Sitting of 17 June 1985

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
LEICESTERSHIRE BILL [Lords]
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES

    Housing Starts
    Mr. Colemanasked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the figure for housing starts in the public sector in Wales for the first quarter of 1985.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Four hundred and twenty-three public sector starts were reported for the first quarter of 1985.
    Mr. Coleman: Is the Minister aware that his reply will not bring much comfort or hope to the homeless and the ill-housed in Wales? Will he give figures for public sector housing starts in Brecon and Radnor? Will he also give the figures for that area and for Wales as a whole in the same quarter of 1979?
    Mr. Roberts: I cannot give a precise answer about Brecon and Radnor, but if the hon. Gentleman tables a
    2
    question I shall try to answer it. The majority of local authorities are spending the greater part of their money on renovating houses. That is one reason why they are not spending on new building.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Is the Department encouraging authorities to make provision for the elderly and the disabled and for others with special needs?
    Mr. Roberts: Local authorities are concentrating on building for people in special need, but their priority at present remains the renovation of existing stock, both public and private. Under this Government about £500 million has been spent on renovation. The number of homeless has not increased as some Opposition Members seem to suggest.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: When will the Minister recognise that the only steps taken by the Government in this vital matter have been negative, such as imposing VAT on home improvements and reducing the amount that local authorities may spend out of receipts from the sale of council houses? How can the Minister be a party to such decisions when housing in Wales is deteriorating so badly, as the Welsh media have vividly illustrated in recent weeks?
    Mr. Roberts: Although public sector starts are only 6 per cent. up on last year, I am glad to say that private sector starts are about 25 per cent. up on the same period last year. I am also glad to say that 1,631 starts were made in the relevant quarter.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Will my hon. Friend welcome the statement, quoted recently in the Western Mail by Mr. Lewis of the House-Builders Federation in Wales, drawing attention to the significant upturn in house building starts and to the fact that 3,000 extra jobs could result from it?
    Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is quite right. The private sector is taking the lead in meeting the demand for new housing, and there is considerable demand. We particularly need housing for executives if we are to attract industry to Wales, but there is also considerable activity by the housing associations, which are responsible for more than half the public sector starts to which I have referred.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: The Minister, with his usual brilliance, has anticipated my question. Will he itemise the number of housing association starts? How does that figure compare with what the housing associations have told him they could do?
    Mr. Roberts: The total number of completions by the Housing Corporation and housing associations under this Government is about 10,000. Housing starts in the first quarter were about 200 by local authorities and 200-odd by housing associations.

    Land Authority for Wales
    Sir Anthony Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will review the functions of the Land Authority for Wales.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. John Stradling Thomas): A review of the functions of the Land Authority for Wales is scheduled to start in September 1986 as part of my Department's regular programme for the review of non-departmental public bodies.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: During this review will my hon. Friend look carefully at the Land Authority's functions in relation to developments which are disputable and may be in conflict with the county structure plan? Does he accept that the real job of the Land Authority for Wales is to enable complex developments, such as urban centres in Cardiff and north Wales, to go ahead, and that it has no business helping to despoil the countryside?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: The review will cover all aspects of the authority's operations, but at this stage I see no objection in principle to its involvement in green field sites.

    Colliery Closures
    Mr. Ray Powellasked the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss colliery closures.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): I met the chairman on 9 May and discussed a range of matters relating to the coal industry in Wales.
    Mr. Powell: That answer is typical of the Secretary of State's lethargic attitude. Is he not aware that, in all probability because of such an attitude, the Labour party is forging ahead in the Brecon and Radnor by-election and that it now has an 8 per cent. lead? Is he also aware that since the Government were elected in 1979, in my constituency alone there has been the closure of the Caerau and Coegnant collieries as well as the Wyndham/Western colliery last January? The St. John's colliery in Maesteg is now threatened with closure as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's attitude and the fact that he condones the attitude of the chairman of the NCB. What is the right hon. Gentleman really doing to try to save jobs in Wales? That is what Labour Members want to know.
    Mr. Edwards: Before the coal strike began, which the hon. Gentleman encouraged throughout, deep mine losses in south Wales were around £95 million a year. It looks as though last year's losses have almost doubled to £160 million. Therefore, miners have thrown away the equivalent cost of the new Margam mine. It is hardly
    4
    surprising that the amount of investment one that would like to see in the coal industry is less than it could be because of that strike encouraged by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Terlezki: Does my right hon. Friend agree that had Scargill's political strike not taken place, some of the Welsh collieries would not have been closed and the coal industry would have been financially better off? However, because of that 12-month political strike, some of those collieries must now close and production has been disrupted. People have been turned against people, neighbours against neighbours and families against families simply because of this political strike.
    Mr. Edwards: I have already pointed out that the strike added greatly to the area coal board's losses and directly resulted in a number of faces being lost, which will not be re-opened.
    Mr. Foot: Did the right hon. Gentleman see the headline in The Times on Saturday stating:
    "Miners face £10 million benefit loss"?
    How much of that figure relates to Welsh miners, and will he discuss this matter with the NCB chairman? Is it not deplorable that there should now be an argument about whether any redundancies should be voluntary? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman do something to fulfil the pledges which he and other Ministers made during the strike?
    Mr. Edwards: I did not see the report to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, but I shall take a look at it now that he has drawn it to my attention. I believe that the pledges given by the coal board and the Government during the strike are being met, and I am told by the NCB chairman that he expects the greater number of job losses in south Wales to arise either through voluntary redundancies or by offering alternative employment in other pits.
    Mr. Hubbard-Miles: Does my hon. Friend agree that it ill becomes the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) to talk about job losses in his constituency as a result of the strike which he supported, but which 70 per cent. of the miners in the constituency were against?
    Mr. Edwards: It would clearly have been much more desirable if there had been a ballot at the outset to decide whether the miners wanted to go on strike.
    Mr. Rowlands: In answer to a question that I tabled, I was told that NCB (Enterprises) Ltd. has in prospect only 300 jobs, while over the same period 1,800 jobs are to be lost. In addition, every day and every week, hundreds of redundancies are announced in all our constituencies. How will the job gap be filled? Will the right hon. Gentleman review his efforts and those of the Welsh Development Agency and everybody else to see whether we can bridge the growing jobs gap?
    Mr. Edwards: It is absurd to suggest that all the job losses in the coal industry will be replaced by the jobs announced or encouraged by NCB (Enterprises) Ltd., but it is a matter for congratulation that in the short time that this organisation has existed it has been able to provide loans to create more than 300 job opportunities. That is a good start.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the price of electricity is every bit as much a matter

    5
    of concern both to individual voters in Wales and to job prospects, and that the price of electricity depends directly on coal costs?
    Mr. Edwards: That is true, and it is also true that the price of coal will be one of the factors that will influence the CEGB in deciding on its energy sources and all the other energy users deciding whether to use coal. The mining industry can do a good deal in deciding where it has markets and in seizing the opportunities that undoubtedly exist.
    Mrs. Clwyd: How can the Secretary of State expect the coal industry to be profitable in Wales if the Government continue to refuse to invest? The Coal Board has offered only £25 million of investment to south Wales over the next year and the NUM says that at least £300 million is needed. Secondly, when does the right hon. Gentleman intended to announce investment in the Margam project, as everybody in Wales is expecting such an announcement?
    Mr. Edwards: The Government have provided record sums for investment by the NCB. The hon. Lady knows that the Government do not decide on individual investments, which are a matter for the NCB. The NCB is continuing with its detailed planning for the Margam project, although it has taken no financial decisions yet.
    Mr. Anderson: Outside experts tell us that for every job lost in the coalfield, at least one other job will be lost outside. What is the assumption of the Welsh Office in this respect?
    Mr. Edwards: Undoubtedly, there is a multiplier effect on job losses, just as there is a multiplier effect when new firms come and create new employment, but I should not like to quantify that multiplier effect.
    Mr. Barry Jones: We have had evasive replies from the right hon. Gentleman. Is it not unjust that the south Wales coalfield produces 8 per cent. of coal but receives only 5 per cent. of investment and has only one high-tech coalface? Does he not understand that the south Wales coalfield needs an advocate and a protector in the Cabinet, otherwise by the 1990s there may be only 1,200 workers in the coalfield? Should not the right hon. Gentleman be that advocate? Why is he so lugubrious about coal in south Wales?
    Mr. Edwards: Coal closures under this Government and during my period of office have not been at the same rate as under Labour Governments, who closed pits in south Wales on a massive scale. There can be no doubt that there would be a better future and more investment for the coal industry in south Wales if it were not for the substantial losses—losses which were doubled or more because of the strike, which the hon. Gentleman encouraged.

    Connah's Quay Power Station
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales if, when he next meets the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, he will raise the future of Connah's quay power station.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Jones: The station closed last year with the loss of 400 important jobs. When wall the site be cleared, and
    6
    will local labour be used in the station's demolition? Will the site be used for housing, industry, leisure or a mix of all three? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the site is owned by the community at a reasonable cost? It is speculated that the new crossing of the Dee will emerge at the site of the power station. When will road building for the crossing begin?
    Mr. Edwards: The power station site occupies about 650 acres on the banks of the Dee. No decisions have been taken about the eventual use of all this land, although at present there is no shortage of land in the area for industrial development.

    Welsh Language Education
    Mr. Wigleyasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the co-ordination of Welsh language education at nursery, primary, secondary and higher levels to ensure the best use of resources available for Welsh language education.
    Mr. John Stradling Thomas: I have no reason to suppose that individual local education authorities, whose responsibility it is, have not made provision for Welsh language education appropriate for their areas. I have, however, received representations from various organisations and individuals on the Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg proposal for a Welsh language education development body. We are currently considering these representations, and we hope to announce our conclusions before the summer recess.
    Mr. Wigley: I welcome the Minister's announcement that active consideration is being given to this proposal. Does he accept that there is a wide body of support for such a proposal, which is put forward by the Welsh Language Society and runs across party lines? In looking for a new formula to get the best value for money from what is spent on the Welsh language, is it not necessary to ensure that those local authorities which do most for Welsh language education are not penalised by the rate support grant formula? Does he agree that funding through such a body could overcome the difficulty? Will he bear this actively in mind over the next few weeks?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that there are statutory problems. I shall not come to a firm view until I have considered all the representations put to me and all other relevant factors. I should emphasise that I have no intention of changing the present statutory framework within which local education authorities have responsibility for the provision of Welsh Language education in their areas.
    I am meeting representatives of six Welsh language organisations, led by Undeb Cenedlaethol Athrawon Cymru and including representatives of Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg, shortly to hear their further views on these proposals.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Urdd on its excellent recent eisteddfod in Cardiff? From my observation, it was a first-rate example of all that is best in our Welsh culture. It was a tribute to everyone involved, under the chairmanship of Mr. Malcom Thomas, for a great deal of excellent voluntary effort, especially by teachers.
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: I agree very much with my hon. Friend. I might add that the Government's support for

    7
    the development of the Welsh language is not in question. We have considerably increased the resources earmarked for the Welsh language, including Welsh language education.
    Mr. Barry Jones: I agree with the Minister. The Urdd is doing magnificent work in Wales for the young people, and none of us wants to see the Welsh language withering on the vine of the 21st century. I commend to the Minister the existing consensus on the language in Wales, though there is no room for complacency. What are the prospects for the language in the heartland of Wales—in Dyfed and Gwynedd? What specific measures is he taking to enhance the language?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: There is provision through special grants for the language, and we encourage it in every way through the local education authorities. I think that this is the right policy for the Government to pursue, and we have pursued it vigorously.

    House Improvement Grants
    Mr. Hubbard-Milesasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many house improvement grants were awarded in Wales (a) between February 1974 and April 1979 and (b) between May 1979 and the latest date for which figures are available.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: Between January 1974 and March 1979 a total of 52,768 home renovation grants of all types were paid. Between April 1979 and March 1985 the figure was 92,726.
    Mr. Hubbard-Miles: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I must confess that I am a little surprised that the figure for the earlier period was quite so high. What has been the average annual spend on housing grants under the two Administrations?
    Mr. Roberts: I am not surprised by my hon. Friend's surprise. Of the applications made between January 1974 and March 1979, one half were paid in 1974, which means that they were submitted and approved during our period in office. This Government have been spending about £80 million per annum on renovation grants, compared with £29 million per annum under the last Labour Government.
    Mr. Rowlands: Have the Government postponed the idea of abolishing grants and moving towards improvement loans, or are they about to abandon them too? Before the Government consider abandoning either of those policies, will they at least meet the guarantee that they gave 50,000 Welsh home owners that they will pay the grants to which they are entitled under the existing system?
    Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that we have published a Green Paper and that consultations upon it will take place until 30 September. The Green Paper makes it quite clear that anybody who applied for grant during the relevant period will continue to receive it, irrespective of what happens as a result of the Green Paper.
    Mr. Rowlands: When?
    Mr. Roberts: The time taken to deal with grant applications depends entirely upon the priority given to them by local authorities. As I said earlier, local authorities are currently spending three quarters of their total housing resources upon renovation.
    Mr. Grist: Does my hon. Friend agree that improvement grants have been a means of extending capital ownership and capital wealth throughout society and that in many ways they are comparable with the sale of council houses?
    Mr. Roberts: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have extended home ownership by the sale of council houses. I am glad to be able to tell him that 42,262 council house sales have been accomplished under this Government. We have also spent a considerable amount on the renovation of both private and public sector housing, about £275 million having been spent upon the public sector.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: When will the Government recognise that in all Welsh towns there are huge waiting lists for improvement grants because so many of our people are living in substandard accomodation? The Green Paper's proposals are not the answer to the problem. Why do not the Government at last decide to engage in a major housing drive instead of persistently waffling about tax cuts, which never materialise anyway?
    Mr. Roberts: We are pursuing a very active housing policy and have achieved record figures of council house sales to sitting tenants. The Government are undoubtedly meeting the wishes of people in Wales by selling council houses to sitting tenants, and I am delighted that at long last the Opposition have embraced this policy. The Government are also pursuing a very active renovation policy. We have spent about £500 million on renovating the housing stock of the public and private sectors.

    Primary Schools (Expenditure)
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent per pupil in primary schools in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how this compares with the figure for 1978–79, at constant prices.
    Mr. John Stradling Thomas: At 1983–84 prices, spending per primary school pupil in Wales was £655 in 1978–79 and £758 in 1983–84, an increase of 15 per cent.
    Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the people of Wales are aware of the Government's excellent record in increasing the amount of money spent per pupil, in real terms, in Welsh primary schools? If not, what steps is he taking to ensure that they are made aware of it?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: I have issued invitations to every local education authority in Wales to come and discuss with me, in a constructive spirit, the problems of resource management. I take every opportunity to get across the facts. There have not been any massive or savage cuts. Neither I nor the Welsh Office underestimate the problems of resource management and we accept that they must be grappled with. However, we must get away from some of the Opposition's rhetorical nonsense.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Minister realise that the complacency of his answer is not justified by the evidence of what is happening in our schools? The capitation allowance given to head teachers of primary schools, particularly in the county of Powys, shows that they do not have enough money to buy the paper, crayons, materials and other equipment that are required if primary school children are to be taught properly.
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: The hon. and learned Gentleman obviously did not listen to my answer. I have already said that I am not complacent, but, rather, concerned about the failures of resource management. Head teachers have made precisely that point to me, but provision is made by the local education authorities and not by central Government. Consequently, to say that we do not give them enough is to fly in the face of the facts and of the figures produced by the local education authorities themselves.
    Mr. Harvey: How many children are being affected by the teachers' dispute? Can my hon. Friend say what the effect would be on school buildings, textbooks and education budgets if a settlement were made that was above the Government's guidelines?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: I can reply to that point quite simply and succinctly. Although we have been through an era of falling school rolls, the drop in the number of teachers has been significantly less. The fall will vary in different local education authorities. However, I must put the matter bluntly, as both the House and the profession should know that one teacher's salary would buy a lot of chalk, books and other modern technological aids to education.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: They would not be much good without a teacher.
    Dr. Marek: Is the Minister aware that the figures that he gave could be viewed in a different light if such things as school meals, the standard of school cleaning and the capitation allowances were all taken into consideration? Will he admit that the facts are quite different? The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the council in Clwyd has frozen all teaching posts and that, as a result, the September term will be a disaster for teaching? Is the Minister happy that one of the councils over which he has responsibility with regard to grant holdback—I refer to Clwyd—should have been forced to adopt such a position?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: The council has been forced to do so as a result of its own policies. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has said, there has been a sharp rise, in constant terms, in educational expenditure in Clwyd. In view of the facts supplied by that local education authority, I must say that the hon. Gentleman's points have no validity.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that recent HMI reports do not bear out the optimistic picture that he is trying to portray? Will he bear in mind that conditions in the teachers' dispute are deteriorating and that morale among teachers is at an all-time low? Discipline is also crumbling in our schools. When will the Government launch an initiative to settle this very nasty dispute?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: I must make it clear that I have no direct responsibility with regard to the teachers' pay dispute. However, I utterly reject any Opposition suggestion that I am complacent. I propose to meet all the local education authorities to discuss the problems against a background of facts, not rhetoric.

    Courtaulds (Greenfield Plant)
    Mr. Raffanasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about Her Majesty's Government's representations to Courtaulds plc. regarding its proposal to close its plant at Greenfield.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Plant closures of this kind must be for the commercial judgment of the company, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have urged the chairman to make all possible efforts to mitigate the consequences in the areas affected. I know that he is considering how the company can help.
    Mr. Raffan: Now that detailed negotiations have begun between Courtaulds and Delyn borough council, will my right hon. Friend continue to impress upon Courtaulds that it has obligations to the community that I represent and that it must—in his words—clear away debris and dereliction and assist in the task of new job creation? Should not Courtaulds also pay back the £2·8 million of public money invested in the modernisation of Greenfield between 1979 and 1981?
    Mr. Edwards: As my hon. Friend knows, I have made clear my views on the obligations of Courtaulds. Indeed, my hon. Friend has just referred to remarks that I made in the Welsh Grand Committee. There are established rules for the clawback of regional development grant. I expect that some of the grant may be eligible for clawback, and it is something that we are discussing with the company.
    Mr. Barry Jones: The loss of the Courtaulds jobs is a hammer blow to the north-east Wales economy. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not give a major cash boost both to the Welsh Development Agency and the Mid-Wales Development Agency rather than submit them to real-term cuts? They are underfunded and need more powers to face the problems with which they are asked to deal. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that during the past four months Wales has lost 4,000 manufacturing jobs, and that since he took office Wales has lost 131,000 manufacturing and construction jobs? What is he doing in the Cabinet to obtain a change of policy that will give hope to the people of Wales?
    Mr. Edwards: It is characteristic of the hon. Gentleman that all he wishes to do is to throw money in every possible direction. On Courtaulds, we have been having detailed discussions with the local authorities, and others involved, on specific proposals for the area. I expect to make an announcement about the measures to be taken within the next two or three weeks.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the level of unemployment in the county of Gwent at the latest available date; and how this compares with the figure in June 1979.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 9 May 1985 there were 28,898 unemployed claimants in Gwent. A comparable claimant-based figure for 1979 is not available. The figure for registered unemployed in June 1979 was 14,065.
    Mr. Hughes: Do not those figures tell their own story? Have we not recently witnessed the ineptitude of the Secretary of State on LSI Logic, which has ended up in West Germany? We also note that the right hon.

    11
    Gentleman has accepted a 150 per cent. increase in toll charges on the Severn bridge, together with redundancies at Girlings and Standard Telephones. That has happened following six years of catastrophe. Is it not time for the right hon. Gentleman to pack up?
    Mr. Edwards: Since 1983 the number of overseas projects secured by WINvest totals 29, promising more than 2,000 new jobs and also safeguarding more than 2,000. That means that more than one third of the total of overseas projects are going to Wales. They include such firms as the Parrot corporation at Cwmbran, Signalex at Newport, Celatose at Ebbw Vale, Texmo at Newbridge, Control Data at Ebbw Vale and British Alcan at Newport. The truth is that Gwent has especially benefited from a very considerable flood of new investment.

    Countryside Commission
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Meirionnydd rant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) to ask his question, I remind him that it is an open question, and I hope that he will bear in mind my ruling of 14 February last year.
    Mr. D. E. Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Wales when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Countryside Commission.
    Mr. John Stradling Thomas: My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to do so since I met the chairman of the commission Sir Derek Barber and the chairman of the Welsh Committee as recently as 11 June.

    Welsh Development Agency
    Mr. Terlezkiasked the Secretary of State for Wales how much capital was made available by the Welsh Development Agency to industries between 1978 to 1980 and 1981 to 1984, respectively; and what information he has as to the number of new firms established as a result in Wales between the same dates.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: In the financial years 1978–79 to 1980–81 the Welsh Development Agency undertook investments of £10 million. In the years 1981–82 to 1984–85 the figure was £24 million. These investments were made in 300 companies, but a breakdown into new and existing firms is not immediately available.
    Mr. Terlezki: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for such an encouraging reply. Is it not a fact that the WDA has not only done excellent work since it began but is expanding? While we must not be complacent about the expansion and about the 300 companies that have received grant to the tune of £24 million, does my right hon. Friend agree that, had it been left in the hands of the Socialists, that would never have been achieved?
    Mr. Edwards: I should emphasise in respect of the figures that I have given, that increasingly the WDA in its investment function is acting as a lead to the syndication of funds by venture capitalists and the financial institutions generally and, therefore, the total scale of the investment led by the WDA is much higher than the figures to which I have referred.

    Owner-occupation
    Sir Raymond Gowerasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many dwellings in Wales were owner-occupied at the latest convenient date; and what were the comparable figures for 1955, 1964, and 1979, respectively.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: At December 1984, 733,000 dwellings, 66 per cent. of the stock, were owner-occupied, and 630,000, or 59 per cent., in 1979. Figures are not available for 1955 and 1964, but in 1961, 48 per cent. of the stock was owner-occupied.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a remarkable increase and demonstrates the success of the Government's policy to spread owner-occupation and ownership of property not only in Wales but in the whole of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am delighted to tell him that the Government see scope for a further increase in owner-occupation. Our low-cost housing initiatives and shared ownership schemes are designed to promote home ownership still further.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Church of England Children's Society
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, what financial help is given to the Church of England Children's Society by the Church Commissioners; and if he will make a statement.
    The Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing Church Commissioners (Sir William van Straubenzee): None, Sir, because it is the commissioners' duty to use their income for defined statutory purposes; namely, the pay, pensions and housing of the clergy of the Church of England.
    Mr. Bruinvels: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Church of England Children's Society on looking after more than 7,000 problem children in 1984, on helping them to be fostered and adopted, and generally on helping to improve the circumstances of all those children who have greatly suffered over the years? As the society also provides special homes for the children, will my hon. Friend reconsider his answer, because these children desperately need help?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: I wish to make it absolutely clear that whether or not there is a contribution from the Church Commissioners is not in any sense a judgment. The Commissioners are bound by the law as laid down by Parliament, but of course I join my hon. Friend in acknowledging the splendid work done by this charity, and I know how closely he keeps in touch with it in Leicester and elsewhere.

    Staff Hours
    Mr. Greenwayasked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, what are the normal hours of work of employees of the Church Commissioners; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir William van Straubenzee: The normal working hours of the commissioners' employees are 41 per week, including lunch breaks.
    Mr. Greenway: While appreciating the expressed interest of the bishops and clergy of the Church of England and those who work for the Church Commissioners, in relation to the problem of unemployment, and bearing in mind the assets, amounting to £1·6 billion, of the Church Commissioners, will my hon. Friend say how many jobs have been created in those areas?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: As I told my hon. Friend on 14 March, the very fact that by far the greater part of the portfolio of investments is in ordinary shares in British industry, commerce and services is itself substantial in relation to creating jobs, apart from their work in agriculture. I have also outlined—I must not detain the House on this issue—certain specific initiatives for investment in areas of very high unemployment.
    Mr. Frank Field: Had the pay of the staff not been linked to Civil Service rates, would the commissioners have offered more or less pay in settlements in the last couple of years?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: I am certain that the commissioners would have been their usual generous selves.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: As one who is fond of putting questions to the representative of the Church Commissioners, may I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Sir William van Straubenzee) on the way in which he deals with points raised by hon. Members? However, can he tell me how much time is spent by the commissioners in considering the appointments of bishops, some of which have been controversial in the past?
    Mr. Speaker: Are bishops employees of the commissioners?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: The commissioners take no part in the appointment of bishops. One of the great joys of answering questions on behalf of the commissioners is that it provides one of the rare opportunities that we have of hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels).

    Pastoral Measure 1968
    Mr. Chapmanasked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, how many new churches have been opened and how many churches have been closed for worship since the Pastoral Measure 1968 came into operation.
    Sir William van Straubenzee: A total of 1,078 churches have been declared redundant, but I am glad to say that 335 churches have been opened.
    Mr. Chapman: Although those statistics may seem somewhat depressing on first reading, is it not a fact that the Church is responding to the shift in patterns of population and the increased mobility of its members? Is the construction of 335 churches over the past 15 years a sign of the significant and substantial contribution which the commissioners have helped to make towards the needs of the Church's members?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: I am glad to bring out the point that my answer had to be limited to 1969, which was the first year in which the commissioners had statutory powers to start to deal with many churches which had been redundant for many hundreds of years because of population movements. There is a senior diocesan who has often said that, in a mixed and large diocese, he has in his long episcopate opened far more churches than he has closed.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: To enable us to evaluate the many reasons for the closure of churches, would it be possible for the hon. Gentleman to arrange for the distribution of what seems to be a valuable document on the rural problems of the Church of England, which was published recently?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: I do not think that my help is necessary, as it is a published document. I shall investigate whether a copy can be placed in the Library. The right hon. Gentleman, who is used to weighing evidence, will want to remember that the document is based upon an examination of one rural diocese only. There are some who question how solid the inquiry really is.
    Mr. Cormack: Can my hon. Friend tell me in a letter, if not now, how many of the churches to which he has referred were in rural areas as distinct from urban areas? Will he and his fellow commissioners give some little thought to the fact that to employ a priest full-time, even an elderly priest, in a rural community is often a better way of serving that community than having team ministries and closing churches?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: I shall inquire whether I can properly give an answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question. Definition may be a problem, but I shall do my best. The second part of his question raises a matter that is not directly for the commissioners. However, I know that my hon. Friend, who follows these matters closely, will have observed that the Church itself has been undertaking a close inquiry. If he has not seen the report on how the system is working, I shall happily send him a copy.
    Mr. Frank Field: The Church moves quickly to close uneconomic churches. Why does it not put up the same resistance to closures as it did to the closure of uneconomic pits?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: That is because it is not directly concerned, for obvious reasons, with the law passed by the House on the coal mining industry.
    Mr. Greenway: Bearing in mind that there are now 10,000 clergy compared with 20,000 100 years ago, when the population was half what it is now, is it not clear that much more vigorous recruitment is needed of high-quality clergy if rural areas are to be served as well as urban areas?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: I make it clear that I am not answerable for the training of the clergy. I can only try to assist. I hope that I may make that distinction. The Church has always maintained a very high training standard and has refused to lower standards merely because it would be tempted to increase the numbers.
    Mr. Ryman: With respect to the supplementary question on uneconomic pits—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not certain that I should have allowed the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) to ask that question. I hope that it will not be asked again.
    Mr. Ryman: With respect, Mr. Speaker, it was a supplementary question to which the hon. Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) gave his usual evasive and platitudinous reply—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. To be fair, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) does not have responsibility for coal mining.

