also working with the university directors of industrial liaison and others to develop a national database of academic expertise and facilities in universities and polytechnics for use by industry.
    As for industry, the Government's recent Green Paper "Development of Higher Education into the 1990s" emphasised that business should take advantage, in its own interest, of what higher education has to offer through research, technology transfer, business start-up facilities and consultancy. Firms in the United Kingdom need to be as aware—I emphasise, in their own interests—as many of their foreign competitors of the potential of our higher education institutions, particularly as vital partners in product innovation. In its recent advice to me, the Advisory Board for the Research Councils — and it is encouraging—says that it
    "now see a clear trend in which more science-based industry is being promoted actively in this country. It is becoming a significant industrial sector in its own right and is also assisting in the modernisation of more traditional industries".
    But there is still a considerable way to go.
    I wish to acknowledge the very large research spending and excellent work of some of our big chemical, oil, pharmaceutical, aerospace, communications, electrical and electronic companies. Their contribution to our national capability is very significant. Nevertheless, British industry as a whole still seems less interested in research than industry in other countries.
    One sign of changing attitudes in industry may be that the status of our engineers and scientists within industry is improving and more young people with qualifications at first degree level in engineering and science are now entering industry. Many of our largest and most successful enterprises accord high status and provide good salaries to their top engineers and scientists. However, there is still a significant number of other British companies where engineers and scientists have a lowly position compared with their counterparts in countries that are our main industrial competitors. To succeed in an international technological environment, it is important that our best engineers and scientists receive adequate rewards and incentives not only in financial terms but in terms of their involvement in shaping the strategy of their enterprise in a highly competitive world.
    1130
    The potential and excitement of science are such that demands for resources for science will always outstrip what can be afforded That is true even in the wealthiest of countries and particularly so in the United Kingdom because of our relatively poor economic performance in recent decades None the less, the Government have given science some priority in public spending decisions Measured against average inflation, the science vote has grown by 8 per cent since 1979–80—hardly negligible At a considerable cost, I found an additional £55 million for science in the research councils and universities from the last public expenditure settlement—20 per cent less than I had originally hoped for, but still a valuable reinforcement to the science base The extra money is being used, highly selectively, to buy new equipment in universities for some of our best research groups, to fund more top quality research projects in the research councils and to assist the Agricultural and Food Research Council and the Natural Environment Research Council in restructuring their programmes better to reflect current priorities.
    Dr. John Marek: I should like to believe what the Secretary of State is saying, but how can he square it with a note in one of the reference sheets from the Library, which quotes Nature of 26 July 1984, which states
    "By parsimony, indolence and indifference, the British Government is killing off imaginative research."?
    I should like to believe what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but it is difficult.
    Sir Keith Joseph: I can best answer the hon. Gentleman by referring to the leading article in Nature of 13 June, in which a more balanced picture is given It gives credit to the Government for what they have done and makes relatively constructive suggestions about what the Government should do Therefore, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the current Nature leader.
    Despite that recent financial reinforcement, the Advisory Board for the Research Councils is still able to make a powerful case for more money It wants an additional £85 million for the research councils over the next three years It accepts that the Government have honoured their pledge to protect the science budget in gross terms, but it emphasises that a small but significant fraction of public money within the science budget is not available for science because of increasing expenditure on overheads such as international subscriptions in sterling terms, the cost of redeployment and the cost of superannuation.
    Two main arguments underlie the board's bid. First, the costs of undertaking science and of certain overheads, to which I have just referred, have increased faster than general inflation Secondly, the rapid development of science and technology is opening up new research opportunities, which the research councils have difficulty responding to quickly enough within, at best, level and, in some cases, contracting budgets The case that the advisory board makes is powerful, and I shall be considering it further with my colleagues during this year's public expenditure survey Of course, at this stage, I cannot even guess what the outcome of those deliberations might be.
    What I can do now is pay warm tribute to the way in which the research councils are responding to the challenge of reviewing and adjusting the balance of their

    1131
    programmes to reflect the latest priorities. Of course I recognise the difficulties involved in making choices, in deciding to reduce support for one area in order to build up another that merits higher priority; the pain in closing down establishments and cutting jobs. But that process is necessary to secure the most effective use of resources available, by running down work that is less promising in favour of more promising work. The current redeployment in the research councils is also necessary to increase their flexibility—to reduce the proportion of their resources tied up in long-term commitments so that in future they can respond more rapidly and effectively as scientific priorities change.
    The advisory board argues in its report that research in the universities, funded through the University Grants Committee, has come under pressure because of the 8 per cent. overall reduction in Government funds for universities since 1981–82, and that in consequence the well-found laboratory no longer exists. That is the board's judgment. It was because of my concern about that that I redeployed additional money—£18 million over the next three years out of the extra £55 million at the end of last year, for university equipment. In the Green Paper on higher education, I said that the Government intended that the contribution of the higher education system to the nation's research capability should continue on the present scale, but there was also a need for closer and better work with industry and commerce and the public services, more funding from private sources and better management, yielding greater value for money.
    The University Grants Committee's plan to introduce new selective planning and allocation arrangements for its resources for research should lead to better value for money in due course. In the meantime, the picture from the universities is not all bare. On certain indicators, notably income from research contracts, the scale of research activity in the universities appears to be growing. The Government hope that the UGC's new selective arrangements for allocating resources for research can be formulated and begin to operate by the academic year 1986–87.
    I have to acknowledge that it can be no simple matter to pick out areas of research on which resources should be concentrated — and by implication other areas from which resources should be withdrawn or reduced. It is a truism that some of the main breakthroughs of science have been made in areas which, up to that point, had not seemed particularly promising, and by individuals the significance of whose work had not been fully understood.
    It is therefore necessary for us to ensure that resources are available to support the work of really brilliant individuals in whatever areas, and to enable the United Kingdom to maintain at least the nucleus of a research capacity across a range of areas of research. But that is not inconsistent with some concentration on centres of excellence. Nor does it mean that the United Kingdom should seek to lead the rest of the world in all areas of research. That would be totally impracticable. As the Advisory Board for the Research Councils advised me last December:
    "it is unrealistic …to expect the UK to keep in the forefront of all fields of scientific research".
    We must remember that the United Kingdom's share of world research activity accounts for only about 5 per cent. of the total, and that proportion is unlikely to be significantly affected by even the largest imaginable
    1132
    increase in our domestic expenditure. Rather, the way forward must be to scrutinise carefully the priorities implicit in the present balance of funding between subject areas and to consider whether some adjustments may be needed better to serve the national interest.
    As part of the process of scrutinising priorities, the Advisory Board for the Research Councils jointly with the Science and Engineering Research Council last year established an independent review of United Kingdom involvement in high energy particle physics. Total annual expenditure on high energy particle physics is some £55 million or 10 per cent. of the research councils' total expenditure. Two thirds of that expenditure goes on Britain's subscription to the European Organisation for Nuclear Research—CERN. The review group, which is chaired by Sir John Kendrew, in addition to reviewing United Kingdom participation in high energy particle physics. has considered the implications for other areas of British science and for international scientific co-operation of the reallocation of resources from high energy particle physics in whole or in part to other areas of science.
    I understand that the Kendrew group's report is to be published next Tuesday. Copies will be placed in the Library. I cannot anticipate what the report will say. The report is addressed not to me or to the Government but to the chairmen of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils and the Science and Engineering Research Council. I look forward to receiving their advice on Sir John Kendrew's recommendations later in the year.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: My right hon. Friend rightly says that he cannot anticipate the Kendrew report, but when he considers that report will he bear in mind the comment of one of our greatest scientists, Lord Rutherford, that physics is the only science and all the rest mere stamp collecting?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I have no doubt that that and other points of view will emerge clearly, whatever is in the report.
    Science and scientists make an essential contribution to society— to its material prosperity, its comforts and convenience, and to the general well-being and health of the community. Their work can and does have far-reaching consequences for society. Scientific and technological advance is probably the most potent force for change that there is. Sometimes the public will be rightly concerned about the social or ethical implications of a particular line of research, but I believe that on the whole the scientific community is aware of the moral implications of its work and has a good track record of self-regulation in this respect. From time to time, however, there will be a difference of views within the population as to where a particular line should be drawn and here, as elsewhere, it is essential to balance the moral and ethical arguments against the utilitarian ones. I am not sure that the scientific community has always been very good or very successful at presenting its side of the case in this kind of debate, perhaps because its members are scientists and not theologians or philosophers. However, I think that they may be improving in this respect and I urge them to give even more attention not just to taking the moral dimension into account but to being seen to do so.
    I am grateful for the patience of the House and I should like to take this opportunity to remind hon. Members that an exhibition of the work of the Science and Engineering

    1133
    Research Council is to be held from 17 to 21 June in the Upper Waiting Hall of this House. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will make a little time available to visit the exhibition, which promises to be full of interest.
    10.12 am
    Dr. Jeremy Bray: The parlous state of science in Britain means that it is high time that we debated science policy. The Government have tucked this debate away to a Friday when many Members on both sides are fulfilling constituency engagements postponed from last Friday when they felt obliged to be present for the Bill relating to experiments on embryos, which was of major interest to scientists, Members of Parliament and constituents. Attendance in the Chamber today, however, shows that Nature was wrong in its comment this week that science has lost its political friends. Many of my hon. Friends wish to speak on this vital area of policy and I hope that they will be able to do so. I draw attention especially to the interest of my right hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), whose interest in science policy has been continuous since the early 1960s, long before most of the people now leading the scientific establishment had engaged in debates on science policy at all.
    To assist the House, I asked the Secretary of State to publish the advice that he received from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils on next year's science budget, and I am grateful to him for having done so. I hope that he will also publish the further studies promised by September, which will be a very helpful addition to the board's findings so far.
    I am sorry that we do not have the Kendrew report on nuclear physics, to be published next Tuesday, as that is a vital part of the picture. I hope that the House will find time to discuss that report specifically before the summer recess, so that it can be taken into account in the coming public expenditure round.
    We listened carefully to the Secretary of State for any inkling of developments in science policy to remedy the present situation, but the advisory board is clearly fully justified in complaining that the Government, Parliament and the country as a whole are complacent about the current financial straits of science. We shall seek to dispel that complacency. The advisory board points out that the Government have planned a 10 per cent. reduction in the volume of research activity in the 1980s, contrary to the trend in other countries, and warns the Government that the economic and industrial effects on the United Kingdom are likely to be grave and effectively irreversible. The least that the Government can do is to grant in the next three years the recommended £15 million, £30 million and £40 million increases above the levels planned for a zero-growth science budget, which now stands at about £600 million. That should be matched by agreeing the bid for £45 million over the next three years put to the Secretary of State by the University Grants Committee to strengthen the science base in the universities.
    The Secretary of State explained the problems, spelt out some of the arguments and gave a selective account of the record, but he offered no policy and no promise to fight on the beaches—not even a sprat to catch the headlines. It will be no excuse for the right hon. Gentleman to wring
    1134
    his hands and say that of course he agrees, but there is no money An increase in the science budget paid for out of a general increase in taxation would make everyone better off in both macroeconomic and microeconomic terms The only loss would be a political loss for the Secretary of State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, because it would be a further dent in the eccentnc fiscal calculus with which they have hijacked the Tory party The Secretary of State is putting his own personal convenience above the interests of science, the country and even the Tory party.
    With science and technology now an all-pervasive influence in society, the Government are cutting the total number of qualified scientists and engineers whom they employ on research and development by 10 per cent in the five years to 1986 They are mutilating the Natural Environment Research Council and the Agricultural and Food Research Council and they are destroying the prospect of a reasonable career structure for research scientists and technicians Manufacturing industry, too, has cut research and development Meanwhile, all our major industrial competitors are increasing their efforts.
    I assume that the Secretary of State has sought this debate because, after the fiasco over his attempt to supplement science by cuts in student grants. he wants to build up support on the Conservative Benches for the battle that he will be waging with his Cabinet colleagues in the coming public expenditure round for a much-needed increase in the science budget.
    Sir Keith Joseph: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can justify the word "fiasco" It may have been a very unpleasant experience for me, but it resulted in the transfer of £55 million to basic science.
    Dr. Bray: As the right hon. Gentleman says, it was not a great tribute to his judgment, but the result was to make it clear to scientists that the Tory party was more concerned about well-heeled constituents than about safeguarding the scientific future of this country.
    Sir Keith Joseph: I accept that what I originally asked for and had to reduce by 20 per cent. was probably too rapid and abrupt a change, but the people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers accepted a £55 million switch from their resources to basic science.
    Dr. Bray: That is a story to which we shall return many times in the future, especially when we see what further steps the Government will take in this public expenditure round.
    Mr. David Crouch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Bray: I have given way many times I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be called
    To win the further battles more convincingly, the Secretary of State must have a reply to his colleagues, especially to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, when they say, "You led us into this deflationary hole You had overall responsibility for policy and research at the start How will you get us out?" It is from within science that the right hon. Gentleman can find an answer to that argument Whether he has the insight and the courage to use it, we shall see If his record of Damascene conversions is anything to go by, anything is possible.

    1135
    Restoring science to a state in which it can play its necessary role in modern society will probably need a new Government, less dogmatic in their philosophy, and so less hostile to the whole spirit of science. There must be change. It takes a century—in Britain it has taken two or three centuries—to build up a scientific tradition such as we have enjoyed in the past. With modern science, however, such a tradition can be destroyed in a decade of parsimony if the essential links are broken between teacher and student in their seminal years, between ideas and their testing on expensive modern apparatus accessible only abroad, and between basic research and its application in the entrancing synergy of intellect truly linked with social concern.
    Let us make no mistake where Britain's scientific strength has come from — a tradition of free inquiry, following where the arguments have led. In Germany the primacy of research is unquestioned, with no mere Government prepared to deny the scientists the resources which they say are needed to pursue their research. But the authoritarian stuctures of German institutions, with the student unable to escape from the control of Herr Professor Doktor until his thirties, are inimical to originality, though strong on exploitation within fields once established.
    In France, by contrast, science is part of central Government, caught up in the aspirations and so also in the chauvinism of the moment, able quickly to take new initiatives, but not always able to deliver according to a political timetable, or to take wing on a new idea that does not come from the Government.
    In Britain, our tradition of free inquiry, debate, peer group judgment, and ultimate respect for democratic demands and decision have given us world-class universities and a fine scientific tradition at an absurdly cheap price, yet the Government are destroying that by parsimony, misunderstanding, abuse, and hostility. Just when the Robbins wave of expansion should be leading on to access to that tradition by far more working-class children, as was traced so carefully by Professor Halsey, the Government are cutting back on student numbers and on the overall funding of science through the dual support system.
    The Secretary of State is also confused about the links between teaching and research. The academic who publishes a paper on queueing theory, the polytechnic lecturer who sends his students out to record the timing of buses, the research student who helps commission the computer programme which transfers work between machine tools in a flexible manufacturing system, and the economist who consults for American banks on the financial futures market, are all doing essentially the same thing. They are all building the bridges between similar pieces of mathematics in the lecture room and the outside world, carrying from one to the other the experience and material which helps keep each alive.
    So we have the Secretary of State questioning whether all institutions and departments have to do research, yet urging all to undertake consultancy and industry support. He is cutting off one hand because he wants to make the other hand work better. He takes no account of how he has reduced the flexibility and efficiency of higher education and research, by starving them of resources. It is now far more difficult for the fertile researcher to have his teaching load eased, for the good facilitator who is content to leave research to others to take on the heavier administrative tasks, and for the good communicator to concentrate on
    1136
    passing on the lessons he has learned by teaching the next generation Because there is not the movement, the informal efficiency of the whole suffers It cannot be replaced by formal edicts and demarcations, least of all from Whitehall.
    The Secretary of State must understand and insist on keeping alive and healthy the traditions and institutions of a free society, and the scientific discourse which has been one of its finest products Today, that science is all-pervasive, and as relevant to the management of the economy and the funding of resources for education and science as it is to the working of the Secretary of State's brain, and the Secretary of State is crucifying it.
    Pick up Nature any week Last weekend's copy had on the cover the best electron microscope pictures yet of the structure of acetylcholine receptors in synapses — the mechanism which makes nerve cells fire The Secretary of State can relax It is not from his brain It is from the electric organ of the electric ray torpedo marmorata, by which it knocks out its victims with a 500 volt punch by firing all its nerve cells at once Come to think of it, perhaps the Secretary of State's brain might be organised on a similar principle.
    The resolution at different depths is excellent, enabling researchers to match the size of the receptor to the messenger protein molecules that bind to them and trigger the firing of the cell The electron microscope is an essential tool in this and a wide range of other research, covering biology, metallurgy, material science, solid state physics, microelectronics and other sciences In 1948 the best electron microscope in the world could be bought for about £3,000—the price of a Rolls Royce car. Twenty years later the best cost £12,000 — the price of two Rolls-Royces Today, the best costs between £250,000 and £1·5 millon depending on the type — the cost of about 10 Rolls-Royce cars.
    Mrs. Edwina Currie: It depends on the Rolls-Royce.
    Dr. Bray: Rolls-Royces do just the same job today and are based on very much the same engineering principles as in 1948 The difference lies in the power, sophistication and cost of the electron microscope.
    There is a sophistication factor To look at individual molecules, a magnification of 1 million or more is needed High voltages are required to look deep into specimens, and chemical analyses of the elements present in the object can be presented These are the necessary tools of modern research Without them it is not possible to work at the frontiers of science.
    The work is not of purely scientific interest Dr Leslie Iversen, the former head of the MRC Neurochemical Pharmacology unit at Cambridge, has had set up for him by the American pharmaceutical company Merck, Sharp and Dohme a new £25 million laboratory at Harlow to design drugs based on a knowledge of neuro-receptor sites of the kind illustrated in the Nature article The immediate target is semle dementia, or Alzheimer's disease, which causes great distress and affects some 20 per cent of the rapidly growing number of 80-year-olds and above.
    It is a huge world market Many scientists feel that the results of Dr Iversen's work should be available to science generally and for exploitation by British pharmaceutical companies, instead of having been pre-empted by an American company It is better that the work should be

    1137
    done, and be done in Britain but, in the present climate, it has taken the Medical Research Council three years to decide whether, among many competing claims, Dr. Iversen's unit can be replaced in this most promising area of clinical research.
    Dr. Iversen is among the more fortunate. The authors of the article, Brisson and Unwin, are at Grenoble and Stanford. Dr. Nigel Unwin was in the Cambridge MRC labs before he was enticed to Stanford. The equipment that he used was supplied by Dr. Peter Gatan, who was professor of metallurgy at Imperial College before he went to America, because in Britain there was not the market or finance to set up his company for making equipment for use with electronic microscopes.
    In British research laboratories there are six high-voltage electron microscopes, purchased in 1971. The recent UGC money for equipment will bring us nowhere near the 40 high-voltage electron microscopes of more recent vintage used in Japan.
    Material science is a heavy user of electron microscopes. In the US, the National Critical Materials Act 1984 set up a council within the executive office of the President to co-ordinate Government policies and oversee the $1 billion per annum Government funding of research in materials. In the United Kingdom, the SERC budget for materials research is £4 million per annum. When the Collyear report recommended a serious material science programme in the United Kingdom, the Minister for Information Technology, the hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie), said that industry would have to fund it. It is pathetic.
    When Dr. Colin Humphreys of Oxford, the newly appointed professor of metallurgy at Liverpool, sought Department of Trade and Industry support for a new materials centre at Liverpool, the Minister of State turned him down flat earlier this month. It would be difficult to think of any development at the price likely to contribute more to the redevelopment of Merseyside and the industrial future of Britain.
    The Government must fund science. As I said in the House on 15 May when we were debating industry and new technology, there is no inherent competitive incentive in a market economy for private or public commercial organisations to undertake pre-competitive research. Basic science and pre-competitive applied research, including research into enabling technologies, and in public concerns such as health, safety and the environment, will not be done unless they are done by the Government. Charity, whether from individuals or industry, plays a useful part in the more popular bits of medical research but elsewhere their contribution is marginal, and will remain so, however much industrialists are lectured by the Prime Minister. Sometimes even pre-competitive research, which is essential to the survival of an industry, is not undertaken by firms on their own because the benefits of the research cannot be used to strengthen one firm against its competitors.
    When we debated new technology policy on 15 May, there was a deplorable response from the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows that most of the support for innovation schemes that he began to build up when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry have now been dismantled, because, despite the
    1138
    overall increase of Government support for industrial research and development, there was no increase in overall research and development in manufacturing industry, and most of the money was just going into research-intensive firms which were already doing well out of Government defence research and development contracts. The Secretary of State did not adopt policies which would ensure additionally.
    Today we are concerned with science, basic science and mainly pre-competitive research. Just as with technology, the needs and opportunities vary so much, and the position is moving so fast, that international comparisons at a particular time are no longer an appropriate guide.
    Let us consider the international comparisons. The Reagan Administration cut development programmes on the new energy technologies left over from the Carter Administration which had been initiated before the oil glut. But President Reagan has increased, and is still increasing, federal funding for basic science. Federal funding for basic research in physical and life sciences and engineering in universities and colleges has been increased by 30 per cent. in real terms from 1981 to 1985. As the office of science and technology policy in the executive office of the President explains:
    "Government has a responsibility to help our colleges and universities create an environment for attracting and retaining faculty of the highest quality. That means improving the climate for research on campus so that ambitious scientists and engineers won't feel compelled to take jobs in industry if they want to be competitive in research."
    This is the American President's office talking. It goes on:
    "In the long run an academic brain drain is devastating for universities and industry alike, because universities simply won't have enough faculty to teach students, particularly in the fastest moving areas of science and engineering. And without newly trained talent, industrial technology will surely dry up."
    With these priorities, Reagan's America is a million miles away from Thatcher's Britain.
    France is planning to increase civil research and development expenditure by 4 per cent. per annum in real terms for the next three years, making it a 40 per cent. increase in eight years, bringing research and development expenditure to 2·6 per cent. of the GDP. Government-funded civil research and development in 1981, according to OECD figures quoted in the Government's latest review, was 0·81 per cent. of the GDP in France, 1·05 per cent. in Germany and 0.·64 per cent in the United Kingdom. In absolute terms, their civil research and development expenditure is higher still, and increasing, while Britain's remains frozen.
    What should we spend, and why? Research and development does not, by itself, secure economic growth. On the supply side, there need also to be comprehensive and related programmes for investment and training in an overall policy of support for innovation, which is a necessary element in overall competitiveness. On the demand side, the economy must be so managed that there is an adequate level of effective demand at home and abroad, with a monetary policy aimed at securing a stable level of price competitiveness.
    If the Secretary of State wants to know how that can be managed better than it is being managed at present, I invite him to come to the international conference of the Society of Economic Dynamics and Control at Imperial college later this month, where he will see, among many interesting papers, United Kingdom Treasury officials

    1139
    demonstrating methods that were developed with Social Science Research Council support before the barbarous attack that the Secretary of State made on that institution.
    It is an interesting and potentially important cross-fertilisation between economics and engineering. I do not see how the Secretary of State can crib at that. He will argue that the market will produce the investment and a greater element of applied research, development and training than I believe it is likely to do in Britain. It is not simply that the Secretary of State is asking for too much too quickly from a weakened industry. The problem is inherent in the role of research and development in competitive markets.
    The problem — as taught not in Leftish British economic departments but in solid Ivy League economics departments and capitalist business schools in the States, even in those monetarist holy of holies, the economics department at Chicago and the Hoover institute at Stanford
    — is not that the invisible hand is like the emperor's new clothes—simply not there—but, as Professor Joe Stiglitz of Princeton and All Souls, who pioneered so much of this work, puts it—that the invisible hand is slightly palsied.
    If we write down what people will buy and sell with the information available to them, we will find that, to work a market, information costs money, as any other production cost costs money. Wherever there are information problems, there are Government interventions which can make everyone better off. Either information is not generated because it is too costly or it cannot be witheld from competitors, or if it is generated it is better for the economy if it is shared. The arguments are rigorous — so rigorous that I doubt whether the Secretary of State could follow them in full because they are rather mathematical—but the Secretary of State and his right hon. Friends are giving a spectacular and appalling demonstration of what ignoring those arguments means in practice. It means the dereliction of a modern industrial economy.
    I should like to see a doubling of research and development in manufacturing over three or four years, which is possible and which is needed to secure the technological competitiveness for the re-industrialisation of Britain.
    The Secretary of State believes that the market will determine the research and development needed in industry, but he would surely agree that the basic science must be there to support it. Why, even Korea and Taiwan have this year decided to establish research programmes and institutes in materials science and microelectronics because they see that branch factories such as they now have—and such as we have in Silicon glen in Scotland —offer no secure future. Alvey is not enough. Korea and Taiwan will match that.
    The economic argument for basic science is that if we do not practise it we will not be able to understand, still less apply, the new technology that it generates. A scientist who gives up working and reading at the frontiers of a rapidly moving subject will find that within a year he can no longer understand his former colleagues.
    Much of science at its most applied and applicable is now moving with unprecedented speed — molecular biology, genetics, material science, electronics, system theory — I hesitate to mention more in case some scientists feel that I have deliberately left their subject out of a comprehensive list.
    1140
    When there is such a rapid and such a comprehensive dependence of new technology on basic science, an) medium-sized industrial country has an interest in fostering its basic science, to understand what is going on to have the facility to apply it as applications appear possible, and to train the applied scientists and technologists on the science that they will be applying
    It is true that earlier in this century scientific discoveries often preceded by 20 or 30 years the new technology products and processes that they made possible 1 hat lag is now falling In areas such as molecular biology and microelectronics it is under 10 years So in Britain, where we have had a fine tradition of basic science, it is only common sense to keep it alive and healthy Yet it is declining, whether measured by citations in papers and patents, in patent registration, in papers produced, or in Nobel prizes The Secretary of State does not need to wait for the evidence It is there The causes of decline have been greatly increased since the squeeze on the universities in 1980–81 tightened the pressures on science.
    It is not a motivation for science that the Opposition would favour, but I have difficult in understanding why the right hon. Gentleman and his friends do not accord to science the same priority as they accord to defence, law and order, national prestige and social privilege Scientist' are no angels, and there are plenty who would respond to a chauvinistic lead from the Government, such as President Reagan gave in the United States A boost for science even now would be a cheap and effective way of boosting the kind of Britain which the Prime Minister seeks If it will help the Secretary of State with his colleagues, I am even prepared to say that it would be embarrassing to the Opposition.
    However, I suspect that the Government are incapable of making a move because they are so hag-ridden by the anti- science brew served up by the combination of that weird trio, the right hon. Gentleman, the Prime Minister, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer If ever there were an argument for the cultural contribution needed from science, it is embodied in the background of those three the aging gru, believing that whatever he cannot think out for himself is not knowledge, yet incapable of reading the language of science, the financial journalist, product of Oxford PPE—philosophy, politics and economics—from its slickest, most superficial and arrogant period, when its detachment from modern economics was yet to become a public scandal, and the second-class chemist, for whom her science was merely a channel through which she could pass to the indulgence of her political obsessions.
    The openness of mind, the readiness to listen, the concern with objective reality, the acceptance of democratic and hence peer group review, which are fostered by science are not the prerogatives of science, but they are essential in any Government who are going successfully to foster science and win for the country the fruits that it can offer Because those qualities are absent from the inner councils of this Government, the right hon. Gentleman will not, I believe, win for science the increased resources which he knows are needed.
    Mr. Crouch rose—
    Dr. Bray: I shall not give way I have already spoken for too long The hon. Gentleman will be able to make his speech.
    I find useful the distinction within basic science between pure research and strategic research, introduced

    1141
    by Irvine and Martin into the OECD Frascati definitions of research and development. Indeed, their study "Foresight in Science for the Government's Advisory Council on Applied Research and Development" is a valuable contribution to science policy. I hope that the Secretary of State has read it.
    I do not like the term curiosity-oriented research because it attributes a motivation to the researchers far short of the great aspirations that often drive their pursuit of knowledge. The economic and social benefits from it may not be formulated or agreed, and their cultural dimension may not be emphasised, because the actual content of the questions asked in their research marks it out as of significance for mankind, for those who have eyes to see, but the nature of the scientific venture is such that it is often only the researcher himself or the little village of researchers in the peer group who at that stage have the eyes to see. I shall come to the subject of the criteria by which research resources should be allocated for this kind of work.
    There is a clear area of strategic research carried out with the expectation that it will form the background to the solution of recognised practical problems, as the Secretary of State said. While large science-based companies may devote 5 to 10 per cent. of their research and development to such strategic research to be able to follow it, the bulk of it is publicly financed in this and other countries in universities and laboratories.
    Here, decisions on the allocation of resources have to be made. Irvine and Martin make out a persuasive case, based on the experience of the United States, Germany, France and Japan as well as Britain, for a systematic effort to identify promising areas of basic science, given the increasing speed and pervasiveness of its effects on technology. The experience should be organised by the Government, but it should involve the whole scientific community and lead to the broad allocation of resources.
    Not only must the research councils and the Advisory Board for the Research Councils be involved, as they are already, but also the universities, the University Grants Committee, the National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education, the Departments of Education and Science, Trade and Industry, and Defence, and industry and the unions.
    This is a task for the machinery of government for science which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition outlined in the current issue of Link-Up. A Cabinet Minister designated to speak for science, a chief scientific adviser with a proper staff, and a council on science and technology, are needed. The management of science budgets should remain with Departments acting within a comprehensive strategy. Democratic planning of the economy generally, with its wider spread of responsibility for decision-making, requires a modern information system, widely accessible in government and out. It is an area of information technology totally neglected by this Government, who are not even conducting a survey of annual research and development within industry.
    A Cabinet Minister, says my right hon. Friend, with a brief to create the information system needed for democratic planning, not as an overlord but as a coordinator working closely with colleagues, could be the driving force needed for science and technology also.
    1142
    Within such an arrangement, science and technology could play their full part both as resources and as claims in the management of the economy.
    The three claims — support for research and development in industry, support for strategic research, and support for pure research — should be settled by different but overlapping considerations. Support for research and development in industry, with the emphasis on fairly short-term development for the re-industrialisation of Britain, should be pitched at the level needed to lead and to match progress towards that objective. Support for strategic research would depend on the number and scope of strategic areas chosen, and support for pure research would be set to encompass those opportunities for support of excellence in basic science that were not encompassed by the strategic programmes. Both skilled manpower supply and expenditure would of course, be constraints, but not within pre-set target ceilings and cash limits set irrespective of effectiveness and cost.
    The absence of such machinery has allowed uncoordinated and short-term considerations to mutilate the Agricultural and Food Research Council and the Natural Environment Research Council. It has led to cuts in the support for innovation schemes expanded by the Secretary of State. It has left nuclear physics to be reviewed on its own by the Kendrew committee, whose report we have yet to see. It has sold out on medical research opportunities. It has left engineers as uncertain of their role as ever. It has left defence research as remote as ever from civil applications. It has positively invited our best scientists to leave the country, and the country's service, and has bogged down those who remain in increased effort to get their share of diminishing real resources in the dual support system.
    As the leading article in Nature said yesterday—in a part which the Secretary of State did not quote—the erosion of morale is too rapid to wait until the next election, for there may be little left by then. The least that the Government can do is to grant in full the ABRC and UGC bids to strengthen science, and set up sensible machinery of government for science and technology to secure the technological foundations of recovery.
    We call upon the Government to nurture the science and technology on which the future of this country depends, instead of so wantonly destroying it.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, the House will wish to know that no fewer than 20 right hon. and hon. Members hope to contribute to the debate. Therefore, I appeal for short speeches.
    10.53 am
    Mr. Kenneth Warren: At the beginning of this year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I had the privilege of being entertained—I believe that it was entertaining—by Lord Flowers and others at Imperial college. He brought together several of his friends, including Sir David Phillips, Sir Ronald Mason, John Ashworth and Sir John Kingman, to review the problems of science in Britain. My right hon. Friend will not be surprised if I say that, having launched a

    1143
    personal study during the succeeding months into the well-being of science, I shall have a small contest with him today, which I hope that he will accept from a previous and loyal Parliamentary Private Secretary.
    I believe that the Government should move resources towards science rather than look for ways of economising on its expenditure. My right hon. Friend will know that no one believes more strongly than me in trying to reduce the burdens on taxpayers. I do not advance a move towards higher taxation. However, the time has come when we can no longer take the risks that we are running in the well-being of the country for which we are responsible.
    The first of my findings is slightly audacious, but I hope that it will be acceptable to my right hon. Friend. I believe that science should be driven by market demand, and that the demand-pull of markets should reach backwards towards the science-push of which we are conscious and which is being funded. That means that we must define objectives. Governments do not usually like defining objectives, even if Oppositions do. The market-pull is to meet competition on an increasing scale from many major industrial countries and we cannot ignore that. We must examine the means available to forecast how we should move forward in science. That will require a gathering of knowledge, ideas and information from our competitors to try to determine what will be the products of the future, and then to back-track those to the strands of science that we now have. That is not a mathematical or philosophical difficulty particularly for politicians, who have the benefit of hindsight at their instant command.
    There is no doubt that the present position, with each Department of State setting its objectives in the light of its priorities and programmes, is not the sort of objective that should result in statements such as the one from the science board of the Science and Engineering Research Council, responding to the requirements of four sciences — physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics. The board reported that those sciences could not find the money to finance about one third of their alpha-rated projects— those of the highest merit that should be funded at all costs.
    My right hon. Friend will recall that, at the conference at Imperial college, Sir John Kingman said that only 74 per cent. of his alpha projects could be funded, and that the figure could drop to 60 per cent. Sir James Gowans, secretary of the Medical Research Council, has said that, whereas in 1982–83 85 per cent. of his projects were funded, in 1983–84 the figure had dropped to 53 per cent. Sir David Phillips, the Oxford biophysicist, has said that the volume of science will be about 25 per cent. less in 10 years' time than it is now. He was sounding a warning bell, as a fellow of the Royal Society and a biophysicist of world renown, that we cannot ignore.
    What will be the result of all this? If one examines the document "Charter for Jobs" published by that strange organisation which came above ground last month but which seems to have disappeared, one finds information that looks into the past specifying how growth rates of real national product per worker hour and real national product over five-year moving averages have all declined. But the arguments deployed by such organisations do not contain real solutions, other than the Government spending more money. If one considers matters to which that organisation drew no deductive attention in its document, one sees that the key factor, which illustrates the way in which our scientific ability is declining and will continue to decline is that, during the past 20 years, the percentage of
    1144
    manufacturing firms working at capacity has decreased from about half to about 30 per cent. That has nothing to do with the oil crisis or the world recession during the past decade. The fact is that Britain has declined in competitiveness at an unacceptable rate that must not be tolerated.
    The science policy research unit at Sussex university —a university of whose court I am delighted to be a member — has considered how competitiveness will move forward in the 1980s and 1990s. It has done some startling work, to which the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) referred, relating to Britain's share of scientific publications worldwide, our share of citations worldwide and the number of foreign patents taken out in the United States. In all those areas, Britain's share has declined unacceptably. The share of the United States, the Soviet Union and France has also declined, to the benefit of West Germany, which has had a small increase, and Japan, which has had a startling 30 per cent. increase during the past decade. As for citations, the Japanese have taken over the reference base on which so many scientists rely for their publications. They now refer to Japanese publications 50 per cent. more than they did 10 years ago. The Japanese have now soaked up from the West all the science it has and are moving forward into an era of innovation which is well funded and devoted to strategic tasks which have been identified.
    In considering the ways in which various countries determine how to use their scientific resources, there is no better example than that which the Japanese provide in the deployment of their science and technology agency. The agency has been functioning since 1956. In the past 15 years it has brought together in five-year programmes the opinions of those in industry, the universities and Government. About 4,000 to 5,000 people at a time have been invited to distil their opinions on where the country should be going with its science, technology and industry. This analysis, which results in consensus, is something which we should be able to achieve.
    Success does not lie merely in the amount of money which is spent. The United States spends more than Japan on higher education—$8 billion a year compared with $5 billion. We spend about one fifth of that which Japans expends. The number of researchers, scientists and engineers in higher education is not the sole crieterion. The United States and Japan have about the same number. The clue lies in the research and development which is carried on in higher education as a percentage of all national research and development.
    It is true that in Japan 75 per cent. of all research is funded by industry. However, the key figure is the number of people working in higher education as a percentage of all national research and development. There lies a clue to the success of the Japanese and the danger for us in future. We employ about 11 per cent. of our researchers, scientists and engineers in higher education. The United States, West Germany and France employ about 15 per cent. but the Japanese are employing 28 per cent. They are putting their best men at the sharp end. The rapid advances that they are making are such that it will not be a matter merely of trying to erect trade barriers against their products as a solution. We must not fail to understand that it is in investing in the brightest people that we can compete. The only way in which we can compete with Japan and other far eastern countries is by moving up the scale of industrial competitiveness.

    1145
    A third factor in an area in which Government policy should be developed is the co-ordination of information. There seems to be no way at present in which we can bring together knowledge of what is happening in universities, research councils, industry, Government and research establishments. There are organisations which meet in an ad hoc fashion but that are not akin to the scale of co-ordination that we must achieve.
    We must come to some conclusions about our economic and social needs. We must examine all the areas of sciencee and technology which have the potential to meet those needs. We must establish priorities and certainly we must establish forecasts. At present, our objectives are not clear to our scientists. Too many industrialists are not aware of what the scientists are doing. We can achieve a great deal by setting objectives, giving leadership and co-ordinating the knowledge that is available. The Government are the only agency available to carry out that co-ordination.
    We have a broad and deep basis of good science in the United Kingdom but its real value has yet to be recognised and used. Our task and our duty must be to mobilise these human resources to improve the well-being of our people.
    11.4 am
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is not my intention to add to the Government's embarrassments by joining in the general demand for a more or less massive increase in expenditure. I want instead to warn the Government of an imminent embarrassment towards which they are drifting in an area related to the topic before the House and to indicate to them the way in which they could avoid it.
    The key document in this matter is a letter which was issued from the office of the Leader of the House to the many members of the public who had written to him with the plea that the Government should find time for the completion of a Bill in the present Session on the subject on which the Warnock committee reported, namely the creation and use of human embryos for scientific experiment.
    In the course of his letter to the Leader of the House wrote:
    "the Government has not thought it appropriate to form a collective view on the merits of this legislation, believing that it raises issues best left to the individual consciences of Members of Parliament."
    That is an important declaration of Government intention. The issues which such legislation raises are those which are inseparable from the conclusions put forward by the Warnock committee. The Government have therefore committed themselves to ensuring that when in due course they come forward, as they must, with legislation, that part at any rate of the legislation will be "left to the individual consciences of Members of Parliament" and no collective view of the Government will be formed upon it.
    The Government have said frequently in debates upon this subject that they are neutral. It is not possible to be neutral as between what was proposed in that legislation and the proposals of the Warnock committee. But two things have happened in these past months which are relevant to the Government's considerations. First, they have learnt upon what lines the House will support legislation if the issue is "left to the individual consciences
    1146
    of Members" Secondly, the recommendations of the Warnock committee have begun to come to pieces in the course of debate and of the examination to which they have been subjected, so that they can form no longer a satisfactory base on which any Government can frame legislation
    Mr. Dalyell rose—
    Mr. Powell: No, I shall not give way I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I continue It is part of my habit to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I have, in a debate in which a number of hon. Members wish to speak, a substantial speech to make and I hope that he will allow me to pursue it.
    Several times already in the course of the debate, quotations have been offered from Nature It was on 7 March that Nature published a leading article of which, so far as I know, there has not subsequently been any rebuttal, nor has there been an arrangement made for an apologetic leading article to follow it in a later issue. In the course of a leading article on the subject of the proposed legislation, the editor of Nature wrote:
    "The missing ingredient in the debate"—
    that was the debate of 15 February—
    "was the clear statement of what exactly are the benefits of investigations with human embryos"
    He continued with this staggering sentence:
    "That is not surprising, for as yet there have been no such investigations"
    I saw no reports of angry crowds gathering outside the office of Nature demanding that the editor withdraw a statement which put a foot straight through the allegations and recommendations of the Warnock report On the contrary, so convinced was he of the correctness of what he was saying that he went to the length of offering a prize for those who could suggest what investigations there might in future be within this area.
    Being naturally inquisitive, I corresponded with the editor of Nature in due course to inquire how he was getting on I did not receive an answer from him until 8 May because in the meantime he had been away at the Hanover fair He replied:
    "The position is that we have had about a dozen proposals, some detailed, some vague I hope that we shall have opinions on these in a month or so I have not yet decided how we shall publish them, but I shall make sure that you have a sight of what we plan to publish before it actually appears"
    I am much obliged to the editor of Nature for his candour in reporting upon the response to his desperate plea to those concerned "While no investigations are in progress at the moment, kindly let me know what investigations might be put forward to make up something of a case"
    However, I did not think that it was good enough to go on waiting to hear from the editor of Nature I said to myself, "This is too important to be left to correspondence with a periodical, however distinguished I will go to the fountainhead I will go to the Minister for Health because he is personally—not as Minister in his official capacity —opposed to the contents of the legislation He must have thought deeply upon the subject Moreover, his Department has been concerned in studying the legislation in great detail and advising upon the consequences if it were to be passed So I cannot do better than to address myself to the Minister himself "Therefore, I asked the Minister, in a written question,

    1147
    "if he will list the establishments in which he is aware of human embryos being currently possessed tor purposes which would be outside the terms of the authority defined in the Unborn Children (Proteclion) Bill".
    The reply which I received will be instantly recognisable by all students of that handbook of politics known as "Yes Minister". Mr. Hacker's—I am sorry, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's—written answer was:
    "We do not have sufficient detailed information to enable us to speculate on the effects of the Bill as precisely as the question asks."— [Official Report, 17 April 1985; Vol. 77, c. 410-11. ]
    Mr. Frank Dobson: A good answer.
    Mr. Powell: It was a very good answer. He said he did not know. He said that his Department did not know. So here all this agitation was going on, and yet the Minister was quite unable to draw attention to any establishment in which anything happening was incompatible with terms of the legislation to which he was personally opposed.
    Therefore, I was not altogether surprised when, in the couple of articles, which many hon. Members will have read, in the Sunday Telegraph on 19 and 26 May 1985, Mr. Graham Turner, the author, said of one of the persons whom he had interviewed:
    "So far, he hadn't done the sort of work on human embryos which the Powell Bill would have banned, but very much wanted to."
    Nor was I surprised by the general conclusion at which Mr. Turner arrived, from the people he had interviewed in the course of his investigations:
    "Too many have become scientist-politicians concerned with putting up a good public relations case for embryo experiments, but a few are genuinely concerned with truth, even to the extent of admitting that their own case is not watertight."
    Since it has been alleged that I take no interest in the relevant establishments, I should add that I was careful to inquire of Professor Craft at the Cromwell hospital and of Messrs Steptoe and Edwards at Bourn Hall, to whom I express at once my gratitude to them for the great courtesy and hospitality they showed me. I asked them point blank, "Are you conducting any experiments which are incompatible with the terms of this legislation?" In each case the answer was no—a negative which has been confirmed publicly by both in the course of television interviews.
    So here is a pretty pickle. We have Baroness Warnock in an article in The Times—opinions may differ as to the good taste or otherwise of the illustration—asserting:
    "without continued research in vitro fertilization would come to an end",
    yet in the very establishments where vast sums of money are being paid for the continuance of this process, we find that such research was not taking place and is not taking place—nor anywhere else, apparently. There is also the greatest difficulty in envisaging what it might be or, to quote the editor of Nature again, "what exactly are the benefits" it might produce.
    I felt, however, that it was my duty to do what the Warnock committee had not done in its shoddy investigations, and to ask some pertinent questions, questions as to what were the purposes and the benefits for which it was indispensable for the experiments to be conducted on human embryos. I am much obliged to Dr. Lieberman of the regional IVF unit in Manchester for his correspondence with me and for his assistance to me in this respect. I am not certain that at all stages in the
    1148
    correspondence Dr Lieberman knew exactly what had hit him, but at any rate it has been an enjoyable correspondence on both sides.
    When I asked Dr Lieberman what were the purposes for which it was indispensable to conduct experiments incompatible with the terms of the legislation, he kindly referred me to an article by Dr Anne McLaren published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in April of this year. Naturally, I examined it with great interest and eagerness I found that it contained four separate suggestions Two of them I set on one side at once as they were compatible with the terms of the Bill, being concerned not with embryos but with gametes That left two propositions The first was that such experiments were necessary lor testing male fertility I quite understand that it was probably not possible for the Minister for Health to be present at this debate, but he will have been advised by his Department—as I was advised by his Department, in writing—that there are other methods of producing that result which do not involve those experiments So that leaves us with the residual fourth proposition Dr McLaren put forward I hope that I may spend a few more moments upon that, because it is of great importance, for it has been the cause of great misunderstanding, and of great avoidable distress occasioned to large numbers of people in the course of the debates which have taken place in preceding months I refer to the elimination of embryos containing genetic defects.
    I will spend a moment or two on the theory which underlies the proposition It is that if parents known to be liable to transmit a genetic disease will have their children by in vitro fertilisation, and if, before insertion, the embryos can be tested to be cleared of otherwise of those diseases, it should be possible to ensure that those parents do not have children who will carry forward those diseases That is the underlying theory of the whole proposition It was contended by Dr McLaren that for that purpose, "because of species differences between human beings and the objects of the previous trials which had pointed to the conclusion that the remainder of an embryo of which one or two cells had been biopsied in order to test for genetic disease was viable it inserted — or, as the terminology goes, was totipotential—
    "the last step can never be omitted if a procedure is to be used in clinical practice —
    in other words, that it was necessary to experiment upon human embryos in order to clear the totipotentiality of byopsied embryos for insertion That is a very logical proposition if it is correct, but I am advised that there are strong grounds for taking it to be incorrect.
    I was advised on the matter by Dr McLean of the department of anatomy of the university of Manchester, who assured me that
    "the only way in which"
    the viability of the embryo from which the biopsy is taken can be assessed
    "is by insertion, with subsequent monitoring of the pregnancy".
    He assumes that that was what must be meant by' the last step" referred to in Dr McLaren's paper to which I was referred by Dr Lieberman.
    So we arrive at a second conclusion Not only has the current practice of these experiments not been demon-strated, though their continuance is supposed to be vital to the continuance of the fertility procedures, but it is extremely difficult and controversial to identify the benefits which it is alleged they might produce — a

    1149
    whole field of inquiry into which there is no evidence that the Warnock committee entered in the course of arriving at its foregone conclusion that it was necessary to make provision by legislation for such experiments to be made.
    Right hon. and hon. Members may feel that up to this point I have only discharged part of the task on which I set out. They would be entitled to say, "If anything, you have proved too much. You have shown evidence that experiments incompatible with the legislation are not in progress. You have argued that such experiments are necessary. How, then, comes it that pressure is so strong for such experiments to be authorised? How is it that there is such violent, though concentrated and orchestrated, opposition to legislation which would be incompatible with them?"
    It is necessary to answer that question, and again I am indebted to Dr. McLaren for supplying the answer. Among the objects which she mentioned, there was a fifth which I now bring to the attention to the House. She wrote:
    "Research on new methods of contraception also requires the use of IVF test systems."
    I believe that there she laid her finger upon part, though only part, of the answer to the legitimate question of the House: why is it that such pressures have been exerted in order to secure legalisation permitting the use of the human embryo as an object of scientific experiment?
    I do not know whether hon. Members have studied at all carefully the terms of reference of the so-called voluntary authority which has been set up between the Medical Research Council and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to exercise those functions of control which the Warnock committee suggested should be vested in a quango. But even in setting out at this stage the objects, they said:
    "The aim of any research must be clearly defined and relevant to clinical problems such as the diagnosis and treatment of infertility or of genetic disorders"—
    and note—
    "or for the development of safe and more effective contraceptive measures."
    This bears out what Sir John Dewhurst said in a letter of great importance which was published in the Daily Telegraph on 6 June—a letter signed by some of the most eminent obstetricians and gynaecologists in the country:
    "we must uderstand that enthusiasm for IVF is now only incidentally concerned with relief of infertility."
    Dr. M. S. Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman go a bit further with the voluntary code between the Medical Research Council—
    Mr. Powell: Yes. I will go further. I am in the middle of it.
    Dr. Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that this body which has suggested the voluntary code now has a more scientific attitude, I think, to determining the pre-embryo stage in order to differentiate between that stage and the embryo after 14 days? Will he go further and say that it depends on the development of the primitive streak? The Medical Research Council and the Royal College are very much in favour of experimentation so long as it does not occur after the primitive streak has appeared.
    Mr. Powell: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I was aware of the views officially put forward on behalf of the
    1150
    Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, although they are not shared by many of the most distinguished members of that college or by many distinguished members of the medical profession.
    I was drawing the attention of the House to what Sir John Dewhurst wrote, namely
    "What is more important (to some) is that there should be a plentiful supply of disposable human embryos in the laboratories for testing drugs (and especially in developing abortifacients) "
    Some of us who have been interested in this matter for a series of months have been struck by the nature of the pressures which lay behind the opposition to legislation The presence of commercial motivation, the existence of large potential profits in the background, was unmistakable Here lies one of the central points By research upon human embryos, the means—
    Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Powell: No I am finishing my speech If the hon. Member is called, he can make his comments then.
    The motivation behind much of the demand to have embryos available for experiment is a commercial motivation based upon the possibility and prospect of developing highly saleable and profitable contraceptives and other drugs.
    Mrs. Renee Short: Is that not better than abortion?
    Mr. Powell: Sir John Dewhurst continues:
    "This is not scare- mongering This is what the pro-IVF lobby itself tells us, and we may suspect that much more is already happening inside some laboratories than we are told "
    This then is the answer to the legitimate question Why is it that, in the absence of current experiments relevant to IVF, and in the absence of logical and rational justification of the need for human embryos for some future experiments, we have not had disclosed the real, effective ground and the real purposes for which that use was to be indispensable?
    It is a curious reflection that some of the most incorruptible Members of the House, such as the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr Hamilton), have found themselves ingenuously accepting, no doubt largely as a result of the careless and inadequate work done by the Warnock committee, the case put forward by those who wish to make major profits out of the exploitation of experiment upon the human embryo.
    I am glad to see the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr Dobson) on the Opposition Front Bench, because I have noted with satisfaction and sympathy his growing interest in the exploitation of medicine by capitalist investment, especially from the United States He will share with me a sense of the sardonic irony that hon. Members whom no one would suspect of any underhand motives should have been enlisted innocently in the service of the interests I have described.
    So I have this last advice for the Government It is that the background to legislation on this subject is changing with astonishing rapidity It is not only that the work of the Warnock committee is being unpicked and shown to be the shoddy stuff it always was It is that opinions in the profession are changing in a direction which should facilitate legislation that will be acceptable to the House.
    At the end of last month I received a letter from Dr. Edwards of Bourn Hall, and again I express my gratitude

    1151
    to him for the patience with which he has sustained a correspondence with me on the subject. His letter contains a most important and considered statement by a person who perhaps more than anyone else is famous and eminent in this branch of medicine. He wrote:
    "I would stress that we do not wish to create 'research embryos', but to use those which are known to be genetically or otherwise abnormal and those embryos which are considered unfit for replacement or frozen storage."
    That declaration by one of the leading figures in this field is light years away from the recommendations of the Warnock committee, with its acceptance of the creation of embryos for experiment and the use of surplus normal embryos for experiment. That is an illustration, coming from the quarter that it does, of the speed with which public debate on this matter has brought about a reconsideration on the part of the medical profession and particularly of those who are in the forefront of advances in fertility treatment.
    The Government will find when they come to frame their legislation that it will need to be framed closely upon the lines that have already proved acceptable to an overwhelming majority of the House. The Warnock committee recommendations no longer offer a basis upon which tenable or defensible legislation can be founded. The Government will have to bring forward legislation on grounds which the House has already pioneered and explored. They will find in doing so that they are also in line not only with the bulk of opinion and sentiment outside the House but with the bulk of opinion and sentiment in the medical profession itself.
    Mr. Ted Garrett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Both sides of the House must be concerned about what I would consider, although I respect the views of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and his friends, to be an abuse of parliamentary time. I think that I am known as a Member of Parliament who can honestly and truthfully say that in the 20 years I have been here I have never abused the use of parliamentary time. The motion before the House was rigidly adhered to in the first two speeches, but 20 Members of Parliament who have some known scientific and technological interest in a matter that is of great concern to the country have had their chance to speak delayed. I urge you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to have a word with Mr. Speaker to see how we can end the serious abuses that are continuing to pile up day after day. It must end, in the interests of all Back Benchers. I am sorry that I have taken so much time.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In advance I intimated to Mr. Speaker the subject on which I intended to intervene in the debate, in case he should see fit to warn me against doing so or say that it was unacceptable.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and he has answered the point. This is a wide debate on the Government's policy for science. Had there been an abuse of our procedures, I would have taken action.
    11.32 am
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) has taken away the first paragraph of what I was going to say. It was the point that the House rarely has opportunities to debate the thrust and
    1152
    organisation of the Government's science policy. It is my view and that of many other hon. Members that we should debate it more intensively and more often. Although the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) is passionately concerned about the important issue on which he spoke with great authority, it is right that it should occupy a comparatively minor proportion of today's debate and not, as it could easily do, the whole of it.
    The right hon. Member referred to the publication of an article in Nature. Some 70 years ago, give or take a few years, there appeared in one of the major scientific journals— I believe that it could have been Nature, although I am speaking from memory as I have not had a chance to verify this—a simple equation published by a man called Albert Einstein. It was E= ½MC2. At that time, about four or five physicists in the whole world appreciated the significance of that announcement. The anti-nuclear lobby could easily say, with the benefit of hindsight, what a good thing it would have been if the formula had disappeared from sight. It could be asked whether we could know what research was being done into nuclear power and nuclear weapons, or what research was likely to be done, for example, into nuclear magnetic resonance scanners, and the benefit of that to the human race. We did not know, and we could not know, and that is the answer to the right hon. Member for South Down.
    Alfred North Whitehead, a considerable scientist, was asked about the scope of science and whether we would ever know it all. The argument then was that perhaps we were reaching the stage where the ultimate boundaries could be seen. He said that no, we would never know it all. It was like the branches of a great tree—it keeps on growing, but the space between the branches will always be greater than that occupied by the tree. That is why responsible rsearch, properly conducted, should know no man-imposed limits. That is the most fundamental thing that one can say about the history of science in the last three centuries, and I expect for the next three. That is why we must approach this matter with the greatest possible care. The right hon. Member has made my case in an entirely different context, and he will see why in a minute.
    Some very interesting points were made by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray). He and I share a considerable and long-standing interest in science, and that of the Government in science, and we share many conclusions. His speech was profoundly interesting and is one that will have to be re-read to rediscover the interesting parts. We went wrong in one way, although I do not blame him for this. I know the pressures, under which we all are, in looking to see whether a case can be made for or against the failure of the Government in science. The hon. Gentleman referred to a document in the Library, which contains a catalogue of articles, the headings of which imply that things are not well. The House of Lords report in 1981 implied the same thing, and many other statements have said so as well.
    Would it not be so much more constructive if, in this debate and in this House, we sought to focus our attention to discover what it is, under all Governments since the second world war, that has allowed this deterioration? If it can be proved to have continued under successive Administrations, what are the common factors? Can we isolate and identify them, and get some agreement about them? If we can, there is possibility, hope and scope for a constructive change, which I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be the first to accept

    1153
    and carry out. I hope that in the rest of the debate we shall go down that road, rather than down the sterile road of attempting to allocate immediate blame for the past 18 months, two or three years, or whatever.
    This year's "Annual Review of Government-funded R and D", produced by the Cabinet Office, is a great improvement on that of last year. It is moving forward the general quality of discussion in these matters and is making more information available. This is welcome progress, and the Government are to be congratulated. We must hope that the progress will continue.
    A number of issues are raised in the report which deserve some attention. The first is the old argument of pure versus applied science. Increasingly, I am impressed by the falsity of this antithesis. As I see it, curiosity, to which the right hon. Member for South Down referred somewhat disparagingly, and which can be called fundamental scientific interest, is a seamless robe. Our trouble is that our technological imagination, the grasp of scientific implications and potential, has been declining. I refer not to the absence of curiosity or of the fundamental spirit of scientific inquiry, but to the rather more difficult to define attribute of technological imagination which allows some people to say, immediately on seeing some scientific work, that it has implications and that we can use it or do something with it. We must encourage that quality.
    It is sometimes argued that too much is spent on defence research and development. That proportion of expenditure is certainly high. However, as the Secretary-General of NATO reminded us only recently, if we do not maintain the highest standards of research and keep up on the critical frontiers, we may as well pack everything in and buy our weapons systems from those who do. We all know what has happened throughout history to those who have bought their weapons systems, and particularly to those who have bought them from their enemies.
    I was struck by the coincidence that the hon. Member for Motherwell, South should have used the example of electron microscopes, as I had intended to comment on technological inflation. That inflation lies behind many of the resource allocation problems involved in scientific research. The electron microscope has not yet reached its limit. Next year's will cost about 10 times as much as this year's, and in a decade's time, the next electron microscope will probably cost about 10 times as much as the one now on the drawing board. That is an inescapable development. Such technological inflation is built into the very structure of advanced science, and we must accept it. But it nevertheless imposes a need to concentrate our research ever more skillfully on the areas in which we do best.
    The need for an electron microscope was clearly foreseen. It is one of the most powerful tools of science, yet I believe that the best made are now to be found in Japan. I believe that they have been made in Japan for only the past 10 to 15 years. Why do we not seize such opportunities? Why is our technological imagination deficient, and how can we recreate it in the pattern of social attitudes about which we talk so much? What is to be done?
    My next point takes me directly back to an aspect of the speech made by the right hon. Member for South Down. Where is Parliament's vision? Does the House review at length, and annually, the things that really matter? The
    1154
    answer is that in a way it does For example, we review defence at length and publish a three-volume Blue Paper on it We debate defence for three days, and that is only proper and correct After all, where there is no defence, there is no civil state We debate finance for weeks on end, which is only right and proper, and produce massive documents We debate the organisation and distribution of social welfare, which is again a proper preoccupation of a parliamentary system Attached to that is the familiar group of health, law, housing, transport, industry and education Last, least and almost lost comes science.
    We need an annual review of the sort published by the Cabinet Office, although it would need to be much more complete, covering the whole of civil science and not just that aspect funded by the Government As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr Warren) pointed out, such things are done effectively in Japan Indeed, I have seen how the Japanese do them To some extent, that lies at the heart of their industrial and national success But we are quite capable of learning lessons and of making even more interesting innovations at the appropriate stage One of the most remarkable strengths of the Japanese, not least in technology, science and administrative matters, is that they do not suffer from the "not invented here" factor, whereas we do.
    Is Parliament equipped to carry out the annual review of scientific policy that it should be undertaking?I believe that the answer is no It is significant that we discover from the document that the state rightly spends £525 million, through its Government Departments, on supporting the formulation of policy But what does the House spend on the examination of the formulation of policy? Select Committee expenditure probably amounts to about £2 5 million a year, and that is just about it Consequently, we are desperately ill-equipped to pass judgment on the performance or proposals of the Government, where they are dependent upon or influenced by, scientific and technological practice That takes me back to the case made by the right hon. Member for South Down There are other examples such as nuclear power, acid rain, supersonic transport, the defence technology options, and the commercial implications of biotechnology — which is, incidentally, a much wider subject than that raised by the right hon. Gentleman However, we do not have the apparatus.
    The United States Congress recognised the problem some 20 years ago, in 1962, and discussed it at length over three or four years In 1972 it set up an organisation known as the Office of Technology Assessment I believe that that is what we need Twenty-three Governments have since sent representatives to examine it in Washington, and I understand that several in Europe are now establishing their own OTAs We need one, but what is it? It is an independent, separate arm of Congress It serves both Houses and is controlled by a joint committee of six Senators and six Members of Congress It is bipartisan, or non-political It costs the United States $15 million per annum, which works out at about $500,000 per project, and employs a staff of 139.
    Given our scale of resources, the 5 per cent of the world's research and development that we do, and the significance of our science technology, we urgently need to establish a similar organisation in this Parliament which serves, and is controlled by, both Houses It could be a "think tank" for the House of Commons and the House of Lords Such an organisation could address fundamentally

    1155
    the problems that have been presented to us by the right hon. Member for South Down in his Bill, and by the Warnock report. We need an independent assessment to be made by completely objective and impartial people, whose sole responsibility is not to the Government, to the right hon. Member for South Down or to anyone else, but to Parliament and to those who send us here. In that way, we can exercise a more intelligent, effective and discriminating judgment over such matters.
    At the other end of the spectrum we have the new anti-fouling provisions, which are the subject of Government regulation. We know absolutely nothing about that matter. We are dependent on taking either the opinion of the Government Laboratory, which is no doubt valid, objective and honest, or that of the organisations which say that the material that we put on the surface of boats is safe and does not kill oysters. Which hon. Member can honestly say that he can make an independent judgment on that? I doubt whether even my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister — whom the hon. Member for Motherwell, South regrettably referred to as a second-class chemist — can say that. Incidentally, we do not need first-class chemists in Parliament, because they would be wasted. In any event, I do not think that they would come here.
    Hon. Members should look at the reports which the OTA has produced on acid rain, on the commercial implications of biotechnology and, most recently, on the strategic defence initiative. They are so clear that they are useful to the legislator. They say that something can or cannot be scientifically proved, and they identify areas of doubt and certainty. They say that on the basis of such and such a scientific structure, the legislator has the following options: he can do this and it will cost that, or he should do nothing as there is not enough information to sustain any legislation. We lack such analyses in Westminster, and we will not discharge the duties of this or subsequent Parliaments unless we take action comparatively quickly.
    Mr. Dalyell: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the Nature Conservancy Council reports to Parliament, not to the Government? Therefore, we are entitled to go to the Nature Conservancy Council for independent opinions.
    Mr. Lloyd: I was not aware of that. However, I do not think that it disqualifies my argument. We must strengthen input to the House of Commons.
    I am glad that the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee has established a Sub-Committee which has agreed to examine the whole proposition and to make recommendations to the House. I have only one request of the Government, which I make earnestly because when I put this point to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during Question Time she was sceptical—perhaps it was a fast ball—and said that she did not feel that a case was made on the basis of my argument. If the Committee, on examining all these matters, recommends that we should equip Parliament with its own office of technology assessment, appropriate to our resources and the scale of our activities, will the Government give that a fair wind? It is important that we should have that facility.
    11.51 am
    Dame Judith Hart: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Lloyd) who has a wealth of knowledge and experience of these matters. He was
    1156
    somewhat reproachful of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr Bray) and said that we should not be so conscious of party differences There is a good deal in that, but there have been points in time when we could clearly see whether things were going well or going badly.
    The hon. Gentleman will recall that the problem in the early 1950s was not that there were not enough scientists with enough money to do enough good work, it was that British private investment was not putting in the money to exploit what was being revealed to us An example is microelectronics— the chip The great complaint was that British industry was not prepared to use the knowledge being given to it by British scientists.
    There was a period of considerable decline winch led to the brain drain referred to by the Secretary of State because there were not enough posts, not enough money, not enough activity in science and not enough interest shown by Government That then led to the expeditions to the United States and Canada in an attempt to bring back those who had gone there with the brain drain The reason that the efforts to recapture those who had gone 10 work in the United States and Canada proved relatively successful was that they were needed in this country Posts were not being lost through lack of money in the research councils Posts in university research departments were not being cut because of lack of money The posts existed and the people were needed At that time we spoke of the white heat of the technological revolution It did not last long enough.
    I welcome the debate I agree with other hon. Members that it is scandalous that we have not had a proper discussion about science policy for so long Indeed, the subject has been left to the other place, whose debates make devastating reading I shall not run into the hazard of quoting from the other place, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it emerged clearly from those debates involving eminent scientists and scientific administrators that even then restrained language and admirable civility could not conceal their anger and distress about one simple point —that more money is needed, but it is not coming from the Government That was the central theme of then remarks, and it is something on which we should concentrate today.
    Of course, we can all make claims in various areas of Government expenditure that we should be exempted from cuts and the economies of Government—whether it be welfare, social services, housing, the National Health Service or overseas aid. Therefore, there is a certain duty upon us to ensure that if we seek more money for basic research—which is the general tenor of the debate—we must be ready to say where that should be found We must also say why we wish that to be given a high priority.
    The answer to the second question is evident. Basic research is the very foundation of future national success We are at a time when we must look ahead and it will not be long before the oil runs out We have been hung on oil for the past seven or eight years As it runs out, the fact that there has been such a desperate decline in our manufacturing industry and the lack of competitiveness in the new technologies of manufacturing industry will matter desperately.
    Our manufacturing decline will continue apace unless we can change the momentum of what is happening in basic research and its application in industry Agair, basic research can actually help Governments to save a great deal of money Let us consider an example from the

    1157
    Medical Research Council. It is estimated that some 700,000 elderly and other people suffer from senile dementia. More money needs to be spent on research. But, my goodness, if we can cut down the number of people suffering from senile dementia surely the Secretary of State can get financial support from the Secretary of State for Social Services. It is obvious that money could be saved.
    I accept that an additional £55 million has been made available and that the Secretary of State has contrived to put a little here and a little there, but the overall response of the Government has been and still is appalling.
    Mr. Dalyell: I want to reinforce my right hon. Friend's point about senile dementia. A fortnight ago I visited the neuropathogens unit at Edinburgh university. Its most senior staff told me that they had to do the most simple tasks, which should have been done by school leavers, because they were so short of funds.
    Dame Judith Hart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining that point.
    I wish to quote from the 1984 report of the advisory board. I understand that the 1985 report has just arrived in the Library, and The Guardian has provided the opportunity to read a great deal of it. Indeed, I understand that the 1985 report pitches the case even more strongly than the 1984 report.
    The 1984 report referred to the financial prospects in the longer term, having drawn attention to the points made by the Secretary of State in his opening remarks—the problems of international commitment related to exchange rates, the problem of cash limits for increased pay and superannuation commitments and so on. The report states:
    "We draw attention to the cost increases discussed above because without continued additional funding they will inexorably reduce the resources available for research. We would urge the Government to reflect most carefully before resuming a decline that will seriously prejudice our national capacity not merely to sustain our historic role in the advance of scientific understanding but to develop the science-based industry upon which our future depends."
    Those are very strong words.
    Mention has been made of the Medical Research Council's last annual report, and the advisory board said:
    "the percentage of alpha-rated research grant applications which MRC was able to fund in 1983–84… fell to 53 per cent."
    Again, that is a devastating point.
    The foreword to the Medical Research Council report states:
    "funds available to it for medical research have‖ fallen by £2 million. A further cause for concern is the plan to 'tax' the Council by substantial amounts in the next two years to provide a fund to aid restructuring in other Councils."
    We know that the Medical Research Council has received a little from the £55 million. But the report states:
    "Against this financial background, the Council has had to contend with an unprecedented demand for the support of first-rate research in the universities. In addition, there are first-rate opportunities to set up new teams in its own institutes and research units. However, it is now finding difficulty in maintaining even current commitments, and in order to balance income and expenditure in the current year, damaging cuts have been made to recurrent expenditure in all its existing units."
    That was the matter mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), when he referred to the Edinburgh unit. The report goes on to say:
    "The amount of extra money needed‖is small",
    but it is of desperate importance.
    1158
    One of the absurdities is that in so many research councils and university departments concepts and ideas are crying out for money to be spent on them There is no shortage of them, there is a desperate proliferation of ideas and further prospects in every area of science On the one hand, finance has come from the direct science budget, and, on the other hand, it has come from grants to the University Grants Committee The UGC has made all its anxieties clearly known about the cuts in its expenditure, but basic research has been squeezed at both ends.
    I am afraid that research has been squeezed even more in another area, by the inexorable Government policy of privatisation I take my figures from the Cabinet Office report In British Gas, which is about to be privatised, 5 5 per cent of its capital expenditure — a sum of £45 million — was spent on research in the last year for which figures are available In British Telecom, which has been privatised, the figure is 12 8 per cent, amounting to £172 million I am not sure what guarantees we have that that proportion of immensely valuable research and development work will be carried out by privatised companies, or for what purposes research and development money will be used It is one thing to develop system X, as British Telecom did, but it is another to develop new types of Mickey Mouse consumer telephones We have no guarantee that the privatisation of public sector industries will not lead to a diminution in that area of industry-funded research and development Nor is it likely that research in the research councils and university departments will be rescued by the private sector.
    The Secretary of State said that he would talk a little more about this, but he did not He mentioned huge amounts being given by business What are those huge amounts? Let us look again at the Cabinet Office report Last year, the figure was £42 million That is not a huge amount from British industry Some United Kingdom companies, such as GEC, have large surpluses If the Secretary of State was right that huge amounts were being given by British industry, and if even 1 per cent of those surpluses were put into research and development, the financial prospects for basic research in the university and research councils would be transformed But that is not so, and it is not likely to be so One of my friends, who is a fellow of the Royal Society professor of theoretical physics, said that a group of industrialists told him:
    "We pay our taxes: it' s the role of government to pay for basic research."
    I fear that that attitude is, sadly, endemic in British industry, and should not be so No one can look to industry, in the present state of play, to rescue basic research from the neglect of Government.
    In the other place, that matter has been described as a cause for serious anxiety I believe that we must be blunt A crisis is facing science and the scientists I have claimed that it is one of the priority areas in which more money is needed Therefore, if more money is needed, where is it to be found? I said that it was irresponsible not to suggest where money could be found One could argue the case in the context of the general policies of the Labour party for expansion, reflation, growth and so on I shall not do that I shall argue within the context of this Government's policies I shall argue in the context of dry, not wet, Conservative policies.
    The Secretary of State referred in passing to defence expenditure If the right hon. Gentleman is indeed arguing the toss with the Secretary of State for Defence, let me take

    1159
    the House through the following figures. Again according to the Cabinet Office report, in 1985-86 total civil research and development is £2,033 million. In the same year total defence research and development is £2,077 million— more. In cost terms, taking an index of 100 for 1983-84 compared with 1985-86, we have the following figures. The figure for all civil departments is 109; for all research councils it is 100. Within that the figure for the Medical Research Council drops to 96. The figure for the UGC is 97; for Ministry of Defence development it is 105 and for Ministry of Defence research it is 108. Therefore, slightly more than half of research and development is within the province of the Secretary of State for Defence, and less than half — a declining proportion — is within civil research and development.
    Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Does my right hon. Friend recall that a few years ago, when a former colleague of ours, Arthur Palmer, who represented Bristol, North-East, was chairman of the Select Committee, there were 174 research and development defence projects, which were outdated and thus continued by old momentum?
    Dame Judith Hart: I was going to examine the problems of cutting down research and development in defence. I could argue in the context of Labour party policy and say that, as we shall no longer have nuclear weapons, we could cut out that research. However, I shall not do that. I shall argue in the context of this Government's policy. They want Trident. They are replacing British Polaris by American Trident. If they are to do that, they do not need the research and development that has been necessary to support a British-manufactured deterrent, so a large chunk goes out there.
    As my hon. Friend suggests, an enormous amount could be saved on pure economy. I doubt whether the Rayner-type economy efficiency drive has been rigorously applied by the generals and admirals to everything in their little corners. I am certain that, say, 2 per cent. of defence expenditure could be saved simply by ruthlessly pruning things that are no longer needed, wholly irrelevant, outdated or being done inefficiently. I do not believe that that would cause a revolution in defence.
    Let us consider another aspect. What will be the effect of the strategic defence initiative? There will be some spin-off from British participation in research on that, in optics, energy transmission and communictions, but it will be under United States control and will help American rather than British companies. It is also likely to distort the distribution of scientific resources.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Dame Judith Hart: In view of the time, I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not.
    The distribution of scientific resources will be distorted, increasing defence-oriented research at the expense of basic research by the research councils and the universities. One per cent. of defence research and development would be £20 million. Two per cent. would be £40 million. A 2 per cent. reduction in defence research and development would give an increase of more than 10 per cent. for the research councils or 5 per cent. for the research councils and 5 per cent. to the University Grants Committee for university-sponsored research. A 2 per cent. transfer from defence research and development to civil basic research in the next five years would not merely
    1160
    meet the minimum that the advisory board has laid down this week, which is the least that we are entitled to expect from the Government this year, but would completely transform the position and prospects of the research councils and of basic research in the universities.
    I strongly urge the Secretary of State to take that on board in the coming public expenditure exercise and to fight his corner against the Secretary of State for Defence. He should also fight his corner a little more publicly. All those in the universities, the research councils, the scientific press and the community as a whole who share the deep concern that something is very wrong with the British approach to the development of opportunities for basic research could then make it clear to the Secretary of State that he has an enormous number of people on his side in fighting his corner in that way, and I think that he might be able to win his case.
    12.12 pm
    Mr. T. H. H. Skeet (Befordshire, North): The right hon. Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart) made a most interesting point about the effect of privatisation on research and development. I understand that the Advisory Board for the Research Councils has set up a working party under the chairmanship of Professor Mathias to examine the funding of research by the private sector and to consider how it can be extended. That group is due to report in September 1985, but perhaps the Secretary of State will comment briefly on it today as it is extremely important.
    The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) made the important point that this debate is being held on a Friday when fewer Members than usual are present in the House. I have examined the position in depth and studied the way in which scientific subjects have been raised in the House in the past year. We had a debate on acid rain. Three debates arose out of EEC documents on air pollution from industrial plants, a programme for industrial technology and information technology. There were two debates under the Consolidated Fund Bill on environmental pollution and the science policy formula That is not good enough. Science is being brought in on a side wind.
    The Select Committee on Education, Science and the Arts is considering the vital matter of the science budget and I understand that it will be reporting in mid-July. This major debate should have been deferred until that report was available, so that we could discuss the matter in depth.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the importance of science is illlustrated by the fact that so many Members have attended this debate on a Friday and hope to participate in it?
    Mr. Skeet: That is certainly true. The Government will have to take the matter much more seriously.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Lloyd) referred to the Office of Technical Assessment, and I have invited him to make a presentation to the working party of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. I see some prospect of such an idea coming to fruition. The Government may take up the strategy—only they have the money to do so—or it may be funded by the Royal Society. Certainly the matter will have to be examined in considerable depth.
    The Secretary of State has pointed out that there are several sources of Government funds for research and

    1161
    development—that which goes through the University Grants Committee and the research councils and the work that is commissioned by the Departments, especially the Ministry of Defence. The overview required for a general perspective is provided by two bodies—the Advisory Council for Applied Research and Development and the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, under Sir Henry Chilver and Sir David Phillips respectively. That seems a very complicated approach, and when there is a shortage of finance the system may come under considerable strain.
    There is a surfeit of money in the United Kingdom and there is no shortage of ideas. Could not they join forces in the national interest? Simply the rate of return on investment in research is too low to be attractive compared with other ventures, hence the growth of capital-rich giants such as GEC, Shell and BP and, at the other end of the scale, Joseph Rothschild (Holdings), which prefer to keep their reserves inviolate. Further, Britain is not accustomed to commercialise innovation and to export the products of its intellectual wealth. The flotation of Abbey Life yesterday brought in about £2·6 billion, but when it comes to Government research we cannot find sufficient funds even to cover fully the alpha projects.
    ACARD and the ABRC could provide the beacon light. Jointly and severally, they have provided some fine reports and I pay tribute to their initiative, but those reports simply lie around on the shelves in Whitehall and little has become of them. The most recent ACARD report was published in 1983. The concept of Commonwealth certainly got Britain moving, but the age of technology has scarcely stimulated a generation which regards it as somewhat vulgar and materialistic. Attitudes must change if the United Kingdom is not to be reduced to a European slum. Sir Robin Nicholson will have to stir the dormant ACARD and give the lead that the country so urgently needs.
    In evidence to the Select Committee on 19 June 1984, Dr. Roberts of the ABRC said:
    "I believe that we really ought to address what our objectives are, then what our strategy to achieve them is, then face up to tactical issues and organisational issues."
    But all these aims remain to be achieved.
    Let us consider what others are doing to achieve those objectives. Several references have been made to the Japanese. ACARD produced a very good document entitled "New Opportunities in Manufacturing: The Management of Technology." Annex B states:
    "Japan began by importing and applying the best foreign technologies reinforced by a strong and consistent Government policy, implemented effectively by a single organisation, the Ministry of International Trade and Industry, (MITI), to support and pursue advanced manufacturing technology and to encourage its widespread practical implementation."
    MITI was the organism that that country used. I shall make a few random quotations from the same document.
    "Japan's acknowledged lead in robotics… MITI plans to spend £125 million in its own laboratories to conduct research into new types of material such as high performance ceramics, synthetic membranes for new osmotic techniques, electrically conductive polymeric materials, high performance engineering plastics … MITI provides the risk capital… MITI also seeks to provide infra-structures… The main purpose of Japanese universities is to provide graduates and personnel capable of applying advanced technology in industry… The vast majority of engineering graduates — more than 70,000 annually as against 7,000 in the UK".
    1162
    I have quoted at random, but it is important to draw attantion to the fact that ACARD's ideas have not percolated through to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. Perhaps there is no fault in either case, but such ideas have not been implemented in the United Kingdom and it is apparent that we do not have that essential drive in science.
    It is also worth considering what happens in Europe. The Federal Republic of Germany has a Ministry of Research and Technology. France has a similar Ministry and an expanding budget. It has been argued that science should be detached from education and transferred to the Department of Trade and Industry or to a separate Ministry. That would at last give it an identity and be in line with developments in Japan, the Federal Republic and France, all of which have achieved considerable success in the past decade.
    Nobody welcomes central planning as opposed to devolved control, but the public may wish to ask, "What are the profitable lines' of research that should be supported?" They should be given correct answers and the Government should show determination to proceed. The United Kingdom could gain from a simplified structure for funding the science budget. The several integral contributors are subject to a variety of problems. In an expenditure crisis, roads, houses and the science budget are among the first to be subject to abatement. The research councils have been persuaded that state resources will diminish. As recently as January, the ABRC reported:
    "we consider that a realistic and long term view should take account of the probability of a sustained decline in the volume of resources that can be brought from the science vote."
    Including defence, Government research and development is expected to total £4·4 billion in 1985–86. That figure is only about 3 per cent. of total planned national expenditure, which is £131 billion. It should be remembered that health and social security absorb about £56·6 billion a year. As today's technology is the basis for tomorrow's prosperity, and one of the keys to solving the employment problem, it is surprising that, in the case of SERC, for instance, 20 to 30 per cent. of alpha projects cannot be taken up because of a shortage of funds. Something must be wrong. It is perfectly right that social security should be provided in full, but it does not create wealth. It is technology that creates wealth and provides jobs in consequence.
    It can be argued that basic, strategic and applied research are part of the country's capital investment as opposed to income account, and should be significantly expanded and protected. North sea revenues, which are running at between £11 billion and £12 billion a year, could be subjected to an annual charge to build up the resources, equipment and intellectual wealth of the nation.
    In his report to the ABRC, Sir Ronald Mason remarked on the dearth of strategic research being undertaken. If the United States, Japan, France, West Germany and the Soviet Union agree that that is the right line of approach, and if it is hinted that ACARD has considerable sympathy with that view, why is such little impact being made on the Treasury?
    There are some anomalies which should be considered and removed. First, should salary increases, redundancy payments, superannuation and fluctuations in the exchange rate be paid for out of the scientific budget? Should it also be accountable for the restructuring costs? If such matters fall to the charge of the scientific budget,