  THE ARTS

    Regional Arts Associations
    Mr. Tony Banksasked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts when the Minister for the Arts next expects to meet representatives from the regional arts association.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): My noble Friend met a number of directors of regional arts associations on 7 June.
    Mr. Banks: When the Minister for the Arts next meets the chairmen of the regional arts associations, will he discuss the Arts Council report of 29 May? That report clearly reveals that an extra £37 million is required from the Government to make good the loss in arts expenditure if the GLC and the metropolitan county councils are abolished. Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that the Arts Council has said that about 550 arts organisations are at risk? When the Arts Council responds, will the Government give a favourable and considered reply to this urgent case?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My noble Friend will certainly take account of these submissions in his consideration of the Arts Council's needs. We must be wary of scare stories. Last year there was a perfectly clear ploy by some of the authorities which will be abolished to increase expenditure. They tried to land the Government in some embarrassment. We have guaranteed that we shall fill the gap on the 1983–84 basis. We shall, of course, examine what else needs to be done. The boroughs in the new districts that will succeed the abolished authority areas must play their part.
    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and the Minister for the Arts next meet representatives of the regional associations, will they make it clear that many terminological inexactitudes from County Hall, such as that services in the arts will suffer when the GLC has been abolished, have been exposed for what they are—for example, the scare story by the GLC that concerts at Kenwood would cease?
    Mr. Waldegrave: A completely new organisation would be needed to counter the moving target of the stories put out by the GLC. My hon. Friend refers to one, but he could add many others to the list.
    Mr. Freud: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister for the Arts made a statement that, given good will and a positive spirit, the arts will be in no danger of diminishing in London? Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House about this positive spirit in the light of the possible £21 million decrease in arts funding?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The first and most positive response was the Government's quick move at the beginning of the abolition debate to put money on the table.
    Mr. Freud: How much?
    Mr. Waldegrave: A large sum—£16 million—for the arts. This was made on the basis of 1983–84 expenditure. My noble Friend has made it clear that he will consider whether additional expenditure is needed.
    Mr. Leigh: When my hon. Friend next meets representatives of the regional arts associations, will he note that, although funding for Lincolnshire and Humberside has risen to £618,000 this year from £523,000 last year—a welcome increase—and expenditure is 44p per head in that region compared with 24p per head in Greater London, those figures do not take adequate account of the grave problems faced in funding the arts in rural areas? It can take at least two hours to travel from north Humberside to south Lincolnshire. Some citizens of small Lincolnshire towns never see Arts Council activities. Will my hon. Friend try to continue his policy of transferring grants from the great cultural wen of London to rural areas?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I do not necessarily agree with the description of London given at the end of my hon. Friend's question. It is central to the Arts Council's strategy, which has my noble Friend's support, to give greater support to the regions and provinces.
    Mr. Buchan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this has been a quite disgraceful response? The figures have been worked out, not on the basis of extravagant local spending, as alleged by the Minister, who made certain accusations, but by the arts associations and the Arts Council. There is a shortfall not of £21 million but of £30 million, because £9 million has already had to be wiped off. The arts associations recognise that fact. That sum is equivalent to three times the amount given per year to all the regional arts associations in London. That is a horrendous figure.
    Secondly, instead of attacking the local authorities, will the Minister reiterate to the House the pledge given by his noble Friend the Minister for the Arts, who will be dealing with the matter today, that there will be full replacement of the money lost? The Minister's figure of £16 million is now £30 million. That is horrendous and cannot be replaced by Paul Getty. Will the Minister now give a pledge to this House, or ensure that his noble Friend will give a pledge this afternoon when the matter is debated in the other place?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is a little off-beam. The pledge was on the 1983–84 basis, and that has been met. My noble Friend will be considering what is needed in addition, if more is needed. I am by no means attacking local authorities. By saying that everything should be done by central Government, the hon. Gentleman is providing an excuse for those boroughs which do not want to undertake their responsibilities.

    Fund Allocations
    Mr. Meadowcroftasked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts what proportion of the budgets of Opera North, the English National Opera, and the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, are to be met from centrally allocated funds in 1985–86.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The percentages are: Opera North, 56·7, English National Opera, 54·5 and Royal Opera House, 49·0.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the Minister aware that the figures will not be regarded as satisfactory in the north? Does he realise that he expects far too high a proportion of the funds to come from private sources in the less affluent north, with the result that people in the north will have to accept lower standards of production? Is the Minister aware that Opera North's recent performance of "The Mastersingers" received favourable comment except for the production itself, which many commentators regarded as below par? It is entirely a matter of funding and the figures are unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the continuance of the company as a separate company. I note that the figures show that a lower proportion of funding is expected to come from private sources in the north than is the case in London. On the other hand, a very large increase—25·8 per cent., the largest of all—has been made in the funding of the Yorkshire arts in this year. That is helping many new bodies—for example, Phoenix Dance.
    Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that British opera, ballet, orchestral concerts and many other arts, have a high standard of excellence, attract huge numbers of foreign visitors to our shores, and generate employment not only in the arts but in hotels, catering and so on, out of all proportion to the funding with which they are provided? Is that sufficiently taken into account by the Government in assessing the degree of funding that would be beneficial?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right, and it is one of the considerations that my noble Friend takes into account.

    Business Sponsorship
    Mr. Proctorasked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts if he will list the most recent examples of major business sponsors of the arts under Her Majesty's Government's pound for pound scheme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Under the pound for pound scheme which started on 1 April, BSIS awards of £10,000 or more have been made in response to the following major new sponsorships: £25,000 to the London City Ballet, sponsored by Neste Oy,, Finland; £25,000 to the National Association of Youth Theatres, sponsored by Anchor Foods Ltd.; £14,500 to the Arundel Festival, jointly sponsored by Harlequin Holidays, Courpark Ltd. and Blake's Hotel; and £13,000 to the Lincoln Festival, sponsored by Marconi Electronic Devices Ltd.
    Mr. Proctor: In the light of those contributions, and in the light also of Mr. Paul Getty junior's contribution of £50 million to the arts, will my hon. Friend confirm that the state should not be seen as the only benefactor of the arts in Britain, or seen as the benefactor of last resort?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Business sponsorship demonstrates the importance of that element in plural funding.
    18
    I know that the House will want to pay tribute to Mr. Getty—a new Maecenas come among us—for his extraordinary generous gift. It shows that there are many sources in addition to those of the state. The Getty gift was made with modesty and humour, which I think the British people like when spectacular things are done. It was also done with considerable style, and I am sure that I speak for the whole of the House in welcoming it.
    Mr. Jim Callaghan: With regard to the very generous gift of £50 million by Paul Getty to the National Gallery, is it now the intention of the Government to match that gift pound for pound? If that is so, where is the money to be placed?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am afraid that Mr. Getty's gift is so great that it is not eligible under the business sponsorship incentive matching scheme.

    Attenborough Report
    Mr. Wigleyasked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts what steps the Minister for the Arts proposes taking to implement the recommendations within his responsibility of the Attenborough report on the arts and disabled people; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The recommendations were addressed to a wide range of bodies; but my right hon. and noble Friend will be giving careful consideration to those which touch on his responsibilities.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister pay attention to paragraph 4.17 of the report, which is one of his responsibilities, which recommends that funds should be made available so that arts venues are more accessible to disabled people? Will he consider the point made in the report that there might be an incentive scheme similar to the BSIS to make such funds available?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I shall draw the latter suggestion to my right hon. and noble Friend's attention. The previous point made by the hon. Gentleman has already been a matter for discussion with the arts funding bodies. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has reason to be proud of the high standard of that excellent report.
    Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising out of Question Time. There is a familiar phrase used in the House which has a bearing on what I shall ask. It relates to the organ grinder and the monkey. It is becoming extremely difficult for us, especially when figures are involved, when we receive a surrogate response. The difficulty is caused because the Minister for the Arts, not yet replaced by an American millionaire, is in another place. If, for example, the Minister for the Arts had been present in the House today he would have been forced to acknowledge his pledge of replacement for the funds and we could have questioned him on that point. Could the inconvenience that that causes on both sides of the House, and not least to Conservative Back Benchers, be made known through you, Mr. Speaker?
    Mr. Speaker: I have many responsibilities in this place, but the appointment of Ministers is not one of them.

British Leyland
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Tebbit): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the BL 1985 corporate plan. I am making available in the Library of the House and in the Vote Office a report by BL on its recent performance and details of the 1985 corporate plan.
The company submitted its corporate plan in December 1984, at the end of a year in which BL's recovery had been slowed by continuing over-capacity and highly competitive conditions in most of BL's markets. There has, however, been a significant improvement in performance in the first part of this year.
In March the company put to us outline proposals for further collaboration between Austin Rover and the Honda Motor Company, extending the successful collaboration on the Acclaim, Rover 200 series and the XX executive car project. The central element was a joint design and development programme on a further new car, embodying the best technology of both companies. It was also proposed that the Austin Rover group would manufacture in the United Kingdom the Honda version of the new vehicle and that Honda would manufacture in Japan for ARG. BL would also manufacture other Honda models for European sale.
Honda also said that it was considering setting up its own engine manufacturing plant in Swindon to supply engines for these Honda vehicles and the Rover 213, which currently uses an imported engine.
The Government welcomed these negotiations and have given their approval in principle to these proposals, which, now also agreed in principle between Honda and BL, provide for collaboration on the new model, the manufacture of certain other cars for Honda by BL and Honda's further consideration of the engine factory at Swindon.
The Government undertook with the company an examination of the basic corporate plan and possible variants. In the light of this the Government have given approval to the plan as amended by BL to incorporate the substance of the collaborative proposals.
As the House knows, one of the BL board's objectives is to return the business to the private sector as soon as practical. Further steps towards this objective are under consideration and I will keep the House informed of progress.
Mr. John Smith: Is the Secretary of State aware that I had hoped to come to the House today to welcome with relief the Government's support for the corporate plan, including an engine development? As the statement is full of ambiguity, perhaps the Secretary of State will give us some further information in reply to questions? Is there not some deliberate fudging of some crucial issues in the statement? First, is the Austin Rover group to develop its own new British designed and manufactured engine to replace the A series engine?
Secondly, in the proposed new jointly developed car, which I understand to be a smaller version than the XX, what is meant by
"embodying the best technology of both companies."?
Is the Austin Rover group, or Honda, to supply the engine?
20
Thirdly, in terms of the plan and the statement, can we be assured that Britain will maintain, through the Austin Rover group, its own major British-owned engine designing and manufacturing capability?
Fourthly, in his statement the Secretary of State referred to Honda supplying engines from Swindon for "these vehicles". Does he include in that phrase the new joint car as well as the Honda vehicles to be assembled by ARG, and the Rover 213?
Fifthly, with regard to the Honda cars to be assembled at Longbridge, is this a short-term project, which represents the desirable utilisation of underused facilities, or is it a long-term project, which may mean the Austin Rover group accepting a much diminished role in terms of future car production in this country? Will the Honda cars assembled at Longbridge be counted against the Japanese voluntary import restraint, as the Secretary of State assured us is to be the case with production at Nissan?
Sixthly, if BL has to finance future development from profits, the proceeds of privatisation and borrowing, what is the amount of the guarantee of borrowings agreed by the Government with BL, and why is it not spelt out in the statement for the information of all concerned? Why is there such coyness about the money?
Seventhly, the Secretary of State said that the Government had examined variants of the corporate plan. Was one of those variants the idea emanating from the Prime Minister's own policy unit, to buy engines from Honda? Why does she have such little faith in British technology?
Eighthly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in its report BL states that sales of buses have been badly affected by the decline in United Kingdom bus and coach purchases? It also refers to major uncertainties. As the major factor in that decline and uncertainty is the Government's transport policies, would it not make sense to abandon them and help Leyland Vehicles as well as millions of passengers?
Ninthly, why are the Government persisting in selling off the profitable subsidiary, Unipart, the financial success of which would strengthen the group if it were retained?
Finally, can the Secretary of State tell us specifically about Honda's plans at Swindon? Are they to be confined to engine production for Honda vehicles, or is there an intention to enter upon full-scale vehicle manufacture?
In answering those precise questions, will the Secretrary of State bear in mind that the Government's good intentions will turn on his avoidance of ambivalence and ambiguity?
Mr. Tebbit: It is characteristic of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that on 15 May he said that if the Government
"support the corporate plan and give BL the resources that all who work there believe that it deserves and which the Opposition certainly support, I shall be the first to congratulate the Government."—[Official Report, 15 May 1985; Vol. 79, c. 332.]
I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman may have missed the chance of congratulating the Government first. It would be typically ungenerous of him to do so.
There is no fudging of these issues. First, the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me whether BL is to develop an engine to replace the A series—that is the K engine. The answer is yes.
Mr. John Smith: No fudging.
Mr. Tebbit: My goodness, if I detailed every product that was to be produced, it would be a very long statement.
Secondly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked what it meant when I said that the new car would embody the best of both companies' technologies. It meant that the new car would embody the best of both companies' technologies. Surely that must be the best way to produce a successful motor car.
Mr. John Smith: Who is to supply the engine?
Mr. Tebbit: The engine will be supplied in accordance with the agreements that are reached, and I expect that the cars produced in Britain will have British-produced engines. The cars that are produced overseas will bave Honda-produced engines.
Fourthly—I think—the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether the engine plant at Swindon was projected for just the "other cars" or for the YY car as well. The answer is that the new car has not yet been defined and the engine plant at Swindon which is under consideration is to produce engines for the Honda-badged cars and the Rover 213.
Fifthly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether the Honda-badged cars produced in Britain would count against the industry-agreed informal quota of Japanese cars on the British market. The answer is no, because the aim is to achieve a level of British content that will qualify them as European cars to be sold in the European market. [Interruption.] It will be done as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker: Order. There are 10 questions to be answered, and if the Opposition Front Bench ask supplementary questions as we go along, we shall be here for a long time.
Mr. Tebbit: Sixthly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about changes in borrowings and guarantees. There have been no changes in those matters. Seventhly, he asked about variants of the plan and referred to the influence of No. 10. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not believe all that he reads in the papers. If he bases questions on speculative stories in the press, he must expect to be told firmly that he should do better homework and listen more carefully to the answers that he gets.
As for BL and buses, the concept of a bus manufacturing company should be that it produces buses to suit the needs of the consumer. The Transport Bill is aimed at putting consumers' needs first.
Mr. Simon Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that the town of Swindon will be grateful for the news that, as a result of his statement, there is to be a resurgence of engineering jobs to replace those that will almost certainly be lost in another industry in the town? The statement will, therefore, be warmly welcomed. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will not listen to the criticisms of the Opposition Front Bench in a way that might lead to a reduction in the number of new jobs created in Swindon?
Mr. Tebbit: I can undertake that I will always listen to criticisms, whether from the Opposition Front Bench or anywhere else, if they are sensible and well informed. That does not give me too much work to do when listening to the Opposition Front Bench. I share my hon. Friend's
22
pleasure at the fact that new jobs can be expected in Swindon if the new engine factory goes ahead there, as we all hope it will.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the approval of the corporate plan is very welcome and that the only hope for the future of BL as a volume producer in world markets is close collaboration with Honda? Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify one particularly ambiguous point in his statement? He said that Honda would give further consideration to the engine factory at Swindon. What does "further consideration" mean?
Mr. Tebbit: It means "further consideration". The company is considering the proposal to build an engine factory at Swindon. In my view, it is important to encourage the company to do that. It is difficult to see how the requisite levels of United Kingdom content could be reached in the Honda-badged motor cars if the engines were not built in the United Kingdom. It would perhaps be possible, but it would be difficult.
Sir Reginald Eyre: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the carping tone of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), he is to be congratulated on his statement, which will be warmly welcomed in the west midlands and will have a beneficial effect in raising morale in that area among all those engaged in the motor industry? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that British Leyland will retain control of all aspects of its technology, which is so important to its engineering future?
Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Both Honda and BL agree that although they will be involved in collaborative ventures they will retain their identities and technologies. That is particularly important in engine technology.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Is the Secretary of State aware that as it is nearly 10 years since the Secretary of State and his colleagues voted against the public saving of the old BL, my constituents and the hundreds of thousands of other people who depend upon the motor industry would be pleased if the Government were fully committed to BL's corporate plan? If the Secretary of State has good news and has succeeded within the Government in achieving acceptance of the corporate plan as presented, why can he not say so? Perhaps I have misunderstood the ambiguities in his original statement, which were not cleared up in his answers to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). Have the Government given BL the necessary financial guarantees for which it asked—without ambiguity? An answer to that would reassure several hundred thousand people in the west midlands.
Mr. Tebbit: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman took our minds back over the last 10 years, because 10 years ago another mistake was made at a time of near disaster in BL's affairs. That was why I and a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends voted against the ill-conceived measure introduced by the then Government. In the last 10 years the British motor industry has also suffered from a grave increased penetration of our domestic, market by imports. Between 1974 and 1979 those imports increased

23
by 28·4 percentage points. I am happy to say that between 1979 and 1984 the tide was stemmed and the increase was only 1·2 percentage points.
House will be aware that the Labour Government's record in this respect was disgraceful, whereas ours is a great improvement.—[Interruption.] That happens to be true, and the Opposition know it. The true stuff is the good stuff, and the good stuff is the true stuff—that is why the Opposition get it from me.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr(Mr. Rooker) asked about financial resources. The Government are not making financial resources available to BL. BL's requirements for capital will be satisfied from its internal generation of cash and from its borrowings. There are no changes in guarantees.
As in earlier years, there have been discussions about BL's borrowings and we reached agreement with BL on its likely future pattern. We also reached agreement on the treatment of receipts from privatisation. The Government will monitor carefully all aspects of BL's performance, including its financial performance and borrowings. If it becomes clear that BL has a need, or if it fears that it will deviate from the agreed pattern, the company will talk to the Government.
Mr. Steve Norris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I approve of the corporate plan, which was well worth waiting for? Will he comment on the proposals for the return to the private sector of Unipart, particularly since none are keener to see the project succeed than the people who work for that company?
Mr. Tebbit: Yes, Sir. The people working for Unipart are enthusiastic about a return to the private sector. I hope that that will be accomplished, market conditions permitting, during this year.
Mr. George Park: I am glad that the Government have approved the corporate plan, which will allow BL to develop the K series engine. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people throughout the country have waited anxiously for this decision because their livelihoods depend upon it? As people's futures are at stake, it is too serious a matter for the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else to try to score political points. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no point in his hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) clapping his hands at the thought of Honda bringing 500 jobs to Swindon if 500 other jobs are to be lost in the west midlands, because we shall be back to square one? Is he further aware—
Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.
Mr. Park: Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the work people and management, who have made enormous efforts to bring BL to this point, would have been ill served if the Government had done anything other than they have done today?
Mr. Tebbit: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is saying that he would like to congratulate the Government, but in an entirely non-partisan way.
Mr. Kenneth WarrenMay I say how pleased I am to hear of my right hon. Friend's approval of the corporate plan and the way in which it identifies the determination of BL to be as competitive as
24
the best of its competitors? Is he aware that Mr. Horrocks, chief executive of BL Cars, when asked by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry last year whether the company wanted any more money from the market or from the Government, replied that the company did not want one penny piece more? Will my right hon. Friend make it absolutely clear that the very substantial investment that will be required for the welcome improvements in the product range will be raised entirely from within the resources of BL?
Mr. Tebbit: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. As I think I explained earlier, the resources that BL will require are to be raised partly from internal generation of cash and partly from borrowings of a normal commercial nature. The Government will not be putting in any extra money by way of equity or the like.
I inadvertantly omitted to answer one of the points raised by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) about the extra jobs that might be created in Swindon in relation to jobs that might be lost elsewhere. I emphasise that the plant which we hope will be built in Swindon will supply engines for the Honda vehicles to be made by BL and for the Rover 213, which currently uses an imported engine, so they will all be new engines and, one hopes, new jobs.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. No fewer than 38 right hon. and hon. Members have already applied to take part in the next debate, so I appeal for brief questions, which, I hope, will lead to brief answers.
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I welcome in principle the approval of the BL corporate plan, particularly after such lengthy consideration. Will the Secretary of State estimate the effect on manpower employed by BL in general as a result of the variants in the corporate plan, especially as many of us were concerned that not every avenue had been explored previously? For instance, Charles Roe in Leeds is now back in production with sufficient orders to give continuing employment to 71 people. Secondly, to what extent will the manufacture of Honda engines in this country lead to a transfer of technology rather than merely using a British work force?
Mr. Tebbit: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman cannot bring himself to welcome the statement in practice as well as in principle. If the collaboration goes ahead successfully and the objectives of the corporate plan are fully met, the prospects for jobs will be brighter than they otherwise would have been, but it is not possible to enumerate the jobs concerned. On the second point, I cannot say that I believe that there will be a great deal of transfer of technology, because it is primarily the manufacture of engines that will be undertaken.
Sir William Clark: British Leyland's accumulated losses are more than £1·6 billion, will my right hon. Friend be more specific about the borrowing requirements as a result of the corporate plan? Will he have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because if the Government stand behind any BL borrowing and give a guarantee that will not affect the PSBR, whereas if this were a nationalised industry it would affect the PSBR? Is this not an anomaly that should be eradicated?
Mr. Tebbit: One can never cease to marvel at the definitions of the PSBR around the edges, but what my hon. Friend says will be of great interest and a matter of discussion for many years to come. I cannot add to what I said earlier about the pattern of BL's borrowings. We have agreed with BL the pattern for its future borrowings, and the company and ourselves will keep a careful eye on them. If BL wishes to make any changes in its planning, it will come back to us.
Mr. Robin Corbett: Will the Secretary of State make it clear that the Government are committed to the development of the K series engine by Austin Rover? Will he also make it clear that before there is any privatisation of BL, many of the thousands of millions of pounds invested by the taxpayer will return to the taxpayer rather than go into private pockets?
Mr. Tebbit: For the second or third time, I must say that the Government are committed to the corporate plan, which is committed to the developement of the K engine. Sadly, many thousands of millions of pounds which have been invested have simply been lost due to the very unwise way in which the previous Government supported the Ryder plan, and many millions have been lost over the years because of fruitless, stupid and anarchic industrial disputes in the company.
Mr. Roger King: Will my right hon. Friend accept the grateful thanks of my constituents at Longbridge for his continuing support of the BL corporate plan, which will lead to the production of additional new cars and engines at that plant? That is just as it should be in a factory which in terms of productivity is the most efficient in the world. Is this not a bad day for Opposition Members, who have decided that what concerns them most is who provides the toilet rolls?
Mr. Tebbit: I do not know about my hon. Friend's last point, but I am pleased that we have been able to continue our support of British Leyland, I hope that we shall be able to continue to do so in future. Productivity levels have greatly improved, but I am sorry that things were somewhat spoilt last year by some industrial disputes, and I very much hope that that will not recur this year. This is a bad day for the Opposition. They had hoped for bad news, but they have not received it.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Will not this plan primarily benefit the Japanese capitalists, and is it not further back door penetration of the British economy? Instead, should not the Government be encouraging public authorities, such as transport companies, area health authorities, British Telecom and the Post Office, to purchase BL products so that overcapacity is eliminated?
Mr. Tebbit: The answers to the hon. Gentleman's questions are no, no, no, and no respectively.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: As the first agreement with BL had a hole in it, in that Honda could have exported to Spain whereas British Leyland's market share was the EEC, defined by individual countries, will my right hon. Friend make sure that Spain does not become a back door entry into the EEC by Honda from Japan, thereby impairing the market that is supposed to belong to British Leyland in the EEC as a whole? What are the implications of my right hon. Friend's announcement for the British components industry?
Mr. Tebbit: The implications for the British components industry are favourable. Indeed, there will be greater opportunities for that industry, provided, as ever, that it is competitive on quality, price and delivery.
As to my hon. Friend's first point, the situation has now radically changed, as both Spain and Protugal will join the European Community on 1 January next year.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Did the Minister make any attempt to bring the new Honda development to development areas, which has been the policy of successive Governments? Secondly, with regard to the statement about the British content of Honda motors, has the Secretary of State had any discussions with the Common Market authorities on this matter?
Mr. Tebbit: On the second point, no. These matters are fairly well understood, not least because of the discussions that have taken place from time to time about the Nissan cars that will be produced in Britain. On the first point, the Honda Motor Company suggested that if it built an engine plant here it would do so at Swindon. It has purchased a suitable site, which also happens to be in a convenient place for the BL works at both Cowley and Longbridge. It would have been wrong for me to try to persuade the company to do something which it did not think was calculated to make the greatest possible success of the enterprise.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-DarkDoes my right hon. Friend agree that possibly the only disappointing thing today has been the rather churlish acceptance of this excellent news by the Opposition? Does he further accept that for the midlands motor industry the statement is one of genuine joy and satisfaction? As was said about the El Alamein battle in the second world war, if that was not the beginning of the end, it was the end of the beginning. This new acceptance by the Government of the BL corporate plan is the end of the beginning, and the future of the BL now lies with the management and the workers, and the people of the midlands. I have no doubt what their response will be. We shall win new markets, new cars and new jobs for the British nation. That is the important thing about today's announcement, and the midlands are grateful to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Tebbit: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. What is remarkable is not that the Government are once again approving a BL corporate plan but that the Honda Motor Company has taken the step of accepting that the quality levels of BL are now such that it feels safe and comfortable about BL producing Honda cars with a Honda badge, and for Honda to sell them. That is a great change from the unhappy situation five years ago.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Does my right hon. Friend accept that probably the only other group of people apart fom the Opposition who do not welcome the plan are some of Honda's motor manufacturing competitors? Can he reassure the House, as he did by innuendo earlier, that this in no way interrupts the Government's plans for the privatising parts of the motor industry?
Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I would never be a man to be found guilty of innuendo, so I make it plain that the approval today will advance the cause of privatisation.
Mr. Eric Forth: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the main influences on the

27
Government in making this forward-looking decision is the vast improvement in industrial relations and productivity at BL plants? Will he also confirm that the Government can reasonably look forward to a continuation of this process, which will lead to further security and growth in employment in the west midlands and elsewhere?
Mr. Tebbit: This is so, and had industrial relations and the productivity level not improved from the appalling state that we found five years ago, we could not have approved a plan of this kind. Nor would the Honda company have proposed such a collaboration in those circumstances. I agree that the future of the company is in the hands of the work force, and I wish it well.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is not the way that the right hon. Gentleman treats these matters of employment, which are of considerable significance to many of our constituents, typical of his offensive, sick and perverted personality?
Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman is basing his question on an entirely false hypothesis. He should understand that he is sick and disappointed at the good news.
Mr. John Mark Taylor: It is typical of the reaction of my constituents that they will be pleased with today's statement, as will many of us who wish to see the United Kingdom remain in volume car production and engine manufacturing development. My constituents' pleasure will not be qualified by the fact that they well remember what happened to the British motor cycle industry and do not want to repeat those mistakes.
Mr. Tebbit: I hope that we shall not repeat those mistakes, and I take great encouragement from the many improvements in BL. There is still a great deal to be done, and it is regrettable that last year there was a slipping back in industrial relations and productivity. Underlying trends are good, and I hope that the company will justify the Government's faith in it.
Mr. Alan Williams: In view of the answers that the Secretary of State has been able to give, does he feel that the Prime Minister and her policy unit did any service to British industry and to BL in particular by putting forward the proposition that BL should capitulate to the Japanese and buy Honda engines instead of developing its own? As to import substitution and the voluntary restraint on Japanese car imports, why is the right hon. Gentleman treating Honda-badged, United Kingdom-produced cars differently from the way in which he intends to treat Nissan-produced cars? What will be the percentage of British components, excluding manpower, at the start of the production of the Honda-badged cars in the United Kingdom, and as a long-term objective? In making this calculation, will the Honda engines produced at Swindon to go into the Honda cars produced at BL Longbridge count as a British component contribution?
Mr. Tebbit: The treatment of Honda cars made in Britain will be exactly the same as the treatment of Nissan cars made in Britain. I hope that there will be a rapid building up to a European content of at least 80 per cent., on the same definition as that used for Nissan. As for the engines, I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman would call an engine that is manufactured in a factory in Britain by British workers, if it is not British.
Mr. Williams: Japanese. We do not have restraint agreements with them.
Mr. Tebbit: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not take that view of British-designed products produced in overseas countries. I think that he would land us in a great deal of trouble if he did.
On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, the points from the No. 10 policy unit were, as always, helpful and probing questions and suggestions. There was never any suggestion of asking BL to capitulate. That is a figment of the right hon. Gentleman's imagination and that of the press.

Airports Policy
Mr. Speaker: We now move to the important debate on airports policy. I remind the House that 38 right hon. and hon. Members have already shown their wish to take part, so I intend to apply the 10-minute limit between 7 and 9 o'clock. I shall give some priority to those hon. Members who were not called during the questions on the statement made on 5 January, as I said I would. In drawing up my list of those hon. Members who may take part today I have taken into account those who spoke on 31 January, when we last debated this matter and, incidentally, how long they spoke for. If some hon. Members who spoke for 20 minutes on that occasion can cut that time down to 10 minutes on this occasion, that will be a happiness to many who failed to be called on that occasion.
I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
4.10 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport(Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move,
That this House approves the Government's White Paper on airports policy, Cmnd. 9542.
In proposing an airports policy to the House on 5 June, I had to try to reconcile two interests which conflict. The first is the need to provide the airport capacity that is likely to be needed in each region of the country. The second is the strong views of many thousands of people living near airports about whether further development should take place in their localities. These matters had to be decided. Perhaps the worst policy of all would have been to postpone decisions.
In their 1978 White Paper, the Labour Government foreswore forcing airlines and passengers to go where they did not want to go:
"The Government rejects the suggestion that the air transport industry should be subject to the damaging restrictions on its operations which could be the outcome of the forced diversion of traffic to regional airports."
I agree with that. But by virtue of our joint rejection of that course, there is no alternative to providing more capacity in south-east England.
However the Labour party may wriggle today, in a position of responsibility it would have had to accept the logic of providing capacity in the south-east for between 72 and 79 million passengers per annum by 1995, just as the inspector did. Economic growth, foreign earnings, and, most important, jobs in the aviation industry are at stake. So is the convenience of both business and holiday travellers.
On the other hand, the Government are acutely conscious of the inconvenience, noise, and development that airports bring to their neighbours. For these reasons we have not sought to provide any more capacity than is necessary, and to phase it so that it is provided only when it is necessary. I will discuss other aspects of environmental protection later in my speech.
I particularly understand and sympathise with the worries of people living near Stansted. They have fought long and hard against a busy airport there. My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) and many other hon. Friends have put their case with consistent force and skill. It is in recognition of this concern that we have restricted expansion at Stansted to the minimum necessary.
30
We have done our best to meet the concerns of those who really speak for Stansted. The development of the airport will be phased, with the first phase restricted to 7 million to 8 million PPA, an increment of only 5 million to 6 million on Stansted's current capacity. The growth of traffic will be gradual, the new terminal will open around 1990, but it is impossible to say when it will reach capacity. Gradual growth will make it easier for local authorities to plan supporting development which may be needed, such as housing and services, road improvements, and so on. It will help to guard against the strains imposed by rapid expansion on a relatively small community. Good and sympathetic design of the new terminal and associated developments will be very important, and I am sure that the British Airports Authority and the local planning authority, which will need to approve the detailed plans, will strive for it.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Can my right hon. Friend explain exactly how planning approvals will be given, in view of his statement that the expansion will be phased? Is he aware that many of my constituents would accept a phased terminal expansion—say to 4 million to 5 million PPA at the most, which is what is needed at Stansted according to the White Paper, and not between 7 million and 8 million? Is he aware, further, that the British Airports Authority made it clear to me when I visited its headquarters on Friday that it was bent on building a 15-million-PPA terminal. How will that be handled by my right hon. Friend?
Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend seeks an assurance, which I am happy to give him. The British Airports Authority can apply for a 7 million to 8 million PPA terminal—I think that it is 50,000 sq m in area. It is again controlled by the number of air traffic movements, to which we hope the House wll agree to restrict Stansted. If the authority makes detailed application—it has only outline planning permission at present—which is outside that restriction, I would expect the local planning authority to refuse it, and there is always the appeal mechanism if it does not. I assure my hon. Friend that the planning defences are there to make sure that the Government's phasing of this development is adhered to accurately.
Our proposal to impose a limit on air transport movements at the airport commensurate with the first phase of development will, I hope, provide further reassurance to my hon. Friends and to local residents about the rate of growth of traffic. The legislation, which I intend to introduce at the earliest opportunity, will provide that the limit can be raised only with the approval of Parliament, which will have to be satisfied that this is necessary to meet the demand. This mechanism will ensure direct control by Parliament over the use of the airport. We cannot now be sure of the amount of demand at any time in the future, how much can be accommodated at Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton, and, above all, how successful the regional airports will be, with the Government's help, in attracting traffic. Parliament will be able to judge all these factors.
Aircraft noise at Stansted is being significantly reduced by bans on the noisier aircraft types, and we shall seek further to reduce the impact at Stansted by improving on the current noise abatement measures, which include restrictions on night operations. There is a review of night sleep disturbance currently under way. Quiet take-off and

31
landing procedures and noise preferential routes will be required. They will be supplemented with new measures, including a noise insulation grants scheme for the Stansted area.
In the light of the decision on phasing the development of the airport, British Rail will be examining the case for a rail link to Stansted. The cheapest option would be a simple spur to the Liverpool Street-Cambridge line, costing perhaps £50 million. The options will be assessed on exactly the same terms as a rail link to Manchester airport. I understand that British Rail thinks that the Stansted study could be completed by the end of this year. The Manchester study could probably be completed sooner than that, I look forward to reading them both.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Secretary of State will be aware that some people in the Greater Manchester area are worried that British Rail may be loading the question of the Manchester airport link because of its reluctance to see people changing from train to plane to travel from Manchester to London. Will he make sure that the development of a rail link to Manchester airport is looked at in terms of its international impact rather than simply in terms of its competition with British Rail on journeys from Manchester to London?
Mr. Ridley: I shall seek to make sure of that. It is for British Rail to work out the figures and appraise the nature of the investment, but it is for me to approve it or otherwise. I shall make sure that this work is done properly. It will also be done in conjunction with Manchester city council and Manchester international airport so that they, too, can make sure that there is no suggestion—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not suspect that there is any such possibility—of the figures being wrongly put together.
I know there are many people in the Stansted area who oppose any more than a relatively small expansion. But there are also many who welcome the new jobs development will bring. Estimates of the number of jobs arising from expansion of the airport to a capacity of 15 million passengers per annum, both directly and indirectly, vary from 18,000 to 25,000. The inspector appeared to place more reliance on the lower figure; I have no better estimates as yet, but even on this basis it seems likely that development restricted initially to 7 million to 8 million passengers per annum would generate perhaps 10,000 jobs for the unemployed at Harlow, Braintree, Basildon, north-east London and even further afield—for instance, north-east Kent, which now enjoys good road access to the airport. Many people presently commuting to London from the area may obtain airport-related jobs. The more people from neighbouring areas take jobs there, the less will be the pressure for more housing to be provided.
My hon. Friends representing constituencies near Stansted are also concerned that low charges at Stansted might draw traffic away from the regions. This is also a fear shared by hon. Members from the north of England. For this to happen would be contrary to one of our main objectives, which is to encourage the growth of traffic at the regional airports. I assure the House that we will take the necessary steps to ensure that Stansted does not have an unfair advantage.
32
First, under the legislation I shall be introducing, the structure of the BAA, with seven separate companies under one holding company, will require separate accounts for each subsidiary and full financial transparency; this will inhibit cross-subsidisation. Secondly, the role of the Civil Aviation Authority, in regulating the general level of airport charges, will prevent any predatory price cutting at Stansted. Thirdly, if individal airport companies borrow from within the group or outside it, they will have to pay full commercial rates of interest. The expansion of Stansted will have to be a commercial investment. It follows that charges at the airport will need to rise steeply to meet the costs of expansion. The BAA board, since the decision on 5 June to approve the development of Stansted, has said that it will be consulting its airline customers on the increased charges required to meet the costs of providing the new capacity. The Government are determined to ensure that traffic is not attracted away from the regions by unfair competition.
Mr. Cecil Franks: My right hon. Friend said that the structure of the British Airports Authority and the seven subsidiary companies would inhibit subsidy. Many Conservative Members would like the word "prohibit" to be substituted for the word "inhibit", for many people are very sceptical about the good faith of the British Airports Authority.
Mr. Ridley: With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks), I said that to set up seven separate companies will require separate accounts for each subsidiary and full financial transparency, but that is only part of what I said. I went on to say that we should insist—most probably through the articles of association—upon a commercial rate of interest being charged upon inter-company loans. Furthermore, the Civil Aviation Authority will supervise all charges to ensure that none of them is predatory. That is perhaps the most important measure. Any one of them, taken alone, is not adequate but, taken together, I believe that they will prove to be adequate for the purpose.
Mr. Alfred Morris: The Secretary of State is referring to the future. Is he aware that what is happening now is a scandal? Last year, Stansted lost £3·88 million, an average subsidy of £8 per passenger. Its landing charges are one quarter of the landing charges in Manchester. Is the Secretary of State unable to take some action immediately to end that scandal?
Mr. Ridley: If the right hon. Gentleman will support the Bill which is to be placed before the House not only by his vote but by curtailing his speech, the sooner shall we have the power to do what he seeks, but in advance of that legislation I have no such power.
Mr. Robert C. Brown: The Secretary of State has said that he does not wish Stansted to draw traffic away from the regional airports. Will he give a categorical assurance that there will be no hidden subsidies or cross-subsidisation for Stansted?
Mr. Ridley: I have already said this at length twice, so the hon. Gentleman already has my assurance. Our policy is the reverse of Stansted being in a position to attract traffic away from the regions. Its purpose is to help to meet the growth of unavoidable demand in the southeast, not to divert traffic which would otherwise have used the regional airports.

33
Finally, on Stansted, we have made it clear that no second runway should be built there. I am requiring the British Airports Authority to sell all surplus land that would be needed for a second runway. Its external financing limit will be set on the basis of receiving the proceeds of sale of this land.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend say how many international airports operate in the 1980s with one runway?
Mr. Ridley: Without notice I am unable to give to my hon. Friend the answer that he seeks, but perhaps he would answer this question: how would our airports policy fare if I were to propose second runways at the three London airports which have only one runway at present?
Mr. Tony Favell(Stockport): Will my right hon. Friend confirm, first, that the intention of the British Airports Authority is that Stansted should primarily be a charter flight airport? Secondly, how does he intend that the CAA should supervise the charging policy at Stansted? Thirdly, is there anything to prevent Stansted from making losses and also is there anything to ensure that it declares dividends to the holding companies?
Mr. Ridley: I do not confirm that the intention is that Stansted should be a charter airport. The White Paper has asked the CAA to consult all the airlines to establish what would be the right traffic distribution policy. I very much hope that the growth of scheduled services as well as charter flights will take place at Stansted. Secondly, with the information provided by separate company accounting, the CAA will undoubtedly have the power to supervise charges, both to prevent the exploitation of monopoly and to prevent predatory pricing. That is, there will be a limit both at the top and at the bottom. We shall ensure during the passage of the legislation that the powers to be made available are adequate. Thirdly, it is probable that Stansted will make losses in the early years as it develops. It is making losses already. Whether it is a separate company or whether it is part of the BAA, there still has to be the ability for it to make losses. Prestwick is also making losses. We cannot prevent a company from making losses, but we can roll up those losses in the balance sheet of the company so that it has to pay interest on them and finally redeem them when it enters a profitable period.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if besides privatising it we changed the management structure of the British Airports Authority we might find that no losses would be made? Will he consider changing the management of the BAA as well as privatising it?
Mr. Ridley: I have complete confidence in the management of the BAA, and it is not part of my plans to do as my hon. Friend suggests. We shall have enough on our plate with this legislation.
Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ridley: I must make a little more progress.
Mr. Carter-Jones: Perhaps the Secretary of State would give way just on this point.
Mr. Ridley: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), but after that I shall have to restrict interventions to those who have a constituency interest, otherwise I shall never finish my speech.
Mr. Carter-Jones: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State. I served, as did the Secretary of State, on the Standing Committee on the Civil Aviation Bill, which fell apart and disappeared. He mentioned that there is to be legislation. A White Paper has been published and eventually legislation will be introduced. Will he say in what way that legislation will differ from the Bill that we considered earlier this year?
Mr. Ridley: The contents of the legislation are to be found in the last chapter of the White Paper, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has studied. The Bill will contain the proposals that were included in the Civil Aviation Bill which the Government abandoned. It will be a wider Bill than the Civil Aviation Bill, but it will include many of the same powers.
On the subject of Heathrow, I must make it clear that we have not simply postponed or fudged the building of terminal 5. I have not ruled out the possibility for all time, but I am not convinced on present forecasts that it is necessary at all. Terminal 4, which is due to open early next year, will handle some 8 million PPA. Thereafter, the major constraint at Heathrow will be runway, not terminal capacity. When the runways reach saturation in the rush hours, growth in passenger throughput at the airport can come only from spreading the traffic to off-peak periods, which is unattractive to both airlines and passengers, or from an increase in the average number of passengers carried on each flight.
During the 1970s, particularly the first half, there were substantial increases in average passenger loads per aircraft at Heathrow, resulting from the introduction of larger aircraft. That growth has slowed down in recent years. Some have suggested that rapid growth in the average number of passengers per aircraft will be resumed, once runway capacity is reached. But many of the signs point in the opposite direction.
First, it is our policy to increase competition between airlines on domestic routes and to continue pressing for more liberalisation in European markets. Secondly, commuter routes are growing in importance, with a preference for frequent services and smaller aircraft. Thirdly, we are determined to maintain access to Heathrow for services from regional airports. Fourthly, aircraft manufacturers' order books suggest that there is now less interest in bigger "stretched" aircraft for long-haul services and, indeed, more airlines are considering operating twin-engined jets across the Atlantic.
The conclusion that I draw is that growth in passengers per flight at Heathrow is likely to be relatively slow, and that it is the runways which will be the constraint. Even if I am wrong, it will be a long time before extra capacity is needed. I ask the House to support the Government's decision to abandon the 275,000 air traffic movement limit, and to allow us to go back on our undertaking. The Government tried to implement this commitment in the Civil Aviation Bill, but the House did not entirely support us.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I appreciate the impossible problem that my right hon. Friend had with that Bill, from the Labour and Liberal parties and from the

35
SDP, as well as from one or two of my hon. Friends. However, any decision to abandon the 275,000 flight limit will be viewed extremely seriously in west London. Will my right hon. Friend go instead for an increased number of passengers on each flight and stick as near as humanly possible to the 275,000 limit? Will he give an undertaking not to increase the number of passenger flights using Northolt?
Mr. Ridley: The market will determine the size of aircraft and the number of passengers carried. On our forecasts, it is unlikely that the number of passengers per aircraft will increase or that there will be a very great increase in the number of flights, as Heathrow is already fairly close to capacity. It would be better to let Heathrow determine how best to use its capacity to the full.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: Should not my right hon. Friend turn his attention to another factor—the type of flying that is likely to become more popular as we move into the 1990s? Do not many in the aviation industry predict a far greater use of scheduled rather than charter flights? If Stansted were developed primarily as a charter airport, might not any future decision about expansion come down quite easily in favour of terminal 5?
Mr. Ridley: I have already said what the Government think about terminal 5. With an ever more competitive and free airline industry, which extends into Europe, the difference between scheduled and charter flights will probably become less and less clear. I do not want to bind any given airport or airline to a particular policy. After all, the operators know best what they want to do and where they want to go. I believe it wise to run traffic distribution policy with the lightest rein possible.
On the subject of the ATM limit, I do not quite understand the point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). On 5 June, she criticised me for abandoning the limit, yet on every occasion her troops voted against a Bill that would have imposed it. I should make it clear that we shall continue with the policy of restricting night flights at Heathrow. Indeed, the studies that I referred to earlier could well alleviate night disturbance there. Quieter aircraft are already beginning to alleviate the nuisance at night, as well as during the day.
Dr. Alan Glyn: My right hon. Friend has given the impression today that terminal 5 will not be constructed at Heathrow in the foreseeable future. That is in direct conflict with what the White Paper says on page 59. Furthermore, there is a widespread belief that the removal of the sludge works must be a first step towards constructing terminal 5. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that terminal 5 will not be constructed in the foreseeable future?
Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend has anticipated my comments. If the House will allow me, I shall proceed, as interventions take up too much time.
We attach the utmost importance to airline competition and liberalisation. It has already yielded substantial benefits for the passenger. It is the most effective stimulus of all for extra regional traffic. If the choice is between more passengers using Heathrow and more competition,
36
there is no doubt that the passengers have more to gain from competition. That explains why we may not need terminal 5.
In addition, the development of Luton and Stansted will bring more runway capacity into effective use in the London airport system. It may be possible, as a result, to improve the utilisation of the existing terminals at Heathrow to cater for up to 42 million PPA, thus again reducing the need for a fifth terminal. But I accept that there are uncertainties about the mix of aircraft and the pattern of demand in the longer term, and that a fifth terminal might—I emphasise "might"—one day be needed, although possibly of lower capacity than 15 million PPA. That would not be a realistic option if the Perry Oaks site continues to be occupied by a sludge disposal facility.
The Perry Oaks works were there before the airport began to develop. They are an incongruous neighbour for the airport and I do not doubt that they would be better moved. The land they occupy would in any event provide valuable relief for the cramped Heathrow site. We have therefore asked the BAA and the Thames water authority to study the possibility of moving them, the costs, the alternative sites and methods of disposal, and the time that it would take. When those questions are answered, and we have a clearer view of how traffic will develop, we shall be in a position to assess whether there is a need for more terminal capacity.
On the question of road and rail links to Heathrow, we undertook in the White Paper to examine urgently what could be done to reduce congestion and to improve passenger access to the airport. I intend to appoint consultants to look at options for investment in the corridor between London and Heathrow. The study will cover road access by public and private transport, the Underground, and rail services. The large number of options to be considered inevitably means that this study will take some time. I am also establishing a working group, with the local authorities concerned, to look at options for traffic management in the vicinity of Heathrow.
As I said, all forecasts suggest that we need to provide capacity in the south-east for 72 million to 79 million PPA by 1995. Capacity will run short in the early 1990s. Even if we could provide a fifth terminal at Heathrow after the Perry Oaks sludge works have been moved, that would not solve the problem because it is primarily one of runway capacity. Further provision is needed at airports with spare runway capacity, which means Luton and Stansted.
Looking further ahead, south-east traffic can grow only by use of the five runways we have: two at Heathrow and one each at Gatwick, Luton and Stansted. Our policy is to make the best use of those resources. We have provided for 1995 and allowed room for expansion. We need not commit ourselves before we have to, but equally it would be senseless not to retain the capability to meet the growth in demand, if it happens. I believe that our decisions will provide the scope that our civil aviation industry needs to expand and prosper.
Our decisions have been widely welcomed by the industry, especially the independent airlines operating from regional airports. The airlines know that more capacity is needed at the London airports to provide for the growth of air traffic and the jobs that go with it. Nothing would stifle competition and damage the interests of the travelling public more than a shortage of capacity. That is why they have welcomed the Government's decisions.
Mr. Allan Roberts rose—
Mr. Ridley: I shall not give way because I must make progress. I am about to talk about the regions, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait to see whether I cover his point.
Our assumptions for the capacity needed in the southeast include an appreciation of how much traffic can be attracted away from the south-east to regional and Scottish airports. It is a prime aim of our policy to seek to get more traffic to go there, for three reasons. First, it will encourage development and activity in those parts of the country. Secondly, it will serve the interests of passengers there better to fly from local airports. Thirdly, it will relieve the pressure on the south-east. That is why we will look for every possible way of encouraging more flights to regional airports. Our record, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) said on 5 June, bears witness to our determination. In the last six years we have authorised £200 million of capital investment at regional airports, compared with only £14 million in the last five years of the Labour Government. International scheduled services from Manchester now total 33—of which 14 are new this year. The figures for Birmingham are 15, of which four are new this year.
What regional airports need is more concrete flights, not more concrete. We cannot force airlines to provide unprofitable services, but we can help by pressing for more liberalisation in Europe and by promoting regional airports when we negotiate air service agreements with other countries. No one can gainsay what we have already achieved. We have indeed done far more for regional airports than the Labour Government who preceded us, and who published a White Paper with dismissive comments about
"Limited scope for diverting passengers from the London airports to those in other regions."
Imagine, therefore, the brazen nature of the Labour party's amendment today, which states:
"totally fail to foster a modern strategy for the regional airports".
Since we are the first Government to do that very thing, the hon. Lady's amendment can be described only as breathtaking.
Mr. Allan Roberts: The Minister has not dealt with the point that I wished to make—and nor has the White Paper. Nowhere is Liverpool airport mentioned—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may groan, but it is important to the people of Merseyside. There is great anxiety on Merseyside that the proposals in the White Paper, coupled with the Bill to abolish the Merseyside county council, will cause Liverpool airport to close. Will the Minister give an undertaking that he will protect Merseyside from that eventuality?
Mr. Ridley: Liverpool airport will belong to the joint board that will be set up after abolition. However, if the districts can agree, it could belong to them in proportion to their shareholding after abolition. The decision of what to do with Liverpool airport will rest entirely with the districts and/or the joint board. I cannot give an assurance that it will or will not close; the decision is theirs, nor mine.
Mr. Churchill: May I, as a Manchester Member, say how much I appreciate the fact that since we last debated this matter in February, due to my right hon. Friend's liberalisation policy there has been a 75 per cent.
38
increase in the number of scheduled destinations to which one can fly from Manchester? It is important to my constituents and to the north-west as a whole, and we thank him for it. We further appreciate his undertaking that landing fees at Stansted will cease to be predatory. How soon is that likely to happen?
Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I said earlier, the BAA board has already decided to start consultations with airlines about the increase in charges at Stansted that will be necessary. I imagine that those will come in within the reasonably near future.
The Government are committed to the development of Manchester as the major hub gateway international airport for the north of England. British Airways has begun services to New York this summer and will be adding Dubai, Bangkok and Hong Kong from November. But we have also encouraged foreign carriers to operate long-haul services from the airport—Qantas to Australia, E1 Al to Israel, and Singapore Airlines to the far east. We are also ready to negotiate with the United States Government the basis on which their airlines may operate direct scheduled services to Manchester, and an early date had already been fixed for these negotiations.
American Airlines wishes to begin a Chicago-Manchester service next summer. I hope that the negotiations with the United States Government, which could pave the way for other United States airline services, can be speedily and satisfactorily concluded. Manchester International Airport is being fully consulted about these negotiations. We have established a good working relationship with MIA and are discussing with its management a five-year plan for increasing the range of international services. We have already asked for work to be put in hand to assess the viability of a joint rail link to Manchester airport.
I think that that meets 95 per cent. of the demands of the North of England Regional Consortium—a limited development at Stansted, fair competition on airport charges, and positive policies for developing traffic to and from regional airports. But it has also asked for free access to regional airports for foreign carriers. That particular suggestion is not in its best interests. There are indeed advantages in services by foreign airlines, but a reasonable price must be paid by foreign Governments in return in the form of new rights for United Kingdom airlines or a more liberal agreement between us.
Even the United States, with its liberal policies and competitive aviation industry, insists on a satisfactory quid pro quo for its airlines, and so will we. To give up in advance any advantage we can obtain in negotiations for British aviation interests would be the worst possible deal, particularly for the regions.
The reason for that is simple. More jobs at any airport derive from the services flown by United Kingdom airlines than by foreign-based airlines which centre their operations overseas. The key to the development of regional airports is a strong network of services by British Airlines and the creation of local hubs, locally-based airline support services and local employment. We must strengthen their position, not damage their commercial prospects. The role of foreign airlines is important, but complementary.
These proposals have been welcomed by regional airports. Manchester airport welcomed our White Paper. The chief executive described it on television as:

39
"Good news for Manchester and good news for job prospects in the North West".
Even the northern consortium, formed by northern local authorities, stated that the White Paper:
"may form the basis for the kind of development of regional airports which we would have liked to have seen after the 1978 White Paper".
It called for an assurance that the Government and their successors would honour the White Paper's commitments. As long as this Government and this party are in office, it has that assurance.
So why did the hon. Lady call the White Paper a
"slap in the face for regional airports"?—[Official Report, 5 June 1985; Vol. 80, c. 312.]
Why did the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) describe it as a "kick in the teeth"? Why did the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) describe it as a "hammer blow" to the regions, or the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish say that most people in Greater Manchester would be "disgusted"? The same day, the Manchester Evening News carried the banner headline, "Boosts for Ringway". Evidently Opposition Members are not even in touch with opinion in the North.
Just as we seek to encourage more direct services from Manchester to meet the demand in its catchment area, so we seek more direct services from the Scottish airports to meet Scottish demand. We will encourage new long-haul transatlantic services to Scotland, and more direct services to European destinations from Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen. Glasgow and Edinburgh have done very well in attracting new services; Glasgow now has scheduled services to 10 international destinations, three of them new this year, while Edinburgh serves six European destinations, two of them new this year.
I have recently confirmed the present traffic distribution policy. We now look to the BAA to develop Prestwick as Scotland's gateway international airport for long-haul services, by exploiting Scotland's undoubted attractions for tourism and by providing services to assist its important new businesses. Prestwick, as a separate airport company, will probably operate at a loss initially, but I hope that it can be brought into profit very shortly. Our proposals give Prestwick a new opportunity to thrive.
These are our measures aimed at providing additional capacity in the south-east and encouraging more flights from regional and Scottish airports. Time allows me to deal only briefly with our proposals to privatise BAA and convert the major local authority airports into companies. We will have opportunities enough to discuss these proposals during the passage of the legislation.
These policies are complementary to our general aviation policy of encouraging airline competition, leading to an efficient industry providing a cheap and attractive service to consumers. We need to provide the country with an efficient and enterprising airports system responsive to the needs of airlines and their customers. Selling the BAA and imposing company disciplines on local authority airports will, I believe, meet this objective.
It is interesting that, apart from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, no hon. Member on 5 June questioned the decisions to privatise the BAA and to make the local authority airports into public limited companies. There are arguments we can have about whether the BAA should be privatised in one or two or seven airports. But they will arise in debating the legislation, as I said, and
40
I believe that we have the right answer. I also assure the Liberal party that there will be adequate proposals for regulating these airports and their changes as described in the White Paper, and I say that in view of the amendment which stands in the names of Liberal and SDP Members.
I believe that the policy described in the White Paper will provide the right framework for the expansion of our civil aviation industry, that it will allow enough, but not excessive, airport capacity to be built, and that it will cause the least possible disturbance to those who are adversely affected by airport development. I commend it to the House.
4.52 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"declines to approve a White Paper which encourages a form of further airport development in the south east of England which will disadvantage many of the local communities, inflict damage on the local environment, deny necessary public investment to other parts of the country, increase the gross economic imbalance between the north and south of the United Kingdom and totally fail to foster a modern strategy for regional airports."
We have an opportunity with the new Civil Aviation Bill to set the airports pattern for the 1990s, which is a matter of enormous importance to the nation, not just because of the trade implications, but because of the social and environmental questions which we must address. It is essential that in doing our sums we are told clearly why it is necessary to develop airports in various parts of the country.
Just prior to December, the Secretary of State introduced a Civil Aviation Bill. It was concerned with only two aspects of airports development. First, it asked those in the area around Heathrow to accept that the right hon. Gentleman intended to break a solemn undertaking that he had given them to protect their environment. Secondly, the measure dealt in an extremely superficial way with the problems of the possible development of Stansted airport.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Why, if Labour Members were so keen to impose a 275,000 ATM limit, did the hon. Lady request members of the Standing Committee considering the Civil Aviation Bill to vote against the sittings motion, because if that had been approved the 275,000 limit would have been introduced? Labour Members and the Liberal Member of that Committee agreed to her request.
Mrs. Dunwoody: It was an appallingly bad Bill in every other respect—[Interruption.] Unlike Conservative Members, I am happy to abandon bad legislation. I repeat that the Secretary of State gave a solemn undertaking to keep air transport movements controlled at Heathrow. The latest plans seek to abandon that commitment.
The Secretary of State is suffering from a credibility problem. He says in the White Paper on the one hand that he intends to abandon the undertaking given to those living near Heathrow, while on the other he tells those living near Stansted that they have his solemn undertaking to use air transport movements to protect them in the future. That is extraordinary.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Is the hon. Lady aware that if the Labour party seeks to impose an

41
arbitrary air transport movement limit of 275,000 a year at Heathrow—and we are already at that point—that will do away with jobs in the area?
Mrs. Dunwoody: In the south-east of England we are facing difficulties at Heathrow and Gatwick in that both are already close to their maximum usage. Air transport movements will not of themselves determine the way in which airports are usefully used in future.
We should be considering the infrastructure at Heathrow and the full implications of any suggestion to build terminal 5. The Government should make it clear that they have no intention of studying road and rail links without announcing what can be done to make life more tolerable for those living in the vicinity of airports.
The Secretary of State says that it is his intention that the Perry Oaks works at Heathrow should be moved and that there should be a survey as soon as possible—[Interruption.] By implication, he has made it clear that the extra land around Heathrow is needed. While he has said that he does not intend to build terminal 5, he believes that the crowded situation there makes it essential that any extra land should be rapidly developed. That is a clear indication that even if terminal 5 is not built the extra land that will be released by the moving of the Perry Oaks works will be used for airport development. That would put still further pressure on the area, when it is already suffering considerably from aircraft movements.
The Secretary of State tells us that because aeroplanes are becoming smaller there will in the future be less noise. If that is his view, why has he rejected the inspector's recommendation that further noise restrictions should be introduced by 1 January 1986? The right hon. Gentleman claims that that would be an expensive and unnecessary restriction on airlines. How can we take him seriously? If he genuinely believes what he says, he could take steps quickly to improve conditions for those living in the vicinity of Heathrow.
When the studies have been completed, particularly if it is suggested that British Rail should carry out developments affecting Heathrow and Manchester, will the right hon. Gentleman offer the BR board additional money to finance those considerable developments? If he intends, after surveys have been carried out, that BR should find the cash for those developments from within its own resources, there will be automatic cuts elsewhere in the country in BR services. The right hon. Gentleman should make the position clear about that.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Before the hon. Lady leaves the subject of Heathrow, will she confirm, as she told the House clearly on 13 December 1984, that the Labour party does not welcome the idea that there should be a fifth terminal at Heathrow?
Mrs. Dunwoody: I had not left the subject of Heathrow, and I was about to address myself precisely to the issue which the hon. Gentleman has raised. I believe that there is no room for a fifth terminal at Heathrow. If one were introduced, I do not believe that it would improve the airport's facilities. Heathrow's capacity, in common with that of Gatwick and other south-east airports, must be considered carefully. I, note that STOLport is dismissed in the White Paper in one paragraph. There is little indication of the effect that its development would have on the number of passengers coming into the south-east.
Mr. Steen: I know that the hon. Lady is a regular user of Heathrow, because I met her over the weekend in one of the Heathrow terminals.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Only briefly.
Mr. Steen: It seems that the hon. Lady is working herself up to a frenzy unnecessarily. She has based her argument on a false premise, and she has developed her argument to a point at which she has become extremely excited. However, she will find when she reads her remarks that she is agreeing with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. She would do well to read the White Paper carefully. She is supporting my right hon. Friend in nearly everything that she is saying, and making a terrible mistake.
Mrs. Dunwoody: One should never give way to the intervention-happy hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), who knows as much about airports as he does about buses in his constituency.
The Secretary of State is proposing to remove the ceilings on air traffic movements as one means of containing movements at Heathrow, and he has other proposals. It is important to realise that the White Paper suggests that there should be some control over airline slots. Is it seriously suggested that in future major airlines will be able to barter their slots one with another and sell their positions in the timetable? If so, the Secretary of State must know that many of his remarks about the expansion of domestic flights into Heathrow are so much nonsense. We want to see some understanding of the fact that a very small development of Stansted would enable the south-east more than to contain the growth that is envisaged either in the inspector's figures or elsewhere.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Dunwoody: The Opposition would have been prepared to accept up to 5 million PPA at Stansted. That would have created an airport which would not have been larger than regional airports, which would not have caused unnecessary difficulty and which would not have required massive public investment, which is a matter which concerns us, as such expenditure will have a direct influence on the amount of public expenditure that is available in the regions. However, the Secretary of State says, in effect, "I know that we have had our problems, but in future you may trust us. It is our intention to allow only a small development at Stansted." But he talks about 7 million and 8 million PPA which are far larger numbers than those handled at an average regional airport. He adds that it will be his intention that any development should be phased. If right hon. and hon. Members and their constituents imagine that any development at Stansted will remain at the figures quoted in the White Paper, they are more naive than I can possibly believe. If there is phased development to enable Stansted to handle 15 million PPA, I can assure the House that the airport's capacity will rapidly drift upwards to 25 million PPA. That will mean that Stansted will have all the developments of another major airport in the south-east, with all that that implies for the rest of the country.
Mr. Matthew Parris: How is it possible to argue both that demand for airports in the south-east is quite modest and can easily be satisfied with

43
modest expansion, and that as soon as facilities are in place at south-eastern airports demand for them will expand, and expand to the consternation of all local residents?
Mrs. Dunwoody: The Opposition have never said that air traffic movement demand is modest. We have said that there is a conscious way in which Governments direct traffic. Governments offer incentives. For example, they provide money. In their negotiating procedures they offer ways in which independent international airlines can obtain benefits. However, we are told by the Government that we are to take on trust the word of a Minister who gave solemn undertakings to those in the Heathrow area and who now intends to break them without so much as a by-your-leave.
The White Paper does not address itself seriously to the implications of the STOLport development. How is it that the Secretary of State can say that he expects STOLport to expand only to the extent of being able to deal with 1 million PPA when it is likely that if STOLport is to be viable it will have to handle 4 million PPA? If that happens, there will be a large extension of the traffic with the European airlines and we shall then find ourselves, possibly in a very short period, with excess airport capacity in the south-east. That should greatly concern the Secretary of State.
We are told that Manchester should be delighted with what it finds in the White Paper because it offers the airport many opportunities. Let us consider what is intended for it. Manchester has always been regarded as an international gateway airport, and that is the way in which it should develop. The Secretary of State has taken credit for the number of extra lines that are now flying into Manchester. At the beginning of the year, when there were considerable difficulties for Singapore Airlines, there was little evidence that he intended to do what he could to develop the activities of Manchester airport. There was far more evidence that it was his intention to try to restrict international development in the north-west.
Mr. Ridley: The Singapore Government first applied for the route to Manchester on 20 March. We could not respond to any suggestion from Singapore until an official suggestion was made. When that suggestion was made, it was dealt with in six weeks, which is about the quickest settlement of an international arrangement that has ever been made, especially one involving Manchester.
Mr. Peter Snape: That is misleading, and the Secretary of State knows it.
Mrs. Dunwoody: As I understand it, Singapore Airlines had been turned down twice, and the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the application was made later in the year seems rather spurious. It was made clear to Singapore Airlines that it would not be allowed to go into Manchester. It was only after a considerable campaign in the House and elsewhere that the Secretary of State felt that he had to give way. It was clear that that was his attitude from the beginning.
In the White Paper, the Government pose a far more serious threat to the regions. Paragraph 6.28 makes it clear, by implication, that the Government see Manchester as a major international regional airport. The Secretary of State did not use that phrase today, but a similar one
44
appears in the White Paper. There are two key phrases elsewhere that must be taken into account when we are considering the Government's intentions. The Government state that they wish
"to encourage the liberalisation of air services wherever foreign competition is fair and British interests are not prejudiced."
That appears in paragraph 6.6.
The White Paper states:
"increased access by foreign airlines to UK airports should be balanced by parallel improvements in access, of equivalent value, for UK airlines to that country."
On the face of it, that seems to be a perfectly reasonable statement, until one realises that it could be used by the Government to restrict international flights into regional airports.
What will happen when, or if, British Airways becomes a private company? There seems to be some doubt about this privatisation, if one believes the reports in the Sunday newspapers about how the Secretary of State is "not amused" when his colleagues treat his efforts in the same way as he treats state assets and try to get their fingers on any available profits. If BA is privatised, it will become one of the private airlines and, presumably, will not be given precedence over other airlines in the name of the national interest. If that is so, it is a total negation of everything that the Secretary of State has preached to the House since taking office.
If Manchester airport is offered expansion to accept flights by European airlines and is told that there will be restrictions on other developments in the south-east, we shall be able to note how genuine are the undertakings given in the White Paper to regional airports. If the Government really wished to give positive support, there would not, for example, be an implied threat that if Prestwick does not become viable by 1989 it will be closed. The White Paper glibly talks about the fact that many people would like to fly into Glasgow and Edinburgh, but it also says that Prestwick will be retained, provided that it becomes viable by 1989. If that is the Government's intention, they should spell it out in considerable detail. They should not leave the Scots to find out that the Government intend not to protect Prestwick as a gateway international airport, but to leave it to sink or swim as a result of the interim arrangements.
One of the most extraordinary parts of the White Paper is the section devoted to privatisation. We are told that the British Airports Authority will be sold off as a single entity and made into a limited company which will be able to expand into non-airport activities. We are told also that one reason for the change is the fact that the company will be able to attract senior management with a much higher level of expertise.
The Secretary of State has rejected all those arguments in relation to the National Bus Company which he is now putting forward in relation to BAA. If the right hon. Gentleman genuinely believes that it is necessary to bring in extra finance, why does he not allow BAA to remain within the public sector and to seek finance elsewhere? There has never been any shortage of financiers anxious to put money into viable units. What is the magic which says that, somehow, we must sell off the British Airports Authority as one unit? The Government say, "Of course, we shall insist that it is broken down into seven individual companies and insist on the transparency of their accounts, but, nevertheless, we must keep them all together."

45
Has the Secretary of State never heard of creative accounting? Has he of all people never heard of accountants who manage to move money from one company to another?
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Dunwoody: The Secretary of State has given his colleagues a clear understanding that when BAA is privatised there will be no difficulty with transfer charging or cross-subsidisation. He has said that when all the clear sets of accounts are available it will not be possible to subsidise landing fees at Stansted. I say to all of you on the opposite side of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that you are well aware that anyone who is naive enough to believe that accountants are not capable of cooking the books has no place in this House. Stansted will receive exactly the degree of cross-subsidisation that is necessary to make it viable for the first five years of its life.
Mr. Soames: The hon. Lady is always fascinating. Will she lift the veil a little more? To what does she really object in relation to the privatisation of the British Airports Authority?
Mrs. Dunwoody: I would not want to take up too much time. I believe that privatisation is unnecessary and will lead to gross incompetence. It is an extraordinary decision in view of the fact that BAA is doing a very good job. Privatisation is a clumsy mechanism. The White Paper says that the sale of BAA will provide a means of controlling the various flights. Why is it necessary, on the one hand, to sell off the BAA and, on the other, to ask for legislation to perform the duties that are easily performed at present by the combination of the Civil Aviation Authority and BAA with the Secretary of State? The reason is the prejudice of the Secretary of State against any efficient state organisation. The right hon. Gentleman gives no evidence for believing that BAA is not doing a good job. He simply says that privatisation must take place.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mrs. Dunwoody: I must continue.
Will the Secretary of State give some evidence that local authority airports are not doing an efficient job? He acknowledges that they are doing an efficient job by saying that they are major businesses, some of which have a turnover of more than £1 million. However, he simply says, "The reason why I do not wish to retain local authority airports is that they should not be run with a committee. He gives no evidence to show that the passengers, the airlines or aircraft users in general are dissatisfied with the present position. Indeed, he would have great difficulty in trying to obtain that evidence, because local authority airports have developed efficiently and have provided high-quality facilities. Every year that passes shows that they not only are welcome to the passengers but are responding to the great needs in their areas. If an organisation is efficient, well run and has elected representatives involved in it, that is a sufficient reason for the Secretary of State to insist on selling it off.
The Secretary of State says that he does not intend asking for powers to force local authorities to sell their involvement in the airports. He says that he intends merely to create companies which are at one remove from the
46
local authorities and to ask them to invite private enterprise in the form of concessionaires or shareholders. The White Paper suggests that any finance required in the future must come from sources other than the state. Taking that factor into account, and the fact that the local authorities will be rate capped, one realises what the Secretary of State is talking about when he says that he intends encouraging local authorities to divest themselves of these involvements. His idea of encouragement is pistol-whipping in another form.
The White Paper shows clearly that the Government are not prepared to be honest with the House of Commons. They have not only asked for more development at Stansted than they need, but they have made it clear that, by favouring massive changes at Heathrow, there will be further development there. They have not given any indication that they will stick to their undertakings on terminal 5. It is their intention to force major changes on the British Airports Authority, without any justification whatever. It is their intention to change the pattern of local authority development in Britain. Above all, yet again it is their intention to put more and more money into the south-east.
I wonder whether the Secretary of State yet understands how deeply the rest of the country resents his policies.
Mr. David Sumberg: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Dunwoody: I wonder whether the Secretary of State understands that to come here and talk about the creation of 10,000 extra jobs in the Stansted area, the building of 17,000 houses, or the investment of £1,400 million, proves to the rest of the country that his true interest is not in a properly balanced transport policy, and least of all is it in any properly balanced financial development for any area outside the south-east.
Mr. Sumberg rose—
Mrs. Dunwoody: We know that the Secretary of State has in mind what he has always had in mind from the moment that he took office—to create a transport system which is not integrated, in which any private enterprise organisation which can get any benefit from state assets will be positively encouraged and where the passenger will be the very last person that can concern him.
It is a messy White Paper. It breaks the Secretary of State's undertakings. It asks for faith, which he will not find forthcoming from a House of Commons which has been disappointed more than once. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the electorate will take a very clear view of the way in which he has conned them.
5.21 pm
Sir Humphrey Atkins (Spelthome): Predictably, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) spent a good part of her speech in attacking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. We knew that she would do that. Unfortunately, almost all of her attack went astray because she based it on inaccuracies. She attributed words to my right hon. Friend that he did not use, she misread what was in the White Paper, and she gave the impression of not having mastered her subject very well. I know that she will forgive me if I say that her attack lacked the force that it might otherwise have had.

47
I had hoped during the hon. Lady's speech to hear what is the Labour party's policy on airports. I think I understood it. It is that it would do nothing to develop Heathrow, either by having more flights or another terminal; that it would restrict development at Stansted to 5 million passengers; and that it would therefore encourage the growth of air traffic elsewhere. However, the hon. Lady asserted that air traffic will not increase much over the next 10 or 20 years. If she really believes that, I counsel her to read Mr. Graham Eyre's report. She would get much benefit from reading it, because both Mr. Eyre and the White Paper disagree with her assertion.
If, on the other hand, the hon. Lady thinks that air traffic will increase, there is only one way in which people can be made to go to Manchester and other airports, and that is by direction. The hon. Lady used the word. I should like her to tell the House whether there has been—
Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Humphrey Atkins: No.
Will the hon. Lady be good enough to confirm that the Labour party's policy on airports is the same now as it was in 1978? In 1978 the Labour Government's White Paper rejected
"the suggestion that the air transport industry should be subject to the damaging restrictions on its operations which would be the outcome of the forced diversion of traffic to regional airports".
Is that what the Labour party believes? If not, the hon. Lady is talking nonsense, is she not? [Interruption.] Perhaps we shall hear at the end of the debate.
Mrs. Dunwoody: The Secretary of State is fond of quoting from a constructive document that was prepared by the previous Labour Government. What is clear is that there was felt to be no requirement for or possibility of a new airport, and the decision to abandon Maplin was reaffirmed. In addition, there was no intention to go beyond 4 million passengers or four terminals. That was clear and I have confirmed it today.
We do not want five terminals at Heathrow, nor do we believe that there should be any breaking of the undertaking given to the House of Commons.
Sir Humphrey Atkins: The hon. Lady's whole case seems to be based on her belief that air passenger traffic will not grow. If it grows, and passengers want to be able to use terminals in the south-east—
Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Humphrey Atkins: No, I am dealing with the hon. Lady—either passengers must be allowed to do so or they must be forced to go somewhere else. We shall no doubt hear the point developed further in speeches from the Opposition Benches, and I shall be interested to hear them.
Mr. Allan Roberts rose—
Sir Humphrey Atkins: I think that the hon. Gentleman is likely to be called. No doubt he will make a powerful speech, to which we shall all listen with great interest. I hope to be fairly short to enable him to do that.
I express my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction for having refused
48
the application by the Uttlesford district council to develop terminal 5 at Heathrow. Obviously, the Secretary of State had an impossible job to do. He had to seek to reconcile the interests of the airlines, of the airport operators, of the passengers, and of those who live in the immediate vicinity of airports. As everyone knows, those interests are very different from each other. Clearly, my right hon. Friend has not wholly pleased everybody—indeed, I do not believe that anybody could do that—but I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his decision. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on listening to the people who know what they are talking about. Obviously, he listened to the airlines and to the other organisations involved, but he also listened to the representatives of people.
I was astonished—as, I am sure, were some of my hon. Friends—to be told by British Airways that it had conducted a survey which showed that the residents of areas immediately round Heathrow backed terminal 5; in fact, it produced a newspaper saying "Residents back fifth terminal". British Airways sent me-and probably some of my hon. Friends—a breakdown of what it had discovered. I was most interested to learn that it had consulted 26 of my constituents. Dr. Gallup's polls are well known, but I think that he made a major error on this occasion.
I represent over 70,000 people and have sought to make it my business to find out what they think. I can tell my right hon. Friend and the House that the enormous amount of correspondence that I have received from individuals—plus the representations of over a dozen voluntary organisations, between them representing thousands of people, and of every elected member of the borough council and the county council, Conservative and Labour—expressed the same view, which was the direct opposite of what British Airways said, basing its assumption on having talked to 26 people whom I represent.
I counsel British Airways—for whom I have much respect; it runs a very good airline—to stick to the business it knows and to leave the business of finding out what people think to Members of Parliament and others who know how to do it.
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken on board the fact that the problem at Heathrow is more of runway capacity than of terminal capacity. Indeed, the White Paper says that. The capacity of the runways is not completely clear, but it depends obviously on the spread of aircraft, and to some extent on their size. I understand that the larger aircraft must be further apart because of the turbulence that they produce in the air behind them.
There is an interesting table in section 4 of the White Paper showing that Heathrow's maximum capacity is currently about 300,000 passenger air transport movements a year decreasing, in about 15 years' time, to about the present level. Therefore, as my right hon. Friend has clearly demonstrated, the need for extra terminal capacity depends entirely on the loading of the aircraft. My right hon. Friend gave a figure of 112 per aircraft at the moment. If the limit in, say, 10 years is to be, as the White Paper says, 280,000 movements then to require the ability to move 53 million passengers, which is what terminal 5 would provide, would need a loading of 192 in each aircraft. I do not believe that that will happen because