    1163
    there must be less money for science. Secondly, is the fiscal system appropriate, bearing in mind the nation's problems? Does it provide inducements to science? Thirdly, who should be responsible for the full cost of sophisticated equipment? The case of the electron microscope has been illustrated today. It is not enough to have a man in a laboratory— he must have suitable equipment to complete his project. Fourthly, should research councils constantly be exposed to the chill wind of Government Departments terminating work sent out on commission and be expected to bear the brunt of sustained losses?
    Sir David Phillips, who is chairman of the ABRC and a resourceful man, observed in today's Daily Telegraph:
    "The board is under the firm impression that we are losing our brighter scientists at an increasing rate and it was very distressing to find that other countries were beginning to capitalise on the investment in our education and our training."
    We have produced more Nobel prize winners than any other country. The British are the people of innovation and of ideas. London is the financial centre of the world. It is surprising that we make such a poor result of our potential when it comes to treating the basic requirements of science.
    12.28 pm
    Mrs. Renée Short: It is a pleasure for me to speak following the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet), who has recently succeeded me as chairman of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. As he will be aware, when I was chairman, I was keen to see that the House had more contact with the presidents of the royal colleges of medicine so that we could inform ourselves about what they were doing in medical research.
    It was a pleasure for us to welcome Lady Warnock, together with two other distinguished members of her committee, to address one of our well-attended meetings. In view of the extraordinary intervention of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), who is no longer in his place, it was a pity that he did not take the trouble to attend that meeting. He would have learned much about the painstaking work done by the Warnock committee and its members. He would then have been able to put to Lady Warnock the views that he expressed today although possibly he had not at that point been put up to the ideas that he expressed today.
    Mr. Thurnham: Perhaps the hon. Lady will agree that we live in an imperfect world. The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) criticised the Warnock committee for what he called an imperfect report. It was a report on an issue about which there are many imperfections, including the large number of handicapped children who are born into the world and whom he seemed completely to ignore in his disgraceful speech.
    Mrs. Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and the other aspect is that the right hon. Member for South Down, who is a campaigner against abortion law, should know that the alternative to failed contraception is an increase in the number of abortions. One does not know where he stands on these matters.
    I am pleased, too, to be speaking following the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Lloyd), with whom I have worked closely in the House on scientific matters. I
    1164
    endorse warmly his suggestion that there should be a joint committee of both Houses to overview the development and results of science policy.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition, there should be an organisation designed to combat the anti-science attitude and atmosphere that has been engendered in Britain by people who have an axe to grind and who combine with various aspects of the mass media to inculcate into the public mind the conception that scientists are never to be trusted and should not be allowed to undertake activities even for the benefit of humanity?
    Mrs. Short: I agree with that, as any sensible person must, and the suggestion of the hon. Member for Havant could provide a powerful organ to counter the type of anti-science policies and ideas to which my hon. Friend refers.
    The debate has shown that hon. Members on both sides of the House have great concern over the present state of science in Britain. I believe that our problems stem in large measure from the way in which science is taught, particularly in secondary schools, where, because of the present lack of resources, the situation is serious I regularly visit comprehensive schools in my constituency, when I am at pains to listen to science being taught I find the standard and range of subjects meager.
    The HMI report says that there is a wide range of ability in some teaching groups, that science is frequently badly taught—I am sure that all hon. Members agree with that —and that we need more qualified graduate teachers of science, we have been saying that for many years Can the Secretary of State say with hand on heart that every school has enough qualified teachers able to teach science? If not, no wonder he says that our performance has been disappointing.
    A considerable responsibility rests on the right hon. Gentleman to see that we have adequately trained qualified science teachers in our schools, not just in comprehensive but in primary schools, too He cannot expect our best science graduates to go into teaching in schools that are badly equipped and are in a constant state of upheaval, and where their career and income prospects are so poor The right hon. Gentleman's meanness towards the teachers' legitimate salary claim is appalling, and the children are suffering because of the intransigence of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government.
    The Secretary of State in the Green Paper points his finger in the wrong direction He puts the blame on the universities in saying that they are not producing the graduates that industry needs There are too many accountants and lawyers in the top jobs in industry Science graduates have little chance of reaching the highest echelons of British industry, and that is largely the responsibility of industry rather than of the universities.
    Many of our good graduates go to America. The brain drain across the Atlantic is worrying. Those graduate are highly valued in America In the largest British public companies, less than about 5 per cent of board members have any experience, qualification or knowledge of the technical matters in which their companies are interested. That is an appalling reflection on the present state of industrial management.
    The boards are not competent to judge the capability of science graduates who may apply to them for posts. Consequently, they do not appoint them They prefer lawyers and accountants. The banks and financial

    1165
    institutions that control the investment policies of large companies are also badly fitted to judge anything but the companies' accounts, and cannot judge the technical ability and calibre of the people whom they appoint to manage those companies, or assess the prospects of the policy decisions that they undertake or initiate. That is where the difficulty with our industry lies today.
    We must consider the problem of the quality of graduates. Few science or technology graduates can go straight into industry from university and make an impact. They must first obtain experience. There are two aspects in which our training and education differ unfavourably and consistently from those of our more successful competitors. First, we specialise far too early in our secondary schools, and, consequently, our science, technical and engineering students have a rather one-sided background with much less general education than their European counterparts to back them up in the tough world of business and the Civil Service.
    Secondly, that early specialisation enables the universities to provide standardised three-year courses for most disciplines, excluding medicine, compared with the four-and-a-half to five-and-a-half-year courses in con-tinental universities. In Holland, it takes seven years to qualify as an engineer. That gives the graduates a much better grounding, a broader outlook, greater flexibility and more maturity than our engineering graduates.
    It is essential that we lengthen the period of study for science, technology and engineering. That costs money. There, we are up against a difficulty. The Green Paper mentioned the possibility of shortening courses, and the Government appear to be willing to accept the proposal contained on page 26 that two-year degree courses could become "highly coveted". I wonder why they think that they would be. They would be regarded as a waste of time and resources. Their holders would be regarded as poor substitutes for what is needed.
    That suggestion appears to be a pale imitation of the French system of grandes ecoles where, in a number of colleges of higher education, short one or two-year high pressure courses are offered to people who pass a highly competitive examination, and where less than 1 per cent. of the students—I emphasise this—who have previously undergone a five-year preparatory course for the examination are admitted. Those are postgraduate courses. The students are 23 or 24 years of age when they take that examination. That is in stark contrast to our unprepared undergraduates who go to university at the age of 18.
    The Secretary of State might do better to study more closely the Swiss and German university system which enables highly successful industrial organisations and companies to man their management teams and boards almost entirely with scientifically and technically qualified people, who know about science and technology and the developments in those subjects, and not with accountants and lawyers who know nothing about those matters.
    Our polytechnics, which have great potential if they are treated properly—they are not being treated properly at present — rely on local authority funding. Under the policies of the Government, local authorities are being denied the means of providing sufficient resources to our polytechnics. It is dishonest of the Government to demand more output of technologists and scientists to match in number and quality the output of our competitors while,
    1166
    at the same time, they are purposely and consciously depriving polytechnics and universities of the resources that they need to fulfil the requirements that the Government and the country expect of them.
    As to research policy, our universities and polytechnics have an excellent record of co-operation with industry in projecting and pursuing important research They are less successful in co-operating with public sector institutions Will the Secretary of State disclose how many qualified scientists there are, and their ranks, in the Civil Service staff that his Department employs to administer and adjudicate on applications for grants for research projects? I am sure that we would be surprised by his answer, which, if he cannot give it today, I hope he will give me as soon as possible.
    Co-operation between universities and polytechnics and Government research organisations leaves much to be desired That has happened because of the consistent downgrading by the Government of the staff and activities of our famous Government research establishments, which leads inevitably to the loss of many qualified staff to industry, to the consequent serious decline in morale and to the loss of resources Where recruitment is contemplated and then approved by a Department, after much haggling, most of the qualified people, even after they have been appointed and offered the jobs that have been advertised, refuse to take up the posts, because promotion prospects in Government research establishments are so poor.
    That is a serious development in Government science, of which the Department of the Environment is a prime example Its scientists have played an important role in developing codes of practice for the construction industry, but unfortunately, under this Government, scientists employed by the Department are prevented from taking part, as they should, in international conferences at which their proposals are incorporated into the codes of practice of and are discussed by representatives of European countries and the science departments of European Governments Britain cannot send its full complement of delegates because of the expense Therefore, instead of four of five eminent scientists, who have been involved in developing the work, presenting their reports and attending the conferences to defend their position, only one person is allowed to attend That is an untenable position, and I hope that the Government will reconsider it.
    I hope that the Secretary of State will give us some information about this parlous position, and will let us know his proposals for creating a general improvement in the funding, and therefore the status, of science in Government.
    12.44 pm
    Mr. Robert Jackson: I hope that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs Short) will forgive me if I do not follow her line of argument I wish to concentrate on two matters which I believe are central to the debate The first question is are the Government spending enough on science? Secondly, is our spending as well directed as it should be?
    There is no technically correct answer to the question of how much we should spend on research and development I do not believe that the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr Bray) has found the magic formula when he says quite simply that it should be

    1167
    doubled. In spite of the counter-example of Japan in the 1950s and 1960s, and that of newly industrialised countries today, it is widely believed—as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, there is good evidence for the belief—that there is a general long-term correlation between a nation's scientific prowess and its economic progress. But it is, unfortunately, impossible to establish specific correlations between research costs and economic benefits that might enable us to arrive at an economist's answer to our question. As this year's annual review of Government-funded research and development states in summing up its fourth chapter:
    "The relationship between R&D expenditure and commercial success is not straightforward."
    I shall return to that.
    Therefore, in addressing ourselves to the question of how much to spend on science, we find ourselves driven back to two non-economic criteria. The first criterion is the historical comparison between our present efforts and the efforts that we have made in the past. The second is the comparison between our level of spending on science and that which is maintained by other comparable countries. The historical criterion is important, because it is the explicit basis of the Government's policy for the funding of science. The official guideline has been "level funding" since 1979. This concept has served as a steel breastplate for the Government over recent years against the Opposition, who were of course responsible for the level of funding in that year.
    The crude figures appear to conform with the Government's doctrine. In terms of 1984 pounds, the Government spent £520 million in 1984 through the research councils, compared with £460 million in 1979. They spent £1,070 million in 1984 of R and D in civil departments, compared with £1,010 million in 1979. It is estimated that in 1984 £570 million was spent on university research, compared with an estimated £590 million in 1979.
    But when we examine more closely the realities expressed by these figures, we are bound to conclude that "level funding" does not mean "level value". The rise in public sector salaries has been more rapid than that provided for in the Government's annual planning. There have been fluctuations in international subscriptions. There is the notorious "sophistication factor" in equipment costs, and also the implications of university cuts for research overheads. All these factors have played their part in bringing about a substantial reduction in the real purchasing power of the funds provided by the Government for science.
    I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State understands this—hence his gallant and partially successful attempt to increase provision for science at the end of last year. However, I am not sure that some of his ministerial colleagues equally understand the scope and scale of these problems; otherwise, dare I say, the view would not have been taken last year that more money for science could be found only within the Vote of the Department of Education and Science.
    I hope that the debate will contribute to a change of heart in these august quarters of the Government. Of course, nothing would help to concentrate the mind of the Government more wonderfully than the row that would break out in the House and abroad if there were any question of Britain following the wholly unacceptable course of withdrawal from CERN.
    1168
    It is reasonable for the Government, in the absence of any economic logic on which to base a decision to seek to allocate resources for science on historical criterion based on 1979 levels of funding. However, the application of that criterion should not be purely formal as it is at present. The Government should pay more regard to the real value of their science spending, which has quite simply not been kept level since 1979.
    Mr. Dalyell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should consider transferring responsibility for CERN financing to the Foreign Office Vote, as is done in other countries?
    Mr. Jackson: That is a suggestion that should be examined, although it is important to ensure that decisions about scientific resource allocation enable all projects to be assessed on an equal basis.
    There is another way of judging the sufficiency of our national scientific effort. That is by comparing our performance with that of other comparable countries. It is difficult to make such comparisons, as the recent dispute about relative spending on agricultural research has demonstrated, but I draw three conclusions from the international comparisons presented in the current annual review.
    First, the proportion of the gross domestic product going to Government science in Britain is higher than in either West Germany or France. Secondly, in absolute terms Britain's Government-funded research and develop-ment compares well with that of France and West Germany. So far so good, but I am afraid that there is a major fly in the ointment, because the third point that stands out from international comparisons—it has been referred to previously in the debate—is the strikingly higher proportion of British Government research and development which is dedicated to defence science. It is worth recording the figures which are set out in the Government's own annual report.
    In 1981 we spent $3,000 million on civil R and D, compared with $3,256 million on defence science. The comparable figures for France—a country with similar ambitions to our own—are $4,370 million on civil science and only $2,591 million on military science. For West Germany, most remarkably, the figures are $6,698 million on civil R and D and only $646 million on military science.
    In the light of those figures I must add my voice to the long catalogue of those who over the years have complained about an imbalance which affects not only the allocation of financial resources, as the figures show, but the allocation of scarce scientific and technical manpower. In that respect I have no hesitation in associating myself with a recent speech by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), and with the basic thrust of what was said earlier today by the right hon. Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart). But I hope that they will both forgive me if I observe that the position was just as bad during the period when their party was in office. I could apply the same sricture to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth), who has just appeared, three quarters of the way through the debate, and is the solitary representative of the alliance in the debate.
    As the House knows, it is usually argued that the relatively high level of defence R and D spending in

    1169
    Britain reflects a national choice, with behind it—at least in the past—a national consensus, of a relatively ambitious set of defence missions: the choice, in a phrase, to be the smallest of the great powers rather than the biggest of the small. I confess that I am one of those who are sceptical about whether that ambition is still a sensible one for a country whose total GDP and comparative GDP per capita both now rank a long way below those of West Germany and Japan, some way below those of France, and only just ahead of those of Italy.
    I do not think, however, that in order to make my case it is necessary for me to stray into the realm of high politics. I simply ask how far a heavy national military R and D effort is necessary to sustain an ambitious choice of defence missions. It is arguable that the indigenous research and procurement of weapons confers an extra margin of independence. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Lloyd) put great stress on that point. On the other hand, many countries have concluded that the purchase of that extra margin is not worth while.
    Indeed, it would be interesting to know whether the Ministry of Defence, the Treasury, or perhaps the Foreign Office planning staff, have ever made a seious study of the cost benefit of the probably rather small increase in military and political freedom of manoeuvre which comes from national procurement as opposed to the purchase of weaponry "off the shelf". If that study were made, I suspect that it would yield some disconcerting conclusions.
    There is a further set of disturbing questions to be asked about defence science. They concern the economic and industrial opportunity costs of our heavy concentration in that area. Some hon. Membes will have read the interesting and courageous statement on "Defence Expenditure and Employment" put out in 1983 by the Society of Civil and Public Servants. It may be that the studies which it cites exaggerate the negative correlations that it asserts between military spending and economic performance. We must also be tentative about those interesting studies which suggest that British arms exports, which yield at least some economic return, are dominated by types of weaponry which do not absorb great amounts of research and development funds. Between 1975 and 1979, for instance, aircraft and helicopters absorbed 55·4 per cent. of military R and D spending, but accounted for only 1·68 per cent. of exports.
    However, we do not have to rely exclusively on these academic sources. I notice, for instance, that the Government's own annual report on R and D records that aerospace, a large part of whose output is for military purposes,
    "is heavily supported by Government R and D funds… but does not have a particularly high gross value added per employee."
    I notice also the Government's recent studies of skills shortages in information technology, which project a shortfall of 5,000 graduates by 1988. I ask myself what proportion of that shortfall can be accounted for by the huge and growing demand of the defence industries and of military R and D for information technology specialists. It may be that this manpower is most productively employed in these areas, but I doubt it.
    As the House knows, the argument of last resort relates to the employment consequences of a change of policy.
    1170
    There are always problems of employment when industries require to be restructured and resources redirected. All I say is that in most other areas of the economy the Government have shown an admirable awareness of opportunity costs and a commendably resolute approach to "crowding out." The time has come to look at military R and D and the defence industries in the same spirit, and I hope that the annual report will continue to seek to deepen our understanding of the problem.
    I urge the Government to think again about their policy for science. The central theme of much of their thinking, quite rightly, is to seek to improve the translation of scientific ideas into profitable business. I do not seek to criticise this emphasis, but I do not believe that it makes resources irrelevant — whether the total quantum of resources or the pattern of its distribution.
    If we are to have "level value" as well as "level funding", there must be more money for Government civil science. At the same time, let us at last take hold of the nettle of our excessive national commitment to defence science.
    12 58 pm
    Dr. John Marek: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Jackson) and I agreed with 90 per cent of his speech. He pointed out correctly that too much of our R and D effort at present was spent on defence—to the nation's cost, in that not enough R and D was finding its way into civil applications.
    I am worried about the level of Government funding for science and for R and D. I am especially worried that in recent years there has been a move towards any R and D having to have an immediate or fairly immediate industrial spin-off or application. If that philosophy gains ground, very soon science will suffer catastrophically. It is already beginning to suffer, and the Government have to give it urgent attention. If it is allowed to go on for much longer, we shall not be able to put it right as quickly as we have been able to destroy it.
    I am also worried about research council funding. The Government tell us that the science budget has not been cut in cash terms, but funds to the University Grants Committee have been cut, so much of the research done in universities has suffered. The Government may be right in saying that the science budget has not been cut in cash terms, but that does not represent the true position, as the hon. Member for Wantage has pointed out. I give a little credit to the Secretary of State because I think that he realises this, as his actions in getting extra money for the science budget showed. I hope that he will say that it is not enough, and that he should get much more because much more is needed because of the problems. For example, equipment has an increasing price over and above inflation. Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr Bray), have referred to electron microscopes. I do not wish to pursue that line, although I have several good examples, because I think that the point has been made.
    Some research develops into new sectors, which suddenly open up with the increasing pace of research and as a result demand much more money than would have been required if funding were simply on the basis of the rate of inflation. These arguments are well understood and have to be got across to everybody in the Cabinet, and not just to the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

    1171
    High energy physics is a subject about which one cannot say whether its research will have an application in the short term, or even in the long term. That is not the argument. The argument is that, as a total, the research must be supported for various reasons, one of which is that some of it will have applications that will benefit mankind tremendously.
    As other hon. Members have said, it is important that we do not withdraw from SERC. An enormous amount of money is being spent on it, but it is a joint European effort and I should be sad if a philistine Cabinet decided that we should no longer continue as members of that body.
    The hon. Member for Wantage gave figures for the money being spent on research and development in defence rather than in the civil sector. However, he did not give the figures of what has happened to the science budget. Although the Government say that it has not been cut in real terms, it has. My figures come from Nature of 23 May this year. It talks about the first submission of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils to the Government, which the Secretary of State has placed in the Library. It talks about the amount of science funding made available by the Government over the past three or four years.
    Part of the ABRC's difficulty, in this as in previous years, is that the Government appear to have kept the Prime Minister's promise in 1980 that the research budget would be protected. If one uses the retail price index as a measure of inflation, the science budget has increased by 6·4 per cent. since 1981–82. However, even allowing for the decline of the research councils' other income, mostly by way of research commissions from Government Departments amounting to roughly 7 per cent. on one sixth of the total science budget during the same period, the total income of the research councils has increased by roughly 4 per cent. Nobody would argue with those figures, but they do not show the true position.
    Nature reports:
    "The board says that (his simple arithmetic is misleading partly because the retail price index is not a good measure of the increased cost of research. Rather, the board calculates that the real volume of research supported with the funds within its purview has declined by 5 percent. over four years. Matters have been made worse…. by the 8 per cent. reduction (in real terms) of the budget of the University Grants Committee."
    I think that I have shown how misleading it is to say that the science budget has been protected. Nature says:
    "The case is sustained by a harrowing account of the changes which have been brought about within the research council system in the past few years. The total staff of the five research councils has declined by a fifth, by 2,000."
    Such a cut represents not a minor but a major change in the way in which research is done and funded in this country.
    Mr. Maurice Shop, the chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, issued a press release on 21 May which states:
    "The Government's policies on finance and student numbers are incompatible with the emphasis on excellence with which the Green Paper"—
    on the development of higher education into the 1990s—
    "is liberally larded and will undermine the chance of achieving such admirable aims as raising research standards and ensuring an adequate supply of scientists and engineers."
    Such chairmen do not say things like that in press releases every two or three months. Indeed, I part company with Conservative Members on this point, because, although they have all regretted the lack of money going into science, they have sought to say that
    1172
    such shortages also occurred under the previous Administration I admit that certain cuts were made under the Labour Government, but there is a difference in the emphasis placed, and in the amount of cuts that have had to be borne in the past three years They go far beyond any cuts made in the past 30 years.
    I do not believe that the chairmen of prestigious bodies such as the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals would have made such statements in the 1950s or the 1960s, in 1973–74 or 1976–77 or in 1978, but they are doing so now, and that underlines the point that something has gone wrong with science policy over the past three or four years.
    The most recent cuts to be applied to the Agricultural and Food Research Council amount to £10 million Next year they will amount to £20 million Those are enormous cuts They have not been made as a result of any long or detailed study into what research should be done, how it should be done and whether it is necessary, they have been dictated by the Treasury However, with all respect to the Treasury, it is not an expert on agricultural research, and it should not decide by how much research programmes are to be cut.
    At present, ADAS costs the country about £122 million By 1987, the Government intend to reduce that sum by £23·5 million Indeed, £7 million is to be knocked off research and development That is in addition to the 15 per cent cuts of the past three years Such cuts must be catastrophic for research.
    The Welsh Affairs Committee took evidence on the Welsh plant breeding station on Wednesday 14 March 1984 I refer to House of Commons Paper 326 I asked those appearing before the Committee about the Fl hybrid programme at the Welsh plant breeding station and why it was being abandoned I shall not quote the answer in full, but Dr Jamieson, the assistant secretary of the AFRC, said in reply:
    "There is no question that elements of that programme represent good science but, unfortunately, the position that the Council is in is that with the budget reductions that we have sustained and are anticipating in the coming years, good science is having to stop at institutes throughout the United Kingdom."
    Good science is being abandoned, yet that programme is the only one being carried out in western Europe, although there is something similar in east Germany It is not being abandoned because of a planned, well-documented and detailed programme of what sort of science we should be doing, cuts have simply been put upon us and there is nothing we can do We have to behave like a mad butcher in a butcher's shop and lash out in every direction— whatever the knife reaches is cut.
    Mr. Dalyell: Six months ago, I saw something of the work on protosynthesis and related problems at the Aberystwyth station I wish to echo all that my hon. Friend has said The same problems are faced by the Scottish College of Agriculture, which wrote to me on 10 June.
    Dr. Marek: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is quite right I hope that even at this late stage those in the Government who know something about what will happen if science is decimated will ensure that their voices are heard If there are to be cuts, they must be rational There must be a consensus on what should be cut.
    Of course, I do not want any cuts to be made If we are to have the general level of funding that the Government

    1173
    want, they should realise that, because of the increases in costs over and above inflation, there must be a little extra money for science.
    The Government's claim rings hollow, but they have a chance to put it right. Cuts have fallen heavily on research. Indeed, whole research groups within departments and universities will stop. They will either be enticed to the United States or will be given jobs in different areas where their aptitudes and excellent skills will not be used to their full potential. A new brain drain is developing.
    In 1979, research councils reported that all alpha-rated proposals were supported. Now, 25 per cent. fail to get that support and in some councils the figure is as high as 50 per cent. That is serious. However, I shall not labour the point other than to say that I hope that hon. Members will give it serious consideration and urge the Government to do something about it. We have built up our science tradition over the past two or three centuries. That tradition could be thrown away easily in a few years, and it would take a long time to get it back.
    What must be done? We must reverse the cuts. All alpha-rated projects must be supported. We need to provide sufficient funding for science so that we do not receive letters like the one I received from the chairman of the CVCP. I could cite other examples, but time is short. We need to provide funds so that, by and large, people in responsible positions — those on various committees, the researchers in universities and so on— can say, "Times may not be as easy as in the 1950s or the 1960s, but we are not having to cut into good science".
    Research and development cannot be left to industry alone. That would be a fatal flaw in any Government's policy. I should like to see the Government do more for research and development in the enabling technologies, information technologies, biotechnologies, engineering and manufacturing technologies. It is important to do that. For example, we could allow industrial companies to write off against tax all research and development carried out in previous years, and provide some incentive for companies to innovate. That should be done on the industrial side of research and development. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South, I should like to see research and development doubled in the next three or four years.
    On the pure research side, we need to reverse all the cuts in the research councils, and accept what the Advisory Board for the Research Councils is requesting this year. That is the minimum that could be done. There is a place for contract research in universities. The university of Salford has managed to find a modus vivendi with its new financial discipline, but there is no place for pure research simply to be relegated to a philosophy that it can be carried out only if there is an industrial or immediate benefit or spin-off in the near future.
    Therefore, I urge the Government to think carefully. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed serious concern about the lack of finance for research. There is a special problem, and special finance must be provided. It is not a special case for a sectional interest in the country. That would be wrong. Hon. Members would misunderstand what I am saying if they thought that that was what I believed. If we do not get it right now, if we do not keep our tradition of pure research, and if we do
    1174
    not spend money on research and development as other countries do, the whole country and every succeeding generation will be affected.
    1.16 pm
    Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I am acutely aware of the shortage of time and the number of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members who wish to speak I should like to say without any criticism of any individual that in the first two hours of the debate there were only three speakers, and this is meant to be a private Members' day Surely we should have been given more opportunity to speak.
    I regret the speech made by the right hon. Member for South Down, (Mr. Powell), not simply because much of the research—it is not experimentation, but research—is done in my constituency It is not a constituency interest of mine, but a genuine opposition to his Bill However, we debated that before, and today we are debating science.
    I entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) about CERN I also agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who made a fundamental and important point I regret that the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr Bray) ruined an outstanding speech by personal offensiveness to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State We are all aging gurus, and what is wrong with that?
    As the House knows, in the eight years that I have had the honour to represent Cambridge, I have emphasised beyond anything else the vital link between higher education, jobs and industry On Wednesday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I gave the Churchill college prizes, which are given to graduates who go into business That represents one small part of the encouragement that we give, and should give, to emphasise that link between higher education and what is called the real world.
    I should like to ask one crucial question what is the purpose of higher education and research? Let me give my answer It is the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake It is the love of learning for its own sake In any institution of higher learning, the important thing is balance When Prince Albert created the modern university of Cambridge, he did not just introduce the natural sciences He also introduced the humanities — languages, history and classics The importance of balance cannot be too heavily stressed There is often confusion between science and technology, the latter being currently very fashionable, just as there is an absurd differentiation between pure and applied science.
    The Green Paper states at the outset:
    "The Government believes that it is vital for our higher education to contribute more effectively to the improvement of the performance of the economy."
    That is a sentiment with which many of us would wholeheartedly agree It continues:
    "The Government is particularly concerned by the evidence that the societies of our competitors are producing, and plan in the future to produce, more qualified scientists, engineers, technologists and technicians than the United Kingdom."
    One agrees with that, too, but the Government's reposnse has been to provide less rather than more Having correctly defined how we are going wrong, the resolution is negative and the Green Paper is afflicted with a consistently negative and depressing view, when it should be positive.
    I cite just one example Hatfield polytechnic is doing virtually everything that the Government wish, and 70 per

    1175
    cent. of its work and its students are in science, technology and engineering. It receives substantial contracts from British Aerospace, Plessey, the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office and various companies. Yet every year it is cut and cut again. The day before I visited the college, four members of the computer staff had resigned, not just because the salaries offered to them by industry were far greater, but because of a much deeper feeling that higher education no longer had the priority that it deserved.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done a great deal to help higher education and we are profoundly grateful to him for that. He is not just one of my oldest friends but one of the finest ever Secretaries of State for Education and Science. Nevertheless, I believe that we overlook not only the national but the international aspect of scientific research. Yesterday Cambridge university rightly gave an honorary degree to the founder and director of the United Nations institute in Trieste. That body has exactly 50 per cent. scientists from the developed world and 50 per cent. from the developing world in a highly successful attempt to recognise the international dimension. Our problems may be difficult, but compared with those of the developing world they appear insignificant.
    I make one final comment which I hope will not be misinterpreted in any way. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), is one of the most deeply respected and liked Members of the House and we all feel for him acutely in his recent personal tragedy. In my view, however, there is a great deal to be said for status and I do not believe that the Minister in charge of higher education, and science should be an Under-Secretary of State. At the very least, he or she should be a Minister of State. That would at least make clear to the world, and especially to the world of higher education, the gravity with which the Governmet recognise the unique role of higher education, and especially of science.
    1.24 pm
    Mr. Ted Garrett: With one notable exception, the Secretary of State must have been impressed by the quality of today's debate. All hon. Members have put a great deal of thought into their speeches. The right hon. Gentleman should be heartened by the increase of knowledge of scientific matters in the House. There has been a steady increase of awareness since he and I first came to the House. Some of us recall science debates when it was difficult to get a quorum. Slowly and painfully we are moving in the right direction.
    Scientific organisations have recently been more helpful in enabling hon. Members to understand their problems. The Secretary of State said that we were a science-based society. I wish that he had gone on to say that the vast majority of people have no idea how science and the benefits of it affect the quality of their lives.
    I spent most of my industrial career in Imperial Chemical Industries pic, as have four other hon. Members who have spoken. We are lucky, in that we saw science, technology and the application of both to products which were used by mankind. The abysmal lack of knowledge about how science affects our lives is still prevalent.
    The Secretary of State said that research feeds off itself. That is true but, unfortunately, in a freely competitive society there are inhibitions because of competition and the need for scientific secrecy. I am referring not to
    1176
    defence research, but to purely industrial research There has been a regression in the amount of knowledge which is freely available, because of competitive pressures. Will the right hon. Gentleman see whether it is possible to share more scientific knowledge? I know that society is imperfect and that that might not be possible, but it is worth striving for.
    It has been said that industrial innovation is Britain's life-blood George Stephenson, Swan and Faraday were scientists and technologists and understood that their brains could be used They faced little opposition compared with what their counterparts face today Because we have industrial innovation, we have had restrictions on the development of industry, projects and commerce through the sheer weight and power of post-war Governments We must make the public more aware of the benefits of scientific research and development.
    Regrettably, we are still sterile in the way in which we apply the fruits of scientific research and development done in this country to overseas commercial markets Indeed, we are lazy in that respect and often allow other countries to develop the fruits of much of that research.
    Because of the shortage of time I shall not raise many of the subjects with which I should like to deal I must, however, agree with those who have referred to the brain drain One cannot blame scientists for leaving the country If we had first-class degrees in science subjects, we might do likewise if we thought that we could secure good salaries and a better standard of living for our families.
    Unfortunately, Britain has always adopted a low salary approach to those in science and technology I fear that that attitude will continue, simply because our society does not recognise their skills We admire wordsmiths, of whom there are many in the House, but we do not begin to understand the motivation of the scientists Our education system is not geared to enhance that understanding, despite mammoth efforts that have been made to alter some of our teaching methods.
    I am glad that this issue has been raised today Indeed, we were lucky to obtain parliamentary time on a Friday for this subject It has been a worthwhile exercise and I look forward to more parliamentary time being allocated to debates such as this, for only by this means can we begin properly to understand the issues involved Many hon. Members can draw on their experiences to contribute to debates on science and allied matters.
    1.32 pm
    Mr. Robert Key: It is a relief after four hours of debate to discover that much has been left unsaid There has been some wild talk in the debate about science being decimated I shall follow the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr Rhodes James) and be positive and specific, but not uncritical.
    An enormous amount of research is done in Britain, and science is perceived by the electorate as an important priority This pre-emptive strike by the Government on the Select Committee's report which will be published next month is an ingenious move, and hon Members who have spoken today would be advised to read that report when it comes out.
    I could not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Jackson), though I hope that all is peaceful in his home this weekend I suspect that he has been depriving his wife, my Member of the European Parliament, of a large number of votes because of the

    1177
    many thousands of defence workers in research and development establishments in my constituency and that of his wife.
    The funding of science in Britain appears effectively to be determined by the whim of the Treasury rather than by Parliament or even by the Government. What the Treasury describes as "level funding" is, in the words of a distinguished scientist,
    "an increase from the previous year by a percentage which is plucked out of the air, and which represents the wildest optimism in estimating the true rate of inflation."
    Are the Government telling us that we can no longer maintain our place in the world scientific community and that the time has come for us to target our research on a narrow range of requirements, perhaps commercially led?
    Of the amount spent on civil research and development, half is on basic research, and that adds to our fundamental scientific knowledge and contributes to the welfare of the whole economy. But cuts in university funding have fallen more heavily on research capacity than on teaching. There was a 20 per cent. reduction in departmental and laboratory expenditure by universities in the three years after 1981.I am not surprised by the experience of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in Edinburgh recently.
    Universities, which receive over 80 per cent. of their income from public funds, have not been slow to seek new sources of finance, but the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has said that only a small proportion of the 14 per cent. of university income which comes from research grants and contracts can be described as free money, without strings.
    Science parks have been another welcome development under this Government. There are now over 40 of them, and more are appearing. Some are successful. Some are well known, but geographical proximity to universities does not always lead to intellectual proximity.
    I said that I would be specific, so I must refer to some of the successes at the Porton Down centre for applied microbiology and research, which is administered by the public health laboratory service. A substantial proportion of its work has generated products and processes which are commercially exploitable, and importance has been attached to maximising CAMR's income generation potential.
    The hon. Member for Linlithgow mentioned his anxiety about culture collections. Recent developments at Porton have included a new building for a national collection of animal cell cultures, funded by the Department of Trade and Industry. This will provide an internationally recognised patent deposition facility for tissue cultures, for which formal international recognition is being sought.
    There are nine constituent laboratories at CAMR pursuing a great deal of important research — the microbial technology laboratory, the vaccine research and production laboratory, laboratories for pathogenic microbes, therapeutic products, experimental pathology, bacterial metabolism research and an experimental microbiology and safety reference library, the molecular genetics laboratory and the special pathogens reference laboratory and, of course, all the usual support services such as electron microscopy, computing and engineering facilities.
    1178
    Recently, the public health laboratory service has entered into an agreement with Porton International Limited to handle the marketing and distribution of CAMR products and processes worldwide Porton International has also undertaken to build a new fermentation plant on site at Porton If that plant had been funded by the DHSS it would have cost the public sector an estimated £16 million The jobs and the future of that part of the Porton establishment are secure and will grow.
    New sources of finance are being sought all the time, and only last week my right hon Friend the Minister for Overseas Development announced his new Overseas Development Administration special scholarship scheme —a partnership between the ODA and the universities— to provide 400 new university places for outstanding students from Commonwealth developing countries The universities will have to find new money for that in partnership with or sponsorship by local industry and commercial interests within the community.
    That is all well and good, but the country is not spending enough on its science budget I urge the Government to reorder their priorities I am critical because I want to strengthen the hand of my hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the Cabinet He will have the support of both sides of the House if he seeks to search for more money from the Cabinet It will not do to reply with the tired old jibe that there is no money with which to spend our way out of trouble Even the meanest Poujadist would have to admit that occasionally one has to restock the shelves with new products before opening the shop.
    I invite the House to read the words of Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer of the Royal Society and chairman of the UGC, who said in evidence to the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, of which I am a member, on 27 November:
    "We are, in effect, in the Red Queen's world—in this country you have to run very fast to stay in the same place The science budget has an additional snag beyond the difference between the Treasury's assessment of inflation and the truth, which is that by the conventions of accountancy it has to carry an increasing amount of non-productive expenditure—pensions and all that sort of thing—and so the proportion of the science budget that is spent on producing science is slowly going down."
    Sir Peter told the Committee the effect of this:
    "We have moved from a system in which the amount of research which the universities could do was controlled by the supply of talent to a system in which it is controlled by the amount of money More research could be done with the same brains if there were more money Even level funding is not wholly adequate Essentially, the proportion of good research which this country does is governed by the proportion of world expenditure on research which is spent in this country Most other advanced countries are actively increasing in real terms the amount of money they are spending on scientific research— some of them by quite substantial percentages"
    We are not He continued:
    "The proportion of the world's science that we do is steadily declining."
    There is another side to this I said earlier that cuts in university funding had fallen more heavily on research capacity than on teaching, and had fallen especially heavily on researchers on fixed-term contracts We are talking about 10,000 researchers who completely lack career structures or even reasonable security That has grave implications for the continued success of scientific and medical research in our universities The people involved are graduates, often of post-doctoral level, who devote themselves full time to scientific and medical research They are a highly motivated, industrious and

    1179
    socially responsible group. They are employed on contracts which vary in duration from a few months to five years. Recent cuts in academic staffing in universities have resulted in an increased teaching load on the remaining staff, who have had less time for research and have become increasingly dependent upon contract research staff to pursue their research for them.
    I ask the Government whether it is in the national interest to pursue the line with contract researchers. Is it sensible? Was it foreseen or planned, or did it just happen?
    I should mention briefly Britain's threatened with-drawal from UNESCO. So far, the public debate—there has been precious little of it—has been long on emotion and short on facts or evidence. I have the honour to be a member of the United Kingdom national commission for UNESCO, which has given me the opportunity to look beyond some of the emotional arguments and to speak to scientists, who make up much of the national commission and who are worried about the lack of public interest in the proposal that we might withdraw from UNESCO. We should stop identifying that organisation with one individual and consider the effects of our withdrawal on the scientific community.
    Mr. Dalyell: Not just public interest, but press interest is lacking. I thoroughly support the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Key: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Press interest is lacking, although I believe that some interest is now being shown. The timing is becoming crucial, because if the Government decide on the matter in the autumn they will have the entire summer in which to consider it, a period during which Parliament will not be sitting and will be in no position to advise them.
    UNESCO is close to the heart of the Royal Society, which was closely associated with the discussions that led to its foundation in 1946. It was strongly in favour of including science in UNESCO's brief. Indeed, Sir Julian Huxley, the first director-general of UNESCO, strengthened that association from its early beginnings.
    It is not generally known, but I am sure that the House would wish to know, that UNESCO has collaborated with many countries and their scientific communities, and with the unions and committees of the International Council of Scientific Unions. That collaboration has been especially beneficial, because it has created strong scientific leadership and much more voluntary work by scientists and non-governmental organisations. Many political problems have been overcome; for example, by ensuring the participation of the most appropriate scientists in projects—including scientists from Israel, South Africa and Taiwan—whatever their nationality. From the point of view of non-governmental organisations, with which the Royal Society has always been closely associated, the collaboration of UNESCO has provided benefits, including the involvement of Governments in scientific programmes, extending contacts in developing countries and providing educational and training activities in support of scientific projects.
    Almost no financial case has been made by either side of the argument. That is not surprising, because it is difficult to obtain figures. The figures are such that the Government cannot claim that withdrawal would save money. Nor can the proponents claim that Britain is a net beneficiary. It is much more complicated than that. On its
    1180
    face, it seems simple. In the full two-year accounting period of 1982 and 1983, Britain contributed $17,565,912.
    We "received" $38,081,700. This can be broken down in a number of ways. Of the money that we received during the two-year accounting period, United Kingdom nationals at UNESCO headquarters accounted for S19 million. United Kingdom nationals serving as UNESCO experts in the field received over $2 million. United Kingdom nationals serving as consultants received nearly $3 million. There were fellowships for study in the United Kingdom and equipment was procured in the United Kingdom. There were subcontracts with firms in. the United Kingdom and fees were paid to the External Auditor, which is a British company. There were allocations to the United Kingdom under the participation programme. Meetings were held in the United Kingdom and insurance was bought in the United Kingdom All these moneys amounted to the enormous total of $38,081,700.
    Our contributions to UNESCO are more complicated, because we claim repayments under currency fluctuations. As the dollar and the pound have fluctuated, so the value of our contributions has changed. In 1984 we should have contributed $4,763,853, but we contributed only $386,664 because of currency fluctuations. There are other problems in calculating the financial benefits and disbenefits, because of staff numbers. It can be said that in the past we have been lucky enough to win on this wicket, but it cannot be said that this will continue, because of the effect of currency fluctuations.
    There is the mighty issue of politicisation. The Royal Society said that it considered the Government to be entirely right in drawing attention to the shortcomings of UNESCO, especially those relating to management and undue politicisation. What form does this politicisation take? Do we know? Do we know what the relevant figures are? In subprogramme IV.2, subparagraph 4(b), we see that UNESCO internationally is spending on its total drug abuse prevention programme only $43,000. If we turn to subprogramme II.6, we find that, under
    "Education and training activities for national liberation movements",
    the granting of fellowships to students sponsored by African national liberation movements and students presented by the Palestine Liberation Organisation led to the allocation of $193,000. We find that the publication of African poems and other activities to be decided upon with those responsible for education in African national liberation movements with a view to helping them preserve cultural identity involved the allocation of $60,000, a sum considerably larger than that given to fund UNESCO's drug abuse prevention programme. Is this a correct ordering of proceedings within UNESCO?
    The Royal Society has drawn my attention to another factor. If the United States withdraws from UNESCO, the organisation will be gravely impaired. The impairment will not be limited to a substantial reduction of funding and the withdrawal of United States staff. If United States funds are switched from UNESCO to other international scientific projects, including those of non-governmental organisations, considerable rivalry could be created. It could be that the action of the United States in withdrawing from UNESCO and the switching of its financial support will be, in a manner unbalanced by other countries, regarded widely as just the sort of politicisation which no