49
—my right hon. Friend mentioned this as well—over recent years the increase in movement of aeroplanes at Heathrow has been in the smaller ones.
That development has come with the shuttle services to Glasgow, Edinburgh and Belfast. It is clear that the traveller to any of those cities wants to be able to say, "I should like to get into a 'plane at 9, 10, 11 or 12 o'clock, whichever I choose", rather than to be told by the airline operator, "There is a jumbo jet at 9 o'clock and 4 o'clock and you must go in one of those." The airlines must provide what the passengers want, and, therefore, if the passengers want the frequency of service that they appear to have demanded over the past few years, the numbers per aeroplane will not rise that high. That is why I believe my right hon. Friend is correct to be cautious about the need for further development after about 1995. The White Paper says—I think everyone will agree with this—that forecasting is notoriously difficult. The forecasts contained in the 1978 White Paper mentioned by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich about the number of passengers in 1984 proved to be wrong. I do not blame her for that. Forecasts tend to be wrong and therefore my right hon. Friend is correct to go ahead only with what seems to be needed now and not to try to look into the year 2000 or beyond, because such forecasting is so speculative as to become unreal.
I am pleased that a study is being undertaken of the access to Heathrow by road and rail. I do not need to tell hon. Members about the difficulties of going to and from Heathrow by road at the busiest times of the day. The Cromwell road, the flyovers, the M4 and the approach tunnel become completely blocked at various times of the day. The journey can be and frequently is a misery. In Mr. Graham Eyre's report there was a clear indication that it would be difficult to improve that access. I am sure that it could be done, but it will turn out to be difficult and expensive.
The Underground is undoubtedly of enormous benefit to Heathrow, but in the long term there must be improvements especially if there are to be more passengers. The journey takes longer than that to Gatwick. Another difficulty is that it is not easy for people with luggage. The accommodation for people with luggage is not good in the trains or on the platforms. People travelling to Heathrow with luggage find greater difficulty than, for example, on the Victoria to Gatwick service. The rail service to Heathrow would need to be an overground service run by British Rail. That would be enormously expensive. However, my right hon. Friend will study those matters, and I hope that the House will be made aware of the outcome of the studies, because I should like to see it.
The general level of noise and the level of noise at night worry anyone who lives near an airport. The number of aeroplanes and their age affect the amount of noise. Those whom I represent wonder why the Secretary of State is prepared to announce now that he will limit the number of aeroplanes allowed to use Stansted whilst removing the limit on the number of planes allowed to use Heathrow. I notice two things, however. My right hon. Friend has no legal power to control that at present, but will seek it. I should like an assurance from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary when he replies that when the Bill is introduced it will be so drawn that my right hon. Friend will have the power to impose a limit at Heathrow and other airports if he so wishes. Such a power would of course be subject to discussion in the House.
50
I should like to suggest—
Mr. Snape: How does the right hon. Gentleman equate that power of veto by the Secretary of State with the Secretary of State's avowed desire to flog all our profitable airports to the British Airports Authority in its privatised form?
Sir Humphrey Atkins: It is possible to have the power to regulate the number of movements at an airport even if one does not own it, as the legislation will make clear.
I should like to make a suggestion to my right hon. Friend about noise. I understand that he proposes not to seek to enforce the 275,000 voluntary limit which is in force at Heathrow. I should like—I am sure everyone would think this reasonable—any increase in the limit to be tied to the decrease in the noise of the aeroplane. We are all aware that the Trident is to go at the end of this year, and that foreign non-noise certificated aeroplanes will be allowed to continue until 1988. We should urge my right hon. Friend not to respond to any propositions made to him to extend the date for the non-noise certificated foreign aeroplanes, and, secondly, only to increase the number of aircraft movements as those aeroplanes are phased out and further improvements in noise are made. He owes that to the people who live around Heathrow and other airports. I should like my hon. Friend to tell us when he replies that my right hon. Friend will seek to marry those two steps.
Mr. Wilkinson rose—
Sir Humphrey Atkins: My hon. Friend wishes to intervene but I have not finished the point that I was making. On the subject of night noise, I am pleased to see that a study of the type of noise that wakes people—that is not the phrase used, but that is what the study is about—is now being conducted by civil servants. That is encouraging.
I suggest that when that study is complete the movement of aircraft at night should be regulated under the new legislation. Furthermore, under that legislation penalties for breaches of the legislation should be substantially more severe than they are at the moment. For an airline breaking the minimum noise route agreements or making more noise than it should and not following take-off procedures properly, the penalties are small. The penalty should be severe for any airline that breaks the noise arrangements and disturbs those people who live around airports.
Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his courtesy. I am interrupting only because I believe that his well-argued speech contained one deficiency. Does he agree that over the past 10 years there has been a marked reduction in the amount of noise disturbance around Heathrow? That is a measurably demonstrable fact, and is due to the high bypass ratio of the turbo-fans coming into service. The trend will continue, and with the introduction in 1986 and 1988 of the new noise regulations to which he has referred the question of noise will become less important. Will he therefore recognise that fact by not seeking to impose an arbitrary ban on aircraft movements into Heathrow, because the reduction in noise has taken place while the movements into Heathrow have grown?
Sir Humphrey Atkins: I shall not do that for a good reason, as my hon. Friend will understand. On page 39 of the White Paper is a table showing the area affected by various levels of noise. If he reads the table he will find

51
that noise in the areas most affected—that is at the higher level of the noise and number index—has been reduced much less than anywhere else. Many of the people affected are those whom I represent, so I shall not agree with my hon. Friend.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the right hon. Gentleman address himself to page 40 of the White Paper, which makes it clear that the inspector recommended noise limits and that noise monitoring procedures should be reviewed, to introduce lower limits on 1 January 1986? The next paragraph makes it clear that the Government have refused to do that.
Sir Humphrey Atkins: I am arguing specifically about the amount of noise suffered by those living near airports. If aeroplanes make less noise, it does not matter so much if there are more of them. To be fair to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, he introduced legislation into the House to give him the power to impose a limit of 275,000 ATM. He did not get that through the House, partly because of the activities of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich.
Mr. Hanley: And the Liberals.
Sir Humphrey Atkins: Indeed—and some of my hon. Friends.
As my right hon. Friend has given up trying to impose that limit because he does not think that he will get it through, I am suggesting that any increase should be tied to the introduction of quieter aeroplanes. I think that that is a reasonable proposition.
Most of what I have said has related to Heathrow, but I believe that many of the points that I have made affect other parts of the country, most notably Stansted, which have, or will have, similar problems to those endured by my constituents over many years. I shall not attempt to argue their case—they will do that much better than me—but, given the satisfactory answers to the questions that I have posed to my right hon. Friend, I am glad to support the White Paper.
5.43 pm
Mr. Stephen Ross: I should like to call attention to the amendment on the Order Paper in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
I agree with the point made by the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) about public transport access to Heathrow. It is a serious matter, and I hope to deal with it later.
I should like to start by putting on record the decisions taken by the Government in the White Paper that we welcome. The STOLport decision was taken before the White Paper was published, but it appears in it. That is an imaginative proposal. I welcome the fact that the way is now clear for the development to proceed, and I wish it every success. Despite the noise of helicopters, it is also important to find a permanent site for a heliport in the City.
I also welcome the abandonment of the 275,000 air transport movements limit, with which the right hon. Member for Spelthorne does not agree. The Secretary of State should express his gratitude to the Standing Committee for getting him off that hook. The right hon. Member for Spelthorne referred to the fact that some of us had not studied Mr. Graham Eyre's report. Mr. Eyre made
52
it clear that he thought that the 275,000 limit was absolute nonsense. We did not see how we could pass opposing legislation when that report was before us. Therefore, I believe that the right decision has now been taken and that the House, for once, helped bring that about.
The most important aspect of the decision to abandon the 275,000 limit is that it should continue to ensure access to Heathrow for the smaller independent British airlines, which badly need to link up with the international routes if they are to survive and prosper. I still regret the fact that the Secretary of State did not implement the Civil Aviation Authority recommendations in full last autumn, which would have obliged British Airways to surrender more of its routes and given the independents a greater opportunity to expand. However, I suspect that the promise of rolling down to Rio with Lord King proved too great a temptation.
I also welcome the decision on the Perry Oaks sewage works. Whatever the future needs of Heathrow, it makes sense to get rid of those sewage works. Therefore, I commend the proposals in paragraph 5.15 to set the wheels in motion. It enables us to keep our options open on the future expansion of our principal airport.
I now come to the points of disagreement with the policy document. It is, of course, a typical political compromise. How one can claim that one intends to restrict Stansted to 8 million PPA when at the same time one gives outline planning consent for 15 million is beyond my comprehension. I am a chartered surveyor, and I have had to deal with people who have had outline planning consent, then failed to obtain detailed consent and found themselves in difficulty. They usually received substantial compensation if they found that they were being deliberately blocked by a local authority, and more likely consent would be given. A privatised British Airports Authority will exploit its assets to the maximum, so to suggest that 8 million would be the limit of expansion is rather dishonest.
I recall the Secretary of State's comments when his decisions were leaked to the press some three weeks before the publication of the White Paper. They do not do him much credit, as he said that the people of Stansted were being alarmed unnecessarily, if I remember his words correctly, although I am quoting them from memory.
By his action, the Secretary of State has made the task of the regional airports to expand that much more difficult. The rail link to Manchester should be a firm commitment now. It should not just be up to British Rail to survey it and come up with a report in about six months, although I am glad to hear that it is likely to come before Christmas. If we could have a firm commitment that the rail link will be built, that would give the airport a tremendous boost and perhaps encourage one of our independents to establish its main base at Manchester, for that is what I believe Manchester desperately needs. Manchester would then join Gatwick and Birmingham, and they would be the only three major airports that I know of with truly integrated transport systems providing through-routes to many parts of the country.
Mr. McCrindle: I return to the view of the Liberal party on Stansted. I am not sure whether I entirely follow the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He spoke disparagingly about the attempt to impose a limit of 8 million PPA, but does that mean that he would prefer a limit of 15 million for the expansion of Stansted, or would he prefer 25

53
million? Alternatively, is he telling us that the Liberals would entertain no expansion at all? It was not clear from his remarks.
Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should read my speech of 30 January, when I made it clear that we are in favour of the expansion of Stansted to 5 million. We believe that the rest of the expansion should be taken up by the regional airports. We look upon Stansted as a form of regional airport, not as a third London airport. There should be a 5 million limit. I hope that that is clear.
Mr. McCrindle: If 8 million is unrealistic and the hon. Gentleman is criticising the Government for attempting to restrain expansion to that level, why is 5 million more realistic?
Mr. Ross: Because the Government have given outline planning consent for 15 million. The British Airports Authority, being privatised, will make full use of that planning consent. It would be mad if it did not. Stansted will go to 15 million, because the consent has already been given.
Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman has just thought of that.
Mr. Ross: I said it earlier in my speech. I shall see the hon. Gentleman outside afterwards.
The Piccadilly line into Heathrow leaves a great deal to be desired. As the right hon. Member for Spelthorne said, it is slow, uncomfortable and inadequate. Instead of inviting British Rail to consider various propositions, the Secretary of State should instruct BR to produce a firm scheme and provide the necessary finance for a direct rail link into Heathrow.
I was pleased to see Prestwick mentioned in the White Paper. It might have a future if it had a rail link.
Schiphol already has one rail link, and by June 1986 it will be able to offer rail connections throughout the Netherlands and even further afield. We live in an overcrowded island which cries out for good public transport. Why have we been so slow off the mark? Heathrow should have been connected to the British Rail network years ago. However, there are still no firm plans for that.
My party and I also disagree with the proposed privatisation of the British Airports Authority. I went with the Select Committee on Transport to Japan and the United States last year, and I believe that we published a worthwhile report. We recommended the type of structure which the Secretary of State has approved, though we felt that the Scottish airports could probably manage their own affairs.
Nevertheless, I accept that there are strong arguments for keeping the seven airports together, not least the promotional aspects, and in providing a career structure and retaining the expertise of the people running large airports. Therefore, I do not object to that decision, but privatising the lot is dangerous and unnecessary. The fact that the Secretary of State concedes that tougher regulations will he necessary surely means that even he appreciates the dangers.
With 80 per cent. of all our air passenger traffic, BAA represents a huge monopoly, now public, but soon to be private. Sell 49 per cent., perhaps; raise bonds, as they do in Japan and the United States; but do not sell overall control. I do not know of any large commercial airfield in
54
the Western world that is not in some form of public ownership—whether owned by the Government, a municipality, or, as in New York, a port authority.
I give the Secretary of State credit for leaving our municipally-owned airports alone and allowing them to make their own decisions about their future ownership. No one who gave evidence to the Select Committee had anything but praise for the local authority-owned airports.
Those who desperately want Britain to succeed accept that our airports and airlines need every encouragement. On the whole, they are a success story, and we do not have too many such stories these days. However, I still believe that we have given too much to one dominant airline and are about to concede too much to one airport authority and to one area of the country—the the south-east. A much more determined effort to build up two or three of our regional airports, of which Manchester is the prime example, could have been made. That will now become more difficult, which is why my hon. Friends and I will vote against the policy document.
5.53 pm
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: This is undoubtedly a clever package. It is likely to secure the approval of the House and it blurs many of the issues sufficiently so that the Government keep all their options open; it is indeed a skilful exercise.
However, this is also a disturbing package. I recall that on 30 January, 70 of my right hon. and hon. Friends voted against the principle of massive expansion at Stansted and that nearly 100 of my right hon. and hon. Friends declared in an early-day motion that they did not particularly relish that prospect. I have greatly appreciated their support in the pressures that have undoubtedly helped to achieve a better result than might otherwise have been obtained.
Yet, we seem to be getting what we did not want. The decision on the planning application is a fait accompli. Many might think that north-west Essex was an overwhelmingly inappropriate place for London's third airport, but the decision has been confirmed and the environmental arguments have been swept aside with no more than a few ritualistic sentences.
I cannot help being disturbed—I may not be alone in this complaint—by the fact that two previous inquiries that considered the matter in depth have been set aside. That is a poor reflection on the procedures that we adopt in this country.
The House might also understand my grieving for the memory of my predecessors at Saffron Walden, Lord Butler, and Sir Peter Kirk, who fought strenuously on this issue. I do not want to be too disagreeable, but I had to give notice to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) that I would refer to something that he said on the television programme "Panorama" and virtually repeated in the House recently. He said that when the question of Stansted was taken to Cabinet,
"Rab Butler was a bit unhappy about it because he thought it would interfere with his shoot … he had a good shoot near Stansted and he thought it would upset the pheasants and their shooting possibility but he was a big man and he waived that objection aside."
That remark has been taken extremely badly by the Butler family and by the people living in Saffron Walden. First, it is factually inaccurate to say that there is a pheasant shoot near Stansted. There might have been a

55
shoot near Stanstead hall, the residence of Lord Butler, but that is 30 miles from the airport. We shall not be able to prove until 1992 exactly what Lord Butler said in Cabinet, but it is unfortunate that my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion made that remark. It would have been better left unsaid.
I have been told that I must be realistic about the issue. I hope that I have always been realistic. I have never taken the narrow view. I have always tried to understand the Government's difficulties and to recognise the interests of our civil air transport industry. I believed that there was a better way of meeting the national interest and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will acknowledge that I went well beyond any constituency brief in the views that I put to the Government when seeking a reasonable accommondation.
It may be said that I helped to secure a retreat from the prospect of a 50 million passenger airport at Stansted, but my constituents and I still face the prospect of an airport with 15 million passenger capacity, which many of us believe to be excessive.
What is the constituency brief that I should hold? I am thought of as being anti-Stansted. The sub-titles of the "Panorama" programme referred to me as the leader of the anti-Stansted group. That is an example of the shorthand way in which the issue has been considered over the years and that approach has not helped to ensure rational discussion.
It is not a question of being for or anti-Stansted. My Conservative association in Saffron Walden has favoured limited development to 4 million or 5 million passengers a year. The North-West Essex and East Hertfordshire Preservation Association, a well-established local body, favours expansion to 4 million passengers. The argument has been about how much expansion would be appropriate. The Gallup poll found a majority of 68 per cent. for limited development, and the concept of limited development is one for which I have always stood.
However, if it is possible to get a consensus on the meaning of limited development, which is difficult enough, it is an enormous problem to get any limit to stick. How can one guarantee a stopping point between zero and 25 million passengers per annum, which is the capacity of a single runway? That difficulty fuels the fears about any package that the Government ask us to accept. So what is wrong with the Government's clever package? First, the environmental threat remains. I am not sure that the planners will be able to preserve the area in the way that the Government urge them to do. Will the planners get firm backing from the Government for their decision?
Secondly, I believe that the capacity is being provided in the wrong place. The arguments set out for London area capacity in paragraph 4.9 of the White Paper would be all very well if one read "Heathrow" for "London". That is what interlining is all about. Passengers will not be persuaded away from Schiphol and Frankfurt if they have to be bussed round the M25 from one London airport to another. That is why the industry will press for terminal 5.
Thirdly, do the Government sincerely want to help the regions? There has been a plethora of new routes, but they can be taken away. History shows that that can happen.
56
Much is said in the White Paper about the needs of the regions, but will they be bankable assurances in two or three years' time?
The Government promise extra support for Manchester, for example, in the bilateral negotiations. The White Paper refers to increased emphasis on the attractions of Manchester. I wonder how far that will carry weight in the hard political discussions between Governments about permanent routes for Manchester and other regional airports. Certainly, Birmingham international airport is sceptical about what is to be done.
When I talk to British Rail I worry because of its concern about how it will serve its customers who come from the midlands or the north to Stansted and not merely from Stansted to London. If British Rail is thinking in such terms, the Government should accept that many others still believe that Stansted airport will siphon business from the regions.
I criticise, but what would I do? I believe that the development of Stansted would have been better on the north-west side of the runway, where there are existing facilities. It would be possible to concede a generous part of the application site area to ensure that the site is large enough. When I attempted to put that view, I encountered all sorts of legal obscurantism and a new attachment to the public inquiry system. If the Government had held that same attachment during the previous inquiries they would not be in this difficulty. We are now told that the public inquiry system is the best of systems and that we must do nothing to traduce it.
When I suggested that it would be possible for the planning application to be turned down and for the Government to introduce a special development order in the House outlining their exact policy, I was told that that was impossible for legal reasons. The legal reasons were never given.
I put a case to the Government—that of Essex county council v. the Minister of Housing and Local Government 1967. That seemed to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the best legal minds that I could contact, that the Government in their policy decisions were completely uninhibited and that they would not have been at risk of being taken to the High Court. I cannot understand their fear of the High Court. The Secretary of State has certainly been no stranger to it in his tenure of office. An extraordinary degree of obfuscation has been applied to something on which the House could have been allowed to take a decision. Instead, today we are discussing a White Paper about a planning application and a decision. By developing the west side of the runway at Stansted there would be more environmental protection and a physical limitation on the expansion beyond a certain level.
Terminal 5 will have to go ahead. That will upset some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, although perhaps not their constituents. I quarrel with my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) who complained about the basis upon which opinion polls are taken. Samples might be small but they have been taken in my constituency, too. I am surprised that my right hon. and hon. Friends who guard the Heathrow interest are entirely happy with the package. The air transport movement limit has gone—rightly. The door is still open to a fifth terminal. The site at Perry Oaks is not being considered for use as a dance hall—we can be sure of that. In view of the promises made by previous Governments about

57
Stansted, which seem to have disappeared, I would not be too confident about what might happen if I were in their shoes.
The Secretary of State's figleaf is runway capacity. It is difficult to forecast the future and the Secretary of State this afternoon generously recognised the uncertainty. However, between the two or three assorted paragraphs in the White Paper and the closely argued details in chapters 5 and 7 of the Eyre report, I have no doubt which I prefer. Mr. Eyre's detailed arguments have not been set aside. He had the benefit of all the inputs in determining whether terminal capacity or runway capacity was the restraining factor. He decided that terminal capacity was the restraining factor. Nothing in the White Paper disproves that.
The White Paper contains a contradiction. On the one hand, paragraph 5.10 says that
"as the proportion of larger aircraft using the airport increases".
On the other hand, it is said that because of the likelihood of more domestic operators wanting runway slots, the rate of growth in the average number of passengers per aircraft is likely to be reduced. The uncertainty is demonstrated in two sentences in the same paragraph of the White Paper. The more careful, factual analysis was done by Mr. Eyre who has the benefit of the CAA to advise him.
Apart from that, I ask the House whether it sounds right to swing from the view expressed by the inspector, that another terminal at Heathrow would provide 15 million extra capacity, to the Secretary of State's view that it could not provide any extra capacity. There must be some point between nil and 15 million in such an uncertain business where a compromise can be found. The White Paper is unconvincing on that matter. The politics involved in foreign airlines suggests that that might well prove to be right and that they will not give up too many slots in favour of smaller airlines.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the number and size of aircraft landing become smaller, landings will become more frequent and that, therefore, there will be a greater need for stands to which those aircraft can go? Does he accept that whether one considers bigger airports or smaller aircraft extra terminal capacity and stands for the aircraft will be required?
Mr. Haselhurst: That is absolutely right. The White Paper acknowledges the case for putting the Perry Oaks land inside the airport, to improve the airport's design, if not its capacity.
The Government should have a firmer tourist policy to help the regions. The Government should do more than "look to" airlines and tour operators to develop tourist traffic starting or finishing at regional airports, as the Green Paper suggests in paragraph 6.21. It is too easy to continue the bias towards the south-east. Why on earth should surcharges be imposed for travelling from Manchester or Birmingham? If surcharges were not imposed, perhaps the market would distribute the traffic differently.
The White Paper makes no suggestion for the diversion factor in the number of people who are lured from south-east airports because of extra services at Manchester and the regions. Some people who might otherwise use south-east airports perhaps could be satisfied by the facilities in the regions.
What will be the effect of my proposals? In the short term Heathrow would have a capacity of 42 million—
58
the new fashionably high figure. Gatwick would have a capacity of 23 million—the fashionably low figure. Luton would have a capacity of 5 million, and Stansted 5 million. That adds up to 75 million, assuming that the present optimistic forecasts are correct. I do not think that such targets will be met. I believe that it is possible to find another way of dealing with the problem.
In the long term, terminal 5 could add 10 million more passengers for Heathrow and on the north-west side of the runway at Stansted a further 5 million could be accommodated, if that were necessary. That would meet the forecasts for the year 2000—again, assuming that the forecast is accurate. It would be foolish to forecast beyond that.
I would do one more thing. I would separate Stansted from the other London airports. The White Paper does not go far enough here. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends would prefer the Government to go further in legislation to create competition between airports. In paragraph 9.2 the Government admit that the BAA enjoys a near monopoly. That says it all for those of us who have experience of this subject. Not everyone takes the roseate view that the BAA operates the best airports in the world. A little competition would be no bad thing.
Things could have been done differently and the Government's own criteria might have been better met in the process. I accept that things might also have been worse. So much is left open in the White Paper that almost anything could happen, so my constituents should not despair, but some points should have been left less open. Heaven knows, the Government have had long enough to think about it. The inquiry lasted 258 days and a further half year has passed since the report reached Ministers' desks.
I ask the Government to make a firm statement about protection of the environment and support for the local authorities. The BAA should not be the sole determining force for the new safeguarded area. That is setting rabbits to guard lettuce. Essex county council should also have a say in that determination. The BAA should be committed to the sale of the presently safeguarded land which it does not need. It is not enough for the Government to "expect" the authority to get rid of that land. We need a guarantee. There should also be an agreement between the BAA and Essex county council that there will be no second runway. As Mr. Eyre stated, such an agreement would supplement the Government's unequivocal declaration of intent. Moreover, if the Government think that the site has high quality road links around it, as suggested in paragraph 5.29 of the White Paper, and that £2 million is enough to put everything right, they should come out and have a look as soon as possible because it will take a good deal more money than that.
I welcome the proposals on noise compensation. I hope that the question of possible purchase of affected property will be given urgent consideration because many houses outside the immediate area of application are extremely vulnerable to noise disturbance. The BAA has been throwing money around purchasing other properties, so I hope that the Government will ensure that anyone in a difficult position will be able to get out of it.
The potential for this package to go wrong influences me against it overall. It goes against what so many have fought to defend over a long period. With a maximum capacity of 7 million to 8 million passengers per annum, the project could be contained and the disturbance

59
balanced against the jobs and prosperity that an expanded airport might bring, but above that limit it may not be possible. If the Government will give a guarantee that the capacity cannot be extended beyond that limit, I will vote with the Government today, but without that assurance I shall have to decline to do so. I hope that by their further actions the Government will recognise the real aviation needs of this country as I have tried to define them, will understand the concern for the environment and will be sympathetic to the social and unemployment problem of the regions and thus cause the lower limit that they have set for Stansted to endure in practice and not be breached.
6.12 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris: The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) has made a brave and distinguished parliamentary speech, one which I shall long remember with admiration. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman not just on the power and eloquence of his advocacy, but on his constancy and sincerity in what has been a deeply worrying time for him.
When we debated the Eyre report on 30 January, 70 Conservative Members defied the Government by voting with the Opposition at the end of the debate. It was one of the biggest revolts against any Government by their own parliamentary supporters since May 1940. From all parts of the House there was almost total condemnation of the proposal to develop Stansted as London's third airport. There was also unprecedented cross-party support for an airports policy which, by reducing regional disparities, and more especially those between the northern regions and the south-east, would help to unite what was and still is a divided nation.
Neither the fundamental issues nor the context have changed since our debate in January. The north is every bit as stricken by depression as it was then. The arguments for discriminating in its favour in any debate about where to direct new investment are even stronger now than they were four and a half months ago. While some 5 per cent. of people are out of work around Stansted, there are unemployment rates of more than 40 per cent. in many parts of the north of England. Male unemployment rates of more than 60 per cent. are common place and more than two thirds of the under-25s are out of work in localities all over the north.
Against that background, northern Members of Parliament, if they are to act in good faith toward the communities they represent in the House—indeed if they are to represent them at all in any meaningful sense—have to insist that any new investment must go where it can do most good in reducing the deep and increasingly dangerous divide between north and south in Britain today. If the Secretary of State questions the depth of that divide, let him spend one day in Eccles and the next in Esher; one day in Failsworth and the next in Farnham; one day in Wythenshawe and the next in Windsor; one day in Salford and the next in Stansted.
I have two interests to declare in this debate. First, Manchester international airport is in my constituency. Secondly, I chair the all-party group of right hon. and hon. Members which liaises with NOERC, the North of England Regional Consortium. I receive no financial reward from the consortium, which speaks for 19 major local authorities in the north, and for millions of people
60
of all political persuasions and of none, who came together to oppose the ill-conceived and unnecessary plan to develop Stansted as London's third airport.
On 12 June NOERC met in emergency session to discuss the Government's White Paper. While recognising the consortium's success in forcing the Secretary of State drastically to modify the proposals made to the inquiry by the BAA, which were largely endorsed by the Eyre report, the outcome was an expression of deep concern that the Government had missed an opportunity to respond to the urgent national need to reduce the north-south divide.
Mr. Sumberg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Morris: I am extremely sorry, and I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but out of respect for the many others who wish to take part in the debate I regret that I cannot give way.
I have here three weighty documents published by NOERC documenting regional disparities in Britain today. They are well argued, objective and of compelling relevance to any debate about airports policy. Why has not the Secretary of State responded to them? It is the Government's failure even to comment on these three important documents which prompts NOERC's anxiety that the limited expansion of Stansted, announced by the Secretary of State on 5 June, is only the start of a remorseless expansion of that airport into one of the biggest in the world. To give the House the flavour of NOERC's reaction to the White Paper, I quote from a statement which followed its meeting on 12 June. It states:
"The framework proposed for the development of regional airports is at the present time only words. The Consortium wants these words translated into action."
I put it strongly to the House that we must judge the adequacy of the White Paper on a basis similar to that of our judgment of the Eyre report in January. I emphasise again that neither the fundamental issues nor the context have changed. The issues are, first, the need to ensure that any response to the Eyre report takes account of the economic and social disparities between the regions of this country; secondly, the issue whether the development of Stansted on the scale proposed is necessary and in the wider national interest; and, thirdly, whether practical steps are being taken to enable our regional airports to fulfil the role the Government envisage for them.
Although it was never made explicit, Whitehall's policy for years has been simply to let the south-east grow. The unemployed of the north were urged to get on their bikes to search for jobs, presumably in the south-east as there are precious few to spare anywhere else. The Sunday Times of 28 April—in a "Memo to Maggie"—advised the Prime Minister:
"To tell Patrick Jenkin…to amend the planning legislation to allow further growth in the South-East".
The basis for that advice was a recent survey indicating that the south-east is where 60 per cent. of new firms want to be.
Reading that call for the further "south-easternisation" of this country, I was reminded of how J. B. Priestley summed it all up when he journeyed, also at a time of deep depression, through the England of 50 years ago. He wrote:
"For generations this blackened North toiled and moiled so that England should be rich and the City of London a great power in the World but now this North is half derelict and its people, living on in queer ugly places, are bewildered and unhappy."

61
The north's reaction to what is now happening is not only one of bewilderment and unhappiness. There is increasing anger in the north. No longer is it prepared to lie down as the dole queues lengthen and while more and more of its young people are consigned from school to scrapheap. The need for new decisions on airports policy provided an opportunity for the Government to offer hope to the people of the north and to show that their needs and aspirations are understood and appreciated. Any appraisal of the White Paper shows that this opportunity has been missed. This is not only a disappointment, but a tragedy. Last week the consortium was unanimous in calling on the Government to provide time for an early and wide-ranging parliamentary debate on regional disparities.
The proposal to develop Stansted has become the symbol of the divisions that beset this country today. The Government's response to the Eyre report is seen as crucially important to the northern region as a whole. Of course, the Secretary of State's decision to expand the airport to one of 7 million to 8 million PPA could have been worse. Had it not been for the working together of northern Members of Parliament of all parties, and the tireless exertions of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden and others on the environmental issue, I am sure that we would now be debating a decision to proceed with all haste to an expansion of Stansted to 15 million PPA as recommended by the Eyre report. I am just as sure that we would now be contemplating a continuation of the cross-subsidy which Stansted presently enjoys from the duty free shop at Heathrow.
It has been put to me that, because of the policy changes that our campaigning has achieved, we should now be grateful for small mercies and accept the Government's decision. Indeed, as the House knows, the White Paper had a mixed reception in the north on the day of its publication. We are so used to being kicked in the teeth that when we are politely hit over the head instead, as on 5 June, it generates enthusiasm that our message might at last be getting through.
Let this House be in no doubt, however, of the north's very deep concern that new resources and, therefore, new jobs are now being channelled into the prosperous south-east. For the south-east there are easily quantifiable gains in the White Paper. For the north there are as yet only words. For the south-east, a huge new investment is planned that will give at least 10,000 new jobs in the short term to an area of virtually full employment. Such an investment insults and further embitters the dole queues of the north, and we now call for an unequivocal assurance that the increase to 7 million to 8 million PPA at Stansted is the absolute ceiling on its expansion.
On the question of subsidy to Stansted, I welcome the Minister's statement earlier today, which went further than his reply to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) on 5 June. The White Paper talks of the need to "inhibit" subsidy. Let me make it crystal clear: we want the subsidising of Stansted not just to be inhibited but totally eliminated. Moreover, we insist on fair competition soon.
When the BAA, either in its present or restructured form, puts forward its Stansted investment strategy to the Government for appraisal, we will expect to see the strategy published so that it can be subjected to the widest possible parliamentary and public scrutiny.
I end my remarks on Stansted with one final point. On 30 January I pointed out that CAA surveys classify
62
passengers on the basis of where their journeys began on the day of the survey. The cumulative effect is that regional passengers who travel to London, or incoming tourists from abroad who are forced to use London's airports despite the fact that they spend little or no time there, are counted as south-east passengers. NOERC has shown that if the places of residence of British passengers and the places where foreign visitors spent the greatest number of nights are taken into account, the proportion of people using London's airports who originate from the south-east, or are tourists going to the south-east, is reduced from 80 per cent.—the figure which the BAA and the Government have been using for years—to around 70 per cent.
The Secretary of State agreed in the House on 5 June that the 80 per cent. figure was out of date and said that it was now 75 per cent. I shall not take the matter further today, except to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his 75 per cent. figure has been applied to the demand planning values put forward in the Eyre report in order to ascertain the extent to which demand at London has been overstated. As this was a subject on which he was allowed to throw dust in the eyes of viewers of the BBC's "Newsnight" programme on 5 June, I hope that he will not try to evade my question.
Mr. Ridley: I am happy to respond to the right hon. Gentleman. It would perhaps be wiser if he put the figures round the other way; in other words, instead of 75 per cent. of passengers originating in the south-east, 25 per cent. originated elsewhere. The point is the same, but it might help the right hon. Gentleman to understand.
The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that of those 25 per cent., only about 5 per cent. originate from the north, more than 5 per cent. fom the south-west, and a large number from East Anglia, Wales and other parts of the country in respect of which Manchester would not be the suitable airport. The right hon. Gentleman should therefore analyse the figures given in the White Paper. He will be able to ascertain the origins and destinations of all the various groups of passengers, and he will realise that it does not strengthen his case to quote such figures.
Mr. Morris: My question to him concerned the demand planning values put forward in the Eyre report. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will at least now agree it is wholly wrong that millions of people should have to catch London-bound trains in order to fly to foreign destinations.
The White Paper is said by the Minister to reflect a more positive and realistic view of the contribution that regional airports can make to air transport to and from this country. As always, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. There will be many tests of the Government's sincerity, and some will come very soon. The outcome of every application for a new airline to fly to a regional airport will be a test of their sincerity and of the White Paper. We shall carefully monitor the Government's response every step of the way. I must emphasise that the process will not start next year. It starts now.
The Government cannot be allowed to treat the development of a policy for regional airports as a mere paper exercise. Solid commitment is called for from Ministers and civil servants alike. It also requires positive mechanisms to turn precepts into practice, and we shall insist that they be put in place urgently.

63
It is grossly unsatisfactory for the White Paper, in paragraph 6.21, to acknowledge the potential for regional tourism and simply to conclude that, when opportunities exist, the Government will look to airlines and tour operators to develop tourist traffic starting or finishing at regional airports. This does not go nearly far enough, and fails to take any account of the Government's present policy of promoting only London abroad. There is a clear need to look at the structure of the tourist industry, and I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that this is done, urgently and in some depth, either as part of the inquiry headed by Lord Young or in some other way.
Their long-term potential will not be achieved until the Government commit themselves to an "open skies" policy for the regional airports. Ministerial commitment would then be there for all to see, including the airlines. There is no indication in the White Paper that this has been considered, nor is there any hint of provision, which would greatly improve viability, for duty-free facilities at all airports that desire them. Will the Minister comment on that in his reply and on the need to protect access to Heathrow for the smaller regional airports? How does he respond to the urgent plea for a mechanism for reviewing licensing decisions, and other appropriate issues, to test the consistency of the Government's commitment to the development of regional airports?
This debate marks a further chapter in the long and hard-fought campaign by NOERC and its parliamentary supporters in all parts of the House to ensure that the "Case for the North" is both heard and fully understood. The consortium has been abused by a tidal wave of propaganda from the BAA. It was forced to fight an inquiry which was neither sensitive enough nor even equipped to consider the issues NOERC was raising. Yet the consortium has some outstanding achievements to its credit, and I want in particular today to pay warm tribute to John Gunnell, Roger Taylor and Howard Bernstein who, among others, have served NOERC with such distinction. Never before has the case for the regional airports been so effectively made. Never before have local interests, or political differences, been set so completely on one side, enabling councils to join in common cause throughout the north.
The north has been roused. It will no longer lie down and allow the process of "south-easternisation" to go unchallenged. That is the most important achievement of our campaign. It is now understood that only by acting together can we ensure that our case is properly made and heard. The Government must now be warned that we no longer have any intention of being good losers.
6.30 pm
Mr. Tony Favell: The centre of my constituency is 10 minutes by road from Manchester international airport and it lies directly beneath the main flight path. The House will remember that not many years ago an airliner crashed on Stockport when approaching the airport. Despite the proximity of the airport, and despite the fact that it lies directly beneath the flight path, Stockport is desperately anxious for the expansion of Manchester. Unlike people in the fortunate south, the people of Stockport, and the whole of the north-west, welcome a noisy sky, because for them it means jobs and increased prosperity. I fear that this White Paper will mean
64
a quieter sky in the north-west. For that reason, I regret that I shall not be joining my right hon. Friend in the Lobby.
Mr. Sumberg: Before my hon. Friend decides to take that rather radical course of action, will he bear in mind the following fact? When the White Paper was announced, Gil Thompson, the director of the Manchester airport authority, and Roger Taylor, the town clerk of the city of Manchester, to whom reference has already been made, publicly came out in favour of the White Paper and said it was a good deal for Manchester and that it had their support.
Mr. Favell: I shall bear that fact in mind, and I welcome the great support that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given to the scheduled traffic at Manchester, and his efforts to improve it. However, as my right hon. Friend knows, I am concerned about four fifths of Manchester's business—charter flights. Some 82 per cent. of Manchester airport's passengers travel on charter flights. The BAA has made it abundantly clear that Stansted is planned as a charter flight airport. It is the BAA's intention to build up scheduled flight activity at Heathrow and Gatwick and to encourage charter flight traffic to move to Stansted, just as it moved the charter flights out of Heathrow and into Gatwick in the 1960s and 1970s. History is about to repeat itself, except that this time charter flight traffic will move from Gatwick to Stansted because of the BAA's ambition to build a second hub at Gatwick.
A large dedicated leisure airport north of London is bound to attract traffic from the regional airports, because for charter airlines big is beautiful. It is not a question of where the passengers want to go but of where the airlines want to go. A family going on its annual holiday to the Mediterranean has to fly from the airport offered by its package tour operator, not from the airport of its choice. Many of us from the north have made long treks to Gatwick, not because we want to travel from Gatwick but because the charter flight operator serving the package tour operator goes from Gatwick. In recent years, even Luton has been losing business to Gatwick, not because people north of London want to travel to Gatwick, but because the airlines have chosen to operate from there.
However, as the terminal catering for 15 million passengers a year is built at Stansted, the charter flight operators will be attracted there. In particular, the BAA will make sure that they go there, just as it moved them out of Heathrow 20 years ago.
Airlines will be attracted not just from the south-east but from the north and the midlands. As Dan Air stated in a recent press release:
"Flights a distance away from an operator's base must increase costs and problems with crews as a result of longer duty hours away from base."
Charter flight operators want to operate from their base and once their base is moved to Stansted flights will move from Birmingham, East Midlands, Leeds and Bradford and Manchester airports.
I repeat that 82 per cent. of Manchester's passengers travel on unscheduled flights. At Leeds and Bradford, 73 per cent. of the passengers do so, at Birmingham 74 per cent. and at Luton 99 per cent. That is where the big business is. It is this business that the BAA wants to attract. I fear that it will do so with its monster leisure airport north of London—Stansted.
6.38 pm
Mr. Donald Stewart: At the outset, I state clearly that I believe that this policy document, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said, is written from a south of England point of view and is detrimental to the interests of Scotland, the north of England and Wales. I shall be outlining examples to highlight this point, dealing mostly with the Scottish aspect.
Even the introduction to the report makes its perspective clear. The report originated because of the Heathrow and Stansted development issues. It states:
"The Inspector was invited to consider wider airports issues than the two applications before him … The Government is publishing this White Paper to explain its response on these wider matters and to set its decisions on the London airports in the context of an airports policy for the country as a whole."
In section 2, the report identifies that nearly two thirds of the United Kingdom's foreign visitors arrive by air. Tourism is one of our most successful growth industries, and it does Scotland no good that so many potential visitors are directed to the south of England as their point of entry to the United Kingdom. Likewise, the inflow and outflow of goods to the United Kingdom is heavily concentrated on one airport—three-quarters of our visible trade in 1984 passed through Heathrow.
These facts emphasise the quite unacceptable economic centralisation that we have. There is no doubt that the south-east will wish to retain the advantage, and if the development at Stansted goes ahead, plus a further extension to Heathrow, there is no doubt that this cornering of the market will be retained.
As around a quarter of the international passengers using the London airports have their origins or destinations outwith the south-east, it makes sense to put a priority on the development of international services from other airports instead of investing in further developments from the south-east. However, the Government are worried that this will lead to inconvenience and extra cost for some people in the south-east who might, in future, have to use airports outwith the south-east to fly internationally. I put it to them that that is exactly what travellers from outwith the south-east have had to suffer for many years. But the Government do not seem to be concerned about the extra cost and inconvenience to people from Scotland or the north of England as long as they can bolster the stranglehold of the south-east on international air traffic.
In 1978, Scottish airports handled only 4·5 per cent. of United Kingdom international air passenger movements. By 1983, the figure had risen to about 5·2 per cent. That is a welcome increase, but it is not nearly good enough, especially when an excellent airport such as Prestwick remains grossly under-utilised at about 16 per cent. of capacity.
The report tells us that international services are possible on some 1,500 routes from the so-called "regional airports", but only about 100 routes are being operated. The recommendations in the report will do nothing to change the situation. They may even exacerbate it.
It is noticeable that, if the interests of the south-east are at stake, the Government will rush in to be helpful. In the case of Stansted, they are keen to provide a fast rail link. In the case of Heathrow, they may go ahead with a new British Rail service similar to the one between Victoria and Gatwick. However, Prestwick is a different case because it is in Scotland. We have been pressing for a fast rail link
66
between Prestwick and Glasgow for years to help the development of the airport. Without that, it is at a real disadvantage. Only now do the Government mention the possibility of opening a station on the Glasgow-Ayr line and, even then, there is no clear commitment that the type of fast link necessary will be provided.
Mr. Jim Craigen: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the rail halt at Prestwick, and I have myself made the point before. However, does not he agree that the Scottish tourist board should be involved in the discussion of this matter? There is no point is simply relying on the institution of a rail halt without added backup from the Scottish tourist board.
Mr. Stewart: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is surprising that the tourist board has not been active in assisting those authorities and Members of Parliament who have pressed for that rail link. The absence of a rail link pinpoints the fact that no effort is spared for the southeast, and that the other international airports in the country can look after themselves.
Prestwick is supposed to be one of the three gateway airports at present. But that is an empty phrase without the commitment and the finance to ensure its development. Were it not for the political embarrassment that would be caused to the Secretary of State, who is the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), I think that the Government would have let Prestwick go down the drain. They are not really bothered about developing international air traffic to and from Scotland, and they should not pretend otherwise.
The Scottish National party would like all airports in Scotland to be controlled by a publicly owned Scottish airports authority. If the Government are determined to press ahead with the privatisation of the airports, we shall want the Scottish airports to be sold off as a separate concern.
We believe that Prestwick must remain Scotland's gateway for all transantlantic flights until such time as its utilisation reaches a high level. I have already mentioned the importance of establishing a direct fast rail link to Glasgow, but road links must also be improved, and air feeder services to Aberdeen, Dundee and Edinburgh should be developed.
Overall, the problems and opportunities facing Scotland's airports must be treated in a Scottish context. We are fed up with being treated as just a regional offshoot. That simply will not do.
The CAA-controlled airports in the Highlands and Islands must be treated as a special case. Only Balivanich received a serious bid for takeover, and that was from the Western Isles council. No one seriously wanted to buy the others. Because of the economic and social position in the Highlands and Islands, thanks to the policies of successive British Governments, it is necessary to consider these airports in a different light from others until such time as they may become profitable.
I mention in passing that among the silly decisions being made by the Government is the idea of deregulating the air services in the Highlands and Islands. The two firms operating there, British Airways and Loganair, are working virtually on a shoestring. The British Airways part is in the black for the first time. To allow competition on these routes is ludicrous and will be to the detriment of the area.

67
Many organisations in Scotland, apart from my party, are completely opposed to the further development of London's airports at our expense. They include Lothian region, Glasgow district, the district councils in Ayrshire, the Scottish tourist board and the Scottish Council for Development and Industry. The North of England Regional Consortium is also bitterly opposed to further expansion in the south-east, and so it should be.
But it is also worth mentioning that it seems to me from correspondence that I have received that most people in Hertfordshire and Essex do not want Stansted and most people in west London do not want a fifth terminal at Heathrow.
Mr. Terry Dicks: Not so.
Mr. Stewart: I am referring to evidence that I get in my mail from people in these areas. Why are the Government so determined to press ahead with these developments? The people in west London were given an assurance that air transport movements at Heathrow would be limited to 275,000 per annum. Now the Government want cynically to break that promise. They are now making promises to the people in Essex about the limits to which Stansted will be developed. I tell people in Essex to believe the Government at their own risk.
Tonight, the House has the opportunity to accept or to reject the proposals in the report. I believe that all hon. Members representing constituencies in Scotland, the north of England and Wales, regardless of party, should stand up for their areas and reject the report.
6.46 pm
Mr. Nicholas Soames: The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) is deeply ungrateful. The largesse distributed by this Government to his constituency and elsewhere in Scotland is breathtaking. Every other constituency in Britain would be grateful for similar assistance.
I must declare an interest, in that I am the Member of Parliament who represents Gatwick airport as well as the British Airports Authority. Therefore, I have a number of different interests in the debate.
I am one of those who wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on what I consider to be a first-class White Paper. It is pragmatic, coherent and clever, and I thank my right hon. Friend on behalf of all those who live near Gatwick airport and in the rest of West Sussex. The fact that there will not be a second runway at Gatwick is a great relief to my constituents and those of other hon. Members who live and work near the airport.
Mr. Carter-Jones: The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) is the one man in the Chamber who is right to be pleased with the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman has given him everything that he wanted. There cannot be a second runway at Gatwick, because the second terminal has blocked it. The hon. Gentleman is right to praise the Secretary of State for his action. I regret that I cannot join him.
Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is also my friend. He will now understand what charm can do. It has taken a great deal of effort on my part to secure this agreement from my right hon. Friend. I can assure the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) that it was not easy with the ranks of the big battalions ranged against me.
68
My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) is not present at the moment. However, it must be said that I have nothing but respect and admiration for the way in which he has conducted his campaign against the development of Stansted. My gain is his loss. There will be an impact on his constituency, though I do not believe that it will be as bad as his constituents fear.
The development of Stansted and Luton is sensible and provides a pragmatic decision against a very difficult background.
It has to be said that the Opposition amendment is careless of the national interest. Whether Opposition Members like it or not—and I know that they hate it—by 1988 tourism will be our largest industry. The entire White Paper is crucial to the development of that business, which is another reason why I congratulate the Secretary of State.
Mrs. Dunwoody: When the hon. Gentleman has stopped pouring oil over the Secretary of State, will he consider that one way in which tourism will develop is that tourists will rapidly become tired of the overdeveloped and overcrowded south-east and will increasingly go elsewhere in the United Kingdom, as at long last they are beginning to do? They will require airports elsewhere than in the south-east.
Mr. Soames: That has been the secret of my right hon. Friend's success. If tourists come to this country, they may fly to any airport in the United Kingdom that they wish. The right hon. Member for Western Isles and I are regular passengers on aeroplanes to the north. One can fly to any destination in Britain, and more power to the regional airports as they develop.
The arguments of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) are completely unconvincing. She is opposing for the sake of opposing, and for no other reason. She is playing party politics for the lowest kind of motives. I note, as will the hon. Lady, that right hon. and hon. Members of the Social Democratic party and the Liberal party are no longer in the Chamber. That is depressing, particularly when one considers the great confusion that exists between the two parties. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) appears to agree with the White Paper, but his noble Friend Lady Burton of Coventry called in another place on 5 June, using the words "We on these Benches", for a second runway at Gatwick. I am sure that the House will note the great divergence between the policies of these two minor parties.
In clear contrast to Stansted a second runway at Gatwick would mean the physical destruction of one village. It would also severely affect two other villages and put the airport perimeter within one mile of Horley, which has a population of over 16,000. That would have been an intolerable decision to take, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for not having taken it.
I am delighted that the British Airports Authority is to be sold as one unit and that the airports are to be formed into separate companies. I agree with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich that it is important that the accounting should be seen to be absolutely transparent. May I ask my right hon. Friend to give an undertaking that he will ensure that the BAA sells any surplus land that it may have at Gatwick which it bought against the development of a second runway? I should like that undertaking to be given this evening, if possible.

69
I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to paragraph 9.6 of the White Paper. The new British Airports Authority plc will be able to expand into non-airport activities from which the BAA, as a nationalised industry, has been excluded. We need to examine carefully the kinds of activities which the BAA intends to undertake. They should be clearly and tightly defined in the Bill. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would consider that point carefully.
This is a highly satisfactory conclusion not only for my constituents, but for those of many right hon. and hon. Members with Sussex constituencies. This White Paper is in the national interest. That is its true test. It is a responsible and pragmatic document, and once again I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his officials.
6.53 pm
Mr. Robert C. Brown: I wish to speak about Newcastle airport, the major international airport in the north-east of England, which plays an important role in the communications and economic growth of the region. Uniquely, the airport is in the constituency of both the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and myself. By a strange quirk of constituency boundaries, a small part of Newcastle airport is in the Hexham constituency, while the rest of it is in mine.
Newcastle airport is celebrating its 50th birthday this year. If ever there was a rags to riches story, Newcastle airport must surely qualify. Many years ago, when I first became a member of the Newcastle city council airport committee, it was no more than a collection of wooden huts. It started with a grass runway. Continuous development has brought it up to its proud position as an international airport, with the type of facilities one would associate with scheduled and charter services—a club and executive flying.
The faith shown by the north-east regional airports committee in the 1960s in accepting a master plan to take the airport into the 1990s has paid dividends. In its jubilee year, a deficit has been converted into a surplus of £2.54 million. The local authorities of Tyne and Wear, Northumberland and Durham, which carried the financial burdens throughout the development, are now enjoying a bonanza to rate funds of over £4 million in the three years ending 31 March 1985. This is a great public asset for tourists, business men and visitors to the industrial and commercial heart of the north-east of England.
Passenger numbers have increased from 43,000 in 1954 to 1·25 million in 1984. Aircraft movements in the same period have risen from 4,300 to 31,000. This increase in passenger air traffic and profitability is solely due to the foresight, enterprise and pioneering spirit of past members of the Newcastle city council airport committee and to past and present members of the north-east regional airports committee.
I should like to place on record my appreciation of the late Sir Stephen Easton, the chairman of the original city council committee at the time when the Secretary of State for Air officially opened the grass runway airport in July 1935. I should also like to place on record my appreciation of the late councillor Frank Russell, who chaired the committee after the war, when the airport was handed back by the Air Ministry; councillor Dr. Harry Russell, who succeeded Frank Russell and who, after 40 years of service, is still a member of the committee; alderman
70
Andrew Cunningham who chaired the newly formed regional committee of local authorities and oversaw the building of the new terminal and runway extension that was opened in 1967 by Prime Minister Harold Wilson; and councillor Bill Collins who chaired the committee when the £8 million extension was completed and opened by him in 1983. Sadly, ill health caused him to relinquish the chair last year.
The tremendous developments and growth at Newcastle airport is evidence of the valuable role of regional airports. It justifies in its entirety Government support and demands and decisions to ensure that developments continue throughout the years ahead.
Why should we now be subject to the threat of privatisation, with the consequential loss of millions of pounds of profit to the ratepayers, who had to suffer losses in years gone by? Given that the airport remains in the hands of the public in the north-east, the ratepayers will get back all their investment in the next two years. Then they will share in the bonanza of increased air traffic. If the councils that now run the airport are forced to transform it into a public limited company, the consequence will be the loss of loans and grants from the European Community, which have played a considerable part in the further development of the airport.
The Secretary of State has said twice from the Dispatch Box that he has no intention of forcing regional airport owners to turn themselves into public limited companies, yet paragraph 9.15 of the White Paper says:
"The Government will introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to effect these changes, providing powers for the Secretary of State to require designated local authority airports (for instance, those with an annual turnover of more than £1 million) to be formed into companies."
That covers Newcastle. The Secretary of State must make up his mind. Either he is to legislate, in which case he will force regional airports to turn themselves into public limited companies, or he is not.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): I suspect that there is a little confusion in the hon. Gentleman's mind. The distinction involves passing legislation to form plcs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that we would not force those plcs to be privatised.
Mr. Brown: That does not alter the fact that if the pies are exclusively owned by the local authorities the owners' will be precluded from obtaining any funds from, for example, the regional fund. That is much too high a price to pay, especially if the Secretary of State and any subsequent Secretary of State does not honour the commitment to leave those airports in the hands of local authorities.
We have seen a steady build-up in the number of European services operating from Newcastle to destinations such as Amsterdam, Oslo, Stavangar, Bergen, Copenhagen and Paris. We are hoping for further international destinations, including North America—we already have Canada—without putting our trunk routes into Heathrow in jeopardy.
The Minister has the thanks of the north—east, in so far as he has seen fit to lift the limitation on air transport movements into Heathrow. Indeed, our aim is to satisfy the demands of the travelling public for scheduled services into and out of the north-east of England, and we appear to be achieving it with increasing success. Obviously, we