    1181
    one wishes to see in international scientific projects. That is a danger which may face the United Kingdom as well if we withdraw from UNESCO.
    I ask that a great deal more attention be paid to the arguments about withdrawing from UNESCO. There should be much more public debate on the issue. The Government are faced with a major decision that will have a profound effect on Britain's scientific community.
    1.49 pm
    Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: I think that it is not an overstatement to say—
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some of us—not only myself but my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) and other hon. Members — have been sitting here since 9.30 am, and—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Several hon. Members will be disappointed, but that is in part due to the length of earlier speeches, and I have no control over that.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: I was saying that it is not an overstatement to say, as one distinguished academic scientist did at the time of the controversy over the Prime Minister's honorary degree at Oxford, that
    "this may be the last chance for any serious academic institution to stop the catastrophe that we face as a scientific and educational nation".
    In that respect the debate is timely, for clearly the whole future of our research and development and our standing as a scientific nation are in doubt.
    The Government's unwillingness adequately to fund scientific research and development could indeed sever the sinews of our economic strength which is so necessary to sustain our economy as the oil revenues begin to decline. Increasingly, industry is expected—this was reflected in the Secretary of State's speech at the beginning of the debate—to make good the lack of provision of funds for research when its resources are already being stretched by the Government who are asking industry to meet most of the cost of the expanded youth training scheme, and now to make additional contributions to private pension schemes in the wake of the abolition of the state earnings-related pension scheme.
    In setting our science budget, the needs of industry are crucial, but they are not absolutely paramount. There must be a proper balance between the investment for society through producing better trained men and women scientists for industry and discoveries which can be exploited for producing new products or breaking into new markets. There is a need also to undertake the kind of pure research the benefits of which cannot be easily quantified.
    It is certainly not clear that the Government have got the balance right. Under present academic policies, Galileo may well have been forced to confine his telescope experiments to spotting returning merchant ships rather than discovering the truth about the sun and the earth. We should not go down the road that some have suggested of making massive cuts in basic scientific research in favour of exploiting the inventions of others. That would be a retrograde step akin to winding up many basic
    1182
    manufacturing functions, such as building car engines— recently discussed in this Chamber—in favour of a strategy of assembling already manufactured kits.
    Is there sufficient Government commitment and finance behind a policy of strengthening the connection between basic scientific research and industrial innovation? As other hon. Members have said, the value of basic science spending is not easy to quantify, but two statistics strike me particularly forcibly and are most disquieting.
    Between 1973 and 1980, the number of publications and citations credited to British scientists fell by 9 ·9 per cent compared with rises in West Germany of 3· 1 per cent and in Japan of 29· 9 per cent The number of alpha-rated projects for research funding fell from 85 per cent in 1979 to less than three quarters of that in 1984. Those figures suggest that there has been a relative decline, at any rate in the recent past, and that is reflected by the Government's failure in reality to maintain their commitment to level funding, as hon. Members have said in the debate.
    The projections in the Government's White Paper on public expenditure, taken together with an 8· 2 per cent real fall in spending on higher education since 1980, make the Government's commitment a very hollow one Research budgets are affected by the general provision for higher education in terms of continued laboratory overheads, a failure to update and replace equipment, vacancies left unfilled, and increased teaching and administrative commitments which staff have to undertake at the expense of research time.
    Between 1985–86 and 1987–88, the Government's latest expenditure plans show a reduction of £6· 4 million, or 3 per cent. in real terms, in the science budget In real terms there is an even bigger cut of about £10 million in the budgets of the five research councils and support for the fellowship of engineering Those cuts, which have been rehearsed by other hon. Members, will have an enormous impact on Britain's capacity in those areas.
    As I want to provide an opportunity for other hon. Members to speak, I shall curtail my comments on the scale of the cuts and go on to say that, at a time when the Japanese and American Governments, with other Western countries, are giving much higher priority to research and development, and when other commercial organisations are massively increasing their expenditure in those areas, it is a great pity that Britain cannot do the same.
    As a matter of priority, therefore, in my view the Government should establish a new council for science policy combining the current Advisory Board for the Research Councils with the Advisory Council for Applied Research and Development — to be chaired, to ensure that it has the priority that should be accorded to it, by the Prime Minister This body would guide, monitor and advise on the development of science policy.
    There may also be a case for considering whether science should not be removed from the Department of Education and Science into the Department of Trade and Industry, with a Minister of science and technology responsible for these matters in that Department In my view, that should be considered by the Government.
    Resources for science should be expanded to restore the cuts in the real level of activity in our institutions, and expenditure could be determined by the new council that had been established.
    The Government should encourage new collaborative ventures between universities and industry, and we also

    1183
    need much greater collaboration with other European countries—for example, in the application of robotics in manufacturing industry following the recommendations of the working group on technology growth set up at the 1984 London Summit. Nothing has been done to act on that recommendation, and that, plus the other collaborative ventures, should be supported by the Government. I add my voice to those of other hon. Members in support of both the CERN nuclear reactor project and ESPRIT— the European strategic programme for research and development in information technology — which the Government have supported in the past.
    I support the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who spoke about the need to switch much more of our research and development from the military side of the budget to the civil side. Expenditure on military research and development masks the lack of investment in the civil side, and too many of our resources, especially in terms of manpower, are tied up in that area without an adequate spin-off to the rest of the community.
    Our difficulty is that, yet again, we are discussing the problems of trying to run a Rolls-Royce system on a pedal-powered economy. This is not the occasion on which to stray down the road of determining what should be the right economic policy, but until the resources are available to the Government we shall not be able to spend anything like the money on research and development and on science that our major competitors in Germany, Japan and the United States are spending at the moment.
    1.58 pm
    Dr. Michael Clark: I realise that I have very little time, which is a great shame, because I speak as a scientist and, as far as I have been able to determine, no scientist has spoken in the debate so far. I spent seven years at university studying science and I thought that I had a contribution to make to the debate, but unfortunately it appears that I shall not be able to do so.
    I progressed to being a scientist in a very traditional way. I entered a local grammar school where I studied science. Then I went on to university and later to industry. When I look at the schools in my constituency and see their condition, I come to the reluctant conclusion that we shall not be able to produce good scientists in the future.
    I refer to the school that I visited last week—King Edmund's school in Rochford — where demountable classrooms installed 19 years ago as a temporary measure still exist, where flat roofs leak, where ceilings remain broken, where floor tiles will not be replaced and where there is little concern about making the right provision for the children who attend the school. I ask my right hon. Friend how children can be expected to open their eyes wide to the wonders of science and to turn a blind eye to the conditions in which they have to learn.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my hon. Friend agree that we are concerned not only to hear what he says but even more about the desperate shortage of physics and mathematics teachers in our schools and that we must address ourselves to those problems as well?
    Dr. Clark: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am delighted that another scientist has managed to scrape in just before the end of the debate. He is right, and it is not just a question of physics, a subject in which he is an expert, but chemistry, my subject, mathematics, and the
    1184
    subjects of some of the Labour Members who have: spoken today. Unless we do something to ensure that education is attractive to scientists and methematicians, we can write off any contribution that the next generation of youngsters from school might make.
    Science is vital to the country and it is amazing that science is tagged off as a small part of the Department of Education and Science. That Department has only three Ministers — the Secretary of State and two Undersecretaries of State. They are busy enough looking after education. Therefore, I call for science to be given its right place and for there to be a separate Department for science within the Government.
    2 pm
    Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Paneras): I apologise to those hon. Members who did not manage to speak, and I particularly sympathise with those who have sat through all the debate and not got in, unlike some who have got in although they have not been here all through.
    I do not wish to spend a great deal of time dealing in detail with the points made by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). It is now getting to the stage where, every Friday, we debate embryos and one or two ancillary activities. There will be time to go through rebutting in detail all his points. However, nobody has yet claimed that research on human embryos to combat inherited disease is already under way.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that no embryo has been kept alive in a test tube for longer than nine days and that the 14 days recommended by the Warnock committee is beyond any work that has been done?
    Mr. Dobson: That is true. We should point out to the right hon. Member for South Down that people have been talking only about the prospects for research on human embryos that would counter, and we hope eliminate, a number of inherited diseases. The right hon. Gentleman needs to get things into a proper time scale. It was a long time ago that scientists first managed in vitro fertilisation. There was an enormously long time between that and the first successful impregnation of a woman who finally gave birth to a live child. If people had been asked in the mid-1960s whether worthwhile work could be done on in vitro fertilisation to combat infertility, the answer would have been the same as that which the right hon. Gentleman has been getting from those whom he has asked whether they are undertaking such research. The answer is that they are not, but that they are thinking about it or are drawing up programmes of research for such investigation on other animal embryos. That is the way they go about such things.
    There is an element of illogicality in the right hon. Gentleman's position. He is saying that the Bill will not do any harm because there is no such research going on, and we cannot plead the possibility of such research in opposition to the Bill. At the same time, he pleads the threat of that research as the justification for his bill. He cannot have it all ways.
    The right hon. Gentleman went on to speak as though he was, for the first time, disclosing the real reason— contraception — for people's concern about the inhibitions on research that might result from the Bill. However, there is nothing new about contraception. Most

    1185
    of the opponents of his Bill have publicly stated that they hope that the research into embryos will make it possible to come up with better, safer and more reasonable forms of contraception. He has not disclosed any deathly secret to an unsuspecting world. This has been talked about in Committee, as he should remember, and it has been talked about in a number of articles in learned journals and not so learned newspapers.
    I agree that commercial pressures will be brought to bear—although I am not sure whether they are now— because we live in a commercial society. The way to combat commercial pressures is to recognise that they exist and to do something about them, rather than to abandon all the research. That would be like saying that because some companies may have made a lot of money out of penicillin, pencillin research should not have been pursued because of the commercial threat. However, I agree that we need to keep commercialism out of British medicine and research.
    The Secretary of State's speech was almost as infinitely complacent as the recent speech of the Minister for Overseas Development. I know that a basic part of the Secretary of State's political philosophy is that the role of the Government should be extremely limited, and no one could claim that in general his actions are contrary to that belief. Indeed, he seems to have abandoned any responsibility for the fact that there is a brain drain. He said that it was rather sad that many highly intelligent big brains had gone abroad because they could do better, and could carry out better funded research there, but he does not seem to want to do anything about it. He is a bit like the prisoner in the dock who says, "It was not my fault, your Honour, I was just minding it for a friend." One would think that the right hon. Gentleman had no responsibility for positive policies to persuade people to stay in this country or to return to this country from abroad.
    The hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) gave examples from his constituency. If we are to have a successful science policy, and if science is to be used successfully in our society, we must look not only at research but at developing a background that is sympathetic to science, to its application, and to a population who have scientific potential. But we are simply not producing enough people with scientific backgrounds—
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it will take us years to recover from the damage done to our educational system and, in particular, to the quality of science education, by the Labour party's headlong rush into comprehensive schooling?
    Mr. Dobson: First, I do not accept that, and, secondly, there was a considerable burst of comprehensivisation when the Prime Minister was Secretary of State for Education and Science. The hon. Gentleman can chew what bones he likes out of that.
    Damage has been done to our scientific potential in our schools. We need look no further than the latest report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools, which states:
    "The main problem affecting equipment is the cost of replacing ageing capital items, particularly in the practical subjects, and providing sufficient new technological equipment … in about two-fifths of the lessons where the quality of the work was less than satisfactory the supply of books was considered to be inadequate."
    1186
    The inspectorate gave the example of a school which said that its supply of textbooks was so inadequate that some pupils passed through the fifth form without ever being able to take a textbook home.
    Of lessons in both primary and secondary schools that involved the use of equipment the inspectorate said:
    "nine-tenths of the lessons judged satisfactory had adequate supplies of appropriate equipment, while of those lessons assessed as less than satisfactory nearly two-fifths lacked such adequate provision In secondary schools the most serious problem was the replacement of ageing, costly equipment in science".
    Those are the facts of the education system for which the Secretary of State is responsible They do not represent a sound basis on which to develop a scientifically based society As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, there is concern about increasing the number of women scientists, but we can do that only if more girls begin to take science at school Those authonties — especially the Inner London education authority — which are taking initiatives to recruit more girls into science, thereby making them more useful in a scientific society, are being inhibited by rate capping from taking such action.
    Medical research has suffered seriously from various Government policies Let us put the matter in perspective. The MRC's budget this year is about £120 million; a new frigate is to cost £170 million. I am not sure that the priorities are right The Government talk about it as level funding It might seem level, but the MRC funds have certain special features which are outstripping inflation, so it is far from level funding, indeed, its funding is going down..
    That point was proved in a parliamentary answer from the Secretary of State as recently as 7 June It showed that the MRC assesses projects and gives them an alpha rating if they are top notch and approved as high quality grant applications In 1981–82, all approved long-term applications received funding Of the approved short-term applications, 66 were not funded In 1982–83, approved long-term applications not funded were two, while approved short-term applications not funded were 25 In 1983–84, 22 approved long-term applications— recognised as meritorious—were not funded, and no fewer than 199 approved short-term applications were not funded
    What suffers because of that? One example is important for the 25,000 families—not individuals—affected by the inherited eye disease retinitis pigmentosa. Previously, the MRC had granted £500,000 to Moorfields hospital and the Institute of Ophthalmology jointly for a five-year project—£100,000 a year That ran out in April this year It is to be replaced by a three-year grant totalling only £74,000 That measly amount of money, resulting from Government policies, must be compared with the £150,000 that the voluntary organisation, the British Retinitis Pigmentosa Society, is putting into research into the disease.
    The Institute of Ophthalmology is one of 12 institutions in the British Post-Graduate Medical Federation. Of the others, the most famous is probably the Institute of Child Health at the Great Ormond street hospital In 1979–80, those institutes received £9·1 million from the University Grants Committee This year, in 1979–80 figures, they will receive only £6·3 million In current prices, during the past six years they have lost £23·5 million for basic, vital research into child health neurology and so on.

    1187
    The federation tells me that the institute can still obtain money for particular projects, but that their capacity to take them on is being severely undermined because the central core funding from the UGC is no longer available. They cannot run the projects, and that is totally absurd. Senior staff devote a great deal of time to raising money for projects instead of supervising research and carrying out clinical work in the associated hospitals. The institutes are faced with a flight abroad of top flight researchers. They are also faced with the break-up of basic skilled teams of technicians, without whom such institutes cannot prosper. They are also losing money for equipment from the UGC grant.
    It is worth adding that those institutes also suffered severely as an accidental result of the Government's policy on overseas student fees. They are so renowned worldwide that they attracted large numbers of overseas students who did a great deal of work here, made a great contribution to those institutions' reputation and spread that reputation abroad, but they are now being turned away and sent to other places abroad.
    In all, the Government's record on science policy at all levels is appalling, and it is nowhere more so than in medical research.
    2.15 pm
    Sir Keith Joseph rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the Secretary of State have the leave of the House to speak again?
    Hon. Members: Aye.
    Sir Keith Joseph: I pay tribute to the large number of hon. Members who chose to come here today for the debate. On both sides of the House, there seems to be a universal recognition of the relevance of science to prosperity and the standard of living. The Advisory Board for the Reseach Councils has made a strong case in its advice to me, from which I quoted, and which was published yesterday. The Government and their predecessor have protected the science budget in gross terms, but it is true that a significant diversion of some of the budget has had to go to expenditure other than science research.
    Dr. Michael Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that over the past 15 years Japan has been increasing its science budget by 17 per cent.., West Germany by 14 per cent. and France and Russia by 8 per cent., while we have been increasing it by 3 per cent.? If that continues, by 1990 Japan will be spending 16 times as much on science research as we are.
    Sir Keith Joseph: I was about to come to that point.
    Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), for Havant (Mr. Lloyd), for Rochford (Dr. Clark) and for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet), and the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett), spoke directly or indirectly of the economic background. We should recognise what lies behind what they were saying, and what the problem is for any Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford has just emphasised that point. While our productivity remains so far below that of even our neighbours in north-west Europe, let alone America and
    1188
    Japan, our standard of living will be low compared with theirs, what it might be, and what we would like it to be. That goes for public services and social services.
    Hon. Members can put the blame for our low productivity and resulting lack of competitiveness on any combination that they wish, on Governments of either or both parties, on management, trade unions or the culture of our times. But let them recognise that until productivity and, with it, competitiveness rise sharply, we shall be in danger of the sort of comparison to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford referred. While the proportion of our gross national product devoted to research is not far distant from, and, indeed, above that of some of our competitors, the fact is that many of our competitors' GNP is so much higher that the buying power of the proportion that they devote to research is beyond ours.
    We have a real problem in this country. Hon. Members on both sides of the House spoke of the readiness of business to take advantage of scientiic invention. Indeed, that goes to the heart of our difficulty. The function of the entrepreneur has not been recognised enough as being crucial to our standard of living. The culture encouraged to some extent by the Labour party is much to blame for that. I welcome the change in its tone. Labour Members may recognise the importance of business today, but too often in the past they have treated business as if it were in some way discreditable and immoral.
    Mr. Thurnham: Could not the Government be more entrepreneurial and put their money where their mouth is by making provision for more specialist teachers, not just to train more engineers and technologists but to ensure better information for the public, so many of whom have followed the ways of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) whose Bill would take us back to the middle ages?
    Sir Keith Joseph: The Government do not have any money. We already try to put taxpayers' money to the best use, and this debate is a valuable help in that process. The right hon. Member for Clydeside (Dame J. Hart) asked the key question. We would all like more money for science, but where is it to come from? My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), in an excellent speech, and the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) asked the same question, and in this context several hon. Members raised the subject of expenditure on defence research and development.
    Mr. Dalyell: The Government coughed up £430 million for an airport.
    Sir Keith Joseph: I must emphasise that, of the approximately £2 billion classified as defence research and development, only about 15 per cent. goes to research. Opposition Members referred to the United States President's increase of civil research by 30 per cent., but they did not allow for inflation. That was the nominal increase. The increase in real terms was 15 per cent.
    Dr. Bray rose—
    Sir Keith Joseph: I shall not give way because I am right.
    Dr. Bray: That is not true. Look at the figure for the universities and colleges.
    Sir Keith Joseph: I do not have that. I am referring to general civil research.

    1189
    I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has in mind two schemes which would increase collaboration with academic institutions in strategic research. The introduction of those schemes is likely to increase MOD expenditure in higher education. I do not pretend for one moment that that will solve all our problems, but it is a move in the direction urged by hon. Members.
    I note the various comments about the decision-making machinery in connection with science. I remind the House that Whitehall Departments co-operate effectively in a number of areas of scientific interest. The House will have noted that contributions were made by several different Whitehall Departments to the expenditure recently announced for the space agency and the switch to larger numbers of science, technology and engineering places in higher education.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), in a powerful speech, laid strong emphasis on the need for more money for higher education generally, and I sympathise with the view that he expressed.
    The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) —I speak neutrally in terms of the merits of his Bill— told us of his correspondence with various leading figures in the relevant sphere of activity, and I do not contradict what he said. It will not surprise the right hon. Gentleman or the House to know, however, that if his Bill had been law some years ago those specialists could not have undertaken the work that they now carry out therapeutic-ally. Moreover, if the right hon. Gentleman's Bill became law it might inhibit research which experts might wish to put to similar use in the future. I do not comment on the merits of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill but I was surprised that in making, as always, a very effective case he found it necessary to use the phraseology that he did and to refer to a profit-hungry conspiracy. I think that the right hon. Gentleman and I agree that the pursuit of profit within the law, subject to competition and any ethical code which is agreed to, is the driving force behind enterprise and prosperity.
    I am also surprised that the right hon. Gentleman thought that his argument needed the denigration not of the judgments and conclusions but of the analysis in the Warnock report. I was further surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, who seldom descends to denigration, thought it right to attack the integrity, as I think he did, of the Medical Research Council and of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
    My hon. Friends the Members for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and for Bedfordshire, North spoke of the Government's ingenuity in choosing today for the debate. It was not like that. It was essential that I grasped the chance for a debate on science when it was offered because there is no certainty of getting another date at any time.
    The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short), supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford, rightly emphasised the difficulties of successive Governments in getting suitable teachers in some subjects, especially in the sciences. I ask them both to read carefully my letter of 21 May, copies of which I shall send them, which opened up new possibilities.
    The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) quoted selectively from the inspectors' annual
    1190
    report on the effects of public spending on education Her Majesty's inspectorate said what he quoted, but it also emphasised that management decisions by several local education authorities meant that money was being wasted in secondary aspects of education, and was thus not available for key education spending in the classroom.
    I accept the importance of scientific teaching and believe that, in the Associaion for Scientific Education, we are lucky to have a constructive and effective teaching group What the Government are introducing by way of a new examination system, the transformation of the curriculum, the improvement of teacher education and the publication of HMI reports—
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware that, to date, there is only one candidate in the whole country applying to be admitted to a bachelor of education course in physics, compared with 1,454 applicants in physical education9 Does he realise the magnitude of the problem that we have discussed this morning?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I know only too sadly I shall send my hon. Friend a copy of my 21 May letter so that he may see the new possibilities
    The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) based his judgment that all is not well with science on a familiar report which was based largely on citations We live in a world that has been transformed from the days when we were pioneers in science—and we have to welcome this—there are many countries whose businesses and public services are aspiring to the heights of scientific excellence We can no longer dominate as we once did when we were pioneers, so it is bound to follow that our record of citations, for example, will diminish.
    The ABRC has invited the Royal Society to examine the state of science in Britain today The Royal Society has accepted the remit and is about to undertake an inquiry into two broad parts of the world of science. When that report is published, taken with the report which the hon. Member for Stockton, South quoted, we shall be able to make a judgment about whether the quality of science in Britain has declined.
    Meanwhile, I repeat that I am seriously worried by such evidence as there is of a loss of scientific skills. We do not know the extent to which some British scientists are returning to this country and the degree to which talented scientists from other countries are coming here A report is pending, and that will tell us more—
    It being half past Two o'clock, the motion for the adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish it to be on the record that at least three Conservative Members and three Opposition Members stayed to the end of the debate, would have liked to speak and resent the implication that is often heaped on us that the House of Commons is not interested in science. That allegation at least, can be nailed by the attendance of hon. Members today and by the number who have wanted to take part in the debate.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member has made the point, but he will appreciate that it is not a point of order for me. It is not unusual for right hon. and hon. Members to suffer disappointment because there is not sufficient time for them to be called to speak.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at the sitting on Monday 17th June, the Motion relating to Airports Policy in the name of the Prime Minister may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Twelve o'clock.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

    Immigration Controls
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
    2.31 pm
    Mr. Dave Nellist: About 200 years ago—it was in 1729—the Irish clergyman and satirist Jonathan Swift put forward a novel solution to the economic problems of that country. He suggested that the poor should turn to baby farming and earn a living by selling their children as fresh meat to British landlords.
    In the decades following the second world war, that, in one sense, became a widespread activity, not only in Ireland but in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean. The difference was that the human exports from those countries came here and elsewhere not as food but as labour power for the factories of Britain and Europe.
    Tory Governments of the 1950s, with the active participation, for example, of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), who is not now in his place, encouraged immigration to provide cheap labour for British capitalism. Throughout the late 1960s and the 1970s, those black and Asian workers were seen as temporary tools for the employers and industrialists of the capitalist class.
    As British capitalism declined from the boom of the early 1950s and the 1960s to the recessions and slumps of the 1970s and 1980s, Tory politicians and the media encouraged working people in this country, in particular the unemployed, the elderly and those in receipt of supplementary benefit, to see immigration as the cause of their increasing problems, with talk of floods of immigrants, of the market being swamped and of alien cultures. Notable among those indulging in such talk was the present Prime Minister, who said on the television programme "World in Action" on 30 January 1978:
    "People are really rather afraid that this country might be rather swamped by people with a different culture… if there is any fear that it might be swamped, people are going to react and be rather hostile to those coming in."
    Such talk, and the continuing decline of capitalism, fuels the condition in which racism breeds, in which the number of racist attacks increase and in which neo-Nazi organisations can try to spread their poison. It has been reflected recently in the speeches and questions of Tory Back Benchers about the decision of the European Court of Human Rights and in the disgraceful refusal of the Home Secretary and the Government to help Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka seeking asylum in Britain.
    Immigrants are not the cause of bad housing, declining living conditions or mass unemployment. In all those categories, black and Asian workers, particularly the young among them, suffer even more than white workers.
    In the 1930s there were 3 million without work, yet there was hardly a black face to be seen. Then, as now, the capitalist system proved incapable of organising production in such a way as to provide for the basic requirements of the population and was responsible for mass unemployment and poverty.
    In 18 out of the past 20 years, there has been a net outflow of people from this country. Since 1964, 937,000 more people have left this country than entered it. Yet unemployment, in reality, now stands at 5 million. The solution to mass unemployment lies in the unity of workers in opposition to the Government and capitalism.

    1193
    I wish to stress the falsity of the numbers game and the tactics of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which keep queues long on the Indian sub-continent by having too few entry clearance offices. In a debate two or three weeks ago, we tried to discuss with the Minister a secret document prepared for Ministers at the Home Office which showed that in two significant areas of dealing with immigration for settlement a system of queues operates to regulate the flow of immigrants. It states:
    "in the Indian sub-continent (though not elsewhere) applicants have had to wait over two years for interviews. The number of Entry Clearance Officers in practice is the primary regulator of the number of husbands, wives, children and male fiances admitted from the sub-continent in any one year. Provided the queues do not become too long this form of administrative regulation can continue."
    In India, Bangladesh and Pakistan there are approximately 17,800 wives, children and elderly dependants waiting for entry visas, according to Home Office estimates. To put that in perspective, if all were allowed to rejoin their husbands, fathers and families in the United Kingdom next week they would represent less than 3 per cent. of the United Kingdom's annual birth rate and still leave a net outflow in the year's migration statistics. If we were to spread such a number equally across all constituencies, the city of Coventry would take an extra 200 people. That would place no real burden on British society.
    Time does not permit me to develop those points fully, but only to deal with the effect of the Government's attitude and the way that obstacles and difficulties are put in the way of ethnic minorities who want to visit, let alone stay with, members of their families. It causes long-term disruption to their lives and humiliation, because families are divided.
    Legislation—some of it unfortunately passed by a Labour Government — upon which the present Tory Government have built and sharpened immigration laws is based on discrimination against black and Asian workers. The report of the Commission for Racial Equality on immigration control procedures showed that one in 140 blacks and Asians is refused entry to this country compared to one in 4,100 from the old Commonwealth — Australia, New Zealand, Canada and elsewhere. Someone coming from the Indian sub-continent is 30 times more likely to be refused entry than someone from the old Commonwealth. The report spoke of rules and procedures which
    "appeared to operate in a climate of racism."
    That is true unless one can run 100 m in less than 10 seconds, comes from South Africa and calls oneself Zola Budd. Then, of course, the editor of the Daily Mail and the Tory Government would be one's firm friends.
    In over 50 cases with which I have dealt I have seen long waits for interviews stretching into years; methods of questioning which bear more relation to the Spanish inquisition than anything that would be expected of normal interviews; and assumptions that applicants are bogus. They must prove their innocence. Justice is turned on its head, in particular in relation to the notorious primary purpose rule on marriages.
    I do not have time to deal with each of the Minister's refusals. I shall give an illustration of the primary purpose rule and the way that it is operated by the Home Office.' One of the earliest cases with which I dealt was that of an
    1194
    Indian man seeking entry to Britain to marry. The Minister here today said that that marriage was bogus and refused that man the right to enter. The girl had a baby. I asked the Minister whether he was seriously telling me that a woman would have a baby simply to let someone into the country. Since his entry has again been refused, I must assume that that is what the Minister believes. The couple have had a second baby, and are still in exile in Copenhagen. I could repeat that story for dozens of cases in Coventry, for hundreds of cases in the west midlands and for thousands of cases nationally.
    Last year, in the Indian sub-continent, 46 per cent. of husbands and male fiancés were refused entry clearance, 88 per cent. of them on primary purpose grounds. Today is our first opportunity to debate the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. The court held that the Tory Government had breached article 8 of the convention and practised sex discrimination. The Minister should say today, without qualification, that that discrimination will be eliminated by giving women in Britain the same rights as men have to be joined by their spouses. There should be no equality of misery or more tightening of the laws. The Government must not remove rights from men and place greater restrictions on the entry of wives. Those families have waited for years to be reunited. Children are growing up not knowing their fathers. What will the Minister tell them today?
    Unfortunately, the primary purpose rule has its roots in legislation introduced in 1977 by the Labour Government. It was made explicit by the Tories in 1980, and was further tightened in 1983. We are often told that, under the system of British justice, a person accused is innocent until he is proved guilty. The procedures used in the implementation of immigration law tear that idea to shreds. It is for the person applying for entry clearance to prove his innocence, or to prove that his visit is genuine. In the case of someone wishing to settle with a husband or wife, he or she must prove that the primary purpose of the marriage is not to gain entry to Britain.
    That is the most hypocritical and ridiculous criterion. Perhaps the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should develop a love detector to help immigration officers and entry clearance officers with their investigations. If we were to examine the motives behind the marriages of many Tory Members of Parliament, I am sure that the main one would be money. Equally, I am sure that the Government would not dream of banning marriages between Tory Members of Parliament and their spouses, or between wealthy people in general, on the basis that it would lead to an unfair distribution of wealth.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that the British establishment has largely maintained itself through arranged marriages?
    Mr. Nellist: That could easily be proved historically. It happens from the royal family down to the present leadership of the Tory party.
    The judgments and refusals under the primary purpose rule are even greater than the figures I gave earlier of wives, husbands and families waiting to join people in Britain. According to a written answer given on 29 April, the number of refusals of leave to enter the United Kingdom for husbands and male fiances from the Indian sub-continent, based on the primary purpose rule, was 970

    1195
    in 1983 and 1,120 in 1984. The lives of more than 2,000 people have been shattered by the decisions of the Tory Government.
    The Government justify the immigration rules for husbands and male fiancés by saying that strictly controlled immigration is necessary, especially at a time of mass unemployment, for good community relations. That is completely bogus. In reality is is part of a conscious plan by the Government to divide, and therefore to rule, black and white workers in Britain. If working people are blaming one another for causing the worst conditions to be found in our capitalist society, for causing unemployment and for being responsible for unfit housing and declining living standards, the real culprits—the Government—get off scot free. Responsibility lies with the Government and the system which they represent.
    I am a sponsor and supporter of the West Midlands Divided Families Campaign. The campaign, along with others in the north-west and the London area, demands that changes should be made to alleviate some of the worst aspects of the way in which immigration rules are imposed on families between Britain and the Indian sub-continent.
    I shall conclude my remarks by stating some of the demands of the campaign. Some will require only administrative changes — for example, an end to all queues for entry clearance could be achieved by increasing the number of entry clearance officers in the high commissions in the Indian sub-continent. The campaign demands that all independently investigated cases be allowed entry clearance without delay on the basis of village visit reports. It urges that all family cases which have been refused should be allowed now, as independent village inquiries have shown consistently that in the cases refused the number of false applications has been negligible and that the suffering caused to families is unjustified.
    The campaign urges that the implementation by the Home Office of the procedural recommendations as outlined by the CRE report should be started forthwith. It demands the establishment of British posts in Sylhet and Mirpur to save family expense and tiring journeys; the end of contacts between entry clearance officers and the Inland Revenue; the end to all investigations into non-applicant relatives, which are used to delay and refuse applications; the end of the use of age assessments of applicants and an amnesty for illegal entrants who have made Britain their home. I would add that compensation should be paid to those who have been deported by the Government.
    The campaign demands that applicants should have a right to be accompanied by an independent person who is capable of monitoring interpretation when they attend entry clearance interviews.
    I and other Labour Members have said persistently in recent months that tape-recording facilities should be allowed here, at ports of entry and at high commissions in the Indian sub-continent. I do not accept the statement made by the Under-Secretary of. State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he concluded his visit to Pakistan and Bangladesh earlier this year. He said that the cost of providing official tape recordings of interviews of a proper standard would be disproportionate to the benefits. When an experiment was conducted in 1978, tape recording was ruled out by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and by the Home Office because of problems of extraneous noise and the difficulties caused by operating with inadequate facilities. It was suggested
    1196
    that a recording of a suitable standard could be produced only by the use of sophisticated equipment in rooms which had been sound-proofed.
    If those are the difficulties that have to be overcome before an interview can be recorded on tape, what are the problems of translation and understanding that already exist between entry clearance officers and those they interview? If the questions and answers could not be recorded properly on tape, I suggest that the present system does not allow for a proper understanding of questions, answers and translations.
    In a letter to me dated 23 May the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs stated that many people talk softly when they are in strange circumstances and it would be disturbing for them to be asked constantly to speak up. He told me that applicants might be put off by sophisticated recording equipment of the sort that would be needed to produce proper recordings and that much of the value of spontaneity of interviews would be lost. I suggest that it would not be lost to those being interviewed. If people are put off, as it were, by the presence of strange equipment, they are even more put off by the harassment that they suffer by the nature of the interviews that take place, which involve the examination of family trees, age assessments and questions on many other issues. This is the process that confronts those who are trying to join their families.
    The west midlands campaign wants interviews to be tape recorded so that the recording can back up accounts of what questions were asked and what answers were given. It demands that documents should be accepted in accordance with civil law and that the burden of proving them insufficient should lie with the immigration authorities. It demands that adjudicators of immigration appeals must be appointed by the Lord Chancellor's office and should include those with legal experience and members of the ethnic minority communities. It demands also that legal aid should be available for all immigration appeals.
    The campaign wants various legal changes to be made. It says that the burden of proof should be lifted from the applicant and placed on the Home Office so that it has. to disprove a relationship. That is a demand which I have supported in my earlier remarks. It demands that appellants should be present at their own appeals; that no children under 18 at the time of first application should be disqualified from future applications; the abolition of the requirement that men settled after 1973 should be able to support and accommodate wives and children; the abolition of all fees for entry clearance; and the provision under the immigration rules of the same right of family reunion to all residents in Britain as is presently accorded to EEC nationals.
    I support every one of the reforms that the west midlands campaign for divided families has put forward, but 1 have to say to the House—and, more importantly, to those working people outside this Chamber—that the real need is to abolish the racist immigration laws and controls. For that we need a new Government. We need to end the system which supports and allows the conditions which breed racism and enables racist ideas to develop.
    A warning needs to be given in the House. While unemployment, particularly among young people and school leavers, is allowed—in fact, designed—to rocket under the Tory Government's economic policies, there will be those in the National Front, the British Movement

    1197
    and other neo-Nazi organisations who will turn to young white school leavers and give them the simple equation, "If we were to get rid of 3 million black people in Britain there would be 3 million jobs for those registered as unemployed."
    We have seen the effects of the attempts at recruitment by the neo-Nazi organisations at football clubs not only here but on the continent of Europe. We have seen it in the events of the past month at football matches. This House, the Labour party, and anyone concerned with ending the conditions which breed racism and ending the effects of those conditions, and the immigration controls used by the Tory Government, must explain to young people that there is only one solution. Capitalism, with all its attendant problems of unemployment, bad housing and poor living conditions, has to be abolished. The roots of racism lie in those economic conditions. Socialism must be built in Britain so that all the millions of people, whether black or white, whatever their cultural or religious differences, can live in a harmonious society, free from the conditions that capitalism has imposed, and free from all the racist smears put forward by neo-Nazi organisations and, unfortunately, echoed by hon. Members in this Chamber. It must all be confined where it belongs—in the dustbin of history.
    2.52 pm
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): Immigration is an emotive subject. There are always those who are willing to exploit people's fears that an insufficiently tough control will imperil their jobs and the jobs of their children. There are also plenty of people on the extreme Left who see concern about the control among the ethnic minority communities as a splendid opportunity to stir up trouble and create division and conflict in a society the destruction of which they are presumably anxious to hasten.
    The House will draw is own conclusions from the diatribe about capitalism with which the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) opened his speech. I do not think that there are many people in Britain who have failed to notice that black people are not queuing to get into Socialist countries such as the Soviet Union. Black people are queuing in their anxiety to get to the West, to get to countries where prosperity has been created and is still being created under the capitalist system. The hon. Gentleman was talking sheer nonsense when he connected his absurd attack on capitalism with immigration control, a subject which deserves serious and not frivolous debate of the type in which he indulged.
    The hon. Gentleman's complete ignorance of the whole subject was, incidentally, fully demonstrated by what he said about Zola Budd. I should have thought that everyone in Britain now knows perfectly well that Zola Budd was admitted to Britain and was entitled to come here as the minor daughter of a British citizen father. No power on earth — certainly no power given to any British Government—could have prevented her from coming. We should not display such ignorance and try to confuse her application for naturalisation, which is an entirely different matter, with the question of her right to come here.
    The hon. Gentleman was also talking nonsense when he spoke about our "racist" immigration laws. If he had
    1198
    troubled to read the immigration rules he would know that they are applied to all, regardless of race. He would also know that the first effective immigration rule orders immigration officers to carry out their duties without regard to race. He spoke about the number of people refused at our ports of entry and said that more people were refused from some countries than from others. I should have thought that it was patently obvious that more people would try to come here from countries where there was chaos, economic depression and so on than, for instance, from Australia, New Zealand or the United States of America.
    It behoves us to discuss these matters calmly and with a bit of common sense, knowing the mischief that can be wrought by intemperance and a complete distortion of the facts such as that indulged in by the hon. Gentleman.
    No western Government operate or could operate without immigration control. No doubt many Socialist countries could, because their problem is not to keep people out but to keep them in. But countries in the West, where there is prosperity, have all found it impossible to operate without an immigration control, and without dashing the hopes of many people and telling them that they cannot live in the country to which they wish to come, however much they may want to do so.
    I notice from the Order Paper that the title of the hon. Gentleman's debate is "Family reunion", and it should be said at this stage that we, like our predecessors, have recognised that there must be provision in the rules for people already here to be joined by their families. Over the past 10 years, that policy has resulted in the admission of about one third of a million wives and children of men settled here. If the hon. Gentleman took just a moment to read the immigration rules and learned something about immigration control, he would discover that our system of immigration control was biased in favour of the admission of families and that, as a result over the past 10 years we had seen the admission of no fewer than one third of a million wives and children.
    The hon. Gentleman complained about the process of entry clearance in the Indian sub-continent. He likes to dissociate himself from the actions of the previous Labour Government, but it is right to remind him that now our effective staff in Bangladesh dealing with entry clearance is greater than the effective staff when the Labour Government were in office. What is more, people do not have to wait as long in the Indian sub-continent for their applications for entry clearance to be heard as they did under that Labour Government.
    The hon. Gentleman complained about the refusal of family applications. He must be living in a little world of his own if he does not know that a great deal of fraud has been involved in applications in the Indian sub-continent over the years and that entry clearance officers have always had a difficult job separating truth from fiction. Obviously the entry clearance officers have to judge whether a person is telling the truth, and it is difficult to see how it would be possible to do without a system dependent initially on a judgment made by an individual officer.
    However, the decision does not just depend on an individual officer. There is a sophisticated appeals system. Anyone who is aggrieved by the decision of the entry clearance officer can go before an adjudicator, and often he also has the right to go on from the adjudicator to the immigration appeals tribunal.

    1199
    The hon. Gentleman has made his point about the tape recording of entry clearance interviews. I have not come across very many cases where on appeal there is much dispute about what the applicant and his or her witness said at the original interview. Far more often matters turn on the significance of what admittedly was said. I do not think that this issue can be as important as it is cracked up to be.
    Mr. Nellist rose—
    Mr. Waddington: I am sorry; I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman, He left me very little time in which to reply. In any event, tape recording in the Indian sub-continent is not a matter for me.
    I remind the hon. Gentleman that the judgment of the European Court does not amount to a sweeping condemnation of the Government's immigration policies. On the contrary, the court accepted that the 1980 rules had the completely legitimate aim of controlling primary immigration and protecting the domestic labour market. The court rejected the allegation that there had been
    1200
    degrading treatment, and it also rejected the allegation that there had been discrimination on grounds of race. It also said that there had been no violation of article 8 which protects the right to family life and said that there was no general obligation on a country to allow a couple to settle in that country even though one of them was a national of it. The only violation which the court found was one of sex discrimination, because the rules made it easier for women to join men than for men to join women.
    We have already made it clear that we shall abide by the court's decision and make rule changes to bring ourselves into compliance. But there is no question of our allowing our general policy of firm immigration control to be undermined. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait to hear precisely what we intend to do. He will not expect me today to describe to him the detailed—
    The Question having been proposed after half-past Two o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at one minute past Three o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND
  Metallic Marker Pens
  Metallic Marker Pens
  Government Grants
  Government Grants
  Kinsale Gas
  Kinsale Gas
  Firearms Dealers (Ammunition)
  Firearms Dealers (Ammunition)
  Investment
  Investment
  Conservation
  Conservation
  River Roe (Restocking)
  River Roe (Restocking)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  BBC External Services
  BBC External Services
  Namibia
  Namibia
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Law Society (Report)
  Law Society (Report)
  Firearms Certificates
  Firearms Certificates
  Public Record Office
  Public Record Office
WALES
  Metallic Marker Pens
  Metallic Marker Pens
  Sheep Scab
  Sheep Scab
  Welfare Rights Officers
  Welfare Rights Officers
  Motorways (Lighting)
  Motorways (Lighting)
  Milk Quotas
  Milk Quotas
  Agricultural Workers
  Agricultural Workers
  Mid Wales Development
  Mid Wales Development
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid-for-Trade Provision
  Aid-for-Trade Provision
  Operation Roadrunner
  Operation Roadrunner
  Bilateral Aid
  Bilateral Aid
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Stonehenge (Disturbances)
  Stonehenge (Disturbances)
  Women's Prisons
  Women's Prisons
  Durham Prison
  Durham Prison
  Holloway Prison
  Holloway Prison
  Concessionary Television Licences
  Concessionary Television Licences
  Charity Commission
  Charity Commission
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Britoil
  Britoil
PRIME MINISTER
  Cruise Missiles (Exercises)
  Cruise Missiles (Exercises)
  Sailing Vessel Marques (Loss)
  Sailing Vessel Marques (Loss)
  Portsmouth Health Authority
  Portsmouth Health Authority
ENVIRONMENT
  Yelland Power Station
  Yelland Power Station
  Improvement Grants (Stockport)
  Improvement Grants (Stockport)
  Local Government (Computer, Technical and Scientific Services)
  Local Government (Computer, Technical and Scientific Services)
  European Non-quota Textile Scheme
  European Non-quota Textile Scheme
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  London Residuary Body
  London Residuary Body
DEFENCE
  Stealth and UHSIC Technology
  Stealth and UHSIC Technology
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Aid and Trade
  Aid and Trade
  Post Office (Delivery Delays)
  Post Office (Delivery Delays)
  COCOM
  COCOM
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Business Statistics
  Business Statistics
  House of Fraser
  House of Fraser
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Infant Teachers
  Infant Teachers
  Secondary Schools (Selection System)
  Secondary Schools (Selection System)
  University Places
  University Places
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
ENERGY
  Plutonium (Member's Correspondence)
  Plutonium (Member's Correspondence)
  Gas Showrooms
  Gas Showrooms
  Britoil
  Britoil
SCOTLAND
  Scottish Development Agency (Holiday Package)
  Scottish Development Agency (Holiday Package)
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  NHS (Privatisation)
  NHS (Privatisation)
EMPLOYMENT
  Electricity Regulations (Infringement)
  Electricity Regulations (Infringement)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Trade Unions (Ballots)
  Trade Unions (Ballots)
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Skillcentres (Hampshire)
  Skillcentres (Hampshire)
  Wood Preservatives
  Wood Preservatives
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk Quotas
  Milk Quotas
  DDT
  DDT
  Food Labelling
  Food Labelling
  Hayling Island
  Hayling Island
  Aerial Spraying
  Aerial Spraying
TRANSPORT
  Motorway Service Stations
  Motorway Service Stations
  Solvents (Driving Offences)
  Solvents (Driving Offences)
  Driving Test
  Driving Test
  Sailing Vessels Marques (Loss)
  Sailing Vessels Marques (Loss)
  London Underground (Fire)
  London Underground (Fire)
  Heathrow Airport
  Heathrow Airport
  Drivers (Medical Standards)
  Drivers (Medical Standards)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Single Homeless (Hartlepool)
  Single Homeless (Hartlepool)
  Elderly Persons
  Elderly Persons
  Statutory Sick Pay Scheme
  Statutory Sick Pay Scheme
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  Residential Homes
  Residential Homes
  Mr. Peter Sutcliffe
  Mr. Peter Sutcliffe
  Welfare Rights Officers
  Welfare Rights Officers
  Junior Doctors
  Junior Doctors
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Supplementary Benefit (Earnings Limit)
  Supplementary Benefit (Earnings Limit)
  Thames Regional Health Authority
  Thames Regional Health Authority
  Fuel Deposits (Assistance)
  Fuel Deposits (Assistance)
  Local Office Staffs
  Local Office Staffs
  Pension Rights
  Pension Rights
  Benefit Payments
  Benefit Payments
  Legionnaire's Disease (Inquiry)
  Legionnaire's Disease (Inquiry)
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Child Accident Statistics
  Child Accident Statistics
  Drug Addicts
  Drug Addicts

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD SPEAKER (Lord Ampthill) on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

Nicaragua: British Aid Policy
Lord Hatch of Lusby: 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 criteria they use when determining their aid and trade policy towards Nicaragua.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, our priority is to provide aid to the poorest nations of the world. Nicaragua is by no means the poorest country in Central America which is, in comparison with some areas of the world, a relatively prosperous region. Decisions on trade with Nicaragua are best left to the business community.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether that Answer represents a change of policy by the British Government which in the past at least has been claimed to be to provide aid to Nicaragua? Can he also comment on the document that has now been published from Mr. J. W. Watt, within the Foreign Office, which states:
"First, I recommend that we continue to oppose proposals for Nicaragua by finding technical reasons for doing so"?
Later it states:
"There is no need to amend our voting policy towards Nicaragua for the time being. The problem of explaining it in public will, however, persist and we shall need to stick to our present line of claiming that our opposition is based on technical grounds"—
to which words were appended in written script:
"if we can find them!".
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the House will be aware, our aid programme is continually under review. It is aimed principally at the poorest countries. As I said in my original Answer, Nicaragua does not fall into that category.
With regard to loans for Nicaragua, we are not blocking any of these, and we consider all new multilateral projects on their technical merits and in relation to the recipient country's standing with the international financial institutions.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is not a major consideration in either loans to or trade with Nicaragua to make sure that one gets paid?
The Earl of Caithness: Indeed, my Lords. I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. As I said in my previous reply, such matters depend on the country's standing with the international financial institutions.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, are there not, nevertheless, disturbing reports of Britain's alleged ambivalence in its treatment of aid in respect of Nicaragua? Is the noble Earl aware of the recent Oxfam publication, The Threat to the Good Example, by Miss Dianna Melrose, which makes plain that Nicaragua appears to be treated differently by the Government—differently, that is, from other Central American countries? Can the noble Earl say whether he has read that and other reports and what is the attitude of the Government towards that serious allegation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have, indeed, read that report and I have a copy of it with me. The Oxfam report has been noted by my right honourable friends in the Foreign Office. As I said earlier—and I cannot add to it—we look at each situation on its merits.
Lord Oram: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House the date of the last allocation of aid to Nicaragua? What negotiations have taken place for further aid since that date, and with what result? If the Minister does not have that information available this morning, will he be good enough to write to me with it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord that information at this precise time because I do not have the dates he requires. However, I can tell him that this matter is the subject of continuous negotiation and review. If I am able to be more specific than that, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Earl indicate the Government's disapproval of American policy—which appears to be directed at the destabilisation of a democratically-elected Government—by stepping up their aid to Nicaragua, thus providing a counter to American policy? The policy of the Americans appears to be to attempt to assist the enemies of the Nicaraguan Government, rather than the contrary.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with due respect to the noble Lord, that is wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Earl say what kind of aid we might have given for which, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, the Nicaraguans would have had to pay? What kind of aid would we dispense only if it is paid for? There is not much chance of anything being paid for in Nicaragua if the United States installs insurgents, assassins and murderers to kill and slay the opponents of the Nicaraguan Government. In view of press reports today, should not the British Government make a statement deploring American policy?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, mentioned British aid to Nicaragua. That aid currently consists of a small number of scholarships in the United Kingdom, support for small development projects co-financed with British voluntary agencies, and assistance to Nicaraguan

1479
refugees and displaced persons through appeals by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the British Government are still using their influence to block a loan to Nicaragua from the Inter-American Development Bank? Can he say whether it is correct that Mr. Kevin O'Sullivan wrote to the under-secretary of our Overseas Development Administration in February of this year, stating:
"A series of highly questionable actions… including deliberately misleading statements to the Board, the unauthorised removal of items from the agenda of various Management committees, the suppression of information and the disappearance of documents from files… is an open scandal and formal protests have been lodged by, or on behalf of, every member of the Board of Directors except the United States director".
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I said in an earlier reply that we are not blocking any loans. It surprises me that the noble Lord, who is normally so well informed, has not read the Written Answers in another place on 15th May which dealt quite fully with this matter.

British Telecom: Purchasing Policy
11.14 a.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: 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 British Telecom's announced expenditure of £100 million to purchase System Y from Sweden and £25 million to purchase United States equipment for their derived services network (Freefone) is in accordance with the undertaking given to this House on 16th February 1984 (col. 1429).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, the Government have never given any undertaking in respect of British Telecom's purchasing decisions, which are a commercial matter for the company. The two contracts cited represent approximately 3½ per cent. of BT's total planned procurement over the two years concerned, well over 90 per cent. of which procurement will be placed in the United Kingdom.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we were told in February last year that 5 per cent. might be purchased abroad? We were told in this House by my noble friend Lord Brabazon on 13th March this year that it might be 10 per cent. and I have in my hands a press notice issued by British Telecom which says that in 1987 it will be buying between 300,000 and 500,000 lines from overseas sources. That amounts to 20 per cent. What is bogey for this hole? Surely it is important that this vitally strategic industry in this country should be maintained in a healthy condition, not only to supply our own requirements but also to obtain exports for our nation?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, my noble friend asks me so many questions that the best I can do is pick out what I think is the most pertinent one.
A noble Lord: Oh!
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, no doubt if the noble Lord opposite does not find the answer convenient he will ask me another question. My noble friend quotes a number of figures. The truth of the matter is that the orders for System Y which BT have placed represent, over two years, 10 per cent. of its main switching requirement. Of its total procurement of some £1,750 million in 1983–84, and something in excess of that for 1984–85, the switching gear accounts for about one-quarter of the total procurement. Therefore, taking all those figures together, not one of the figures to which my noble friend refers is incorrect within its own context.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Is the noble Lord aware that the assurances given by his noble friend Lord Cockfield in the course of the debate on the Bill relating to British Telecom were sufficiently favourable to secure the wholehearted support of his noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing to the entire privatisation measure? Therefore, the assurances must have been very firm. Does the noble Lord not agree that the anxieties that have been expressed today, and which have been expressed over the past few weeks, are only an illustration of how effectively, when British Telecom was accountable to the public, it was possible for British Telecom to play a part in support of British industry similar to that played in Japan, Germany and France? In the circumstances, will the noble Lord see his right honourable friend the Prime Minister to ask whether she will apply the same degree of pressure to British Telecom to comply with the national interest as she did recently in the case of Courtaulds, where an unemployment situation arose in Wrexham?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, referred to what he said were assurances given by my noble friend Lord Cockfield some months ago. As my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara explained when replying to a similar Question in March this year, my noble friend Lord Cockfield gave no such assurances. If noble Lords refer to Hansard they will see that what my noble friend did was to repeat an understanding which had been given by the Chairman of British Telecom, which my noble friend said seemed to him to be a reasonable assurance. The Chairman of British Telecom has not, in fact, breached that understanding. Whether my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing was influenced by those debates into supporting the Bill I would doubt, because I think he would have been influenced by a number of other issues. As regards British Telecom, the Government made it abundantly clear during the passage of the Bill, and in 1979 and again in November of last year, that the Government's shareholding would not in any way lead them to influence British Telecom's commercial decisions.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I was a reluctant supporter of that Bill because there was not enough competition in it? It was an agreed carve-up among two or three big companies. Although I support competition, after a cosy relationship lasting 60 years when three or four companies supplied all the equipment, I think that the

1481
British industry needs time to restructure itself before it faces the competition from overseas suppliers which themselves have a firm home base and healthy exports. Jobs will be affected. Although Thorn-Ericsson may eventually make some of its equipment in this country, jobs at the present manufacturing centres will go and new ones will not be immediately created.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the commercial companies in this country engaged in that activity had at least seven years to arrange their affairs. The truth of the matter is of course that GEC-Plessey are way down the international ranking lists in size. They do not even come in the first eight. They are outclassed in monetary terms by both European and American suppliers. Modern technology is such that it is unlikely that the production of major switchboard gear, to which the Question really refers, will employ more people. It is the application of that switchboard gear which will provide the employment for those who service it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, perhaps on reflection the noble Lord will consider revising somewhat his downgrading of two famous British companies, GEC and Plessey, whose workers and management have contributed significantly to the development of the electronics and telecommunications industry in this country. Are we to be given to understand that it is money power overseas in the large conglomerates that will feature largely in Government considerations on these matters?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, it is not Government considerations that matter. It is the commercial decisions of the companies concerned. The American company, AT & T, has a turnover of 12 billion dollars, the Canadian firm of Northern Telecom has a turnover of 3½ billion dollars and Siemens of West Germany has a turnover of 4½ billion dollars. The combined telecommunications turnover of GEC and Plessey is but 1½ billion dollars.
Lord Bruce of Donington: So what, my Lords?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, it would appear to me that they are fairly low in the international league. That is what I said. I have no reason to suppose that I should reconsider what I said.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord is making some very important statements about British industry. Will he clarify one thing for the House? What does he mean when he says that those companies are low in the international league? It is true that from the figures he cites the other companies are bigger in capital terms, but is he saying that they are also more efficient than GEC-Plessey, which seems to the House to be the important consideration?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, let me put it to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, this way. I gave an international ranking in monetary terms related to turnover. Why is it that West Germany's telecommunication system has a 30 per cent.
1482
American content and a 70 per cent. German content? The Italian system has an American, Swedish and Italian content. The fact of the matter is that the product of GEC-Plessey, good as it is—and it is very good—cannot survive in the United Kingdom market, which totals rounds about £500 million, alone. It is necessary to have at least a £1 billion turnover to stay in the game. They should be amalgamating with or collaborating with other companies to secure the export markets which they cannot secure, and they will not survive at their present turnover on United Kingdom only purchasing.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord has just made a most extraordinary statement on what we must assume is official Government policy towards Plessey and GEC.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Talking down British industry, my Lords.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the noble Lord think that in the existing climate for British manufacturing industry, which has been so seriously damaged by Government policies, it lies in his mouth, in effect, to denigrate two leaders in the field in this country?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am not denigrating; I am stating facts. The facts and figures speak for themselves. The Government have released British Telecom from the public sector. They therefore have enabled worldwide suppliers, GEC and Plessey included, to compete for that business. But that amount of business is small in world terms. There is an overcapacity of telecommunications production, and GEC-Plessey, with a very good product, have to find their way into the international market to survive. No governmental interference will help that one.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend make it clear, as I think he was seeking to do, that the international ranking which he gave to those two great British companies related solely to their size and turnover and conveyed no imputation whatever against the well known very high quality of their products and their technological advance?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, my noble friend underlines exactly what I sought to do—to list in an order some rankings. The product is good but those two very good companies, with a very good product, cannot rely on the small United Kingdom market. It represents about half of what they need. They will have to go into the export market. They are then in a highly competitive business.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in those circumstances, and in view of the fact that the House would not wish to continue the discussion of such an important matter at Question Time, I put the Government on notice that this matter will be raised in full debate in order that the elucidation that the noble

1483
Lord has presumed to give us on Government policy can be thoroughly debated.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I have sought to answer every question that your Lordships have put to me. I have sought to do that in commercial terms—in number terms. Your Lordships have not invited me, and nor have I sought, to introduce, as the noble Lord suggests, Government policy. He knows full well that Government policy is designed to encourage our home-based manufacturing industry. We do that in a number of ways both at home and overseas in export markets.

Reading Spectacles: Prescriptions
11.28 a.m.
Lord Rugby: 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 traditional reading spectacles, consisting of twin magnifying lenses of equal strength, are being effectively suppressed by the issuing of unnecessarily complex prescriptions, creating hardship both for British manufacturers and for people who depend on such spectacles.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have received no evidence that this is happening. The early signs are that the Government's measures to promote fair competition in the optical market are working effectively.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, will the Minister recall that at the setting up of the 1958 Opticians Act one of its most important pillars was that there should be a separation between the two functions of testing eyesight and selling spectacles, entirely in accordance with the same kind of Act to which medical doctors had to conform? Will he tell us now whether there is not a suspicion that the taxpayers are funding a prescription which with a very small addition can be slanted in the direction of the sales department of the opticians? In fact, there is a suspicion that the prescription is nothing more than a chit which will have to be spent at the company's store.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if there is a suspicion, I should very much like it if the noble Lord could produce firm evidence so that we can have a look at it. With regard to the dispensing of the prescription and the selling of the finished article, as he will be aware, in April this year regulations came into effect under the Health and Social Security Act passed last year which enable unregistered opticians to dispense spectacles on condition that there is a prescription.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, is my noble friend not aware that the optical press is carrying letters from opticians, advising other opticians how prescriptions can be drafted, in order to ensure that they cannot be taken next door and the glasses supplied from another purveyor? Surely this is an inevitable result of the quite unnecessary stipulation that those who require reading
1484
glasses must first obtain a prescription. Surely it is hardly surprising that opticians should resent being expected to put forward a prescription which is then taken elsewhere. Is not the solution, as we suggested at the time this Bill was carried through, that the obligation for those who require only reading glasses to have a prescription, should now be removed?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we return to the happy territory of July last year. I remember well debating this issue with my noble friend. It was agreed by the House and passed as an Act of Parliament that to dispense spectacles one must have a prescription. Until it has been proved that that policy is not working satisfactorily, I think it is right to stick to it. Even if one gets a prescription, one can go to a non-registered ophthalmic optician to obtain spectacles. I think the success of the Government's policy is proved by the fact that one can now obtain glasses with prescription for as little as £12.45.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I wonder whether, in view of this latest flurry of interest, the department is prepared to contemplate the possibility that it is confronted by a determined professional conspiracy to use a variety of tricks to preserve its closed shop in the sale of simple reading glasses. In view of the evidence that the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, has recently acquired, I want to ask the Minister whether the department is prepared to take the initiative to try to establish the extent to which the manipulation of the prescriptions for reading glasses is being used to defeat the purpose of the 1984 Act, which was to open up the supply of reading glasses to beneficial competition.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with regard to the manipulation of prescriptions, I think, as we discussed in July last year when the Bill was going through this House, it is very important that a person is protected. That is the reason for the prescription. There will be statistics later in the year to show whether there has been a change in prescribing since the regulations came into effect on 1st April. However, I can tell the noble Lord that about two-thirds of low-powered spherical corrections were added to prescriptions even before the Act came into force. Thus this has already happened in the normal method of prescribing.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does not the noble Earl recall that there were very many Members on both sides of the House who were deeply opposed to the measure that was introduced, to which reference has been made? Is not the Question that has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, the response that immediately came from other sides of the House, and the absence of knowledge on the part of the noble Earl, precisely what could have been prophesied as a result of the Government's decision to put onto the open market—or, in other words, to privatise—the making and sale of spectacles? Was it not almost certain that we should get this kind of pathetic argument which is now taking place? Was it not the Government's action itself which so many of us criticised, that, as has been said, has created hardship, to the British manufacturer and also to the patients?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with due respect, I think the noble Lord is entirely wrong. I think the Government's action was absolutely right because it has brought down the price of spectacles. When was the noble Lord last able to go with a prescription and buy a pair of spectacles for as little as £12.45? I think that what we have done has been a very great success. Of course, as the noble Lord will be well aware, there are two extremes: there are a few opticians who still want everything to be done by the registered ophthalmic opticians, and there are those, like the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, with a perfectly valid point of view, who want ready-made spectacles available. I am sure that what the Government have done has been proved to be very successful. I am sure that if the noble Lord goes round the country he will not find much support for his view that we should go back to £60 spectacles.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, in his first reply, my noble friend said that he had not any evidence. When these eye tests are done, forms have to be filled in which now say that they can be taken away by the client and dispensed elsewhere. However, a claim is made on the National Health Service. I think a fee of £9 is paid. Therefore, surely these forms must be returned to the DHSS before the money is paid. Can my noble friend not therefore examine this as a matter of urgency? I have an example of a chemist up north to whom 300 prescriptions for spectacles have been presented, every one of which has a minor correction, not in the main number of dioptres but in cylindrical and/or axis corrections which are irrelevant to the needs of the client but which make it impossible for that client to take this to a prescriber and obtain a good pair of reading glasses at a much cheaper price than he would otherwise pay.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, from the noble Lord's question we have the exact point. The noble Lord says that some of these additions to the prescription are not necessary. The Government think that they are necessary in order to protect the patient, the customer. As I said in an earlier reply to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, this is not something new. This is something that has been happening for a long time in prescribing. The latest figures, which are up to 1st April this year, show that at least two-thirds of prescriptions have exactly these matters which my noble friend is now raising.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is not the noble Earl aware that the opticians themselves, who after all are professionals in this field, are very far from satisfied with the results that the Act has produced? Are we not now in a situation where the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, with the best intentions in the world and with all the expertise at his disposal, comments on prescriptions written out by opticians as if they were themselves professionals? Is not this precisely the kind of situation which all of us knew would be created when the Government introduced their iniquitous Bill?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have had very detailed discussions with many eminent registered ophthalmic opticians and senior people in the eye service. Yes, they are disappointed. They are
1486
disappointed for this reason: that the Act is working so well that they have admitted that the unregistered opticians are doing a very professional job in a large number of cases.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Minister whether he will open his eyes to what is going on?
Lord Somers: My Lords, is it not a fact that only a minute percentage of people have both eyes with an exactly equal focus and that therefore spectacles with two equal lenses would be entirely inaccurate for them? Is it not also a fact that using spectacles which are not accurate for one's eyes is extremely bad for one's sight?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with regard to the first point made by the noble Lord, this is exactly the reason why we considered it necessary that spectacles should not be dispensed unless there was a valid prescription within a two-year period.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, must we go on with what amounts to a ritual dance? Can we not take the guidance of the noble Earl and wait to see what the figures are like when they are given in a few months' time?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that, but I am very happy to answer the questions that the House puts to me.

Lighthouse Services: Dues
11.39 a.m.
Lord Davies of Leek: 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 remove from United Kingdom export companies the liability to pay the whole cost of shipping lights in this country by adopting the continental practice of meeting these costs out of general taxation.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, No. The Government consider that since the costs of the lighthouse services are incurred in meeting the needs of the marine community, they should be paid by that community.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, that was a draconian Answer. Does the noble Lord not realise that this is a burden placed upon the exporter and limiting his competitive punch vis-à-vis his European competitors? Will he not consider this point again? Does he not see that it would be better if general taxation took this burden upon itself and so increased the chances of Britain's exporters?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord's question is extremely timely. My right honourable friend published yesterday a report on the structure of light dues that has been prepared by Arthur Andersen and Co., consultant accountants. The Government are

1487
concerned that the burden of light dues should be shared equitably. One of the purposes of the Arthur Andersen study was to look at changes that might be needed in a long-established system reflecting the dramatic changes that the marine world has seen in recent years. But the Government, in commissioning the study, specifically ruled out the possibility of the costs of the lighthouse services being met in whole or in part from general taxation.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for quite a cogent reply. Does it mean that the matter is still being looked at and that there is the possibility of some changes being made?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I have said. We rule out the possibility of costs being met from general taxation. However, we are looking forward to responses from interested parties to the report published yesterday. We shall then see in what way the system should be restructured.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware of the concern felt throughout the country about the decline of the British merchant fleet. He has referred to the very important report published yesterday by his right honourable friend. Can he say specifically whether consultations on this report will take place with the shipping companies? Have the Government made any assessment of the additional assistance that might accrue to British shipping companies compared with their continental competitors if assistance of the kind referred to by my noble friend was given to the companies at the present time?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the report, as I say, was published yesterday and copies are, or will be shortly, available in the Library of your Lordships' House. We are awaiting responses from the industry. We have asked for these to be in by September. Obviously, we shall be looking at the whole matter of how these charges should be structured. Regarding the decline in the British fleet, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has another Question down for next Tuesday specifically on this question. If I may, I shall leave it until then.

Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1985
11.42 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th May be approved.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this order after an entertaining start to your Lordships' day. The order, which your Lordships will see is available in the Printed Paper Office, is being made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. The order provides the balance of funds necessary in this financial year for the services provided by Northern Ireland departments and certain public bodies. Those
1488
of your Lordships who attended the debate on the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 on 11th March this year will recall approving an amount of £ 1,323 million as a "sum on account" for 1985–86. Taken with the balance of £ 1,733 million that we now seek, this brings the total estimated provision for this year to £3,056 million. This total estimate for 1985–86 of £3,056 million is the figure covered by the Estimates Volume which your Lordships will be able to obtain from the Printed Paper Office.
The draft order before your Lordships makes one additional and slightly unusual provision. It appropriates a further £4 million to make good excesses of expenditure in the 1983–84 financial year. The details are set out in the Statement of Excesses. These two "excess votes", as they are termed, have been examined by the Public Accounts Committee, which has raised no objection to them being voted. The £4 million sought is made up of an underestimation of non-contributory benefits and the costs of storing and maintaining emergency fire fighting appliances. The latter item contributed only £7,000 to the total.
This is the fourth draft appropriation order I have had the pleasure and privilege of presenting to your Lordships. I have found the contributions of all noble Lords to the previous debates both stimulatiing and very enjoyable. In my opening remarks in this debate I shall seek to give your Lordships a broad picture of spending plans for the year. In doing so I hope that my contribution to the debate will be somewhat less technical than in the past and, perhaps, therefore, a little more enlightening.
However, before speaking about the estimates, as is normal on these occasions, your Lordships will perhaps permit me to say a few words about the general economic situation in Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom as a whole. In the United Kingdom this is the fifth year of continuous economic growth, and recent economic mdicators show that Northern Ireland continues to share in this revival. Industrial production output in 1984 increased by 3 per cent. over the 1983 level and manufacturing production also rose by 3 per cent. in 1984 following a similar rise in 1983. An encouraging aspect of the recovery in manufacturing has been its breadth, with most sectors showing some improvement.
But unemployment remains the major economic problem in the Province. As the population of working age continues to rise, the trend in unemployment remains upward. The Government's response has been, and continues to be, the pursuit of a national strategy to promote the right climate for sound and lasting economic growth, coupled with an effective regional policy directed at the areas of greatest need. The private sector also has a major role to play in identifying and developing new markets and in improving competitiveness by containing costs, including labour costs. Only in this way can we hope to generate lasting employment opportunities and achieve a substantial and lasting reduction in unemployment.
Turning now to the estimates, I start with the interest dearest to my heart, the agricultural industry. This is, of course, of major importance to the Province, employing some 53,700 people. The Government, in 1985–86, intend providing some £54

1489
million for the support of that industry. This is, of course, additional to the substantial support provided through operation of the various national schemes, provision for which is carried by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. This expenditure aims to help create in Northern Ireland the conditions for efficient production, processing and marketing. Special aid has been made available enabling continuation of the beef development programme, the milk consumer subsidy, as well as aid to the intensive sector. Expenditure on land drainage is expected to be some £12 million, and £7 million will be required for forestry and fishery operations.
Before I leave the subject of agriculture, your Lordships may expect me to say something about the vexed question of milk quotas. I am, of all people, very aware of the serious concern which is still felt by many dairy farmers in Northern Ireland. But I have to say that for the moment all I can tell your Lordships is that the Government are still considering this grave problem.
I now move on to the subject of industrial development. Your Lordships will be aware that the Lear Fan company has ceased trading because of further setbacks to the aircraft's certification programme and also because of the recent steep decline in the market for executive turbo-prop aircraft. On 28th May this year a receiver was appointed to secure the company's assets in Northern Ireland and to represent the Government's interest in the assets and technology in the United States. The Government injected some £56 million over five years, along with a private sector investment of 100 million dollars. Your Lordships will, I am sure, share our disappointment at the failure of this high technology project, which might have established welcome new jobs in the Province. Of course, one must sympathise with those members of the workforce who have lost their jobs. Indeed, I think that your Lordships will allow me to record that the Northern Ireland workforce cannot be blamed for this failure; on the contrary, their loyalty and effort is entirely to be praised.
Government support for trade, industry and employment in 1985–86 will cost £291 million. This covers such areas as the work of the Industry Development Board and expenditure by the Department of Economic Development on financial assistance to the aircraft and shipbuilding industry, the funding of the Local Enterprise Development Unit and, of course, the various training programmes, such as the Youth Training Programme.
The YTP aims to cater for the vocational preparation needs of 16- and 17-year-olds, whether they are in education, in employment or seeking work. It offers a comprehensive and a structured two-year programme comprising a guaranteed foundation year for 16-year-olds and for 17-year-olds, either training on projects of benefit to the community or training within employment. I would wish to stress to your Lordships that over the last year the business community in the Province has actively participated in the second year of the training programme by engaging over 2,500 17-year-olds with the help of the local YTP work schemes.
The Government's financial assistance to the gas industry and, indeed, the tariff subsidy to the Northern Ireland Electricity Service account for expenditure of around £120 million. Of that amount £95.6 million is earmarked for the electricity tariff subsidy. Those of your Lordships who are familiar with the Province will be aware that the main source of electricity generation in Northern Ireland is the Kilroot power station, which is currently oil-fired. Plans to convert the station to coal burning have recently been announced and it is hoped to start the project in 1986. The station should be functioning again in 1989 and it is anticipated that the reduction to NIES fuel costs will be in the region of £25 million to £30 million per year.
Just over £12 million will be provided to offset the operating losses incurred during the 1984–85 financial year by 11 of the 13 gas undertakings in the Province, and a further £12 million is for the orderly rundown and closure of those undertakings which decide that they cannot operate without a subsidy. I should like to assure your Lordships that the Government examined very carefully the rescue plan which was put forward by the Gas Industry Joint Working Group. However, in our view the problems associated with the purchase price of the gas and, indeed, the size of the market—which led to the cancellation of the original Kinsale project—had not been overcome and therefore the rescue plan did not provide the basis for a viable gas industry.
Any visitor to Northern Ireland simply cannot be other than impressed by the motorway and the main trunk roads in the Province. Some £98 million has been allocated to the roads programme, with the emphasis on maintaining the quality of this important part of the infrastructure. A further £26 million is allocated to transport.
I should like to move on to housing. In recent years housing has been the top social priority in the Government's public expenditure plans and I can assure your Lordships that this year is no exception. In 1985–86 the gross housing programme will amount to some £545 million. Within the Housing Executive's capital and revenue budgets, some £130 million has been provided for the improvement and maintenance of the housing stock. This allocation underpins the Housing Executive's switch in emphasis which was made in 1983, to concentrate on maintaining the condition of existing stock rather than on new building, particularly in view of the upsurge in private sector house building. I stress to your Lordships that a recent review of housing strategy confirmed the validity of this policy.
I turn to education, libraries and arts. We find that a total provision of just over £614 million is required, of which some 37 per cent. relates to the payment of teachers' salaries. Within that provision, funds will be made available to start the development of the Magee Campus of the University of Ulster. This development, which is to be completed in 1989–90, will provide an additional 750 places, bringing the total capacity of the campus to 1,000.
In secondary education, a major review of the curriculum, which was started last year, will continue. The object is to make the curriculum more relevant to the needs of today's young people. It is hoped that all

1491
secondary intermediate and grammar schools will be covered by the review in the next few years.
Expenditure by the Department of Health and Social Services can be broadly split into two areas. First, there is the health and personal social services programme, which includes the funding of the Health Board's expenditure, and the family practitioner services. Expenditure in this area will amount to nearly £642 million and of that amount £521 million will be allocated to the Health and Social Services Boards. A major development this year will be the opening of the new Tower Block at the Belfast City Hospital.
Social security is the other major area of expenditure, with provision in the estimates of just under £755 million. Of that amount, we estimate that £656 million will be required to fund noncontributory and family benefits. Expenditure on contributory benefits from the national insurance fund will increase total social security expenditure to some £1,200 million in the current year. The Government's policy is to maintain parity between Northern Ireland and Great Britain in the provision of social security benefits. The underlying objectives for Northern Ireland are therefore the same as those for Great Britain—to provide income support for pensioners and for people who are not earning because they are, for example, unemployed or incapable of work because of sickness.
As I indicated at the start of my remarks, I have tried to cover the broad field over which some £3,056 million will be allocated. Inevitably, in doing that, I have not referred to many significant areas of expenditure and I expect your Lordships to pick me up on all types of details in the estimates. I shall look forward to listening with great interest to the contributions of all of your Lordships who wish to speak and I hope to deal in greater detail in my concluding remarks with any particular questions which may be raised in the course of the debate. As is traditional on these occasions, I shall reply in detail to the points which so many of your Lordships have been kind enough to warn me that you will be raising and of which you have given me prior notice. I only hope that my answers will live up to the standard of the questions. With those comments, I commend the draft order to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th May be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
11.58 a.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for having explained the significance of the draft order which is before the House and for the broad picture which he has given of the Government's proposed expenditure during 1985–86. Notwithstanding the encouraging indications of economic growth to which the Minister has referred, notwithstanding the fact that new jobs have been created, and notwithstanding that manufacturing output has increased during the last year, as the Minister himself acknowledges, unemployment in Northern Ireland nevertheless remains high. It amounts to 20·9 per cent. of the total population, as compared with 15·2 per cent. in
1492
Scotland, 16·8 per cent. in Wales and 18·6 per cent. in the worst affected of the English regions. We fear that it has not as yet reached a plateau.
The Minister also referred at the end of his speech to an item in the 1985–86 estimates; namely, the provision for supplementary allowance to be paid to those below retirement age not in full-time work. That will increase spending fairly significantly. I submit that the higher social security expenditure which is budgeted for is one of the most significant figures to emerge from the 1985–86 estimates. It tells us quite a lot. It tells us that the Government, for their part, do not see any real prospect over the short term of getting unemployment down, or down significantly. That is also the judgment of the Northern Ireland Economic Council.
Indeed, there may be no such prospect for the Province for many years to come. It has not gone unnoticed that a senior official of the Administration in Northern Ireland told the Assembly that he did not see any real prospect over the next five or 10 years of getting unemployment significantly below the present level. The question one must put to the Government is this: do they believe the tide will turn before the end of the century?
We are well aware that the Province can no longer hope that agriculture, shipbuilding or textiles will recover their former role. Nevertheless, agriculture still remains one of Northern Ireland's most important industries. The noble Lord has a great deal of expertise in agriculture. It is close to his heart, and he is Ulster's Minister of Agriculture. But my question to him on his specialist subject must be: are there any reasonable grounds for the widespread belief in the Province that agriculture in Ulster is not being fairly treated by the EC? If there are such grounds for that judgment, then what action do the Government propose to take to correct the treatment?
The traditional industries are confronted by many difficulties and uncertainties, international economic events, technological changes, and occasional regulations from Brussels have had adverse effects on the Province's traditional industries. We are advised that in order to solve its problems the Province has to look more and more to its indigenous industries, or those sectors of indigenous industry which hold promising prospects for the future.
I was therefore encouraged to read in a recent issue of the Sunday Times that within traditional industry the famous firms of Shorts and Harland and Wolff had shown how they can diversify using technology familiar to their work. The companies I have just named are among the successes in Northern Ireland, and yet is there a possibility, or even a probability, that Shorts will be taken out of public hands?
In its third report, Economic Strategy: Food, Drink and Tobacco, the Northern Ireland Economic Council gave examples in some detail of the type of indigenous industry which it considers one should concentrate on. I was particularly impressed with paragraph 4.2 of the report, which identifies a number of guiding principles which can be used in identifying the sectors in which the Province might be able to achieve a comparative advantage, and then it goes on to identify a number of detailed target sectors.

1493
What advice do the Government give to industrialists who are working in these target sectors? Do they propose to give them further encouragement? If so, what form will that encouragement take? Given the need for more research in the promising target sectors, it is worrying that the budget allocation for Class II, Vote 1, Section D shows a decline in support for industrial research bodies from £97 million to £89 million, and a decline in support of advisory and information services and education and research agencies from £80 million to £74 million. Here we have the emphasis on the need for research, and industrial research, and at the same time we have a reduction in the allocation for these services. How do the Government explain this apparent paradox?
The failure to give greater support to industrial research is paralleled by the failure to invest adequately in the acquisition of skills. There is a substantial decrease in the allocation proposed for the apprentice training scheme, from £5 million to under £1 million. The Economic Council has expressed its concern at the low level in skill training in Northern Ireland. It warns—and I shall quote the warning,
"there is a real danger of skill shortages in future years if the situation is not reversed".
In its people, its workers, Northern Ireland has a capital asset of supreme value. The strength is there. The Northern Ireland worker has often been praised for his adaptability and his hard work, but his labour skills must be constantly upgraded for the technologies of the future.
Let me congratulate the Government on one issue. I am glad that there has been a considerable increase in the allocation for training schemes and rehabilitation of disabled persons, for in a period of recession the handicapped person is doubly handicapped.
I turn to the allocation for the administration of the executive of the IDB. I see that the expenditure on employment of overseas staff is reduced from £570 million to £356 million, and the number of staff employed in the headquarters will decrease from 327 to 285. But are we correct in detecting in these figures a deliberate movement away from the emphasis on inward investment towards indigenous development? If that is so is it because the IDB has found it difficult to attract external investment, or because of a conscious decision to concentrate more resources on job promotion within indigenous industry? Or again, is it because the IDB's operating arrangements have been remodelled in the light of experience gained with the De Lorean company?
While there is naturally concern at the loss of public funds by the De Lorean and Lear Fan companies, and there is concern that there may have been past mistakes by the IDB, nevertheless the experience with those two companies should not be allowed to weaken the IDB. We do not want, in the words of the Public Accounts Committee,
"the De Lorean experience to lead to the Industrial Development Board becoming an overcautious bureacratic organisation in danger of rejecting opportunities for fear of criticism".
I should like to make one quick reference to Lear Fan. A year ago this House was told by the noble Lord the Minister, in reply to a probe from my noble friend Lord Underhill—and I am sorry that he is not in his
1494
place today, but he takes a great interest in this order and I have had the benefit of his thinking—that,
"the management of the company remains entirely confident that it will obtain a certificate of airworthiness for the aircraft This is forecast for February 1985."
That was the confident prediction made in June 1984, at a time when, although some defects had been detected and there was a need to correct the defects, there never appeared any doubt that a certificate of airworthiness would be given.
Are the Government satisfied that the company had reasonable grounds for making that confident prediction 12 months ago, or is it to be the subject of an inquiry? Will the Minister tell the House how much public aid there has been to Lear Fan since last June? On the other hand, I was pleased to note that the carbon fibre material has vast potential. Can the Minister tell us to what extent the receivership of the company will be able to tap and realise that potential?
We are glad that in 1984–85 the IDB and LEDU together promoted 8,000 jobs in the Province. That was a record-breaking year for LEDU, and the Secretary of State has spoken eloquently about that achievement. Indeed, there is some evidence that the LEDU investments may have been better value for money than the IDB investment. But we are still entitled to ask the Minister whether LEDU could do even better if it had more staff in the surplus accommodation available at its new headquarters to process and analyse quickly enough the applications for the aid it receives.
We note that the standard capital grants and loans to industrial undertakings are cut from £44 million to £35 million. It may be said by the Minister that this merely reflects the cuts in grants payable in Great Britain. But this is hardly a satisfactory explanation as Northern Ireland has the highest long-term unemployment of any region in the United Kingdom and the duration of the long-term unemployment is longer than in other regions in the United Kingdom. On top of that, the Province is under great social stress. I reflect that central United Kingdom economic policy may not be acceptable for long if it bears disproportionately heavily on Northern Ireland. That is merely a thought.
The proposed agreement to purchase gas supply from the Republic has been abandoned. After the uncertainties of the past few years we are glad at least that a decision has been made, but, while conceding this much, the decision not to proceed with the purchase of natural gas from the Kinsal Field is for many disappointing. It is disappointing because it is likely to lead to the collapse of the gas industry in the Province. Notwithstanding the assurances given by the Minister earlier this morning, we wonder whether the Government took fully into account the full financial implications of this decision. It is also disappointing because it could lead to a loss of confidence in the potential of Ireland-wide, enterprises. In deciding to abandon the agreement, did the Government take fully into consideration the effects on North and South relations? I am wondering: can the Minister tell the House whether the Government are working on any proposals for joint and effective co-operation in other spheres of common interest to the North and the South. Can the Minister tell the House what is