71
do not want to be inhibited in any way. In 1984–85 1·25 million passengers were carried, which represented a 12 per cent. increase on the preceding year. I should like that figure to continue to increase.
I hope that the Minister will give an assurance tonight that Newcastle's access to Heathrow will be protected. I have already said that I welcome the fact that we have gone over the original figure, but everyone in the north of England would feel outraged if Newcastle did not continue to be part of that increased figure and if the traffic were shuffled off to another airport, such as Gatwick or Stansted. I should like to put some specific demands to the Minister. Perhaps I should rephrase that and say that I seek early and sympathetic consideration for Newcastle's application for a parallel taxiway. Will the Minister earnestly consider my request that two crucial areas of terminal development should be brought forward into this financial year? I refer first to the fact that significant improvements are needed in the international arrivals and baggage reclaim hall. Secondly, we need a further development in the two-level pier, with associated air-side handling lounges with the necessary public amenities. That would ease the awful congestion that occurs when two broad-bodied jets arrive or take off simultaneously.
Newcastle is due such consideration if for no other reason than that it is an efficient and economic airport. I shall pray in aid just one statistic. Our landing fees and navigation charges for 1985–86 are still being held at 1984–85 prices. I implore the Minister to bring those projects forward into this year. We are asking not for Government assistance but for the Minister to say tonight, "I am pleased to concede to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Brown) that the northeast regional airport can spend its own money on making such vital improvements."
I should like to pay a personal tribute to Jim Denyer, the airport commandant, who took up his duties with Newcastle city council in 1952. He is an ex-wartime fighter pilot and a former winner of the King's Cup air race. As a member of the airports committee for some years, it is my pleasure to pay tribute to the drive and enthusiasm that Jim transmitted to the community. He has been a source of inspiration over the years to members of that committee, and the airport's quality is due in no small measure not only to the elected members but to Jim Denyer, and his dedicated staff and work force at the airport. When he hangs up his wings, he will, indeed, be difficult to replace. I hope that the Minister will be able to send out a message of hope at the end of this debate.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind hon. Members that the 10-minute limit on speeches is in operation.
7.5 pm
Mr. Terry Dicks: The package before us is clever and devious, and it also panders to the anti-noise lobby. It is clever because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has used it to split the opposition among Conservative Members. He has given some hostages to fortune to the north, and made some promises
72
that it will be difficult to deliver. Those in the north who believe that there is something in it for them should read the White Paper again very quickly.
The package is devious, because the report says, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has reiterated, that terminal 5 has not been ruled out for ever. Yet on 5 June, my right hon. Friend replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) saying:
"I am pleased to be able to honour … the Government's pledge that terminal 5 would not be constructed."—[Official Report, 5 June 1985; Vol. 80, c. 312.]
Either the door is not closed, as the White Paper says, or my right hon. Friend is "pleased" to honour a pledge that terminal 5 will not be constructed. My right hon. Friend cannot have it both ways. He should come clean and give us his view of the future of terminal 5. If he does not want terminal 5, he should have the courage to stand up and say so. But if he thinks that there is a future in it, he should withdraw the comment that he made to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham. But my right hon. Friend must be a little worried because, as most people know, Conservative Members face a three-line Whip. If my right hon. Friend is so certain, he would have thought twice before applying it.
I shall vote against the package this evening. I have been consistent so far, and I shall continue to be so. Heathrow airport, including terminal 4, is within my constituency, and no doubt terminal 5 would also come within it. I was surprised to hear some of my hon. Friend's talk about the problems of those living in and around Heathrow. One would think that no one living round Heathrow wanted a fifth terminal. But I say loudly and clearly that my constituents want terminal 5 because they want 15,000 jobs. I should point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), who is not in the Chamber at present, that noise means jobs and economic activity in my constituency. It was interesting that some hon. Members, who claim to represent those who live under the flight path, should say that life is unbearable for them and that it is dreadful to live in the area. Are house prices in Twickenham and Richmond standing still or falling? No, Sir—they are rocketing up. If things were that bad, people would not want to live in the area. Some of my hon. Friends completely misunderstand the nature of noise and its relationship to aircraft movements. But perhaps in due course we shall see changes that even they will have to accept.
Heathrow must have priority, because the airlines want to use it. They want a fifth terminal. I thought that the Government believed in consumer sovereignty. I thought that that was important. I did not believe that this Government would try to push those who want to come to London off to some—with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst)—God forsaken hole in north-east Essex. The countryside is beautiful, but Stansted would be inconvenient for Americans, for example, who want to see the delights of London. Thus, I am surprised that consumer sovereignty should have taken second place.
I shall reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said to me when we were discussing my suggestion that we should reduce the number of domestic flights into Heathrow because there was a limit to congestion. He said that we could not do that because people who were going on holiday to London did not want to go to Stansted or Gatwick. He said that they wanted to

73
go to Heathrow. That is what my right hon. Friend said when we were talking about domestic flights. But that principle is even more relevant to international movements. When people come to the United Kingdom, they want to come to the airport of their choice—Heathrow—and do not want to go anywhere else.
In general, the community around Stansted is opposed to the proposals, although a limited expansion would probably be acceptable. The airlines do not want to go to Stansted, and nor do most travellers. Indeed, they would certainly object to being bussed along the M25 between Heathrow and Stansted. Anyone who thinks differently has something wrong upstairs—he must be stark, staring bonkers.
There will be international repercussions if we force airlines to do something that they do not want to do. Will we return to the old days, so that foreign countries will say, "If you force us into Stansted, British flights into our countries will have to go to some military airport at the back of beyond." This package will be the biggest white elephant that anyone has ever seen.
There is no point in turning a public monopoly such as BAA into a private monopoly. If there are to be changes towards privatisation, why on earth can there not be a Heathrow Ltd. and a Gatwick Ltd.? Why need there be a holding company? The Secretary of State told me that a holding company was reasonable because if the two airports were in competition Gatwick would go out of business. I thought that the market place allowed for that; it is all about the fittest surviving. But my right hon. Friend has given BAA control of the holding company, and that is crazy. The airports should be independent. Heathrow should make its profit and fight on, and Gatwick could compete from a different base and attract a different type of customer.
We all know how the BAA has used and abused its power in the past. We all know how it has cross-subsidised Stansted, and it is about time that that was stopped. It should have been stopped years ago. Let us have two separate companies—Heathrow Ltd. and Gatwick Ltd. We could also have Stansted Ltd. if the proposals are realised.
This package was produced in the hope of getting it through. The Secretary of State faced a similar position when he tried to introduce the 75,000 limit at Heathrow. We know the package will go through because my right hon. Friend has split the Conservative opposition. However, some of us will stand firm and he will at least have to listen to what we say. I believe that terminal 5 will come in due course, despite my right hon. Friend and his White Paper.
7.12 pm
Mr. Robin Corbett: The real winners in this airports policy are the civil servants. When 40 years ago the Americans left a large slab of concrete in Stansted, some of those in Whitehall determined that one of these days, sooner or later, a Secretary of State would come along whom they could persuade to share their view that there should be massive airport expansion at Stansted.
There is an alternative, but it has not been contemplated. There is a do-nothing strategy—and by that I mean do nothing. The day would then come when those allegedly wishing to fly into Heathrow or Gatwick would be told, "There ain't no room." That would be one
74
way of achieving what many Opposition Members and some Conservative Members want—proper priority to be given to our regional airports.
The White Paper lays down certain policy objectives in section 3. One is to
"encourage the use and development of regional airports so that they meet the maximum demand they can attract."
That is a laid-back policy because it puts the onus on the regional airports to attract passengers. That is my complaint, not simply against the authors of the White Paper, but, in some senses, against my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
On page 21, paragraph 5.25, the White Paper says about Luton, "It"—the Government—
"would welcome growth of traffic at Luton which would enable the airport authority to make the best possible use of its facilities."
Paragraph 6.2 states:
"increasing use of regional airports ensures better use of the existing infrastructure. These airports also have a role to play in relieving pressure on capacity at the airports in the South East."
In the context of the main thrust of the White Paper, those words are no more than pious hope.
The difference is shown in the section on regional airports. In paragraph 12.8 the White Paper says about Luton that the Government
"will invite Luton Borough Council to bring forward proposals to increase the airport's capacity up to about 5 mppa."
Paragraph 12.11 then says that the Government
"hopes that Manchester and other regional airports can help reduce the pressures on the South East by attracting more traffic."
The difference between the word "invite" and the word "hope" is much more than semantics; those words were chosen with care. "Invites" implies some kind of encouragement; "hopes" simply conveys idle indifference, and that is our complaint.
I pit the demands of Birmingham international against no other airport in the region—neither Newcastle nor Manchester. The case for regional airports is the sensible use of every one of them. Birmingham has a first-class new terminal currently handling 1·7 million passengers a year, but is able to cope with many more. In the Government's own words, that would make the best possible use of its facilities.
Alongside the development of the airport has been the tremendous development of the Magleu railway from the car park to the airport. It is the first example of a pneumatic motor train in the world, and great interest has been expressed in it abroad. But the argument is not simply about the sensible use and development of Birmingham. It is about the economic future of Birmingham and the west midlands, as it is about every other region in the country. Each job at an airport will create two or three jobs off the airport.
The west midlands has an unemployment rate overall of 16·5 per cent. Almost within walking distance of Birmingham airport there are areas of the city with male unemployment rates of 40 per cent. or more. Birmingham has a great deal to offer, much of it developed with public money. That is the argument for the sensible use of facilities. Birmingham is establishing the first inland free port. It has the tremendous success of the National Exhibition Centre which, against the doubts of all those Jeremiahs who said that it could not work, does work, turns in a profit and there is now talk of expanding its provision.
A wide tourist region is served from Birmingham international airport, from the rolling, undulating hills of

75
Shropshire in the north, leading to mid and north Wales, to Warwickshire in the south, centred around Stratford-on-Avon. The ludicrous nature of the Government's policies—as with the nature of my Labour Government's policy between 1974 and 1975—is that we are apparently content for people to come churning through Heathrow and Gatwick and then catch a day coach to Stratford-on-Avon to visit the delights of that area rather than have the tourists coming directly into Birmingham and spreading out. That would not only ease the congestion in London and the south-east, but in a real sense would help the economy of the west midlands.
Thousands of millions of pounds have gone into the building and widening of the Ml, the M6, the M5 and the M69. We have excellent road facilities, when the cones are put back on their shelves, and we have a first-class rail link between Birmingham and London. I remind the Secretary of State that the trains into Euston and other stations in London actually go back to the north. They do not come to London and then disappear into a black hole. They go to the north and can take passengers with them.
It is inevitable under the White Paper policy that the level of investment envisaged for the development of Stansted must mean less being done in the regions. A pound cannot be spent twice. If it is spent in the south-east, it cannot be spent in the midlands, the north, the north-west or Scotland.
Nor is it simply a question of meeting estimated demand. The fallacy that it is represents a laissez-faire policy which is adding to the great divide between north and south in Britain. What the White Paper proposes will attract air traffic to London, whereas we should be adopting a get-tough policy with operators, particularly those who conduct flights for holidays and pleasure. We should be telling them, "We want you, but not every tourist journey needs to start in London."
We know from the activities of some tourist bodies, such as the Heart of England tourist board in the west midlands, that once people discover other areas of the nation, they think, "Why have we been paddling around the dirty streets of London all these years?"
The policy in the White Paper does not put any pressure on airlines to expand their regional operations, despite the fact that at Birmingham international landing charges have been held below the rate of inflation, at only 3·3 per cent., and that the recent rise has been the first since 1983.
I quarrelled with the last Labour Government for being too limp with regional airports, and I continue my quarrel with the Conservative Administration. We cannot keep tipping concrete over the southern corner of England. One day—I hope that it will be sooner rather than later—the House will tell the Government of the day, "Enough is enough. A halt must be called now."
7.22 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: You must often feel, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the best politicians are often those who listen rather than hold forth most forcefully. In politics preconceptions are exceptionally dangerous.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on having listened for so long with such patience to so many conflicting points of view and on having sought
76
with assiduity to reconcile them. I recognise that at many stages in that process I may not have made matters easier for him.
The speech of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was deeply depressing for those who care about British civil air transport. She adduced a totally negative policy. She suggested that there should be no further growth at Heathrow—or at Stansted, beyond a modest increment to a maximum of 5 million PPA—and that somehow all the extra growth should take place in the regions and the north.
The hon. Lady acknowledged that it would not be a voluntary process. She recognised that the only means of achieving such a policy was by direction. That is the last thing that the travelling public want. That is why I regarded her contribution as depressing, and I set it aside on that basis.
I thank my right hon. Friend for having lifted the arbitrary 275,000 air transport movements a year limitation that had been planned for Heathrow. I was sorry that we had to reject his Bill to achieve that end, but I hope that with hindsight he will feel that that temporary unpleasantness was worth while.
If that legislation had been enacted we should now be facing a real difficulty, as we are already at the 275,000 ATM point. We should be having to face the invidious task of turning traffic away. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend recognised the force of the inspector's arguments and abandoned the limit.
My right hon. Friend is right to suggest that as operations develop over the years we shall be able to judge what should be the upper limit for Heathrow. Undoubtedly, there will be further improvements in air traffic control. One can see computerisation developing further, the use perhaps of artificial intelligence, better ground handling and many similar features which, in the years to come, will enable a greater number of air transport movements to be handled.
People were unreasonably fearful about the impact of noise on the communities around Heathrow. I am sad that their fears were pandered to. We live in the real world and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) pointed out. public representatives such as ourselves must represent the fears and anxieties of our constituents.
I appreciate that, for example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne and my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), for Twickenham (Mr. Jesse!), for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) and for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay), among others, must live with the representations made to them by their constituents about airport noise.
Times are not only changing, but have changed. The table on page 39 of the White Paper to which I referred in an intervention shows beyond peradventure that noise disturbance in the vicinity of airports has already diminished. When the new noise regulations are in force—they will ban, from the beginning of next year, those United Kingdom registered aircraft which are not noise certificated, and from the beginning of 1988 those foreign registered aeroplanes which are not noise certificated—we shall have a different situation.
We must consider developments in other parts of the world. Too often we in this country are parochial, when air transport is a global industry. At Washington national, for example—it is perhaps the most sensitive of all

77
major airports—two types of aeroplane are now able to operate round the clock, even through the so-called night noise curfew. They are the 757, powered by the RB211535-E4, and the British Aerospace 146.
So quiet are they that their movements are imperceptible outside the airport boundaries. That is the way in which modern technology is transforming the situation. Indeed, as I argued in the debate on Maplin 10 years ago, it will become increasingly possible to bring airports closer to centres of population rather than banish them to the countryside.
We are already seeing that in microcosm with the approval which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has, rightly, given to the STOLport in docklands. That instance proves the point, though there is another aspect of airports policy which is germane to this debate. This is the key issue of surface access, to which several hon. Members have referred.
If Stansted is not to become the white elephant that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) fears, we must have good surface access. Otherwise, it will become another Narita. It must not take, say, three hours to get to or from an airport. Coming from Stansted, it is fine until the end of the M11, but heaven help anybody in the rush hour traffic from there on who wants to get into the centre of London. Rail links are, therefore, crucial, as they are to Feltham and Iver for Heathrow and from Prestwick.
The question of the environment is rightly a burning issue. I feel for the people of Essex, because the Stansted area is the last unspoilt piece of countryside near London. If too much development is permitted there, the result could be catastrophic for that beautiful part of the country.
The economics of civil air transport being what they are, I am sure that the pressure will still be for further growth at Heathrow. Passengers on scheduled flights want to go to Heathrow, and that is where the interlining connections are to be found. That is where surface transport access is best, although it is still not good enough.
I am glad that, at least implicitly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has left the door open for a fifth terminal at Heathrow. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) put it so tellingly in an earlier debate—my hon. Friend has ministerial experience in these matters—we can build an airport at Mount Pleasant on the Falkland Islands in 18 months when we set our minds to doing so, yet we cannot move a sludge disposal works and construct a terminal at Heathrow, which is virtually on our doorstep. As my hon. Friend said, that does not make sense. However, I am pleased that studies are being initiated. If private money is forthcoming from the airlines and property companies, there is hope that the fifth terminal can be built, but first the surface access must be constructed.
Heathrow is the jewel in the crown. It is an incomparable national asset. I am so pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not, I believe, even faintly inhibited its further development. As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Brown) said, so many provincial airports depend on good access for their feeder services into Heathrow for their own viability. I am pleased that the White Paper sets out sensible and pragmatic steps. My right hon. Friend has listened., and we thank him for that. We hope to be able to help him construct an even better policy in future.
7.32 pm
Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: It is a great pleasure to be called to participate in the debate immediately after the contribution of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). The hon. Gentleman and I are the chairmen of our respective parliamentary aviation groups. It is a great pleasure to listen to the hon. Gentleman when he speaks with knowledge, feeling and passion.
First, I shall address myself to the noise factor. The limit of 275,000 ATMs was plucked out of the sky. It seems that no thought was given to it. British aircraft that are coming on, such as the Jetstream, the super 748, the ATP and the HS146 will provide good, quiet, efficient and effective service as feeder aircraft. They are British aircraft and I hope that British airlines will buy them as well as others.
The 10-minute rule is in operation and I shall not allow intervention in my remarks. On a previous occasion I allowed two Conservative Members to make their speeches during my 10 minutes and I do not propose to concede any of the time that is available to me this evening.
In my days as a navigator when my pilot wanted wind speed and direction the procedure was to fly two minutes one way, two minutes in another direction and two minutes in a third direction. When that had been done he expected me to have calculated wind speed and direction. I returned from Washington last week and during the flight I was admitted to the flight deck. I pressed a button and I had before me wind speed, direction, alternative airports, landing time and remaining fuel in one fell swoop. I had never felt so redundant in my life. All my skills had been overtaken by technology. If I had been able to put my finger out of the cockpit I might have been able to carry out some first principles. I might have been able to find the pole star, had it been night time.
There have been great technological advances that have led to a decrease in aircraft noise. I believe that the noise that is involved in holding aircraft will decrease when technology permits us to control airliners when they are 1,000 miles or more from their destination. It will be possible to control them all the way efficiently and effectively. The noise factor should be laid at rest for a while. It seems that aircraft noise will become quieter and quieter notwithstanding a greater number of landings.
I advise those who served on the Civil Aviation Bill in Committee to read the Hansard record of the proceedings. The reports make fascinating reading. It seems that the Secretary of State has completed an extremely quick learning curve. The Bill was published on 9 November and our first sitting in Committee took place on 11 December 1984. The Committee could not agree a sittings motion. It could not agree
"That during the proceedings on the Civil Aviation Bill the Committee do meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays at half-past Ten o'clock."
The Committee could not agree a sittings motion when it met on 18 December. The Christmas recess intervened and the Committee met for a third time on 12 January 1985. During our proceedings on that day the Secretary of State adjourned the consideration of the Bill in Committee.
The Secretary of State wanted, by means of the Bill, to honour his promise of a limit of 275,000 ATMs, which involve landings and take-offs. Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the Chamber, I want to congratulate him

79
on having completed a quick learning curve. The members of the Committee who considered the Civil Aviation Bill did nothing for legislation but the Committee enlightened the Secretary of State, the junior Minister, the civil servants and everyone else who was involved in the proceedings. As I have said, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on allowing the limit of 275,000 ATMs to go out of the window. The Secretary of State may now leave the Chamber if he wishes to do so.
Manchester airport has been betrayed once again. We hear phrases such as "we think", "it may be" or "the Minister hopes". However, we know that landing fees at Stansted were realities. There was cross-subsidisation. We know that that operated to Manchester's disadvantage and that Manchester suffered. All that we have is a promise from the Secretary of State that he will consider Manchester's problem. Unfortunately, the problem will continue to exist while he does so and Manchester airport will suffer. The principle of cross-subsidisation has been established and it is being implemented. When I meet the chairman of the British Airports Authority he always tells me, "Lewis, you must realise that we support Manchester airport." When I ask the chairman how the authority is giving it support, a blank expression crosses his face.
Mr. Hanky rose—
Mr. Carter-Jones: No, I shall not give way.
Mr. Hanley: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman were to give way.
Mr. Carter-Jones: Very well. I agree to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene on the understanding that he is brief.
Mr. Hanley: Will the hon. Gentleman deny that there has been a near doubling of destinations from Manchester because of Government policy over the past 12 months?
Mr. Carter-Jones: I am worried intensely about some of these routes. I am concerned about what might be withdrawn in lieu of them. I hope that the Secretary of State will ensure that he gets secure bilateral arrangements into Manchester. That is the most important factor of all for Manchester.
There must be an improved infrastructure in the north-west. I hate having to say this to monetarists, but there must be some distortion if we are to secure investment in the north-west. We have a marvellous airport but we do not have a rail link. I shall be grateful to any Conservative Members who support the claim that Manchester airport must have a rail link. The White Paper states implicitly that there will be a rail link for Stansted. I ask the House and the Secretary of State to agree that there must be an effective rail link to and from Manchester airport by the same token.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: Has the hon. Gentleman read paragraph 6.33?
Mr. Carter-Jones: It is stated that there will be an investigation, but the provision of a rail link is not writ large in that paragraph. If the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) reads the document carefully, he will see that it implicitly states that the project at Stansted will not proceed unless it can be justified. We want a clear undertaking that there will be
80
an improvement in the north-west as a result of the establishment of a rail link. That link is essential for Manchester.
The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) is the lucky one. He has everything that he wanted—a roadway and the possibility of a second runway being blocked because the second terminal blocks it. That is the perfect situation. I must say:
"That unto every one which hath shall be given".
I say to those who represent wealthy constituencies in the south-east, "Remember your fellow Britons living elsewhere where there are unemployed people. We ask not for extra money but for the capital investment that is directed towards Stansted to be allocated to the northwest." Stansted represents a threat to Manchester because that airport is being built primarily through contract work for tourism to transport people in and out of this country. That development will rob Manchester.
I conclude with a final appeal to the Secretary of State: give us a favourable response on the proposed rail link to Manchester airport.
Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Harold Walker): Sir Eldon Griffiths.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
7.41 pm
Sir Eldon Griffiths: In the light of the reception that I have exceptionally been given, and in view of what has happened during the past few days, I feel peculiarly diffident about disagreeing with the Government in the Division Lobby tonight.
If anyone had any doubt about this debate's relevance, he could dispel it simply by looking at the news tickers. During the past five days, we have all watched the tragic shuttling of the TWA Boeing from Algiers to Beirut. The human poignancy of the story has grasped world attention. The reason is that nearly everyone in the Western world either flies or hopes to fly. This underlines my basic point. Aviation has become one of the world's basic industries.
This debate must, therefore, go to a central point—that Britain must remain at the centre of world aviation and provide the world's airlines, passengers and freight movers with the best available facilities. Unless we do so, the great world airliners of tomorrow, which I guess may be bigger and carry more freight, will stop at only one place in north-west Europe. I hope that it will be in Britain, but, if we are not careful, that one world airport in north-west Europe may well be on the continent and our country may become a satellite in aviation terms.
I welcome a great deal of the White Paper—privatisation, the prospect of competition, the removal of the limit on the numbers at Heathrow and the great encouragement given to regional airports. Nevertheless, I shall be constrained to vote against the motion that the House takes note of the White Paper, for three principal reasons. The first reason is based on environmental grounds. For four and a half years I was Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. During that period I paid particular attention to countryside issues. I am sorry to say that my right hon. Friend's policy will mean urbanisation and industrialisation for Essex, which is an important part of our countryside. Many thousands of acres of our scarcest commodity in a small island—land—will be stolen. Dozens of our villages and some of our market towns will be transformed into dormitories for the airport-

81
related industries which will certainly come to the new Stansted airport. This policy will unroll a carpet of concrete, roofs and electricity lines over one of the most charming rural environments in Britain. I regret all that.
I have never doubted that Stansted must increase to take 7 million or 8 million PPA. It could do so within its existing capacities. However, to extend capacity to 15 million PPA is an environmental mistake, and for that reason I shall oppose it, as an East Anglian Member.
Secondly, I object to the policy enshrined in the White Paper on national planning grounds. For four years I was, for my sins, Minister with responsibility for planning. Perhaps I was not a very good one. But the biggest planning threat to our country now comes from London's spreading outwards—south to Gatwick and perhaps eventually to Brighton; west, as it has already done, to Heathrow and beyond to Slough; north along the Birmingham corridor; and, now if the White Paper is accepted, north-east to Harlow, Stansted and beyond. We are faced with the prospect of the worst planning feature of American life—megalopolis. The danger is of "Londonopolis" spreading concrete over far too large an area of south-east England at the expense of other parts of Britain.
While I had responsibility for transport, I tried to ascertain why it cost so much more to move goods from one place to another in Britain than in Germany or France. I discovered that our highways and railways are just as efficient as anyone else's for the transportation of goods between cities, but our national average is pulled down by the sheer scale of London and the fact that so many transport movements must pass through Greater London. We should not be extending London, but limiting it. We should not be concreting more of the area around London; we should be conserving it. So on the broadest ground of national planning strategy, this policy of building up Stansted is wrong.
My third objection to the White Paper is based on aviation grounds. I am sure that our policy must be to ensure that Britain has a national airport of a standard and on a scale that will be the most attractive in the world. During the period when I was responsible for the ill-fated Maplin programme, which the House passed and the Opposition cast aside, I learnt two things: first, that an international airport must have all its facilities in one place—baggage handling, security, the lot; and, secondly, that it must be indefinitely extendable. It must be able to grow, because no one can foresee the future. We must, therefore, site an airport where all the facilities can be provided on one spot and where there is capacity for growth. Only Maplin could provide that combination. But Maplin, alas, is dead.
It was a national folly for the Labour Government to kill Maplin. But if the killing of Maplin was the first step towards the historic removal of London from its primacy in the eyes of the world's airlines, tonight we might be taking a further step along that tragic road. For we are deciding not that London will have a great omni-competent international airport, but that it will have three or four different airports, all of them inadequate to meet the challenges of tomorrow, none of them sufficient to provide in one place the totality of services that are required.
We all know that Heathrow is inadequate—that it is too small and that its site is limited. We all know that, if it is to succeed in international terms, it must become
82
bigger and better. There is only one site for this to happen—the sewage works. Perhaps the Minister will convey to my right hon. Friend, for whom I have the greatest affection and admiration, that it is a sad prospect that a Government who could successfully build a new airport in 18 months in the Falklands, 8,000 miles away, should be defeated at Heathrow by a sludge farm. There is something nationally humiliating about that.
I sum up. Let us by all means have the 7 million or 8 million passengers in Stansted. Let us encourage Manchester in every way that we can. But let us make sure that we have in London a national airport which is the best in the world. We shall not get it by a fudged policy which says, "Maybe terminal 5, maybe not terminal 5; maybe 7 million at Stansted, maybe 15 million at Stansted."
It was said of my right hon. Friend's White Paper that at long last, after 30 years, he has grasped the nettle and taken a firm decision. He has done no such thing. He has left all the options open. Therefore, I cannot support him.
7.50 pm
Mr. Allan Roberts: The Minister, in opening the debate, quoted in aid Mr. Gil Thompson, the director of Manchester airport, as being in favour of the proposals. I do not know whether there is any connection, but seven days previously Mr. Gil Thompson received an OBE from the Government. [Interruption.] People do respond to such things.
The Minister also quoted in aid the Manchester Evening News. He quoted the headline. He did not quote the leader following the Government's White Paper, which was critical of the White Paper and called for some concrete proposals, let alone some more concrete in Manchester.
The Government have not moved away from the Graham Eyre recommendations which so many Conservative Members oppose; they have moved nearer to them, including the proposed removal of the sewage works and the proposal to go ahead with the fifth terminal. The Government have not, in the White Paper, ruled out the increase to 25 million PPA at Stansted.
If the White Paper has convinced Conservative Members that the Government have made any concessions or have moved in any way at all, it is a clever piece of propaganda, because I do not believe that any significant concessions have been made by the Government from their original position. The Government have landed at Stansted and the development will, as originally envisaged, go forward to the original figure of 15 million PPA, and then probably much further than that. A thick fog has been created around the Government decisions. Although at first sight the Government appear to have landed at Manchester, Luton and Heathrow, the real conclusion to be drawn from the White Paper is that there has again been a diversion to Stansted.
I support Manchester international airport as the key airport in the north-west of England but, as Member of Parliament for Bootle, and representing a Merseyside constituency, I am also greatly concerned about Speke airport in Liverpool. Speke has hardly been mentioned in the report, but I do not believe that Liverpool airport can survive if the proposals in the White Paper go ahead. I do not believe that it can survive, let alone have a rosy future, without a massive expansion of Manchester international airport. To have a viable future, Speke airport needs to be linked into the international airport at Manchester.