1495
happening inside the department, and indeed outside the department, about the recommendations contained in the Williams Report on the possibilities of co-operation in higher education? Does this report offer a basis for some advance?
I welcome the Class VIII section grants in support of improved community relations. The total expenditure under this heading is modest, but still it could be worthwhile, for from little acorns great oak trees grow. I should be grateful if the Minister could make available at some time a list of the associations which are in receipt of these grants.
During the last 10 years there have been significant advances in improving housing conditions in the Province. While the position is still improving, nevertheless housing stock remains poorer than that in the rest of the United Kingdom. Therefore, we are glad to see from the Class V Vote that housing continues to be one of the top priorities in the Government's expenditure plan, and this has been reinforced by the Minister this morning. But we do not necessarily want more of the same. The Northern Ireland Economic Council, in another excellent report, has formulated almost two dozen recommendations for the housing executive's recommendation. These recommendations represent a serious attempt to deal more effectively with the housing programme. How do the Government propose to respond to these recommendations?
It appears that no substantial changes are proposed in the education budget. The Province is proud of what it has achieved in its schools. Will the Minister tell us whether the review of the curriculum to which he has referred this morning will also cover such matters as whether or not the schools are adequately equipped with equipment for science and technology, and whether they will be adequately staffed to prepare the children in two or three years' time to meet the demands of the technological age to which we referred earlier this morning?
I now turn to Class IX Vote 1: the health Vote. There will be no significant additional resources available for the health services in the Province. There will be a slight growth of about 0.5 per cent. but is that adequate? I must place on record the considerable concern expressed about the problems facing the Eastern Health and Social Service Board, which has been asked to cut its budget by £4.6 million in the next financial year. Has the department taken fully into consideration that this board provides highly specialised regional services for the whole of the Province? How will the board be able to achieve the cuts demanded of it without bringing about a deterioriation of health standards?
I note that it is proposed that the growth of 0.5 per cent.—here I quote from the Estimates—
"should enable provision to be made for the increasing number of old people and for some improvement in standards and advances of medical technology".
That is not new. This is almost precisely the form of words used in the Estimates for the previous year, when it was said that it was necessary for growth to
"keep pace with the increased needs of the very elderly and the advances in medicine".
If money were notionally set aside in 1983–84 to keep
1496
pace with the demands of the elderly and advances in medicine, what exactly was achieved during the year in those two sectors of the Health Service? Did the allocations help to keep pace with the needs of the elderly and the advances in medicine?
By today we know that there is also a need for a huge improvement in the services for the mentally ill. Since last year's Estimates we have seen the detailed and valuable report from the review committee on mental health published in December last. This drew attention to the unsatisfactory state of mental health in Northern Ireland, but I see no reference in the Estimates to the implications of this report. After identifying the numerous shortcomings in this service the review committee concluded that no real development of the existing services for the mentally ill could be achieved by even a 2½ per cent. increase in the budget. Will the Minister tell us whether the area boards are to be given any additional resources to meet the shortcomings identified by the review committee? Are they to be given additional resources to recruit additional consultants and nurses? Otherwise, at whose expense will they be recruited? Or will they riot be recruited at all?
I shall finish by returning briefly to what we regard as one of the highest of the priorities, the central economic issue. What we want to see is Northern Ireland flourishing for the benefit of its people. There is a need for a vigorous and imaginative development of its indigenous industry by private and public enterprise and to free the Province from a narrow dependence upon the profitability of its traditional industry. If, and it is a big if, this could be achieved we believe that it would go far to break down barriers and the outdated fears which seem to paralyse the thinking of too many people when they are concerned with Northern Ireland.
12.21 p.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord the Minister for his introduction and explanations. I propose to stick fairly closely to the order itself, although others may wish—and I was about to say, "see fit"—to range more widely. I offer my apologies that I shall have to leave the Chamber shortly but I have also listened to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, with interest.
I start with Class II, No. 3, which is a strange hotchpotch referring to the local enterprise development unit, the aircraft industry and the shipbuilding industry, not forgetting energy efficiency and other support services. It is inevitable that one should here refer to the failure of Lear Fan. It was indeed a tragedy. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to this. I am glad that it has been made clear—and the Minister has repeated this—that neither here nor in the previous failure of the De Lorean enterprise was it in any way the fault of the workforce. With colleagues, I looked round the De Lorean works not so very long before trading ceased and was highly impressed by the calibre, enthusiasm and morale of those involved. That is why the failure there and now at Lear Fan is so particularly sad. I understand that the Lear Fan project failed because it did not receive an airworthiness certificate. To a layman, this seems such a basic necessity for any truly credible design that I

1497
should be glad if the Minister would answer this question. Was this due to a serious miscalculation on the part of the designers, and should not the Government have sensed this earlier?
I should now like to turn to Class II, No. 4, which refers to tourism. The figure listed is some £3 million, but in the other place (at col. 386 of the Official Report for 5th June) the Minister said that £5·5 million was to be allocated. This would be a welcome addition. Can the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, confirm that that is what is intended? It seems to me that a big public relations exercise is necessary to demonstrate that there is much beautiful country, a welcoming people and, what will surprise many outsiders, great tranquillity in many areas. There is a vicious band of terrorists, it is true, but I believe that the people of Northern Ireland can arouse much support and derive much encouragement if they can be more open to the outside world.
It is sad that a considerably larger sum of nearly £14·5 million has to be set aside in Class II, No. 6, for consumer protection, regulations on trading practices, and so on. But perhaps this at least shows that the figure allocated for tourism is not overgenerous. Class V refers to the major contribution by the Department of the Environment on housing services. It is still all too possible to find real, old-fashioned slums in the Province and we should not rest until these have been eliminated. I note with interest what the Minister had to say about this.
Lastly, Class XI, No. 1, allocates money for the expenditure of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, asked in the March debate whether a Member of the Assembly could draw his £17,000 a year and never turn up. Of course no sensible electorate would re-elect him, but that is another point. The Minister said that he would give a written reply. I should be grateful if he could now comment on his conclusions on that point.
I have sought to be brief, and I conclude by repeating what is so obvious that it should not be necessary but unfortunately still is necessary: that the people of both traditions have a common interest in finding a better way of ordering their future. We need to repeat and repeat this and to offer all the encouragement that we can. In the meantime, we support this order.
12.26 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord for his introduction and for his usual courtesy in inviting us to bring to his attention in advance any points that we might wish to raise. On Class I, the noble Lord was right. I am going to mention the milk quota again, I am afraid. It has been said before, but in a nutshell the situation is that last year when the quotas were introduced for the first time the peculiar dependence of Ireland, both North and South, upon grass-based agriculture (of which milk is the major sector), was recognised. Therefore the Republic of Ireland was given an additional quota over and above what its previous production had been. Northern Ireland was promised favourable treatment as well and was allocated an extra 65,000 tonnes of quota by the EC. In the event, Her Majesty's Government, instead of giving this 65,000 tonnes to Northern Ireland where it was supposed to go, decided
1498
to spread it over the rest of the United Kingdom so that Northern Ireland received only a small proportion of that quota which was due to it.
This year, we have been told that once again Northern Ireland has been allocated an additional 65,000 tonnes and the Republic of Ireland has been allocated 58,000 tonnes over and above what they were given last year. What is going to happen to the 65,000 tonnes allocated to Northern Ireland this year? I sincerely hope that in his winding-up speech the noble Lord can tell us; because one thing is for sure, despite what anyone says: we did not receive that 65,000 tonnes last year. Also, in the case of special instances, where cases have been heard by tribunals, farmers who were already committed to expansion when the quota was introduced last year have made their bids to justify investment put into their farms in anticipation of such expansion.
In England and Wales, if my information is correct, 65 per cent, of those tribunal awards will be granted. In Scotland, 57.5 per cent. will be granted but in Northern Ireland the figure is only 49 per cent. Similarly, in hardship cases, if there is no quota transferred from Great Britain to Northern Ireland this year, whereas 100 per cent. of the hardship cases in Great Britain will receive additional quota, those in Northern Ireland will receive none. Indeed, small producers in England and Wales, I understand, will be restored to their 1983 mean average of production, which is a benefit that will not be received by the Northern Ireland small producers.
This is due to the fact that response to the outgoers' scheme has been poor in Northern Ireland; and that is not surprising because farmers in Northern Ireland do not have the alternatives that are open to farmers particularly in the south of England. The opportunities to grow cereals are very limited because of climatic conditions. Similarly, the number of farmers who can realistically go into such alternative crops as oil seed rape are very limited. Indeed, if they go out of farming altogether, opportunities for alternative employment are non-existent in many of the rural parts of the country. I shall not continue with statistics. The noble Lord knows them well.
All I would do is to stress that we are not looking for charity in Northern Ireland. All we are looking for is equality of treatment with the rest of the United Kingdom, taking into account, as the EC has done—but Her Majesty's Government do not seem to have done—the peculiar dependence of Northern Ireland on grass-based agriculture, the fact that agriculture is the largest single employer in the Province, and that it is far better value for money to maintain jobs than to create jobs and is a much more secure investment as well.
The noble Lord is aware of the situation that I have outlined as, indeed, is his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The impression that we gain is that they have both found themselves frustrated in the representations that they have been making on behalf of Northern Ireland. I am sorry to say it, but the principal reason for this frustration seems to be that the right honourable friend of the noble Lord, the Minister for Agriculture, has turned out to be a poor soldier when it comes to fighting the case for Northern Ireland. I sympathise with the noble Lord opposite. He

1499
tells us that the problem of milk quotas is still under consideration. I understand that an answer has to be given one way or another within the next fortnight. If the noble Lord and his right honourable friend the Secretary of State cannot come up with a favourable answer, if I were the noble Lord—and thank heavens, I am not—I would say, "In the time I have been in Northern Ireland, I have done my best, I have tried, but I have been unable to deliver, and therefore with sadness I am going to go. I have done what I can." He would go with honour and we would be very sorry indeed, because he has proved himself to be, if I may say so with respect, most likeable and charming, and a Minister of integrity. But if I were him, I would rather do that than continue to try to explain the inexplicable and excuse the inexcusable. I do not envy him that role in the slightest.
Turning now to Class II (4) I said before that in Northern Ireland we do not want to live on charity. What we want is the opportunity to make maximum use of our existing indigenous resources and what ingenuity there may exist. I therefore regret that Her Majesty's Government have not been able to see fit to grant their support to a Private Member's Bill—which your Lordships were kind enough to pass through all its stages in this House earlier this year—which would have enabled a rerun of the Ards Tourist Trophy Race, using authentic cars of the period between 1928 and 1936. It would have attracted tremendous tourism, but would not have been any burden on public funds, with the exception of police overtime. That is something which is entailed with major sporting events of any kind, including football matches, or, indeed, parades in public places which take place in Northern Ireland at this time of the year. I therefore regret that Her Majesty's Government did not feel able to support this proposal. I particularly regret it because I know that both the noble Lord and his honourable friend the Minister responsible for the Department of the Environment were personally in favour of it, but somewhere in the higher echelons of the department there was a "Sir Humphrey Appleby" who gave it the thumbs-down. I know this makes it difficult for Ministers. I would merely borrow a quotation from the Bench of Bishops, if I may. I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate is not in his place. I am sure the would not mind if I quote the proverb, "nil illigetimi carburundum".
The same has applied with hare coursing. On two separate occasions it was debated by the Northern Ireland Assembly, which resolved unanimously that it should be banned in Northern Ireland in its present form, but once again "Sir Humphrey" came in and gave it the kybosh.
Turning to Class VI (2)—this is a small but important point—whereas demolition, reconstruction or major alteration of old buildings is zero-rated for VAT, restoration of old buildings receives no exemption at all. This means that property owners and property developers have an incentive to demolish interesting old buildings, or change their character completely, rather than to restore in an authentic manner. This seems to be something of an anomaly. I should be very grateful if the noble Lord would look into it.
1500
Finally, on Class XI (1), it is my custom to say a word or two about the Northern Ireland Assembly every now and again, as I am the only Member of your Lordships' House who can report on it at first hand. The Assembly continues to do a good job in its scrutinising rôle. It has made government more accessible to the public through the number of witnesses who have given evidence to its committees and Her Majesty's Government have been good enough to heed many of the recommendations of those committees and conveyed to them through the Assembly's report. In this I am convinced that it is doing a useful job.
But we have to face up to the fact that no progress is at present being made towards devolution. On 1st November 1979 I ventured to suggest in your Lordships' House that the Assembly should be set up in roughly the form that it was set up. I made that suggestion confident that the Social Democratic and Labour Party would be glad to join it and to participate in a form of partnership government. I am sure that had it been the same party now as it was when it was led by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, with the help of—as he then was—his honourable friend Mr. Patrick Devlin, the SDLP would be in Stormont now and would be participating in a devolved administration there. I am very disappointed that the SDLP is a different party now from the one that was led by the noble Lord. I am very sorry that they have turned their backs on this opportunity to participate and instead have placed their money on the new Northern Ireland Forum report which, as I said at the time in your Lordships' House, had many points to commend it, but was not realistic in its conclusions, as indeed the Prime Minister pointed out in a somewhat forthright manner.
The question therefore is: are Her Majesty's Government prepared to allow the Assembly to continue ticking over without any sign of progress towards devolution? I would suggest that it is time the Government started to govern, rather than just hope that the situation can be contained in Northern Ireland, that violence will continue to decrease, and that there will not be any political trouble of any kind. I would respectfully suggest that it is time for Her Majesty's Government to present a framework within which power can be devolved on a partnership basis. If the SDLP declined to participate now, it would be most regrettable, but they would have only themselves to blame. Otherwise if Her Majesty's Government do not do that, and if they decide that the Assembly has no realistic future, the SDLP will have condemned us to an indefinite spell of direct rule which means rule by "Sir Humphrey Appleby". I suggest it is time therefore that Her Majesty's Government decided what to do next about the Assembly, because in view of the fact that such progress is not being made, your Lordships may well question whether the expenditure of nearly £2 million for the Northern Ireland Assembly is worth it. Personally I should be very sorry to see it terminated, because it is doing a useful job. But, realistically speaking, the question must be asked as to whether the time has now come for Her Majesty's Government to take some resolute action one way or the other.
12.40 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking the Minister for his introduction to this draft order. May I say that these draft orders are looked upon as annual events, and very important ones, so far as the discussion of the affairs of Northern Ireland is concerned. I am sure that noble Lords who reside in Northern Ireland will join with me in saying that we certainly very much appreciate the thought, energy and interest that is taken by other noble Lords in Northern Ireland affairs on these annual occasions.
I welcome the fact that the noble Lord has said that a less technical approach has been taken to the order, and perhaps a more enlightening manner of presentation might help in the debate. I note that this is the third annual report of the Estimates which has been presented in the new format. The continuing change of style and presentation has helped considerably, and particularly the very helpful subheadings, which give details. Having said that, however, I am still of the opinion that debate across the Floor of this Chamber is not an appropriate way to deal with the detailed matters involved. I think that some other procedure will have to be found for dealing with the matters under consideration. I do not blame the Minister in a way, or indeed all those who are concerned with the procedural arrangements of this House. I think it is outside that the power to change the procedures is to be found; but certainly I believe that a change is necessary in this respect.
I should like simply to deal with the figures as shown in the Estimates, and I would first refer to page 14, Table 5. That gives an estimate of staff numbers for 1985–86 in the nine departments of the Government of Northern Ireland. It indicates a reduction of staff of some 256. I am particularly concerned about the proposed staff reductions in departments which in my opinion are the key departments, providing crucial services to productive employment in the Province. I speak, of course, of agriculture and economic development. In agriculture there is a reduction of 40 staff, and in economic development there is a reduction of 74.
The trend in the run-down of these vital services is shown in Tables 1–9 Appendices I and II, where a reduction of 12 is proposed in the staff employed in the important sector of agriculture dealing with research, food science and training. Mention has been made by the noble Lord on the Front Bench of the fact that the food and agriculture industry is one of the most important indigenous wealth-producing industries in Northern Ireland in terms of employment, and here we have in the important sector of research, food science and training a run-down of staff. Surely there is a very special need for the Government to maintain every effort to keep all sectors of agriculture so as to help to initiate new ideas, new technology, new production processes and new marketing approaches, to meet the rapidly changing modes of consumer food preferences and requirements.
Turning to page II.5 of the Estimates, Votes 1 and 2, on the Industrial Development Board, on 2nd May this year the Northern Ireland Industrial Development Board published its strategy document entitled Encouraging Enterprise. That document gives the
1502
Industrial Development Board's programme for the next five years. The key elements of its strategy are to revitalise home industry, to focus more sharply on inward investment effort and to help to develop and sharpen Northern Ireland's skills and expertise. In my opinion, that is in direct contradiction to the action proposed for manpower in agriculture and economic development, which has already been explained in great detail by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies.
May I ask the noble Lord the Minister to indicate what public statements of support and encouragement have been made by the Northern Ireland Office about the Industrial Development Board's programme? Can he also say what progress has been made by the board in the recruitment of additional experts and specialist staff? How far is the Industrial Development Board on target for the achievment of the 5,750 new job promotions set for 1985–86? May I further ask the noble Lord whether he can indicate where in the Estimates is shown the proposed financial support by the Government for the special aims for the project Industrial Year 1986? What efforts are being made by the Northern Ireland Office and by departments to make a success of this very important event?
Moving now to Class II.3, Section B, mention has been made of the Harland and Wolff shipbuilding works and of the Short aircraft works. Workers in both companies, together with the management, have a great awareness of world competitive conditions and the importance of the capacity to develop effective, positive co-operation towards mutual objectives. Your Lordships will know about the successful winning by Shorts of three competitive contracts during the past six months. Shorts' reputation in the aerospace industry is now well established internationally. These contracts should give their work people a secure base for employment.
I should like to put this point to the noble Lord the Minister, who I am sure is well aware of the general concern about the proposed dispersal factory for Shorts in West Belfast. The delay in having a public statement about this factory is giving rise to much controversy. May I ask the noble Lord if he would discusss this matter with his ministerial colleagues, with a view to making suitable approaches to Shorts' management so that there can be an early clarification of this important matter?
Turning to Class II.5, Sections A and B, which concern youth and industrial training programmes, according to my calculations there are at least 12 differently structured and organised industrial training schemes provided by the Northern Ireland Department of Economic Development. Some of these schemes are claimed to be good, some are accused of the gross exploitation of young workers and others have reported mediocre results. There is much concern about the present random, piecemeal and poorly-designed objectives on which the various schemes are promoted and managed. It seems to me there is much to be desired in the way of radical improvements in profiling, staff development, research and management structures, together with the marketing of youth employment and training schemes.
There is every reason to believe, looking at the position here in Great Britain, that in Northern

1503
Ireland Government-sponsored youth training and adult retraining schemes will become a permanent key feature of economic development and manpower policies. May I ask the Minister to draw to the attention of his ministerial colleagues the need for a greater co-ordination of the objectives and efforts between the Northern Ireland Manpower Council and the departments? May I also suggest that the Northern Ireland Manpower Council be given a more authoritative and responsible public role, rather than the low-key advisory role it currently presents.
I now turn to Class VIII-3, Section D: youth, sports and allied services. For many obvious reasons, I welcome the Northern Ireland Office's continued encouragement and support for the recreational and sports needs of young people in Northern Ireland. They have done a very useful and helpful job in encouraging the pursuit of sports and recreation by young people. One of the organisations that plays an important role in youth services is the Youth Committee for Northern Ireland, which acts in an advisory role to the Government.
This committee recently undertook a major review of the youth service provisions in Northern Ireland, in which it had the expert help of the Northern Ireland Council for Educational Research. Arising from the review and the study, the youth committee compiled a 45-page report which made some 30 recommendations concerning the aims, management, structure and training requirements of the youth service to meet the challenge of change in our society. The report was sent to the Northern Ireland Minister, Mr. Nicholas Scott, on 17th May. I realise that Mr. Scott, like other Northern Ireland Ministers, leads a very demanding life, but may I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, whether he will draw to the attention of Mr. Scott that an early and sympathetic reply to the youth committee's report and the recommendations would be encouraging to those who share this responsibility of meeting the needs and the challenge of young people in Northern Ireland?
If the House will bear with me, I should like to refer to the Sports Council, which is mentioned in Class VIII-3. This week, the attention of the world has been drawn to the high levels of achievement of Ulstermen and women in the field of sport. The grit, determination and skill of Barry McGuigan, who won the world featherweight boxing championship has been coupled with world class performances by other Ulster sports people, such as Mary Peters, Pat Jennings, Alex Higgins, Dennis Taylor, Jim Parker in bowls, Jim Dunlop in international motorcycling, and many others. I am sure noble Lords will understand and share our pride and delight in the achievements of our sportsmen at this particular time.
In this connection, I believe that it would be appropriate to pay tribute to the Northern Ireland Sports Council, which over the past 11 years has worked hard and given great leadership to make a very necessary and valuable contribution to the Northern Ireland community. I am glad to say that the Northern Ireland Sports Council has succeeded in gaining the support and the good will of the Minister and many commercial sponsors as well as local authorities and sports organisations. I am confident that there are
1504
many more stars within the Northern Ireland Sports Council's orbit, and perhaps we shall hear more of them in the near future. I hope so.
Class VIII-13 deals with purchasing grants in aid of museums. The noble Lord the Minister will know of the review of museums in Northern Ireland which was carried out by the working party of the United Kingdom Museums and Galleries Commission. The working party report, the Morris Report, found that the standards and provisions of museum services in Northern Ireland were markedly lower than those in any other area of the United Kingdom.
The Northern Ireland Assembly, in discussing the Morris Report, stated:
"The Government should, in the context of the review of public expenditure, bring forward proposals to improve the finances of the museum services and bring these closer to parity with the rest of the United Kingdom."
It is a matter of public concern in Northern Ireland that, during the period from 1980 to 1984, when some of the 21 national museums and galleries in England, Scotland and Wales received millions of pounds annually from public funds by way of purchase grants—I have a list of them which I do not wish at this stage to present to the House—the Ulster Museum, during the same period, did not receive one brass farthing for this purpose. Last year a grant of £30,000 was made, and the Estimates we are at present considering propose a sum of £45,000. Over the past five years, through lack of finance in its purchase fund the Ulster Museum has lost the opportunity to acquire hundreds of items of importance to its existing collection and items of great value to the Ulster heritage. I have again a list of the items that have been lost to private purchasers and farther afield. May I ask the Minister to use his good offices to have this impoverished position and image of the Ulster Museum in some way remedied and retrieved?
Turning to Class VIII-3—Community services—one of the bodies in receipt of grants from the Government is Co-operation North. This community organisation recently published an excellent and most useful directory containing detailed lists of major organisations providing services to industry and the community at large in Northern Ireland and in the Republic. I should like to commend this publication to all interested in the promotion of peace, prosperity and progress in both parts of Ireland through understanding and friendship and by the willingness to share good will. I understand that your Lordships' Library will have a copy of this directory some time next week.
As regards Class VIII-16—referring to the Staff Commission for the Education and Library boards and the Staff Council for the Health and Social Services—in this context I was astonished and astounded to read the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland concerning the propriety of the internal audit provisions and the standards in the boards under these services. The first report is contained in the Statement of Educational and Library Board's accounts published in May 1985, Cmnd. 9487. The second one is contained in the Northern Ireland Trading and Other Accounts, published on 12th June this year, which is House of Commons Paper 409.

1505
The report of the Auditor-General raises questions about the training, appointment, selection, status and management provisions to enable the personnel efficiently to carry out the important internal audit work. There appear to be issues arising of inadequate financial provision. If there are, then this is a matter for these Estimates. In perusing the matter, I am not sure that it is that alone that is at fault. So I have asked the noble Lord whether perhaps he will draw it to the attention of those concerned in order to have this particular situation speedily remedied.
My final point is contained in Class IX, Table 1—the home help service. The Minister will know of the current report of a proposal to privatise the home help service by the direct payment to recipients of home services to employ their own home help. In my view, never was such a ludicrous situation presented to the general public anywhere. I think this is an experiment which has been foisted upon Northern Ireland in advance of something which may take place here in Great Britain. Your Lordships will also be aware of the wide dismay and opposition to this proposal in Northern Ireland. May I ask the noble Lord to request that these proposals be withdrawn and that the consultations be arranged between management and worker representatives to achieve a more efficient administration of these essential home help services under the control of existing management. Again I thank the noble Lord the Minister and those who have taken part in this debate and support the order.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I ask if he will bear in mind—I am sure he knows already very well—that he said that Barry McGuigan comes from Ulster. So indeed he does; he comes from the Ulster county of Monaghan which is inside the Republic of Ireland.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I am happy to say that I chose my words very well in that respect.
1 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I know that the House will be grateful for the contributions which have been made by my noble friends Lord Blease and Lord Dunleath. They have the distinct advantage of living in Northern Ireland and, as I have found over these past two years since I took up residence in this country, there is no substitute for living in the area that you represent, so that you are able to keep in touch. I try to keep in touch with events as they unfold in Northern Ireland, but I admit to losing touch to a considerable extent by not having a home there. The fact that I do not have a home in Northern Ireland is no fault of mine. My home was destroyed by those who were politically opposed to me and I had to take up residence in this country. But I think it is right that we should pay a good deal of attention to remarks which are made by those representatives in your Lordships' House who still live in Northern Ireland, because, I repeat, that there is no substitute for it.
I rise for only a few minutes to reinforce what has been said by other speakers and, first, in relation to the Northern Ireland Assembly which was mentioned in
1506
some detail by my noble friend Lord Dunleath. I remember that in 1981, when the legislation under which the Northern Ireland Assembly was set up was going through another place, I was the only Northern Ireland representative who supported the setting up of the Northern Ireland Assembly. All other representatives in another place were opposed to its setting up, on the grounds that, for one reason or another, it would not work. Indeed, many of them told me that they would not take part in the newly constructed Northern Ireland Assembly.
What we have seen since has been something of a contradiction. All those representatives who were so opposed to the setting up of the Assembly are playing a role, particularly the Democratic Unionist Party—the Speaker of the Assembly is a Member of another place—and the official Unionist Party. Sometimes they do not attend; they withdraw their services for various reasons and then they return again. What we have not had is the distinct voice of the Northern Ireland minority in that Assembly.
It will be said that there are some members of the minority religion who are in the Alliance Party and who speak there. But the main elected representatives of the minority in Northern Ireland are the Social Democratic and Labour Party and Sinn Fein representatives. Let us not try to run away from that fact, to discard it or to brush it under the carpet. Sinn Fein now has 59 representatives in the local authorities in Northern Ireland and five representatives in the Assembly. It has been elected, much against my will, by a significant section of the Northern Ireland electorate.
I think that the Government are still hoping, by one means or another, to entice the SDLP into beginning to attend the Assembly at Stormont. Let me tell the Minister, with all the experience which I have had of political life in Northern Ireland, with 10 years of leadership of the SDLP behind me and with a significant knowledge of the vast majority of the members who now constitute the SDLP, that there will never be an occasion when that party will consider attending the Northern Ireland Assembly. I think that the Minister should rule that from his mind. There are some who would like to go, with whom I am in touch. There are others who are frightened to go. But the main body of the SDLP has been grappled by the throat by Sinn Fein, and Sinn Fein will in no circumstances permit the SDLP to begin to attend that Assembly.
I have been very disappointed and I agree with what has been said about me by my noble friend Lord Dunleath. Had I continued to be a member of the SDLP, and if those other members of the SDLP who resigned from that party for the same reasons that I resigned had remained as members, we should have tried but we would have failed to convince the SDLP that it should begin to represent its people in the Northern Ireland Assembly. It would appear that behind the scenes a type of blackmail has been used by the SDLP. It would appear that it is saying to the British Government: "If you can make concessions to us in another arena, if you reach some agreement with the Government of the Republic and if some concessions are made to our national aspirations_ then we will begin to attend that Assembly." But in those

1507
circumstances, if those concessions were made, the SDLP would be attending but nobody else would be attending. Those who are at present attending the Assembly would withdraw. So one can see the awful dilemma in which this present Government are placed.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Dunleath that we have now had the Northern Ireland Assembly for three years and that it has carried out useful functions. But it is not a component factor in any future political structures that are to be created in Northern Ireland. If the Northern Ireland Assembly is abolished—and I believe that it will be abolished—I think that the responsibility for the abolition of that structure will have to be borne by the SDLP and by the Sinn Fein representatives, because they are the people who by their non-attendance have ensured the total failure of that elected Assembly.
If that Assembly ceases to exist, what will replace it?—a further dose of direct rule. I listened this morning to my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies and he appears to be more in tune with the unemployment problem in Northern Ireland than some of the elected representatives in another place. Since the imposition of direct rule in 1972, there has always been objection taken to the fact that Northern Ireland is governed by direct order. Debates in another place are either late at night or early in the morning and they last an hour and a half. I read the report of the debate on the order in another place and the whole debate seemed to be devoted to agriculture. The only three people who took part were the honourable Member for North Down, another Member representing a rural constituency in County Down and the right honourable Enoch Powell. One would think that there were no Belfast representatives in another place, yet Belfast is the real linch-pin of any success or failure that will affect the whole future of Northern Ireland.
We are debating here today the appropriation order, and this second instalment amounts to £3,056 million. That is quite a lot of money to be incurred in the running of Northern Ireland. I am certainly grateful that this Government—whether or not it is a Conservative Government—continue to see the urgency of the unemployment problem in Northern Ireland. I do not believe, even if there were a Labour Government, that the expenditure, given the economy of this country, would be increased by any significant amount. So I agree that the Assembly was created with the best intentions in the world. I think that a Labour Government, had it been in power in those years, would have tried to do the same, because I believe that the intention was to create political structures in Northern Ireland and to see whether they could attract the allegiance and the loyalty of both sections of the community. The intention was to make it possible for them to sit down in their own homeland to try to evolve political structures that would enjoy the allegiance of both the majority and minority communities. Unfortunately, that has not happened, and it may be that the Government will have to embark on a totally different crusade to bring those two communities together.
On the question of Lear Fan, I think it was a tragedy that it failed. It was also a tragedy that De Lorean
1508
failed. I noticed when De Lorean failed that it was the child of the Labour Government and of the then Secretary of State Roy Mason. That was a valiant attempt to try to attract an industry into Northern Ireland, particularly into West Belfast, where—
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can I appeal to the noble Lord to look at the clock? He has spoken for 10 minutes on a Friday afternoon, when there are 22 speakers to follow. We hope to get home for tea if possible. Will the noble Lord curtail his remarks?
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the noble Earl's intervention indicates how unsatisfactory it is to have direct rule to govern Northern Ireland. If 10 minutes to hear from someone who has spent his whole political life in Northern Ireland is too much for this House, then I bitterly resent that and the intervention of the noble Earl.
The Earl of Halsbury: Then the noble Lord should put his name down to speak, my Lords.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, it does not matter whether or not my name was down to speak. If my name had been down, the noble Earl might still have sat there silently having the same objection. Northern Ireland has problems which will not go away. If this House sits on a Friday it is entitled to hear the problems of Northern Ireland.
I want to say something to the noble Lord about Lear Fan and De Lorean. They were both noble attempts by the then Labour Government to attract industry to Northern Ireland, but they failed. I was very disappointed when a large section of the Conservative Party began to hurl all kinds of abuse at the then Secretary of State and the Labour Government for trying to achieve the difficult task of attracting viable industry to Northern Ireland.
The same thing has now happened to them. The next Secretary of State for Northern Ireland tried to attract Lear Fan, but unfortunately that project has gone by the board as well. There are too many elements in Northern Ireland, including the SDLP, the party I formerly led, Sinn Fein, and others who have been terribly wise after the event, all sneering at attempts by the Conservative Government to create a new industry with Lear Fan. The Conservative Government are to be congratulated for trying to attract industry to Northern Ireland.
Shorts has also been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Blease. Shorts is not without its enemies and detractors in Northern Ireland. There are many people in Northern Ireland, particularly in the Republican community, who have for a number of years consistently tried to hurl abuse at and belittle Shorts. I know from all the years I spent in Northern Ireland that the same kind of abuse was hurled at the Belfast shipyard on the grounds that it did not employ Catholics. Shorts' enemies were not only in Northern Ireland; it was known that it had enemies also throughout America, led by Father Sean McManus, attempting to prevent Americans from using Shorts' facilities.
I never paid any great attention to that kind of abuse, but I do pay attention to a criticism made

1509
recently by Sister Genevieve of St. Louisa's comprehensive school in West Belfast. She says that some of the pupils who graduated from her school with all the required academic qualifications, and who were then interviewed by Shorts' management and promised that they would be offered employment, have found that that employment has not materialised. Sister Genevieve is so concerned about those promises not being fulfilled that she thought it right to go public on this issue and to make statements to the press.
In view of the fact that Shorts is not without its enemies, I urge the Minister to look into the employment situation at Shorts and to ensure that there is no discrimination against the minority religion in Northern Ireland. I would also fully endorse what has been said by my noble friend Lord Blease. If there is to be some diversification of the workload in Shorts then it should be attracted to West Belfast where, again, promises have been made but not fulfilled.
I do not believe that I have taken an undue length of time in making those few remarks. In fact, I can assure the noble Earl who intervened that on future occasions I shall take a hell of a lot longer to speak about the problems of Northern Ireland.
1.14 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I note the point made, quite rightly, by the noble Earl. I assure him and other noble Lords that I have sat and listened with fascination to the points which have been raised by your Lordships today. I am very grateful for the interest that has been shown in all parts of the House. I must stress that it is only good manners and I should try to reply to noble Lords who have spoken and to respond satisfactorily and succinctly to as many points as I can, including those of which I received prior notification, as is the custom in such matters. I shall attempt to answer them all. If I fail to do so, no doubt your Lordships will pick me up on them and I will then be in touch through the usual channels, by writing to your Lordships.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, made a notable speech. He kindly warned me of many of the points he would be raising. He covered the broad spectrum of life in the Province, as did the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, who I am sure will shortly return to the Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to the subject of agriculture. I should stress that there are no grounds for claiming that Northern Ireland agriculture is being treated in any way less fairly than other regions by the European Community. Indeed, Northern Ireland receives certain benefits from the Community because of its particular disadvantages.
Those benefits include the agricultural development programme which is specially tailored to the needs of the Province and above all to the less favoured areas in the Province. Secondly, we have the advantage of the beef development programme. Thirdly, we have the calf premium scheme. All of these are of real benefit to Northern Ireland beef farmers.
The noble Lord also raised the question of unemployment. He is not alone in knowing that unemployment is a matter of major concern to all of us, wherever we may stand in the political spectrum, or indeed wherever we stand in the United Kingdom.
1510
I am sure the noble Lord appreciates that our economic policy, as I set out to stress to him at the outset, is designed to achieve a sustained improvement in the national economy over a period of time. We all know that the Government are seeking, first, to achieve a reduction in inflation; secondly, the promotion of enterprise and initiative. We hope that in this way greater opportunities for employment can be created and also that higher living standards can be achieved.
Northern Ireland is of course an integral part of the United Kingdom, and I hope that the Province may expect to share in the benefits of any economic upturn. Indeed, such is the main point of our economic strategy. Certainly the Government recognise the special needs of Northern Ireland and the importance of public spending in alleviating the economic problems of the Province. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate even from the estimates that we have before us that public expenditure per head in Northern Ireland is substantially higher than elsewhere in the United Kingdom, to reflect the special needs of the Province. I stress again that the Province is an integral part of the United Kingdom and that it must share in the Government's overall strategy for maintaining light control on public expenditure. Nevertheless, £30 million more of public expenditure than was originally planned for 1985–86 has been allocated to the Province.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, spoke about present unemployment levels in Northern Ireland; and we accept that they are high, as indeed they are in the United Kingdom, by historical standards. A significant improvement in the situation as far as Northern Ireland is concerned is unlikely to be seen in the short term. But the unemployment level is not a problem particular to Northern Ireland, nor indeed to the United Kingdom. It is a worldwide condition which has prevailed for some time. Our response has been, and continues to be, the pursuit of a national strategy to promote the climate for a sound and lasting economic growth. Only in that way can we hope to generate the employment opportunities which all noble Lords, and everyone in Northern Ireland wants to see.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also referred to the decrease in support for industrial research and the various advisory services. The decrease in 1985–86, compared with previous years, can be found on page II.6 of the report (it is fascinating that we have to use Roman as well as Arabic numerals) under subheadings D.1 and D.4 in Class II of Vote 1. These result from special one-off provisions which were made in recent years. In 1983–84 the sum of £45,000 was made available to the Lambeg Industrial Research Association and this was in connection with a special flax-growing project. The 1984–85 provision included a one-off amount of capital support for the estabishment of a computer-aid design advisory service and the 1985–86 provision covers the normal running service costs of those two services. Therefore, that is one element raised by the noble Lord and I hope that it indicates to him that we certainly are not running down these services, since the previous year's figures would have an element of what he and I and, indeed, his noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington,

1511
would accept as being a capital element, and that the reduction is, in fact, a continuation of services.
I suggest that the noble Lord looks at page II.9, IDB Class II, Vote 2, subhead B.3. Under that heading he will find that on the advisory service to industry the provision has increased from £400,000 in 1984–85 to £560,000 in 1985–86; that is, this year.
The noble Lord also warned us—and we are all aware of it—of the possible shortage of skills in the future. He quoted beautifully from paragraph 24 of the NIEC report of April 1985. The Government certainly accept that there is some substance to that warning, but we stress that the primary responsibility for satisfying the skill demands of industry rests in the first place with industry itself. The numbers who are trained in the relevant and particular skills which are needed for various sectors of industry are dictated by the industrial training boards. We believe that the boards are best placed to appreciate the particular needs of their own industry. The small numbers which are today being trained in the engineering skills is a very clear reflection of the significant contraction in demand for apprentices in recent years for that particular discipline. However, I give the assurance that we shall continue to monitor the demand for various skills and we are ready to respond positively, and I hope quickly, by encouraging and assisting industry to satisfy the needs which must be met, when these needs can be identified.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to the LEDU, as part of his ongoing interest in the industry, and its staffing complement. It is subject to continuous review. Since 1984 the numbers employed by the LEDUs have significantly increased. From an original 70 there is now a complement of 94. We are currently discussing with the Department of Economic Development an increase in the staff complement to around 103. Additional human resources have enabled the agency to handle an increased inquiry rate and that, in turn, has resulted in job promotions trebling from 1,613 in 1981–82 to over 4,000 in 1984–85.
The noble Lord questioned the staffing levels of the IDB. These, too, are kept under constant review. We expect that the staffing levels at the IDB will reduce from 437 at 1st April this year to 285 at 31st March next year. We shall be seeking to achieve this mainly by a planned reduction in the number of technical staff engaged in the IDB's property activities, due to rationalisation and, indeed, privatisation. However, I assure your Lordships, and especially the noble Lord, that the effectiveness of the IDB will not be impaired and that the figures certainly do not indicate any change of emphasis in the board's approach to its job creation activities.
The noble Lord also referred to the various NIEC reports. He questioned food, drink and tobacco. The IDB and other bodies involved with the development of food, drink and tobacco industries generally follow the recommendations of the council on these particular target sectors. There may be differences of emphasis in some cases, but the bodies concerned are at present examining the recommendations in detail to identify any possible difficulties.
The noble Lord questioned the housing review and its recommendations. Current housing strategy takes
1512
realistic account of the housing problems in Northern Ireland and the steps necessary to alleviate these problems, I accept especially the validity of the council's views to keep strategy under regular review. There is a need to review and, above all, to improve the underlying data base and to target grant aid more effectively on properties and, of course, persons most in need. We accept the need for that housing strategy to be dynamic, and to this end the strategy is subject to annual review in order to reflect changing needs and circumstances. We thank the NIEC for its report and acknowledge the usefulness of having an independent assessment of our housing strategy in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord referred to the Williams Report and possible co-operation in higher education over the whole of Ireland. Certainly there is a long tradition of cross-border co-operation in higher education, especially in my own profession, involving the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ireland, and I am pleased to note that. This involves the provision of places for students and projects which require collaboration over the whole of Ireland. It involves members of staff in various institutions. The Williams Report has targeted suggested areas in which increased cooperation would be beneficial and in a Written Answer on 4th April this year my right honourable friend welcomed the report and indicated that its recommendations were being considered by the Department of Education and other interested parties.
The noble Lord also asked about the Auditor-General. The Department of Education and the area boards recognise the weaknesses in their own internal audit relating to the education and library boards. This is highlighted by the Comptroller and Auditor-General's examination in the early months of 1984. I assure the noble Lord that since then the Department of Education has carried out its own review and a number of improvements have already been made. These include clearer definitions of the role and responsibilities, the introduction of revised reporting arrangements, the improvement of working methods and the provision of additional training. I am sure your Lordships will agree on the importance of high standards of internal audit being maintained at all times, to ensure not just propriety and proper expenditure, but also efficiency and good, competent management.
The noble Lord asked about the mental health review. This proposal, involving the Draft Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order, was published on 4th April. It will amend and consolidate existing mental health legislation, which is contained mainly in the Northern Ireland Mental Health Act 1961.
The noble Lord will be aware that the proposals in the draft report take account of the recommendations of the Northern Ireland review committee on mental health legislation; I refer to the MacDermott report. We are grateful for the many comments which we received during the consultation period. Consideration was also given to revised mental health legislation for Great Britain which Parliament has enacted since that report was published. I hope that copies of the proposals have been circulated widely to all the interested bodies and other organisations concerned in the Province for comment. The resource requirements

1513
which may flow from the proposals will be considered in the usual way alongside the various other pressures which are accommodated within the Northern Ireland public expenditure block.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked about the Eastern Health and Social Services Board. The answer is rather complicated. In view of the quite understandable feelings of your Lordships, I wonder whether I could write to him on that point. That noble Lord also asked about community relations in the Province. I hope that he welcomes the increase in grants for the improvement of community relations. I shall place in the Library (and I am sure that the noble Lord will certainly see that he has a copy) a list of the bodies which have received the grants.
The noble Lord and other noble Lords asked about Kinsale gas. Let me deal with the Kinsale project and the whole of the gas industry as one reply. The Kinsale project appeared to offer an opportunity for major economic co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic. That was welcomed by the Government. I assure the noble Lord that the most strenuous efforts were made over a long period to arrive at a fruitful and mutually beneficial outcome. But long-term economic viability was a fundamental requirement for both the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Republic. Once it became clear that the project offered no prospect of viability for Northern Ireland, the Government had no option but to withdraw. I stress that the Government attach considerable importance to co-operation with the Republic on matters of mutual interest. But I am sure your Lordships will agree that the best relationship between our Government and the Government of the Republic would not be fostered by being locked into an unsatisfactory long-term contract for an energy project which we believe would turn out to be uneconomic.
With regard to the gas industry generally in Northern Ireland, since 1974 the Government have funded operating losses to the tune of £66 million. Over that 11 years the number of consumers has declined from 175,000 to 98,000. In 1974 sales were 34 million therms; they are now of the order of 17 million therms annually. That represents less than 2 per cent. of the energy consumption in Northern Ireland. We looked again at alternative gas supply options, including supply from Great Britain. We also looked at the gasification of coal and of lignite. But none of the options that we examined provided gas at a cost lower than from Kinsale. The capital cost of gas from Great Britain would be substantially greater than that of the cancelled Kinsale project. In reaching their decision the Government took full account of all those implications.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and other noble Lords—I do not mean to slight other noble Lords, but the noble Lord initiated the questions—inquired about Lear Fan. By the middle of 1984 it had made inroads into its programme of certification testing. But your Lordships may be aware of the problems of carbon fibre, which is a fascinating new development, especially in the field of aircraft. It was always and at all times recognised to be a high-risk venture. Inevitably in such a venture there are uncertainties and delays
1514
in the programme of development. Everybody, including ourselves, would have wished to see greater progress towards certification of the Lear Fan 2100 by mid-1984. But there was no reason even then to believe that a certificate of airworthiness could not eventually be obtained. In October last year an important milestone towards certification was achieved when the Federal Aviation Administration granted type authorisation for an unpressurised fuselage.
On the question of funding by the Government, the company has since January of this year received £3·8 million under the legally binding financial agreement of September 1984 and almost £8,000 under the temporary short-term working compensation scheme. That will give your Lordships some indication of the size of the project. There are various other fact sheets. I can endeavour to see that the noble Lord receives them from the Industrial Development Board. I think I have covered most of the points. If I have missed anything, my eagle-eyed helpers will no doubt notice and we shall be in touch with the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, was kind enough to warn me that he had to move to another pressing engagement. He also asked me about Lear Fan, and also about the apparent variance in the figures for tourism in the order for Class II on page 4. I think one finds that at page II–15. At first sight there might be a variance. I think the noble Lord thought that the figure was £3·5 million. My honourable friend in another place mentioned a figure of £5·5 million. I think the variance is explained by the input of local authorities. My honourable friend in another place was taking the growth figure, including local authorities. The noble Lord might have seen the £3·5 million which was the central Government input. I hope that that covers some of the points raised by him.
The noble Lord also asked about Members of the Assembly receiving salary even if they do not attend. I am sure that your Lordships will accept that it is exactly the same arrangement as applies to another place here. The Government take the view that Assembly Members should be paid on the same basis. It may appear odd, but the Government take that view and I think that it is the right one.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, asked about agriculture and milk quota. I had to pinch myself when he said such nice and kind things about me. I hope I can live up to perhaps 2 per cent. I shall not mention the dreaded figure of 9 or 10 per cent. All noble Lords interested in agriculture will agree that there are problems facing dairy farmers in the Province. I referred to them in my opening remarks. I am more than aware of the serious concern in the dairy industry in Northern Ireland. But today all I can say to noble Lords is that the Government are looking urgently at this matter. I know that the seasons are marching on. My right honourable friend and, indeed, all of us in Government are well seized of the problems raised by the noble Lord.
I noted the noble Lord's time-scale, and also some of his other comments about what might happen to me. However, we shall look to the future. Never bet on an hypothesis at any time! The noble Lord also

1515
referred to what we call the reduction factor. These figures are often referred to. I want to reiterate that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I are continuing the discussion.
The noble Lord then referred to additional finance for grant aid in environmentally sensitive areas. The grant aid envisaged for environmentally sensitive areas is part of the proposals of the Government for implementing the new European Community regulation on farming structures. It has always been made clear that the proposals will have to be accommodated within existing public expenditure provisions. The proposed scheme will help to achieve closer integration of conservation and agricultural policies, which will benefit farming as well as the community in general.
The noble Lord also referred to a matter which is dear to his heart and my heart, and indeed the heart of my honourable friend in another place. This is about the noble Lord's Bill, the Private Road Races (Northern Ireland) Order 1977. We gave the very fullest consideration to the persuasive arguments which were raised by the noble Lord in favour of his Bill, both here in your Lordship's House and in correspondence. I assure the noble Lord that the fullest consideration was given by my honourable friend and by myself to all the points raised by the noble Lord. However, I have to say that everybody to whom we spoke confirmed the very substantial reservations which they had earlier expressed to us and—I do not know, but I hope—to the noble Lord. These reservations have been of considerable influence in the Government's decision that they really could not support the noble Lord's Bill as it stood.
The noble Lord raised the question of VAT exemption on old buildings. I am afraid I am unable to be of great help to him today. I have to tell him that it is not a matter for the Northern Ireland office or for any of the departments in Northern Ireland. However, I will ensure that his comments and the thoughts he has expressed to your Lordships today are brought to the attention of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. I have no doubt that I can bring this forcefully to their notice, the noble Lord will be hearing from them as a matter of urgency, and, I hope, considerable courtesy.
The noble Lord raised the question of the Assembly. Or course, he is the only Member of the Assembly in your Lordship's House. We accept that the Assembly has done and continues to do a good job in its task of scrutinising the work of Northern Ireland departments. The quality of government and its responsiveness to local concerns is of course higher because of the work of the Assembly. However, the Assembly's main task is to make proposals for devolution which are likely to command widespread acceptance throughout the community. It has not done that, for reasons which we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and of which those of your Lordships who live and work in Northern Ireland will be aware. However, I personally, and I am sure the Government, hope that some progress will still be made.
Of course direct rule is not perfect. It concentrates far too much power in the hands of central Government. We want to find a way of devolving some of that responsibility on a basis which will
1516
command widespread acceptance. However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be talking to constitutional parties—and I stress constitutional parties—soon to discuss with them how matters might be continued and carried forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, was kind enough to raise several points with me. Perhaps I may attempt to answer some of them. If I miss any, then, as is the usual procedure, I shall certainly write to the noble Lord. The noble Lord asked about staff cuts, both in my own department, the Department of Agriculture, and in the Department of Economic Development. Before I deal with those two particular departments, perhaps I may say that our overall policy regarding Civil Service numbers is indeed to reduce the overall total but to do so in a way which takes account of the pressures which face those individual departments and hence, at all times, to maintain the standards of service. Both those departments, the Department of Economic Development and my own department, the Department of Agriculture, expect to achieve their manpower targets mainly through improved efficiency arising from modification of work procedures, but also through increased use of information technology and a degree of privatisation of certain activities.
The noble Lord also asked about what progress we have been able to make in the case of three items, I think it was, under the IDB Vote, but certainly in recruiting specialist staff, and also whether the particular target in jobs was reached. First of all, the IDB has recruited a number of accounting and marketing specialists to increase and to strengthen the resources employed within the organisation on the appraisal of company business plans. The IDB has also embarked on a recruitment exercise to attract a number of well-qualified young executives who, after completion of a formal five-year training programme—I did not let the word "apprenticeship" slip out since I, too, have done something similar to this—will join IDB's team of development executives.
The noble Lord asked about the IDB job targets. The IDB exceeded its 1984–85 job target total of 5,250. It promoted 5,267 new job promotions. This was a 48 per cent. increase on the 1983–84 achievement. The figure that the noble Lord raised of 5,750 is, we think, a realistic target for the current year, 1985–86. It is early days, but the IDB remains confident that this target can be achieved. Also, the IDB have an interesting strategy document called Encouraging Enterprise. It is for the period up to 1990. Of course, it is the result of a careful process of analysis and consultation with a very wide range of interests. This strategy document reflects the views of the board. The Government are studying this carefully. It has been welcomed by everybody who takes an interest in the economy of Northern Ireland. However, as the noble Lord and your Lordships know, the strategy must not become an end in itself. However, it helps to sharpen the Government's own perception and the perception of industry, and all those who have the economy of Northern Ireland at heart. It helps to sharpen the picture of what all of us are seeking.
Lord Blease: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Has there been a statement by the Government in support of the document and in support of the Industrial Development Board's strategy?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am sorry to have to say that I do not know. I shall certainly find out. I shall add my support to what I have already said. If that is not in a satisfactory form, of course I shall seek out the information and write to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord raised the question of the International Industrial Year. No specific provision has been highlighted for this particular project in the Estimates. The Department of Economic Development and the Department of Education, in conjunction with the representatives of both employers and trade unions, all want to play their full part in highlighting the importance of industry to the Province by undertaking a number of initiatives on this particular theme of industry.
The noble Lord asked, as I think did other noble Lords, about Short Brothers. I am glad to be able to tell the noble Lord, Lord Blease, and your Lordships that, following extensive discussions between the IDB and Short Brothers plc, agreement has been reached on commercial terms for the occupation of part of the old De Lorean premises in West Belfast. This agreement was reached yesterday, Thursday, on the basis of new proposals. The company, Short Brothers, will now acquire the fabrications building extending some 50,000 square feet from the IDB. It seems that Short Brothers will be undertaking extensive refurbishment and renovation work to the premises. I assure your Lordships that the company will have immediate access to the premises.
The noble Lord asked me about manpower councils. That is Class II, Vote 5. This is rather a long answer. May I put this in a written form to the noble Lord, Lord Blease? I hope your Lordships will forgive me for that.
The noble Lord had three more points which I hope to cover very briefly. First of all, the noble Lord asked about a youth council document. I understand that my honourable friend Mr. Scott is meeting the Northern Ireland Youth Forum today, which is Friday, to discuss their activities and their role in the Northern Ireland Youth Service. I want to stress that the contribution of the Northern Ireland Youth Service is one which we value very highly indeed. We are always happy to consider ways in which it can be further developed.
The noble Lord raised the question of the Ulster Museum. In the Estimates, the noble Lord will see that provision has been made for the purchase grants totalling £75,000 for the museums in the current financial year. I have not got this here. I think it is beside me, but I will not call for it. However, I myself noticed from my own examinations that the Ulster Museum receives £45,000 and the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum receives £25,000, but there is an item for the Ulster American Folk Park of £5,000, which I think is not in the Estimates that I saw. That is the small discrepancy that possibly concerned the noble Lord, Lord Blease.
The noble Lord also raised the question of Co-operation North. I echo the noble Lord's commendation of the recently published Co-operation North guide. This is a directory for North-South co-operation in Ireland. The Government have repeatedly voiced—I do so again today—our support
1518
for the work of this non-political and non-sectarian organisation that arranges a wide variety of activities across the border. As practical evidence of this support, the Government make an annual grant to Co-operation North, currently of £35,000 a year.
I am aware that some of your Lordships are waiting for me to conclude, but there are two more points that I wish to raise in response to the noble Lord. After that, I hope we may conclude. There was the question of the internal audit. I believe that I covered that in my earlier remarks. The noble Lord raised the question about the review of the home help services. The joint working group on the home help service in Northern Ireland recently completed its review of the service. It presented a report to the department. In view of the great importance of this service to so many people and, indeed, the interest evoked in your Lordships' House, the department considered it essential to take wider consultations—as wide as possible—before reaching, or attempting to reach, any conclusions on any analysis or recommendations that the report contained. Copies of this document have been issued to virtually everyone interested in the matter. They were asked to comment by 31st May. When all these comments are in—they should be coming in as we speak—we shall examine the best way forward.
I hope that I have covered 90 per cent.—I trust even more, because I hope always for perfection—of the points raised by your Lordships. I, like everyone. I am sure, in Northern Ireland, will be immensely grateful for the interest that has been shown by your Lordships and for the care with which everyone who has taken part in the debate has examined these Estimates. Forthwith, I commend the Estimates to your Lordships.
Lord Blease: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I realise that he is operating under pressure from Whips. He has our sympathy. 1 drew attention in my opening remarks to the procedure arrangements for these debates. I would, however, welcome very much, as I am sure would the House, some statement about the Sports Council and the Barry McGuigan situation. That should be forthcoming. I know that the noble Lord would like to say something about it.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, in 20 seconds, I would add my personal congratulations to Barry McGuigan and, indeed, to all the sportsmen. I was pleased that the noble Lord mentioned Dunlop. I call him Armoy Joey. It is Mr. Joey Dunlop. All the sporting heroes of Ulster provide much happiness for everyone throughout the United Kingdom. They are shining examples throughout the world of sportsmanship and of the warmth of Ulster people—something which I have experienced for 14 months. I hope that the Sports Council can be of assistance. I beg to move.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I am obliged.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Surrogacy Arrangements Bill
1.54 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Trumpington, I beg to move that

1519
this Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships will know that in March the Government announced its intention to bring forward legislation during this Session to prohibit commercial surrogacy agencies. The reasons which led to the introduction of this Bill are, I think, also well known and its objectives are straightforward.
Your Lordships will recall that the Warnock Report on human fertilisation and embryology was published last July. I should like to take this further opportunity of thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, for the contribution she has made to our understanding of these matters. Although we took an early opportunity to debate the report last October, this is the first time we have returned to the matters with which it deals since the noble Baroness became a Member of this House. On rereading your Lordships' debate on the Warnock Report last October, I was interested to see that all those contributions which touched on surrogacy were unanimous in their opposition to commercial surrogacy agencies. I hope this unanimity of view will continue in our debate today on the principle of this Bill.
Among the many important matters dealt with in that report was surrogate motherhood. That is the practice where a woman agrees, before becoming pregnant, to carry a child with the aim of handing it over to commissioning parents. In fact, the Warnock Committee was in little doubt about commercial surrogacy and stated:
"We have considered whether the criminal law should have any part to play in the control of surrogacy and have concluded that it should. We recognise that there is a serious risk of commercial exploitation of surrogacy and that his would be difficult to prevent without the assistance of the criminal law".
We gave the report as wide a circulation as possible, and a full-scale public and parliamentary debate has followed. It is clear that there is substantial anxiety about the practice of surrogacy in general. But, in particular, there is widespread concern about the existing and potential commercial exploitation of the practice. Indeed, there was almost total agreement in the views expressed that surrogacy undertaken on a commercial basis was unacceptable. The Government gave a commitment last November to consider urgently whether the law on surrogacy required clarification. It is our firm belief that it does and that clarification is required now.
Only last week we heard of the birth of Britain's second baby as a result of a commercial surrogacy arrangement—a boy. We understand that other agency-arranged surrogate pregnancies are ongoing. Without legislation there would be an incentive for commercial agencies to extend their activities until such time as more general legislation was available.
This Bill does not attempt to deal with all the issues raised in the Warnock Report. Many of these are complex and there is deep division about some of them. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has already said that the proper way to handle these issues is by a comprehensive piece of legislation. My right honourable friend, the Prime Minister, said earlier this week in another place that the Government plan to introduce a comprehensive Bill on these matters as soon as practicable. Thus, I bring before your Lordships a
1520
short five-clause Bill for which there is wide support. We have already seen that in another place there is almost total agreement that commercial surrogacy is unacceptable. The Bill has the limited but vital objective of stopping the potential and untoward development of commercial surrogacy in the United Kingdom. It prohibits the recruitment of women as surrogate mothers and the negotiation of surrogacy arrangements by agencies acting on a commercial basis and will ban advertising of, or for, surrogacy services, whether by agencies, surrogate mothers or commissioning parents. The Bill extends to the whole of the United Kingdom.
I now turn to the Bill itself and the detailed provisions. Clause 1 of the Bill defines a number of terms for the purposes of the Bill, in particular "surrogate mother" and "surrogacy arrangement". Clause 2 tackles the prohibition of commercial surrogacy agencies. Subsection (1) lists the activities in relation to surrogacy which the Bill prohibits if done on a commercial basis. These are initiating or taking part in negotiations with a view to making a surrogacy arrangement, offering or agreeing to negotiate a surrogacy arrangement, and compiling information with a view to its use in making or negotiating surrogacy arrangements.
An important provision in this clause is subsection (2), which excludes surrogate mothers and commissioning parents from an offence under subsection (1). It has been put to us that our prime target in this measure should be outlawing commercial agencies. It is not part of our purpose to penalise the infertile couple who may be driven by their plight to make surrogacy arrangements. Nor do we want to penalise the surrogate mother herself, who may genuinely consider that she is helping another woman who is unable to carry a child by helping to make parenthood possible for her. The remaining parts of this provision deal with offences. They create offences for a body of persons to receive payment or for a person knowingly to take part in the management or control of a body which acts on a commercial basis in these matters.
Clause 3 deals with advertising. It makes it an offence to advertise surrogacy services, whether the advertisement is made by an agency, by commissioning parents or by a surrogate mother. This provision is cast more widely than Clause 2 and catches the commissioning parent and surrogate mother. This is because advertising may well be a first towards commercial activity of the kind which the Bill is designed to prohibit. This provision is framed so as to catch all the main forms of advertising in the country, whether in newspapers or periodicals or on radio or television.
Clause 4 deals with penalties and provides that a Clause 2 offence (for instance the one relating to agency activities carried out on a commercial basis) carries a maximum of three months' imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding level 5—currently £2,000. Clause 3 offences relating to advertising carry a level 5 fine only. In order to forestall any frivolous private prosecutions, for example, of doctors, Clause 4(2) provides that except in Scotland prosecutions will be brought only by, or with the consent of, the appropriate Director of Public Prosecutions.

1521
Clause 5 provides that the Bill shall extend to the whole of the United Kingdom. As there is no specific commencement provision, it will come into force on receiving Royal Assent. We think that the publicity there has already been about our intentions in this measure will have been sufficient to forewarn any people involved already in the activities which the Bill will prohibit or any who might have been contemplating setting up a commercial surrogacy agency.
I commend this Bill to your Lordships. It comes to you unamended in another place and with overwhelming support. I hope that we can give it a speedy passage. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
2.2 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, as there are at least 10 noble Lords who wish to take part in the debate I shall curtail my remarks. I wish to support the Bill and I welcome it. Deep concern was expressed over the Baby Cotton case last January. There was at that time and there remains a strong and widely held view that there ought to be urgent action taken to outlaw commercial surrogacy.
There was always a possibility that the Government would do nothing in the short term, pleading for time to give sufficient consideration to all the complex issues raised by the Warnock Report and to reflect upon their implications, so that in the maturity of time they could bring forward a comprehensive Bill to deal with most of the recommendations. There was the other possibility that, given the upsurge of concern over the Baby Cotton case, the Government might rush in to outlaw all forms of surrogacy in all circumstances. It seems to me that the Government have steered a middle course. I believe that for the time being their approach is about right, although others will tilt their views towards a different approach.
Non-commercial surrogacy will continue to be lawful, but in this Bill the Government have recognised the serious mischief—some would say the serious evil—presented by commercial surrogacy agencies and the need to legislate now to make such agencies and the advertising of and for commercial surrogacy services illegal and criminal.
The case for banning commercial surrogacy agencies rests on at least four main arguments. The first argument is that the surrogate mother should not be bribed by a commercial agency. She may be badly off, but she should be under no financial pressure, because she needs money, to agree an arrangement which she may well live to regret. Likewise the distress and the need of infertile couples who are anxious to have a child should not be exploited for gain. Of course it carries considerable risks for a child who could, in maybe extreme circumstances and in a small number of cases, be the tragic victim of the arrangement. Indeed to bring an unwelcome child—possibly an unwelcome and deformed child—into the world would be the ultimate tragedy. Of course there remains the overwhelming evidence that commercial surrogacy is
1522
simply not acceptable to public opinion and the country finds it deeply distasteful.
The Bill does not outlaw the act of surrogacy itself. It is not aimed at the surrogate mother; it is not aimed at the infertile couple. The Bill is aimed at the additional party, the third party, the commercial agency and the advertising of and for such agencies. It makes such services illegal and criminal. However, as long as private surrogacy remains part of the law there are a number of important and related legal questions which remain unanswered by the Bill. If private surrogacy is to remain as part of the law then those are questions to which one day Parliament will have to return.
I turn to the policy of the Bill. Some people require a clear assurance that the professional person in medicine or in law or in social work will not be caught by the Bill when he or she gives professional advice in connection with surrogacy and accepts a fee for that advice. It should continue to be possible for parties to obtain full professional advice if they want to have it, without having to risk exposing the counsellor to criminal proceedings.
Indeed the parties would be showing a degree of responsibility by asking for advice. The ones who are irresponsible are those who do not seek such advice. I believe that the Bill allows for such advice to be given without taint of criminality, but possibly that should be spelt out more clearly.
One of the main concerns which emerged from the debates in another place focused on the need for another assurance—an assurance within the Bill itself that a commercial surrogacy contract (and following the Warnock Report possibly all surrogacy arrangements) is unenforceable in the courts. It is generally believed that the courts will not enforce a commercial surrogacy contract and will not enforce many features of non-commercial arrangements. However, there is no case law on the subject.
It appears to me that the Government acknowledge that there are clear merits in a statutory provision which puts the law beyond possible dispute, but that they are experiencing some difficulty in drafting a suitable amendment. I would ask the Government to work a little harder at the drafting, and possibly bring forward an amendment at Committee stage.
Another question which has been raised is that of the burden of proof. Has the Bill got it right? Learned Members of your Lordships' House will no doubt focus our attention on the question of the burden of proof, if they consider that it ought in any way to be adjusted. With those few words and questions, I reiterate that I fully support and welcome the Bill.
2.9 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the Bill. In its present form it will enact some of the least controversial recommendations of the Warnock Committee. Since the committee produced its report we have had to grasp a great range of expressions in the field of surrogacy: commercial surrogacy, domestic surrogacy, surrogacy for convenience, and last resort surrogacy. The report has provoked a public debate, but I venture to suggest until

1523
the events of last Friday in another place there had been too little Warnock and too much Enoch.
The Government are correct, and have been correct, in not being rushed into hasty gut reaction legislation, and I would agree that the balance in this Bill is correct. Society and Parliament have needed the detailed thought and specific recommendations of this expert committee, and the guidance has been given as to what should be done and how it should be done, and we have been very well served.
This Bill does not criminalise surrogacy as such. Clause 2(2) exempts the surrogate mother and the commissioning parents from any criminality, but the Bill reflects the view of most people that whatever else one may think about surrogacy, a child should not be the product of a commercial transaction. The law of the market place should have no part in a society and a legal system which treat the welfare of the child as the first consideration. The affluent should not be allowed to sidestep the laws of adoption. Indeed, this Bill is consistent with, and supplements, Sections 50 and 52 of the Adoption Act 1958 which prohibit the passing of money.
It is noticeable that in Clause 1(4) this Bill refers to "any payment", and I would suggest that it is correct that the temptation has been resisted to provide for even nominal payments, or to try to distinguish payments to compensate surrogate mothers from payments which would reward a surrogate mother, as has been suggested in some literature.
The comparison with adoption is a useful one and can be taken little further. Not only are financial considerations excluded in adoption, but also there is a delicate and stringent mechanism for ensuring the suitability of the prospective adopters, a mechanism for medical screening, for anonymity, for confidentiality, and for the proper integration of the child with the prospective adopters. There is also a mechanism to ensure the free consent of the natural parents.
Above all the welfare of the child is the first consideration in adoption cases. But in commercial surrogacy arrangements the welfare of the child is seldom the first consideration and is often the last. That in itself is one very good reason for making it criminal.
There are other good reasons which have been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. First, commercial surrogacy exploits and degrades the infertile and sometimes desperate commissioning parents. Secondly, it exploits, and can be exploited by, the surrogate mother. Thirdly, all kinds of things can go wrong, and badly wrong, if they are not carefully thought out and controlled, and all manner of human and legal problems can be created. For example, what happens if, during the pregnancy, the commissioning parents, or one of them, die or become disabled, or they separate? What if at a late stage it is found out that there are other candidates for the paternity of the child? What happens, as the noble Lord has said, if the child is born handicapped and is rejected by the commissioning parents; or if, the child having been taken in by the commissioning parents, there is no bond formed between the commissioning mother and the child?
1524
What happens if the surrogate mother decides to hang on to the child either because her instinctive emotions prevail or because, more cynically, she tries to extract more money from the desperate commissioning parents? At the end of the whole business what happens to the surrogate mother after she has handed over the child? She may well be suffering enormous depression and guilt. But the child itself is left in a kind of legal limbo. It will have a natural mother, a putative father, and a commissioning mother, the latter two not being able in law to adopt the child because cash has changed hands and because of our rigorous requirements for stepparent adoption.
There are two cases known to the lawyers. There is the Cotton case which has been mentioned. That was the case of an American couple trying to circumvent the requirements of their own adoption laws; and the, law, it must be realised, would not have intervened in that case if the surrogate mother had not succumbed to the temptation to try to double her money by talking to the press.
Then there was the case of A v. C decided in 1978 but not properly reported until 1985. I mentioned this in the course of the debate on the Warnock Report. There was a couple unable to have further children. The man became quite obsessed with the idea that he should have his own natural child and they formed the most extraordinary scheme. He went off to Bow Street Magistrates' Court to find a lady who was queuing up to pay her fine for prostitution. She was offered money to bear a child. She declined, but agreed to find somebody else and she found a 19 year-old lady who was not a prostitute but was on the fringes of the world of prostitution. She agreed to undertake the contract. She was provided with accommodation and the pregnancy was commenced by artificial insemination with the man's sperm.
Towards the end of the pregnancy the mother decided to keep the child. The child was born and then there was this grotesque scene in the hospital. The couple came to the hospital with the money, which was incidentally their life's savings. The mother said that she had changed her mind. They argued with her and in the course of the argument they offered her his secondhand motorcar worth £850 as an additional inducement to part with the child. The child was then effectively kidnapped by the couple for 10 days but returned to the mother. Wardship proceedings commenced. In the first instance the judge allowed the child to stay with the mother, but allowed the natural father to have access. But in the Court of Appeal it was said that the natural father should not have access to the child for the indefinite future.
One can only doubt the wisdom of parents who would undertake such an exercise; but one also has to bear in mind that probably there would be no prosecution under the present Bill, save possibly for the doctor who arranged the insemination. But it is also perhaps comforting to realise that in both wardship cases the Family Division of the High Court picked up the pieces and took the point which perhaps none of the parties involved had taken: that what mattered above all was the welfare and protection of the child who had been produced.

1525
This Bill is welcome. It will not prevent clumsy, amateurish arrangements of the sort that I have described. It will not prevent surrogacies among family and friends which are not commercial. They are often unselfish arrangements, but have the disadvantage that they distort normal family relationships. It will not be easy to detect and prove offences under this Bill and there is also the risk of these agencies being driven underground or abroad. But I suggest that is not a reason for failing to face the moral issue which faces society and outlawing these arrangements which society clearly would consider to be wrong.
Having said that, this Bill is not the last word. Another more positive side of the coin is the recommendation of the Warnock Committee of a system for providing help to the infertile. Also in time there may be some amending legislation. Having defined the rights and duties of the adults and the children involved in these arrangements, it may be possible to leave the door open for limited surrogacy arrangements on a non-commercial basis carried out by trained licensed professionals. But I do not suggest that the Bill should open that door today. For the time being this Bill will serve as well.
2.17 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, we on these Benches understand fully the reasons for the urgency with which the Government have brought this matter before Parliament. We should not wish to oppose the Second Reading of a Bill which has already been approved in another place. However, I wish to see the Bill substantially amended in Committee.
I hope that the House will be ready to see not only that all commercial surrogacy arrangements are prohibited, but also arrangements made by non-profit making agencies as recommended in the Warnock Report. Another Warnock recommendation that I hope to see incorporated in the Bill is the one to which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, already referred this afternoon, that which would make all surrogacy arrangements legally invalid. Indeed, I hope that we shall look very carefully at all the relevant proposals in the Warnock Report when we consider this Bill in Committee. The restraints advocated so forcefully in the Warnock Report would ensure that surrogacy arrangements must always be private, non-contractual, unenforceable and non-commercial. In other words, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, himself has just suggested, they must be unsolicited acts of purely personal generosity resting only on the informed consent of both parties.
I would very briefly mention only one other concern. It is that I do not think that this Bill does anything at all to help clarify the legal confusion which surrogacy in any form causes for the concept of maternity and the legal problem of motherhood which it creates. On this issue of surrogacy there is no doubt that the Churches are of one mind. I am glad that I am to be followed by the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk.
A Church of England report entitled Personal Origins, which was published only yesterday, states
1526
that the practical and moral problems of surrogacy are multiple and involve a confused complexity of relationships. It points out that strong bonding takes place between a woman and the child she bears in her womb and that this may lead to her being unwilling to let the child go to the contracting couple after birth. This report affirms strongly that surrogacy, especially where it involves the payment of money, undermines the dignity of women in the bearing of children whom they have no intention of mothering. It is quite clear that this Bill raises far-reaching questions of great importance and complexity. I trust that this revising Chamber will be able to improve this Bill before it becomes law.
2.22 p.m.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I, too, welcome and support this Bill. It seeks to prohibit the commercialisation of surrogacy but it does not go far enough. It is inadequate. So I, with many of your Lordships, am planning some amendments and I think that when we can produce those amendments it will be a very much better Bill. Our Western civilisation depends on the Christian family, on seeking what is in the best interests of the child and preserving the stable society which we have learned to call Christendom.
When a married couple are infertile it produces a terrible distress for them, and I believe it right to encourage all reasonable scientific processes to enable them to have children. I also believe it a wonderful thing when adoption can be arranged when there are children available to be adopted by couples who long to have children. But I believe that all surrogacy should be outlawed because it means birth outside the family, and that is unnatural to man and unnatural to the Christian way of life that I believe in.
I believe that the human embryo should be treated as a human being from day one. I deplore all forms of abortion at all times. The Warnock Report was published almost a year ago. It came to the House, I think, in July. I have looked at it and read much of it. I wish to read out a small passage from the foreword of the report. It says in paragraph 5 of the foreword:
"There must be some barriers that are not to be crossed, some limits fixed, beyond which people must not be allowed to go. Nor is such a wish for containment mere whim or fancy. The very existence of morality depends on it. A society which has no inhibiting limits especially in the areas with which we have been concerned, questions of birth and death, of the setting up of families, and the valuing of human life, would be a society without moral scruples. And this nobody wants".
Those very words show your Lordships the importance of the Warnock Report.
Personally I very much regret that the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill never passed through the other place and came to this House. I ask the Government to treat the whole issue much more urgently. I understand from statements made in the Hansard report of the other place—and I think the Prime Minister has recently answered a Question—that the Government are considering a comprehensive Bill which would come to light in two or three years. That is not good enough. This is the most urgent matter concerning we human beings, we creatures of God, and we must have a much more immediate answer. I wish to see some response from

1527
the Government in the form of a Green Paper, or, better still, a White Paper, so that it can be talked about and thought about by the Churches and the medical profession.
I support this Bill. I hope that once we finish this debate, when we go into Committee, we shall find means to strengthen it and make it a very much better Bill.
2.27 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, in following the noble Duke and the right reverend Prelate I shall not need to refer to the moral sentiments they have expressed beyond saying that I agree with them wholeheartedly. I shall therefore confine my remarks to the purely legislative aspects of what is before us.
As the noble Earl explained in introducing it, the Bill is minimal. As the Secretary of State for Social Services explained at the Second Reading in the other place, it was introduced in the immediate aftermath of the Baby Cotton case. It is a partial implementation of selected recommendations from the Warnock Report. On most of these the Warnock Committee was unanimous, but one was a majority recommendation.
Other matters, as we have heard, are reserved for a more wide-ranging Bill, but even within the restricted scope of surrogacy arrangements it is not a comprehensive Bill, although, so far as its positive content is concerned, I support it and I am at one with the noble Duke in saying that what it lacks is some more positive measures on other topics.
Let me therefore enter a caveat with respect to this promised more comprehensive measure. It depends upon counting chickens before they are hatched. Promised legislation has a habit of getting deferred from time to time, overtaken by important parliamentary priorities—more important, that is, to those who arrange our business for us. I, for one, will not be a party to a game of hide-and-seek, dodging about between a Bill in existence and a Bill promised for the future—the one before us and the one promised later—by excluding something from this Bill and then arguing afterwards that since it might have been included in this Bill but was not, it would be inappropriate in a more comprehensive Bill to be followed later. I should like an assurance from the noble Earl that that will not happen.
A particular matter left open is this: do we want a prohibition on all surrogacy, or only on commercially-arranged surrogacy? On the latter—the commercially-arranged surrogacy—the Warnock Committee were quite unanimous. On the former they recommended total suppression of surrogacy, by a majority. That majority seems to have been reflected in public opinion polls, in petitions and in Second Reading and Committee stage speeches in the other place. The only excuses for not including it in this Bill are that it may involve legal difficulties not contemplated in the Warnock Report—for example, difficulties of obtaining evidence—or that it is foreseen to interact with the more general measure promised for the future and will be dealt with then.
For example, with respect to direct arrangements there is the legal difficulty of deciding who is the
1528
offending party, if it is to be a mischief that one seeks to prohibit. According to the canon of Warnock, it should not be the mother, lest a taint of criminality be attached to the child. If, on the other hand, it is to be the donor, then this would fall within the scope of a Bill dealing with experimentation with human embryos. It could be argued, therefore, that it should be excluded from this Bill and put for consideration into the more comprehensive Bill. I should like the noble Earl to give us an assurance on that point.
I do not like the licence—perhaps "permissiveness" would be a better word, because I do not mean a licence in the legal sense—given to non-profitmaking agencies. These arouse deep suspicion, so far as non-profitmaking arrangements are concerned, because we all know there are grey areas between open fraud, on the one hand, and surreptitious skulduggery, on the other. Considerable apprehension was expressed in the other place with respect to this problem. It has been referred to by the right reverend Prelate and by the noble Duke. I myself would add my own emphasis on the need to consider this very seriously.
My next point concerns the legal question of enforceability, and I do not need to repeat what has already been said about this. It must be cleared up, and I cannot see any good reason for not clearing it up in this Bill.
There is the same need for clarification of the legal status and definition of what is meant by "a mother" in relation to her implanted child. What are we waiting for? Perhaps the noble Earl will tell us what is open for inclusion in the future comprehensive Bill, and why it cannot be included in this one. Here, again, I am with the noble Duke in the belief that we need to do some revising in Committee.
Lastly, there is the sanction against professional participation in implementing any illegal surrogacy agreement. That was unanimously recommended by the Warnock Committee, and it is a most powerful provision, because it would be quite impossible to carry out surrogacy, as it is so called, without the assistance of professional people. And once you have included that provision in the Bill, it is almost sufficient to make any other recommendation unnecessary.
In general terms, I am afraid that we have to face our national reluctance to make up our minds with any sort of finality by taking clear-cut decisions. Do we or do we not think that surrogacy is undesirable? And, if we do, will we or will we not go to the limit of what is viable by statute in seeking to prohibit it? This Bill deals with surrogacy on selected terms. The only two excuses for not making it comprehensive are, first, that statutory viability of some provision or other needs further study and we should not enact what we cannot implement; and, secondly, that matters not provided for in this measure will foreseeably interact with the subject-matter of the more comprehensive measure projected, and consequently should be deferred in deference to that. I hope that the noble Earl, in winding up, will give us assurances on that point.
One last point concerns the Long Title of the Bill, which refers to surrogate motherhood. I think that this is a most ambiguous term. A surrogate is a substitute. You cannot have a substitute for a mother—on one

1529
definition of the word "mother". The term we need—I am just coining a new scientific term—is allogenetic pregnancy; that is to say, pregnancy resulting from a genetic make-up that is not the make-up of the pregnant woman. If we could suppress this popular term of surrogate motherhood that has grown up in favour of a term that really says what it means—that is, allogenetic pregnancy—it would be a very good thing. I will not ask the noble Earl for an assurance on that point, because I am sure he will first want me to explain how to spell it. I support this Bill so far as its positive recommendations are concerned, but I hope we can add to them.
2.36 p.m.
Lord Craigmyle: My Lords, so able and all-inclusive have been the speeches made already in this debate that I am at a loss to know what to say, except that I profoundly agree with almost everything that has been said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury.
It seems to me that this Bill, with its concentration on commercial agencies, must have been drafted by someone with a twisted, puritanical sort of mind. There is no reference to whether surrogacy is right or wrong, and therefore whether it is moral or immoral to cause surrogacy or to make arrangements for it. The question of right or wrong seems to depend entirely on whether or not money passes. If something is good, it is right that people who do that good should be paid for it. If something is bad, it is not made good just because people are not paid for it. The commercial basis—which is what this Bill is about—is quite irrelevant.
If we are going to tackle the problem of surrogacy agencies, we should tackle them root and branch. We should take out this commercial business and come back to what the Warnock Committee recommended—that all should be excluded. That seems to be the important point on the commercial aspects.
I should very much like to support those who have already spoken about the legal status. In the whole of the subject matter covered by the Warnock Committee there are not many areas on which it speaks as clearly and definitely as it does on surrogacy. Its conclusion that all surrogacy agreements should be illegal contracts and therefore unenforceable in the courts seems to me to be one that should be incorporated in this Bill, though I think that that would require a new clause.
At the same time it is necessary, particularly if that is to be done, that the child should clearly be known in law as the child of the mother who bore it and not of any other woman—its genetic mother, the sponsoring mother, or anyone else. It should be the child of the mother who bore it. There are perhaps some difficulties with the adoption law. Clearly, if a surrogate mother—I am sorry to carry on using the term, because I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, that it is not a satisfactory one—wishes to carry on with the agreement which she unofficially made and hand over the baby to what is, for lack of a better term, the sponsoring mother, the latter must be
1530
able to adopt. But if there is a difficulty in the adoption law, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said—and I think the Warnock Committee clearly hinted at this—we should have to attend to it. It may be a little complicated to do it in this Bill, but that will be a question for those who know about these matters and who will no doubt have the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, in due course.
If the position of the child is not clear-cut in law so that the rights and responsibilities are well known, your Lordships may see difficulties with rejection at a later date, with the sponsoring mother going back to the mother who bore the child, saying, "Well, after all, this is your child. The law cannot say that I was bound to take it. You must have it back and look after it yourself." This takes my mind back to a case of surrogacy that your Lordships will know about, though it happened a very long time ago. I am thinking of the case of the partiarch Abraham, whose wife, Sarah, bore no son, so at Sarah's suggestion he went to her servant girl. She bore him a son and then eventually of course Sarah did have a son and Ishmael and his mother were put out. It was a very distressing situation for Ishmael and deeply psychologically damaging. If the law could be clear cut, so that the responsibility remains with the sponsoring parents because the child has been formally adopted, then such difficulties could largely be avoided.
2.41 p.m.
The Marquess of Reading: My Lords, when your Lordships' House debated the Warnock Report towards the end of last year, attention was mainly focused upon the matter of the human embryo. At that time I had the honour to make my maiden speech and I, too, feel the deepest concern at the faltering and inconsistent treatment proposed by the Warnock Committee for individual living, growing human beings.
However, the Bill before us today deals with another aspect of the new reproductive technology. It is the matter of surrogate motherhood. From the moment of handing over, he or she is the child of the two receiving parents—the commissioning parents, as they are sometimes called—and has nothing more to do with the mother who has carried him. The child may of course, thanks to the new appropriative surgery, actually be the child of the comissioning couple. For example, they may have provided both egg and sperm, brought together and fertilised in the laboratory by the new technique of IVF and subsequently implanted in the body of the surrogate mother. Alternatively, the surrogate mother may have provided the egg herself, with the commissioning father providing the sperm. But whatever the child's genetic origin, the key factor in the whole process is that the mother who has carried that child for nine months disposes of it as soon as possible after it comes into this world.
The fundamental questions therefore are: should surrogacy be permitted, should it be encouraged, should it be banned or should it be allowed under certain conditions? I am happy at this point to align myself with the conclusions of the majority of the Warnock Committee. In chapter 8 of its report, it notes that surrogacy is not at present unlawful though surrogacy agreements are certainly contrary to public

1531
policy. Following the logic of this position, the Warnock Committee proposed that legislation be introduced making the setting up or carrying on of a surrogacy agency a criminal offence. The committee believed that these should include both profit and nonprofit-making organisations. It also believed that professional people and others who knowingly assist a surrogate pregnancy to take place should be criminally liable.
Having said that I am in favour of the proposals of the Warnock Committee on surrogacy, though I dissent profoundly on the matter of the treatment of the human embryo, your Lordships will understand something of my deep disappointment with the narrow contents of this Bill. We must be grateful for the careful and thorough treatment of advertising in the Bill. This is in Clause 3, which is both radical and far-reaching. The degrading practice of surrogacy must never be advertised in any form and, so far as I can see, every possible loophole has been carefully plugged by Clause 3 to preclude every kind of advertising. If surrogacy is degrading, surely you must prevent advertising.
I give a warm welcome to Clause 3, but Clause 2 is weak, far weaker than the strong medicine rightly proposed by Lady Warnock and her committee. I should like to agree with the right reverend Prelate by drawing attention to the failure of the Bill to regulate the activities of non-profit-making institutions, in failing to follow the wise advice of the Warnock Committee. The Bill leaves open a huge loophole. I refer to the activities of bodies already in existence which have, over the past 15 years or so, specialised in what I might call sexual and marital matters. They offer services which lead to the wider use of contraception for the practice of induced abortion. They now have a new product-surrogacy. In marketing terms, they can slot in this new product within their existing distributor network. There will be no invoices for services rendered but there will be anonymous donations.
I shall not embark upon any discussion of contraception or abortion, or of those people to whom such services might justifiably be offered, whether at public or private expense, or as charitable activities—which they seem to become in certain circumstances. However, I wish to stress that the various networks which such organisations have established—and there are several—are ready and waiting to take up the task of assisting potential parents to discover potential surrogates.
The Bill as it stands will allow them to do so and thus to spread the practice of surrogacy swiftly and effectively through an existing infrastructure. I do not believe that this is the wish of your Lordships' House, nor of the medical profession, nor of the Churches, nor of the Government. I believe that each and every kind of agency must be prohibited so that the demeaning practice of surrogacy is kept within bounds, even if we cannot totally preclude it.
If we pass this Bill as it stands, the country well may heave a sigh of relief and say, "Surrogacy has been dealt with". But the country will be bitterly disappointed. A serious gap is left, which we in this House must see to now. This gap has been mentioned
1532
with concern on more than one occasion during debates in another place. If surrogacy is to be dealt with now rather than be left to the promised major legislation in 1986 or 1987 covering all the other Warnock topics, then let us at least do it properly.
I conclude by reminding your Lordships that in deterring as far as possible those who wish to see the practice of surrogate motherhood spreading in our society, we have—through a strong Bill against surrogacy—the interests of every child at heart. That is the reason why passing such a Bill is a good and noble act. A child's deepest relationship is with his mother. That relationship begins at conception—as the noble Duke pointed out—and ends with the death of the mother or child, whichever is the sooner. Those deep, emotional and psychological links begin at fertilisation and are strongly-shaped by those nine months in the womb.
To fragment motherhood would be a heavy responsibility. It would produce an anguished question of identity for any child; the terrible dilemma summed up in the question, "Who is my mother?". Fragmented motherhood ought to be impossible. The womb should naturally lead to the home. The one who carries should be the one who cares after birth. This is the natural order. I believe too that it is a God-given order. We put these things asunder at our peril.
Those who would tear apart, for whatever reasons, the constituent aspects of motherhood store up trouble for society and the individual child. Children must come first. I entirely support the noble Duke. We must say no to surrogacy of all kinds, and I hope that the Bill will be amended to that end.
2.48 p.m.
Viscount Sidmouth: My Lords, the contents of this Bill evidently pose a problem to those who, like myself, feel that a much more comprehensive Bill is needed—and soon—covering many more of the issues raised by the Warnock Report. On the one hand, this Bill calls for support on the basis that a crumb is better than no bread. On the other, its passing into law might serve as an excuse for taking no further action for a very long time. I have seen no statements from the Government which give any grounds for thinking that there will be any legislation in the life of this Parliament, for example.
The declared tactics behind the Bill have been to aim at a target on which the Warnock Committee were unanimous and on which there would not be much opposition in another place, thus ensuring a quick passage for the Bill.
In order to do that all moral issues have been rigorously excluded and we are asked to ban commercial agencies, which organisations it can be safely predicted will have few defenders.
It may be felt that the whole issue was precipitated by the Baby Cotton case and the uproar it provoked in the popular press. Even so, I suggest that the underlying feeling was disgust at the whole rent-awomb concept involved in surrogacy rather than the relatively minor part played by the commercial agency.
I believe that in its limited role this Bill is being too timid. It should have gone along with the majority of

1533
the Warnock Committee in coming out against all forms of surrogacy, and I support the point that has already been made. Certainly it will not eliminate the money element; and I do not refer only to the payment to the surrogate mother herself. I believe that it would be right to prohibit commercial surrogacy and if you are banning only that, commercial arrangements made directly between a woman and the commissioning parent.
Turning to matters of more detail, which will obviously be raised in Committee, there seems to be an obvious omission in that nothing is said about the status of the child itself. When the Warnock Report was debated in this Chamber the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, made a powerful speech in which he drew attention to what appeared to be a legal vacuum in this respect. Much can go wrong during the nine months of pregnancy. Any of the parties can change their mind. Indeed, the child might be born so deformed that nobody wants it. Surely, for the sake of the child, it should be laid down in law that the child belongs to the mother bearing it.
Finally, there is the question of making surrogacy arrangements legally invalid; again, in line with the recommendations of the Warnock Committee. During the debate in another place the Minister seemed to indicate that he would not be against this in principle, although he declared that in his opinion, even as things stood, such arrangements would not be enforceable at law. In that case, why not put the matter beyond all doubt by making it so by statute now?
In conclusion I submit that such minuscule bites at the cherry are not a very satisfactory way of legislating. The large majority given to Mr. Enoch Powell's Bill when voted on in another place indicates a widely held view in this country and, I believe, the need for comprehensive legislation on the subject at an early date.
2.53 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I also welcome this Bill and agree with very nearly everything that has been said. In fact, most noble Lords who have spoken have taken the wind well and truly from my sails. However, I am a little disappointed that there are no noble Baronesses speaking on the Bill so as to give us the female rather than the male point of view. We are all capable of being fathers, but none of us, I am sure, is capable of being a mother; much less are we going to give birth to Mahomet—but that is purely an aside.
One point that has not been dealt with is Clause 4, which relates to the penalties for offences under Clause 2. I gather that at the moment level 5 is some £2,000. From figures that were bandied about in the newspapers at the time of the Cotton case it strikes me that a penalty of £2,000 is ridiculously low, since it could be included in any fee, even as a contingency. I think that we should look very carefully at that point in Committee with a view to making the penalty very much stiffer. I know that from time to time the levels of financial penalties are reviewed by the Government and this House, but I sometimes wonder whether they always keep up.
I entirely agree with suggestions that we should outlaw all arrangements for payment of any kind for
1534
the mother. She may be called a surrogate mother, but if she gives birth, she is a perfectly normal and natural mother, and I cannot think of a better term. It means that she is also legally responsible for the child until some other arrangement is made. We should make certain that payment in cash or kind is very definitely outlawed.
Again I agree with others that non-profit-making agencies of any kind should also be made illegal. As one noble Lord said, it is perfectly feasible for a charitable body to make arrangements as an act of charity and then at some time in the future, from some unknown donor or a third party, or even through a will, a fairly substantial gift may be made. It is not at all impossible. I work for a charity—not a charity that would be involved in this matter—and part of my job is raising money. Part of my tactics are to make certain that people in the future will leave money to the charity. That can be several years ahead. It is long-term planning, and the same can be dealt with by those charities.
Also I am a little worried about the possibility of making any surrogacy agreements totally invalid at law. I have only one problem on it, and that is what happens if the baby who is born is disabled either mentally or physically. The baby must be properly looked after. That is the only worry I have about making such agreements totally illegal and unenforceable. We must make certain that the child is properly cared for and brought up responsibily.
The other and final point is that I entirely agree that any professional involvement of any kind in providing surrogacy services should also be made illegal. That I think would help to wipe it out.
2.57 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Bill, but I am very much looking forward, as are nearly all other speakers in the debate, to my noble friend explaining why the Government have not accepted the recommendation of the Warnock Committee on making all surrogacy arrangements illegal contracts and therefore unenforceable in the courts.
I should like to mention, again as several other noble Lords have, the question of the legal status of the child. As has been said from the outset of the debate, the child is the one who pre-eminently needs to be looked after. A child who is in any way going to switch mothers after nine months is going through one trauma. I should like to think that your Lordships' House could try to clarify the law and the legal status of the child to avoid voluminous litigation in the courts in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, has already summarised the litigation in the past here. There has also been litigation and a lot of publicity about the question in the United States. There could of course be three ladies involved—the commissioning mother, the surrogate mother and also a donor mother—and the legal complexities are enormous.
The Warnock Committee clearly recommended that legislation should provide that when a child is born to a woman following the donation of another's egg the woman giving birth should for all purposes be regarded in law as the mother of the child and the egg donor should have no rights or obligations in respect of

1535
the child. I very much hope that in Committee a clause to that effect can be included. I appreciate that if the position is to be that the commissioning mother will adopt the child, there may need to be some variations in the adoption legislation. However, I very much hope that we shall be able to clarify the law on this issue. With that, I shall conclude.
3 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have had a very useful and most interesting debate this afternoon. It is clear that the subject is very much one of still great controversy in your Lordships' House. Perhaps I may make some general points first. I am grateful for the welcome that all noble Lords have given the Bill, limited as it is. I should like to refute the allegation that the Bill has come in just because of the Baby Cotton case. No, my Lords, that cannot be accepted. Ministers were worried about this problem for a very long time. An example of their worry was the fact that my right honourable friend commissioned the Warnock Report in the first place.
Perhaps I may say this about the proposed amendments which have been mentioned by all noble Lords. As I explained in my opening speech, this is a limited Bill, dealing with one very small area of the problem, which is commercial agencies. If there are going to be many amendments, I wish to remind all noble Lords that it is far better for us to try to get this Bill through, limited as it is, to ban commercial agencies, on which there is virtually unanimous agreement. If we try to expand it and it has to go back to another place, it could be that we do not get even this little Bill through. Much as I do not want to stifle debate, I think that this ought to be borne in mind. Perhaps I may say, particularly to my noble friend the Marquess of Reading, that there is no chance for any Minister or any official of the Department of Health to breathe a sigh of relief when this Bill is through: the amount of discussion that is taking place in the department will mean no relaxation for any of us.
All noble Lords have touched on the point of making surrogacy contracts unenforceable and whether the contracts should be unenforceable at law. This was started by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who I admire for his stamina today. He has had a long stint. I am sure all noble Lords would agree that an agreement by a surrogate mother to hand over a child is and must remain unenforceable. Indeed, Section 85(2) of the Children Act 1975 already provides that a person cannot surrender or transfer any parental right or duty. On the other hand, if the commissioning parents withdraw when the surrogate mother is already pregnant, it might be right that some of their obligations, for example to meet medical or other expenses, or to compensate for earnings lost because of the pregnancy, should be enforceable against them. That is just one example of how complicated this whole area is.
All noble Lords raised the point of why not ban all the surrogacy and all commercial surrogacy? Particularly my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk raised this point. The Bill has the limited objective of prohibiting the operation of commercial surrogacy agencies in this country, as I have said, and the advertising of or for
1536
surrogacy services. It was decided that wider questions, such as the operation of non-commercial surrogacy agencies, whether the surrogate mother or the commissioning parent should be liable; whether all forms of commercial surrogacy should be prohibited, should be tackled in the comprehensive legislation which the Government have said they aim to introduce. The issues raised by these matters are complex and are very controversial. Because they call for more extended consideration and discussion, in our view it would be wrong to include them in this limited Bill, which sets out to prohibit what virtually everybody has agreed, which is just the banning of the commercial agencies.
All noble Lords again raised the question of profit and non-profit-making agencies. The Bill prohibits the operation of all commerical surrogacy agencies, whether or not they are profit-making, if they charge or take fees. That is the test. The Bill would allow a non-fee-charging agency to operate but to our knowledge no such agencies exist at present. The Warnock Committee itself was not of one mind on this subject as two of its members saw some scope for the non-commercial agencies—yet another example of how difficult it is to get unanimity.
All noble Lords, I think, raised the problem of who is to be regarded as the legal mother and the legal status of the children. The Bill does not deal with this topic because of its limited scope. I am sure that the House will agree that this is an important and complex legal issue which it would not be right to cover in a Bill whose principal purpose is to introduce quickly a ban on the operation of commercial surrogacy agencies so as to prevent their development in this country. As the law stands at present, a child born to a surrogate mother where she is the genetic parent would be illegitimate. In such a case, by virtue of Section 85(7) of the Children Act 1975 the child's mother would normally have the parental rights and duties. My noble friend Lord Brentford, with his experience, will know quite well that the English Law Commission has already recommended reform of the law regarding illegitimacy. This, too, is too complex for the Bill in its present form.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, raised the question of professional people. It is reasonable, I believe, for a professional person to provide advice and to charge a normal fee for activities outside those listed in Clause 2(1). This could include assisting the parties with information about surrogacy and its likely consequences, interpreting the law—I would not like my noble friend Lord Brentford, as a solicitor, to be taken to court for giving a client advice on the law—and assisting them to draft a contract. What would not be permitted, however, is for that professional person, on a commercial basis, to conduct any negotiations or to facilitate them with another party with a view to making a surrogacy arrangement.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned the burden of proof. The burden will be on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there has been an act prohibited by the Bill. However, Clause 2, subsections (4) and (6), provides a defence if the defendant can show, on the balance of probabilities, that he did not know that any payment

1537
had been made. Again, the noble Lord and also the noble Lord, Lord Meston, raised the problem of bringing into the world unwanted or handicapped children. That only goes to show that it is right for the Government to introduce this limited Bill at this stage to try to limit that area of potential damage.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester asked whether we had noted the Church of England's report to which he referred. Indeed we have. We are grateful to have the Church's views. We accept that there are a number of important legal issues about the status of surrogate children on which the Bill is unclear. But for the reasons I have given, which I hope the right reverend Prelate will appreciate, this is a very complex area.
My noble friend Lord Reading asked whether donations to a non-commercial agency would be caught by the Bill. The Bill does prohibit the making of any payments made at any time in connection with a surrogacy arrangement. I hope that this is clear to my noble friend Lord Swinfen, too. Thus no agency that charged fees or received payments would be legal under Clause 2. My noble friend Lord Swinfen referred to level 5 being too low. I must tell him that level 5 is the present maximum that can be levied in the magistrates' court, and as these matters are going to the magistrates—
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, magistrates can impose fines up to £20,000 under, I think, the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, as it now is, with regard to offences regarding sex shops.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend prevented me from going on to say that this is a matter I shall look at and to which we shall no doubt come back at Committee stage.
I think that I have answered all the points that have been raised by all of your Lordships and I apologise for not having dealt with individual points. However, I should like to mention my noble friend Lord Craigmyle who virtually took to quoting from the Bible. I lost my bet about whether it would be my noble friend or the right reverend Prelate who would do so!
This is a very complex area and the Bill is very limited. I hope that, despite any discussions which we may have in Committee, we can get this limited piece of legislation on the statute book before the end of this Session. I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, if it is in order, I should like to say that he has not answered one question; namely, when shall we see some type of comprehensive Bill come forward on the Warnock Report? We have heard, and it can be found in the Hansard of the other place, that it will come forward in this Parliament. However, I have also heard that it will come forward in 1987 and so on. That is a very long way ahead. I know that the Churches are, in effect, hungry to get their teeth into this matter because they think it so vital, and that the medical profession is very interested in it too.
With the usual loyalty to the Government of all those on these Back-Benches, I ask the noble Earl to do
1538
everything he can to get us a timetable, because so many matters depend upon it. If we were told that the Government were going to deal with this matter very quickly, we would possibly allow this Bill—this incomplete Bill—to go through. However, if the Government are not going to do anything for two years, that is quite a different matter. There are also all the other matters in the Warnock Report. Therefore, can my noble friend enlighten us a little about the plans?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend because he did raise the point about whether or not we would bring forward a White or Green Paper. The Warnock Report alone has raised such a number of controversial matters throughout the country that we in the department are having great difficulty in finding anything to put together. Of course I cannot forecast what will appear in the Queen's Speech. However, I can assure my noble friend that we are trying to introduce a Bill as soon as possible. Perhaps I may refer again to my opening speech and the quotation of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who earlier this week in another place said that the Government plan to introduce a comprehensive Bill on these matters as soon as practicable.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to make a short business statement. It has been agreed through the usual channels that the Second Reading of the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Bill should not now be taken this afternoon. It will be taken instead today fortnight, on Friday 28th June.

Immigration Policy: Court of Human Rights
3.13 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what changes they propose to make in their immigration policy following the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Mrs. Cabales, Mrs. Balkandali and Mrs. Abdulaziz.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I wish to raise today the question of how the Government propose to respond to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of these three women. For the twelfth time, the court has judged the British Government to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, thus ensuring that this country continues to have the worst record of any government that has subscribed to the convention. Whatever may have been the defence of previous British Governments over past adverse judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, this time there was, I believe, no conceivable excuse.
The background to the matter can be stated fairly briefly. On 27th June 1974 the then Home Secretary Mr. Roy Jenkins announced in a Written Answer that

1539
he had reached the conclusion that in future husbands and wives should each have the right to admission to the United Kingdom, and he added:
"The principle on which I believe I should act is that where one spouse is settled in this country, a husband and wife should have freedom of choice whether to live here or elsewhere unless there are compelling reasons why this facility should not be allowed".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/6/74; col. 535.]
That policy was changed in 1979 by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, who was by then Home Secretary. Under new immigration rules, which came into force on 1st March 1980, a ban was imposed on the entry of foreign husbands of women settled in Britain unless the woman concerned was a United Kingdom citizen born here, or with a parent born here.
Then after the first adverse judgment on their policy by the European Commission of Human Rights which had ruled that there was a breach of the convention, and to coincide with the commencement order of the British Nationality Act 1981, new immigration rules were published in 1982. These new rules provided that before being allowed to enter the United Kingdom the husband would have to demonstrate that the primary purpose of the marriage was not immigration, and of course the onus of proof was placed upon the husband. In contrast, a husband settled in this country and wanting to bring a foreign wife into the United Kingdom had an absolute right to be joined by her. It was, in short, a blatant case of sexual discrimination, and that is exactly what the European Court of Human Rights found it to be.
At the outset the present Government were challenged on the question as to whether the new policy did not in fact represent a clear breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. My noble friend Lord Avebury put this precise point to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, on 7th November 1979. Indeed he mentioned Article 8, which was one of the issues on which the Government were subsequently adjudged to be guilty. At col. 817 of Hansard, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, then a Home Office Minister, said:
"So far as the European Convention is concerned, I repeat that the Government do not believe that we shall contravene the convention".
We now know of course that the Home Office Ministers concerned were hopelessly entirely wrong.
But it was worse than this because before the Government changed the immigration rules again in 1982 they had been given further warnings on this matter. In evidence given before the Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons in the 1979–80 Session, they had been specifically told by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and by Mr. Anthony Lester, QC, who, as the Minister will be aware, is a leading authority on this question of law, and I quote paragraph 15 of the Home Affairs Committee's report—that:
"any differential treatment amounted to discrimination".
That being so, why did the Government behave as they did? No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, who admittedly has only fairly recently arrived in the Home Office, will do his best to tell us. Did they, for instance, receive departmental legal advice that their new policy was consistent with their obligations under the convention? Did they get that advice, or did they not? Or did they go further and obtain an opinion from
1540
the Attorney-General, as of course departments can do if they are seriously troubled about any question of law? Did they get the Attorney-General's view? Did they, in those circumstances, prefer the opinion that they received to that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman? It would be a bold Minister who would disregard the opinion of one of the most respected Members of this House on a question as fundamental as this.
In any event, as we now know, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, was right and the Government were entirely wrong. I would have thought in these circumstances that the Government owe some apology not only to Parliament but also to the many wives whose lives have been damaged by these immigration rules which we now know to be entirely inconsistent with this country's international obligations. I hope that we are going to receive some indication that an apology is going to be given for the way in which this whole business has been handled.
I turn if I may to two specific questions that I want to put to the Government. First, are they now prepared to say in clear unqualified terms that the sex discrimination rules will be eliminated by giving women in Britain the same rights as settled men to be joined by their spouses? I hope that the hints we have been reading in the press that the Government will respond to the judgment of the Court by reducing the rights of men to bring their wives into the United Kingdom are entirely unjustified.
May I remind the Minister that his noble friend the present Leader of the House said in the House of Commons on 11th November 1982 (at col. 695 of the Official Report):
"The right for men was established in the 1971 Act. That is the position and I believe it should remain".
The same day the then Minister of State at the Home Office, Mr. Timothy Raison, said at col. 753:
"We have always accepted that this guarantee should apply to men settled here since then. That, in my view, is the humane decision".
In this House the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said on 18th November 1983 at col. 705 that,
"it would in any case mean breaking pledges which have been given by Governments of both complexions".
That sounds very clear, very precise and entirely unambiguous. But do those promises given to Parliament still represent the Government's position? I hope we shall hear that they do from the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, this afternoon.
I turn now to my second question. The European Court of Human Rights held in judgment that Article 13 of the convention had been breached. It stated that the discrimination to which these women were subjected:
"was the result of norms that were in this respect incompatible with the Convention. In this regard, since the UK has not incorporated the Convention into its domestic law, there could be no 'effective remedy' as required by Article 13".
As is known, we on these Benches favour the incorporation of the convention into domestic law and there is a great deal of support for that proposal in many parts of the House. Indeed we believe that it should be done as soon as possible.
But the question today is entirely different. What action do the Government propose to take immediately in view of the court's judgment on this particular aspect of its judgment? The appropriate action to be taken is fairly straightforward. The convention should be incorporated into the Immigration Rules. That is what is clearly required, I believe at that the very least, by the court's judgment. There is already a precedent for such a course of action because the United Nations Convention relating to the status of refugees is incorporated in the Immigration Rules. I am sure other Members of the House hope as I do to hear an unqualified assurance from the Minister that this will now be done in respect of the European Convention.
The Prime Minister and other Ministers have told us repeatedly that one of their central objectives of policy is to enhance the quality of family life in this country. If that is their aim, their treatment of these three women and the hundreds of others who have been affected is even more incomprehensible. I hope today that we shall be given some assurance that the Government are now belatedly prepared to take action to live up to their own lofty objectives.
3.25 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I think that all of us in your Lordships' House this afternoon will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for ventilating this very important issue. Speaking on the basis of my own experience as a diplomat in several parts of the third world over the last 30 years, I can say that I have come into contact with many cases broadly similar to those of the three ladies mentioned. I shall give the noble Lord my wholehearted support in the various points that he has made.
If your Lordships will permit me I will not speak directly on that issue. I should like if I may to stretch the terms of the Unstarred Question slightly to deal with the problem of immigration in the context of Uganda, an area about which, as your Lordships probably know, I am very worried. I have spoken about Uganda on several occasions in the past, the most recent having been on 6th March when I spoke to an Unstarred Question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about immigration procedures in the context of the Commission for Racial Equality Report. I do not intend to repeat what I have said on that or other occasions; neither will I anticipate what I hope to say when, with the leave of your Lordships, I ask an Unstarrred Question on Uganda, I hope before the end of this Session. I should like to make four brief points which I think can be considered as coming within the sphere of this Unstarred Question.
The first point that I should like to make is that I realise that the Home Office has been pursuing a sympathetic and considerate policy towards Ugandans who come to this country applying for asylum. They do that on the basis of the situation in Uganda which I am afraid still gives cause for great concern. Several Ugandans have told me that they appreciate the attitude of the Home Office and I have had helpful letters from the Minister of State, Home Office, in the context of various cases that I have raised.
1542
But—and this is my second point—I hope very much the Home Office will not be lulled into a feeling that the situation in Uganda is improving. I have heard hints of that made by Ministers on various occasions. To a large extent, we are of course groping in the dark. We cannot tell exactly what is going on in Uganda; but recent information that I have received from such bodies as Amnesty International, the Minority Rights Group and, more recently, the Church Missionary Society, indicates that at any rate in the rural areas—and I am not talking about Kampala; there may have been some slight improvement there—and particularly in the so-called Lowero Triangle, north of Kampala, the situation shows no sign of improvement.
Perhaps I may very briefly paraphrase a report by Amnesty International which is due to be published soon. Its main findings relate to the fact that the unlawful arrest and systematic torture of large numbers of civilians by the Ugandan army is continuing; the disappearance of many detained by the army who are believed to have died as a result of torture or who have been deliberately killed in detention; and the killing of unarmed civilians by the military and the detention without charge or trial of several real or alleged politician opponents. All this is going on; so that I think we can say that that picture presents "naught for your comfort".
The third point—and this I think is the most important—is that whereas I am aware that the Home Office in its wisdom realises that many Ugandans coming to this country are in danger of their lives if they are sent home, and if not in danger of their lives they are in danger of imprisonment and torture, that danger applies almost equally to Ugandans deported from Kenya and Zaire. In the last few days I have heard of several cases of Ugandans who have been refused admission by the Kenyan and Zairean Governments because they do not want them. They have been sent back. Some have been murdered, some have been imprisoned and some have disappeared.
Only today I heard of a Ugandan who had committed suicide in Belgium rather than risk the danger of going back to Uganda. Indeed, this very afternoon I was approached by a Ugandan in a very distressed state who had arrived at Heathrow this morning. He was due to be deported to Kenya—this is the point, not to Uganda—this very afternoon at half past six. He wondered what I could do about it. There is in my view a grave danger to such people if they are sent from here to Kenya or Zaire.
The last point I want to make—I do not want to dwell on this at all because I have made it before, and it can be made very briefly—is on the very long waiting time which applicants for political asylum in this country have to endure. I know that the Home Office is aware of this. I know that it takes a very long time to investigate these cases. But it is very frustrating for such applicants to wait for months and months—in some cases well over a year—before they get any decision. Then they may get a decision which is what is described as "exceptional leave to remain", which means they stay here for a year and then get their visas renewed every year. But they may not work and they have no knowledge of what the ultimate decision will be.

1543
I would ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he can at least give me an assurance that the sympathetic policy towards Ugandans applying for asylum in this country will continue; and I would ask him particularly to bear in mind the point I have made about the danger of returning Ugandans to Kenya and Zaire.
3.32 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, this is a very important question which is being put before us this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and one which concerns the lives of very many people. It is a pity that it is arising late on a Friday afternoon. Nevertheless it is attracting very serious consideration on this side of the House and I hope that it will also be attracting similar attention from the Minister.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has very clearly explained the whole background to this case and has made it very plain that there is a need for the Government to take some action immediately. Therefore before making one or two points which I have in mind, I should like first to stress the importance of an immediate response from the Government. Surely before they announce changes in the immigration rules, the Government should not delay in announcing at least interim arrangements for dealing with applications from men on the grounds of marriage. There can be no doubt that there is considerable concern, particularly within the ethnic minority communities, about both the immediate and the long-term effects of the judgment. Why should men women, and indeed children, be left in a state of very great anxiety?
My first task is simply to implore the Government not to prevaricate and avoid giving an answer, even if at this stage it is only to announce an interim arrangement. After all, it is now over two weeks since the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. The Government therefore cannot go on giving as their excuse for silence that they need more time to consider and study the judgment. Moreover, it is not enough for the Minister to tell us today that the Government will comply with the ruling. We need to know what changes they plan to make both, as I say, in the short-term arrangements and in our immigration rules generally in order to avoid further court actions.
With regard to me fundamental changes, let us consider first the different options which face the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has already touched on them. First, the Government could decide that the more flexible rules which at present apply to wives should also equally apply to husbands. That would mean that men and women would enjoy exactly the same rights. In that way the European Court would be satisfied that its convention was not being breached by sex discrimination and that our Immigration Rules were true to the spirit of the convention. That surely would be a change in the right direction.
On the other hand, the opposite course could be pursued. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said, this is the one which has been rumoured in the press; that is, that the present rules which allow a wife to bring her spouse into the country could be made to govern the cases of husbands bringing in their wives. That, of
1544
course, would avoid a breach of the convention on the grounds of sex discrimination but, nevertheless, by creating an equality of misery, would be contrary to the spirit and intentions of the Convention on Human Rights, which in its preamble refers to the maintenance and further realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms. For that reason, such a decision would be both dishonourable and unsatisfactory. The third option before the Government could be to alter the rules applying to both husbands and wives, making them no longer distinct. Finally, the European Convention as a whole could be incorporated into British law.
Which of these options will the Government choose? There is no doubt that at a time of high unemployment they would like to protect the labour market by excluding additional Asian labour. That would make the second option I have mentioned very attractive; namely, to get round the court's ruling by toughening up the laws respecting resident husbands bringing in their wives.
The means of bringing this about would be by applying the primary purpose rule to wives joining husbands, as well as the other way round. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has already explained, this primary purpose rule is a totally iniquitous one because it means that couples have to perform the impossible task of proving to the satisfaction of any entry clearance officer that the primary purpose of their marriage is not immigration: and to prove a negative is always extremely difficult, and often impossible, especially when the officer concerned starts off with an assumption about the social and cultural background of a society which is false or prejudicial to the applicant concerned. The proof that this is so is that, in 1984, of the 46 per cent. of husbands and fiancés from the Indian sub-continent who were refused entry clearance, as high a ratio as 88 per cent. were refused on primary purpose grounds.
This rule was never intended to be used against marriages of convenience. There are already perfectly adequate rules against that. But it is obviously used to keep genuine couples apart and to keep Asian men out of Britain. One can imagine the misery that this causes to couples whose marriages are entirely genuine, who may have children in the family, and yet who cannot satisfy this test. I have been told of some heartrending cases of young women, even with British citizenship, who have been unable to meet the primary purpose rule and have spent years separated from their husbands, and who have been left to bring up their children alone. If it were not late on a Friday afternoon, I would have quoted to your Lordships details of some of these cases because I think they have the most heartrending quality.
Surely there is only one way for the Government to deal with the present injustice, and that is to eliminate the sex discrimination in the Immigration Rules by giving women in Britain the same rights to be joined by their spouses as are presently held by men settled here. Not only is this a fair and compassionate solution in the true spirit of the European Convention on Human Rights, but any other decision would lead not only to further battles in the European Court but, most importantly, to further suffering of innocent members of families who have been kept separated.

1545
May I say to the Minister most sincerely that I hope he will first state what interim arrangements are being made to end further uncertainty, and following upon that, that he will state that changes in our immigration policy will be based on fair action and not be merely an attempt to find the most restrictive available form of compliance with the European Court's decision. It would seem to be vitally important to reinstate our international reputation in this regard—a reputation which is beginning to look a little tarnished. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said, this judgment marks the twelfth occasion on which the United Kingdom has been in breach of the European Convention, whereas the other 17 member states—those who permit individual petitions—have recorded only 39 violations between them all. So unless the Minister is today going to say something to put our record straight, I can only end by saying that, in this country, the cradle of democracy is really beginning to look a bit rocky.
3.40 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, in asking this Question today, the noble Lord, Lord Harris has challenged me, as indeed has the noble Baroness opposite, to indicate our immigration policy following the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Mrs. Cabales, Mrs. Abdulaziz and Mrs. Balkandali.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris started off by indicating that possibly some forewarning of the risk at Strasbourg and the need for legal advice should have been obvious to us. Perhaps I may start by saying that it is true that the 1980 rules were said by some authorities, such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and Mr. Lester, to risk breaching the European Convention, but, as I shall develop in a moment, not all the opinions were borne out by the judgment of the European Court. The Government's belief that the rules complied with our obligations under the convention were vindicated except on the question of sex.
Let me say first that the judgment of the European Court in these test cases, which concerned the right of settled women to be joined by their husbands in this country, was delivered barely two weeks ago. It is a substantial document of over 40 pages and one that requires careful study. I propose to deal later in more detail with the terms of the judgment. I would, however, say at the outset that while the court found that there had been two violations of articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, as I indicated just now, the judgment also contained several endorsements of this Government's immigration policies. Let me make that clear straight away. The judgment is binding and we shall of course abide by it.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already made clear that the Government will make changes in the Immigration Rules necessary to meet our obligations under the convention. Urgent consideration is now being given to what those changes might be. It is a complicated matter, and your
1546
Lordships will not expect me to be in a position to announce today the changes that the Government intend to make.
The cases in question concern the provisions of the Immigration Rules made in 1980 under which women who have settled in this country are not entitled to be joined here by their husbands. The application of Mrs. Abdulaziz was lodged with the European Commission in December 1980 and those of Mrs. Cabales and Mrs. Balkandali in August the following year. In May 1982, the commission declared the three applications admissible. In its advisory report adopted in May 1983, the commission expressed the opinion that the application of the rules in these cases constituted discrimination contrary to Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8, which protects the right to respect for private and family life, on the grounds of sex and birth. The commission also found, as a violation of Article 13, that no effective remedy before a national authority was available to the applicants. It took the view that it was not necessary to pursue a further examination of the cases in the context of Article 8 alone. Both parties then made written representations to the court, and there was a hearing last September.
The court has come to a different view from the commission in a number of important respects. In the court's judgment there was no lack of respect for family life and hence no violation of Article 8 alone. The court stated that:
"The duty imposed by Article 8 can not be considered as extending to a general obligation on the part of a Contracting State to respect the choice by married couples of the country of their matrimonial residence, and to accept the non-national spouses for settlement in that country".
The court noted that in the present cases the couples married after the wives had settled in the United Kingdom as single persons, and that they had not shown that there were obstacles to establishing family life in their own or their husband's home countries or that there were special reasons why they could not be expected to live there.
Moreover, the court did not share the commission's opinion on the claimed discrimination on the ground of birth. There are, in the court's view, persuasive social reasons for giving special treatment to those whose link with a country stems from birth within it. The difference of treatment must therefore be regarded as having an objective and reasonable justification for the purposes of Article 14. On Article 3, the court rejected the applicants' complaint that they had been subjected to degrading treatment. It therefore found no violation.
The court also found that there was no discrimination on the ground of race. The court accepted the purpose of the Immigration Rules to curtail primary immigration. It concluded that the rules made no distinction on grounds of race and were therefore not racially discriminatory. It rejected the contention that the rules could be adjudged racially discriminatory in terms of the ethnic groups affected by the rules. If some are more affected than others, that reflects the fact that more people seek to come here from some parts of the world than from others. The court also said that in this context the requirement that the parties to an intended marriage must have met, which was introduced in the 1980 rules, could not be taken as an indication of

1547
racial discrimination. The court noted that its main purpose was to prevent evasion of the rules.
The court did, however, find that the fact that the immigration rules allowing wives to join settled men were more favourable amounted to sex discrimination in breach of Article 14 with Article 8. The court stated the clear premise that the advancement of the equality of the sexes was today a major goal in the member states of the Council of Europe. This meant that very weighty reasons would have to be advanced before a difference of treatment on the ground of sex could be regarded as compatible with the convention. The court specifically accepted that the 1980 rules had the aim of protecting the domestic labour market. It specifically acknowledged that this aim was without doubt legitimate.
The court did not however accept that the case the Government advanced in justification for the distinction in the 1980 rules was sufficiently weighty to measure up to the importance the court attaches to the objective of sex equality. The fact that the Government have allowed wives to be admitted on more generous provisions than the European Convention requires does not, in the court's view, make the distinction between the sexes justifiable. Finally, the court found that in regard to the discrimination on grounds of sex there was no effective remedy to the provisions of the Immigration Rules. The court found this to be in violation of Article 13 of the convention.
It is only right to defer decision in cases affected by the judgment while the Government urgently consider their response. Accordingly, immigration staff here and overseas have been instructed not to refuse applications or enforce departure in cases which do not qualify under the existing rules but which might under rules to give effect to the court's judgment. We cannot go further until decisions have been made about just what changes should be made to the rules. I may add that all three husbands in the test cases qualify under the current rules through their wives' British citizenship. They are already living in this country with their wives.
The 1980 rules gave effect to this Government's commitment to reduce primary immigration to the minimum. We tightened the provisions for admission for employment. And complementary to that we tightened the provisions relating to the admission of men for marriage. At the same time we honoured the commitment to admit wives and children to join heads of households who had come here earlier. Under the 1980 rules only women who were citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies and who were themselves born in the United Kingdom, or had one of their parents born here, qualified to be joined by their husband or fiancé. The rules also extended the safeguards designed to prevent the use of marriage by men as a means of securing admission to this country by those who would not otherwise qualify. These rules were changed in 1983 in consequence of the implementation of the British Nationality Act 1981. Under the 1983 rules—the rules now in force—women who are British citizens may being their husbands into this country.
1548
The rules concerning the admission of men for marriage are a necessary part of firm immigration control. The need for firm immigration control has of course been accepted by successive Governments. At a time of high unemployment—to which the noble Baroness particularly referred—and economic recession firm immigration control is essential to protect the domestic labour market. It would make no sense to tighten the provisions for admission for employment but to continue to allow men to use marriage to gain admission. The European court specifically acknowledged that the main and essential purpose of the 1980 rules was to curtail primary immigration.
Whatever changes are made, the overall policy of firm immigration control will continue to be the Government's objective. The finding of the court concerns the specific issue of the different provisions for the admission of husbands joining women and wives joining men. Successive Governments have taken the view that there have to be some differences in the provisions for men and women in the Immigration Rules. It is in the area of provision for the admission of dependants where the provisions have differed between the sexes. The rules have always treated wives and children as dependants to be admitted to join husbands whom we have allowed to settle here. We have been less ready to allow husbands to be admitted. The reason is obvious. As a general rule, husbands cannot be regarded as dependants.
Our commitment to the admission of dependants is clear. Over the past 10 years we have accepted about a third of a million wives and children to join men settled in this country. Two-thirds of these dependants have come from the new Commonwealth and Pakistan. Allowing young men to join young women in marriage in this country is quite a different matter from allowing dependants to join heads of household. The husbands and fiancés are coming to set up new families.
Our existing policy does allow men to come here to join girls if they are British citizens, provided that the men meet the requirements of the immigration rules designed to ensure that marriage is not being used for immigration purposes. The rules we introduced in 1980 strengthen those introduced by the previous Labour Government in 1977, to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, did not, I think refer. That is to say, they were not the first rules to introduce safeguards to prevent the use of marriage to gain admission to this country.
Before I turn to the options, perhaps I may take up the particular question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, concerning incorporation of the European Court of Human Rights into domestic law. The possibility of incorporating the ECHR as part of the domestic law of this country has been canvassed for a number of years, as the noble Lord will be aware. The issues are complex, raising matters of basic constitutional importance, and they cannot quickly be resolved. I have to tell the noble Lord that the Government have no plans at present for legislation in this direction.
The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, asked particularly about the situation in Uganda, and I am grateful to him for giving me notice of that question. I

1549
can tell the noble Viscount that in conjunction with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office we monitor the situation in Uganda closely. Press reports and information submitted by Amnesty International and other refugee organisations indicate considerable instability in Uganda. Dr. Obote's presidency has been compared unfavourably with earlier rules. There are reports of large numbers of people being killed or detained, or disappearing. We are very conscious of this disturbed situation and very much have it in mind when considering Ugandan nationals' applications for asylum. All such applications are considered carefully in accordance with normal asylum procedures. In addition, where Ugandans do not qualify for asylum but can show good reason for not returning to Uganda for the time being, they may be granted leave to remain on an exceptional basis. In 1984 decisions were reached on some 75 applications for asylum from Ugandans. Asylum was granted in 37 cases: exceptional leave to remain in 28 cases and 10 applications were refused. As the noble Lord himself indicated, that goes wide of the immediate Question before us, but I hope that may give him some reassurance.
Returning to the European Court of Human Rights' judgment, and the options, the difficult question which now faces the Government is how to modify the present rules in order to take account of the principles of sex equality which the European court has enjoined. I fear that I cannot go further today in answering the noble Lord's Question than making some rather general points. As I have already made clear, we shall comply with the court's judgment; and we shall continue to maintain a firm immigration policy.
There are of course various options for changes to the rules following the court's judgment. The noble Baroness Lady Ewart-Biggs enumerated some of them and what she believed to be some of her own as well. Sex discrimination between the rules applying to the admission of husbands and wives could be removed by extending provisions applying to the wives of settled men to the husbands of settled women—I think that was the way round that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, put it—or the provisions applying to the admission of men now could be extended to women. That would mean removing the right of men settled here to bring in their wives. That would be a major change. I have emphasised our commitment to wives and children. On the other hand to allow husbands to join women settled in this country as well as women who are British citizens would mean allowing 2,000 or so additional men to settle here each year.
In addition, consideration has to be given to the implications of the judgment for the requirements which husbands and fiancés must meet before being allowed to join women who are British citizens. I must emphasise that the cases and court's judgment were not directly concerned with these other requirements which husbands must meet under the Immigration Rules. In particular, the application of the primary purpose test was not at issue. All I can do now is to emphasise, as my right honourable friend the Minister of State has in another place, that the primary purpose and other tests are a necessary safeguard against the use of marriage for immigration purposes.
1550
As I have made clear, the Government are most carefully considering the judgment to determine the range of changes in the rules that will be appropriate. The Government will take due note of the court's observations on the importance to be attached to the advancement of equality between the sexes. We are studying the judgment with the due urgency which your Lordships have asked for. I cannot say when there will be an announcement about the action the Government consider appropriate. I can, however, say that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is well aware of the concern that there should be an early announcement, and that, in formulating his proposals, he will note the remarks made in this debate.
House adjourned at one minute before four o'clock.

  UNLICENSED BROADCASTING
  UNLICENSED BROADCASTING
  NORTHERN IRELAND: DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT CONSERVATION BRANCH STAFF
  NORTHERN IRELAND: DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT CONSERVATION BRANCH STAFF
  NEW FOREST BUCKHOUNDS: ALLEGED UNAUTHORISED ENTRY
  NEW FOREST BUCKHOUNDS: ALLEGED UNAUTHORISED ENTRY
  VIDEO RECORDINGS: CLASSIFICATION BOARD
  VIDEO RECORDINGS: CLASSIFICATION BOARD