83
Manchester has 180 airport movements a day and made a profit of £12 million last year, yet the White Paper has the audacity to suggest that the Government are not convinced that the running of local authority airports through joint committees is the most effective means of managing substantial businesses. Manchester airport is a success story, and it is run by a committee of a local authority. It was conceived and pioneered by a local authority, in the true spirit of municipal pioneering. It is run effectively by a joint committee of the county and the city. Indeed, a Conservative Member, from a sedentary position, commented that Manchester has a fine airport. It is a tribute to municipal Socialism that the airport exists and makes a profit of £12 million.
Merseyside county council owns Liverpool airport, where there are only 30 air movements a day. The annual loss approaches £3 million. That debt will not be accepted. When I intervened, the Minister said that he could give no undertaking about the future of Liverpool airport, and that it is up to the districts, which might come together and take over the airport; if not, it would be up to the passenger transport authority that is being set up by the abolition Bill, rate-capped from its inception. The Secretary of State knows that the districts, many of them rate-capped and with cuts in grants and inadequate targets, will not take over an airport with a debt of £3 million. He knows that the passenger transport authority cannot take over that £3 million debt, because it will be rate-capped at its inception. The Secretary of State should give an undertaking that the money will be forthcoming to sustain the airport.
Liverpool has only five summer holiday charter flights leaving each week, and some scheduled domestic services. The airport is, sadly, underused. Less freight comes into the airport in a year than through the seaport container terminal in the docks in my constituency in half of one of the container vessels. That is the situation at present at Liverpool airport.
Money has been spent on a new terminal at Speke, but the one crucial missing element required to draw charter trade is a duty-free shop. The airport would be far more prosperous than it is now, and it would possibly break even, if it could attract a charter trade. As I have said, it would attract that trade if it had a duty-free shop. The Customs and Excise has ruled that out because there are not enough passengers, so we have a Catch-22 situation. If the Government would give an undertaking that the Customs and Excise would agree to the granting of a duty-free shop, Liverpool airport would start to thrive.
There has been mention of the issue of freedom of choice. Many of my constituents, and others throughout the north-west, have very little freedom of choice in where they fly from. They fly from the airport that is nominated by the travel agent or bucket shop. They have to go to Luton and to Gatwick. It is not only a myth to say that there is freedom of choice. It is a myth to suggest that there is something wrong about directing companies or flights to the north-west, where there is no freedom of choice now.
Visitors from countries such as the United States like to visit Wales, Chester and Merseyside, which is becoming a growing tourist attraction, as well as the Lake district. Many of them would prefer to fly into Manchester or Liverpool and start their holiday there, rather than
84
having to go first to Heathrow. It can take longer to get from terminal 1 to terminal 3 than to travel from Manchester airport to Liverpool airport. Sometimes one has to wait 20 minutes before getting on a bus. The congestion and difficulties are tremendous.
Privatisation is presented as an alternative. Tomorrow a private company, Airports International Limited, is making a presentation to Merseyside MPs. The company does not want to take over the Liverpool airport, with its debts. It wants to have a management contract and, in the company's words, to make the airport more efficient, but it does not want to take on responsibility for the airport.
Liverpool airport should have a future. Tourism on Merseyside is increasing. Merseyside is becoming much more attractive to tourists. Liverpool airport reflects the economic position in Merseyside. If there is to be any development of Merseyside's industry, and if unemployment is to go below 20 per cent. in the travel-to-work area, that development has to be linked with the expansion of Liverpool airport. If Liverpool airport closes as a result of the White Paper and the Government's plans to abolish the metropolitan county, it will be another nail in the coffin of Merseyside. It will signal a loss of jobs not only at the airport but in the hinterland.
Manchester airport should be linked with Liverpool airport. There should be a rapid rail transit system linking the two cities. What could become Manchester's second runway has already been built at Liverpool. There are no noise problems because the flight path is mainly over the estuary. That runway would be ideal as a second runway for Manchester international airport. That is the kind of opportunity open to the Government if they would accept the regional alternative. I do not believe that the Government can develop the capacity of Stansted to 15 million PPA and beyond. Luton borough council will be invited to put proposals to increase Luton's capacity to 5 million PPA. The report's conclusions state:
"The Government will encourage the development of Manchester"
airport. I wonder what "will encourage" means. The report states that a plan
"is being drawn up … to provide a positive strategy for increasing the range of international services"
at Manchester. That will not happen if Stansted is developed. Section 6.32 does not contain a commitment. It states:
"The Government would expect to approve capital expenditure on a second terminal at Manchester when this is justified by demand and return on capital."
It will not be justified by demand and return on capital if Stansted goes ahead and is developed as is envisaged in the White Paper.
I do not believe in the kind of expansion figures for the increase in passenger traffic that the Secretary of State quoted. Any commitment to the regional alternative will be on a wing and a prayer. If Conservative Members are conned by the White Paper, when they previously opposed the Government's proposals to build Stansted because they supported a regional alternative, then they have been misled and are more gullible than I believed that they were—
Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Harold Walker): Order.
Mr. Roberts: I urge the Government to reconsider the matter and I urge those Conservative Members who have doubts to vote according to their consciences.
8.1 pm
Mr. Tony Baldry: I am beginning to think that I am one of the few Members of the House who do not have a constituency interest in the matter. I shall address the House from the national perspective.
Air transport is one of the more successful industrial sectors of the British economy. British Airways, the world's favourite airline, is a major earner of foreign currency, a major employer and one of the most internationally competitive businesses. In contrast with other European nations, the United Kingdom enjoys a second major international carrier and a number of smaller airlines. The United Kingdom must not jeopardise the future of a sector in which it is internationally more competitive than any other member of the European Community.
Further, air transport does not stand alone. It is vital to the competitive position of manufacturing and service industries, which are increasingly dependent upon air transport as international and European marketing and development become even more important.
An island nation, on the periphery of the European Community, cannot afford to lose the competitive advantage in air transport that it enjoys. Because of a common language and history, the United Kingdom will remain the preferred European base for many international airlines. Failure to achieve a viable airports strategy would, in all the circumstances, be economic and national folly. Britain leads, and should continue to seek to lead, Europe in air transport.
No air transport strategy in which capacity falls short of demand can be regarded as successful. Two questions are involved: how much capacity, and when? Mr. Eyre sought to provide estimates of levels of demand which he believed it would be prudent to meet. He did not assert that his figures would necessarily be reached or that they would not be overtaken, but rather that capacity to match demand should be available and capable of operation by the time the levels of demand are reached. He projected that by 1995 demand of 75 million PPA would exist in the London area and 89 million PPA by the year 2000. His figures are drawn from an extensive and thorough review of the evidence then available, based on an examination of the methodologies. It is doubtful whether those figures could be improved.
It follows, therefore, that if the proposals for our airports strategy fail to produce sufficient capacity to match projected demand, that strategy will have failed. To succeed, that demand must be met in the London area and in the regions. We must ensure that capacity is available when and where it is needed. Ideally, new capacity should be available as soon after 1990 as possible.
One substantial misconception must be dealt with before we consider where and when capacity is needed. No part of the airports policy has been as confused or has given rise to such acrimonious debate as the role of the regional airports. Demand is greater in the south-east. Airlines will not develop regional services if there is no demand, and nothing said by the Opposition has managed seriously to bring into question Mr. Eyre's conclusion that there is no shortage of capacity in the regions. There is shortage of capacity in London and the south-east. A sensible airports strategy, therefore, must meet the likely
86
increase in demand in London and the south-east. Prudent consideration requires that 75 million PPA be provided by 1995.
Mr. Eyre concluded that only Stansted could be expanded to cover the shortfall of capacity in the early 1990s, and that to meet demand in the late 1990s and into the next century extra facilities at Stansted and Heathrow would be needed. That is a safe and viable strategy. It is broadly the one that the Government are adopting. By expanding Stansted to 8 million PPA in the near future, and leaving the door open to future expansion at Stansted and Heathrow, the Government are ensuring that there will be sufficient capacity to meet demand for some time.
I wish for a firmer commitment to the construction of a fifth terminal at Heathrow, but I am sensible of the fact that a fifth terminal remains an option should the need arise. During the inquiry, Mr. Eyre commented that hitherto airports inquiries and policy had been characterised by uncertainty. What arises out of the White Paper and these proposals is a sure and considered strategy which seeks to meet demand; a national strategy that will provide sufficient capacity to meet demand at the minimum environmental cost; a strategy that will ensure the maintenance of the unique international status of the United Kingdom's air transport system; and a strategy that will ensure that Britain continues to be a world leader in air transport well into the 21st century. That is a strategy which will ensure that we continue to be competitive in a business where, for once, we lead Europe. It would be folly to jeopardise that lead unless we must.
8.8 pm
Mr. David Lambie: I apologise for missing the beginning of the debate, but I was visiting a British Aerospace factory at Prestwick airport with my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudon (Mr. McKelvey). Unfortunately, the visit lasted longer than I thought it would and I missed the shuttle from Glasgow.
That visit was unusual for Scottish Members of Parliament because we were faced with a problem. It was not the usual problem of redundancies and closures but one of success. British Aerospace has so many orders for its Jetstream that it cannot get them out regularly. The factory was worth the visit, if only to hear of that problem.
Certain aspects of the Government's White Paper attracted me, even though I speak from the Opposition Benches. If one excludes the privatisation of the British Airports Authority, there is much sense and worth in the proposals. I say that as a Scottish Member of Parliament; as a regional Member of Parliament.
During the past five years, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has carried out two inquiries—one into the future of Prestwick airport and the other into the effects of the privatisation of the BAA on Scottish lowland airports policy. The Government have accepted most of the proposals in both those reports. As Chairman of the Select Committee, I must thank the Government for doing so.
The Select Committee stated that the traditional policy on Scottish lowland airports and on retaining Prestwick as the international gateway and the long haul airport for the Atlantic, carried out by all Governments over a long period, was to be maintained, if only for a temporary period of four years. We stated that the activities of the other lowland airports—Glasgow, Edinburgh and

87
Aberdeen—should be concentrated on journeys within the United Kingdom, and between the United Kingdom and Europe. The Government have maintained that policy, and I am glad of that.
I am not worried about the period of four years because halfway through we shall have a general election, and if all the trends continue as they are now, we shall have a change of Government. I hope that my Front Bench will give us an assurance tonight that the next Labour Government will carry out the policy on Prestwick airport of previous Labour Governments and of the present Conservative Government.
When the Select Committee considered the effects of the privatisation of BAA, we said that the future of the Scottish lowland airports depended on their being tied to the London airports. At that time we were thinking mainly of Heathrow and Gatwick. We said that if BAA is to be privatised, the Scottish lowland airports should retain their connections with BAA, but they should be controlled by a Scottish company, and the BAA should be the holding company. The Government have accepted that with one small addition. Instead of having one Scottish company running the lowland airports, the Government have said that there will be individual companies for each of the four airports. I have no objection to that. In my opinion, the more decentralisation there is, the better. That is why I support devolution for Scotland.
Therefore, the Government have accepted that the Scottish lowland airports should be tied to the London airports. That will be a good thing for the passengers in Scotland. As the BAA has always stated and as the Government said in their White Paper, I believe that we shall see a continuation of the expansion of air transport. I have no doubt about that. The Scottish airports cannot compete with London. We must keep our ties with London, but we must develop the facilities that we can develop best. I do not see Heathrow, Gatwick or even Stansted as the enemy of the Scottish airports. I am more afraid of the build-up of Manchester airport, and of it taking on the role of the airport not only for the north-west of England but for north Britain, as I have often heard. If there is a build-up of Manchester airport, I do not see that bringing any benefit to the Scottish people who want to fly in and out of Prestwick airport.
Therefore, I realise, as someone who is interested in the aerospace industry, that if we do not build up the London airports, the alternative is not Prestwick, Manchester, Liverpool or Birmingham—it is the major airports on the continent of Europe. If we are to maintain our position as a major centre of world air transport, we must develop the London airports.
This is where I have a criticism of the Government White Paper. The Government are giving commitments to build up the infrastructure for Stansted and Heathrow. They must also give such assurances to build up the infrastructure of the Scottish airports, especially Prestwick. I cannot justify the spending of £166 million on better rail connections to Stansted, £150 million on a rail connection to Heathrow, or £25 million to £50 million on an extension of the tube unless we get the same assurances for Scotland. We need direct motorway connections with Glasgow, Edinburgh and Prestwick. We need a railway station similar to the one at Gatwick airport—though not on the same scale—on the main Ayr-Glasgow line,
88
with the halt at Prestwick airport itself. If our infrastructure is built up, the Scottish airports will have a future.
Unfortunately, Scotland has a population of only 5 million. We have four lowland airports. We are all fighting one another for trade. I hope that, now that the Government's policy has been confirmed, the Scottish people will come together, and hon. Members on both sides of the House representing Scottish constituencies will fight to make sure that the Government provide money to build up the infrastructure for the development of Scottish airports.
I also welcome the proposals in the White Paper on the Highland and Islands airports. The Government tried to sell those airports. Luckily for the Scots and the Socialists among the Scottish people, no one would buy them. Now the Tory Government are going to form a public company in Scotland, based in Edinburgh, to run those airports, which I welcome. I hope that when the next Labour Government take over, we shall extend the same policy that the Tory Government are carrying out for the Highland and Islands airports in Scotland to the rest of the airports in the United Kingdom. I hope that we shall renationalise the British Airports Authority and put it under Government control once again.
8.18 pm
Sir Fergus Montgomery: I shall concentrate on the effects on Manchester international airport of the White Paper. I was delighted that the chief executive of Manchester airport was awarded the OBE in the birthday honours list. Gil Thompson has done an enormous amount of work for the airport in our area. The comments by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) were unnecessary and had no taste. He should be ashamed of himself for making such a scandalous statement.
There was a statement on 5 June when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State inaugurated the White Paper. It goes a long way towards meeting the objects of the North of England Regional Consortium. That was and is an all-party group working on behalf of the north. It is a pity that the political prejudices of certain Opposition Members have now taken flight. If they bothered to study the White Paper, they would find that there is a great deal in it for Manchester airport, which was enhanced by the statements on the night of its issue by the airport's chief executive and the town clerk of Manchester. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made some silly statements that day. She and the right hon. Member for Manchester Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) should have known better. They led the parrot cries of Labour Members from the north-west. Those hon. Members were bleating either because they did not understand what my right hon. Friend had said or because they did not want to understand it. There are none so blind as those who do not want to see.
It is difficult to accept that those hon. Members belong to a party which, when in government in 1978, published a White Paper that gave little joy to regional airports. It said:
"The Government rejects the suggestion that the air transport industry should be subject to the damaging restrictions on its operations which would be the outcome of the forced diversion of traffic to regional airports."
I cannot imagine that there was much dancing in the streets of Manchester at that time.

89
The present Government have done far more than any other for Manchester international airport. We have 6 million passengers per annum and it is expected that we shall have 30 per cent. growth to the end of the decade. The melancholy moaners and Jonahs on the Labour Benches are always asking for more international flights from and to Manchester. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said today that of 33 scheduled international services at Manchester, 14 have started this year. I cannot see what Labour Members are playing at.
We must never be complacent. We in the north of England must keep fighting the battles, but I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for a number of reasons. First, he has confirmed that Manchester is a gateway international airport outside London. Secondly, he has restricted Stansted to a first phase of 7 million to 8 million PPA, with a provision that an increase will have to be referred to Parliament. I am particularly grateful for the enormous help that will be provided to Manchester by the fact that it will be competing with Stansted on equal terms.
I always thought that it was wrong that landing charges at Stansted should be so low because of the subsidy from the profits of the so-called duty-free shops at Gatwick and Heathrow. The fact that Stansted will in future be competing on equal terms with every other airport in this country is good news for our regional airports.
I also welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has agreed that Manchester's second terminal can go ahead when there are sufficient passengers to justify it.
The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) waxed long and loud about the need for a rail link, but we have to accept that the Government have approved the Windsor link which links the railway systems in the north and south of Manchester. In addition, there are promises in the White Paper of discussions about the provision of a direct rail link to Manchester airport. We have been asking for that for many years and it would give the airport an enormous boost.
We have also had the promise that agreements will be renegotiated to get more international flights in and out of Manchester. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will have some good news to give us when he replies to the debate.
Section 6.29 of the White Paper points out that regional airports have a great part to play and that licensing policy is important.
Licensing policy can have a direct effect on the growth of regional airports. The White Paper confirms that about 13 per cent. of the passengers using Heathrow and Gatwick began their journeys in Manchester's gateway catchment area. It is important to get more international flights using Manchester, and it is essential that any application should be dealt with as speedily as possible.
I remind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of what happened with Singapore Airlines. As he said, once Governments got involved, an agreement came quickly—within six weeks. However, before that, Singapore Airlines had been trying frantically to get the flight. The airline wanted to fly into Manchester and the airport wanted it to fly there. Somewhere, there was a stumbling block.
American Airlines now wants to fly from Chicago to Manchester. I recognise that that will require a renegotiation of the Bermuda 2 agreement, but I emphasise to the Under-Secretary the urgency of the
90
situation. I cannot imagine American Airlines being prepared to hang around and wait for a decision. I hope that the application will be dealt with speedily, because I fear that if we do not snatch the opportunity American Airlines will gravitate to an European gateway airport and a great opportunity will have been lost to Manchester.
My information is that American Airlines would like to start its Chicago to Manchester flights next spring. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will give us some idea of the Government's thinking on the issue. I am told that, for protocol reasons, American Airlines was not allowed to write directly to the Department. Apparently, only Governments speak to Governments. I hope that the Government will show American Airlines how welcome it would be in flying to Manchester.
I have also been told that Air Lanka wants to fly direct to Manchester. The opportunities are there. Manchester must be allowed to grasp them.
I do not have to emphasise that it is essential for Manchester, as a hub airport, to have a strong base carrier. That is one reason why hon. Members from the north-west fought last year for British Airways to be the major operator of scheduled services. We are delighted that BA has introduced new services, but I question whether the New York-Manchester route is being pushed as hard as it could be. There should be a substantial demand from passengers to fly from Manchester to New York, but they must be aware that the flight is available. I urge BA to remember how hard north-west Members fought for the airline last year and how much we wanted such flights to be arranged. We hope that British Airways will give us deeds to match its words.
As the base carrier, British Airways should be given the first chance to capitalise on the opportunities offered at Manchester. I note that the White Paper says that foreign airlines also have a role to play in developing a Manchester hub.
The airport authority is doing all that it can to promote the airport. It is building up five-year and 10-year plans to identify routes that, over time, will show sufficiently strong regional demand to justify operations. It is in the interests of northern passengers and the regional economy that those routes should be operated when they become viable.
The first option to operate those routes must be given to British airlines, but if, having been given the opportunity, the British airlines cannot deliver, foreign airlines should be given the opportunity to serve the routes. In other words, British airlines would have the first option on any route identified within the plan for Manchester, but they must not be allowed to prevaricate to prevent a competitor from serving the needs of northern passengers. Blocking tactics at Manchester airport are over.
For example, if a viable route to Pakistan is identified, the opportunity should be offered to British airlines, but if those airlines do not wish to operate the route, bilateral negotiations should seek to open the way for a foreign carrier to serve the route. I trust that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will establish a detailed framework in which that could happen. If British airlines do not take advantage of the route opportunities, they can at least gain from the connecting traffic that will be generated on new routes operated by foreign airlines.

91
It is no longer acceptable for bilateral negotiations on air service agreements merely to look at each route, one for one. They should take into account the wider benefits to be gained, within and beyond the aviation sector.
Tourism is a growing industry here and we must do as much as possible to sell this country to tourists. British airlines successfully sell package holidays to the Mediterranean and other areas. Foreign airlines could do much to boost our tourism.
I do not apologise for concentrating on the effects of the White Paper on Manchester airport. We are all fighting our own corners and speaking on behalf of the people we represent. I welcome the fact that the White Paper shows a willingness to look after northern interests. I hope that we shall see its words put into action and I look forward to the greater prosperity of Manchester international airport.
8.29 pm
Mr. Peter Pike: I view the White Paper differently from the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery). I believe that the White Paper is a kick in the teeth for the north of England and the regions. I have made that comment before, and I believe that I am correct. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale said that Manchester airport had grown because of Government policy. I would say that it has grown despite Government policy, and that it has grown because of the progressive foresight and management of those responsible for the airport.
I was involved in the late 1960s and early 1970s in the development of Manchester airport when massive capital injections were made in that airport. Such injections have always been made. That is why Manchester airport is so successful, and why it will continue to be successful. The success is due to local management decisions. I resent any suggestion of privatisation in the White Paper.
The Secretary of State said that the only Opposition Member who spoke against privatisation on 5 June was my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). That was a silly remark, because Opposition Back Benchers were limited in what they could say. The Opposition are opposed to the privatisation of the British Airports Authority.
The White Paper provides few reasons for privatisation. It says that privatisation will provide greater freedom for management and that it will lead to efficiency gains and greater response to customers. I do not accept that. If that is true, why do we not legislate to ensure that the British Airports Authority has the freedom and ability to meet customer demand itself? Privatisation is not justified and I believe it to be the wrong approach.
I recognise that the White Paper tries to reconcile the many different views expressed in January when we had a debate on the subject. That debate revealed a strong view that, for whatever the reason, the development of Stansted airport was not favoured and that hon. Members wanted more development of the regional airports.
The Secretary of State said earlier that the vote on that occasion was only on the Adjournment. That was a silly remark, but one gets used to silly remarks from the Secretary of State. A strong view was expressed. The reasons for that view were different, but the decision was clear and decisive.
92
The White Paper is a result of that debate, and it tries to provide a compromise. It is the result of pressure from the North of England Regional Consortium and of the Government's failure to obtain full support for their civil aviation legislation. The White Paper does not deal with the problem. It fudges and dodges the issues. It offers nothing positive to the regions.
When the Government produced the White Paper, they had the opportunity to change the direction of Government policy, not only for airports, but for the regions in general. They could have shown their confidence in the regions. I believe that the Government are not concerned about the regions. The White Paper underlines that attitude.
Mr. Roger Stott: I wonder whether my hon. Friend heard the argument of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who said that we should develop Stansted because of the number of journeys that start in the south of England. I was tempted to intervene and say that 8 million journeys a year originate from the north of England and that that figure was growing. The hon. Member for Banbury asked why those journeys should have to start at Stansted, Gatwick or Heathrow, when they could start from Manchester or Prestwick.
Mr. Pike: That is the whole point of the exercise. People in the north of England and in other regions should be able to travel direct from their local airports. I travelled from Heathrow to Manchester on Friday last week. I caught the 11.30 am plane, which did not take off until midday because at least nine planes were queueing up to take off. The passenger sitting next to me was not a Labour party supporter. He was a business man who lives in the Manchester area. He said that he detested using London airport. He has to travel abroad and tries to use Schiphol rather than Heathrow. That is just one example of a person having to go to the continent to make a major journey when Manchester should provide such facilities.
The vice-chairman of the Labour group on the Lancashire county council said:
"This is an issue on which all parties of all Local Authorities in the North are united and the Consortium will continue to press for a statement from the Government on the regional disparities between the North and South. We will not allow the Government to gloss over this issue and concentrate public expenditure in the South East. The development of Manchester Airport must be seen as a regional development which will benefit enormously all areas of the North West."
That is a fair expression of the position. I agree that we need the rail link to Manchester airport. That would open up the airport. Earlier in the year I welcomed the Windsor link between north and south Manchester, but we need the next step—the link to Manchester airport.
The White Paper talks about between 38 million and 42 million passengers for Heathrow. The current figure is 29 million. The projected figure for Gatwick is between 21 million and 23 million, when currently 14 million passengers use that airport. The projected figure for Stansted is between 7 million and 8 million, when 500,000 currently use it. It is estimated that at Luton the number of passengers will increase from 2 million to 3·5 or 5 million and that the figure for STOLport will be 1 million. Those figures are biased in favour of the south-east.
People should not have to got to the south to travel abroad. More flights should go from Manchester and other regional airports. That should be positive policy. People would use the regional airports if flights started from them.

93
Flights from Manchester for charter holidays are taken up very quickly. That forces many others to travel to London by air or by rail to start their journey.
The recent history of regional airports has been affected by unfulfilled Government promises over a number of years. We now need a regional policy which makes a real attempt to eliminate the disparities and to give unrestricted access to all airlines wishing to exploit the opportunities offered by the regional airports. We want a strong commitment to expand and develop the regional airports. It is time that the role of the CAA was changed to make it a priority for that body to ensure that the requirement to develop the regional airports is fulfilled and is not merely the subject of lip-service. I strongly urge the Government to secure the future of the regional airports in that way.
8.40 pm
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: In general, my constituents and I welcome the Government statement and the White Paper as a realistic assessment of future air travel demand into the next century and the geographical location of that demand. We must satisfy the demand in the south-east. I would have preferred the Maplin solution and the foresight shown in that proposal and I regret that it was voted down. Stansted is now the only viable airport that can meet the demand in the time available. If we do not satisfy the demand in the short term there is no doubt at all that the business will go abroad and we cannot afford that.
My constituents are also grateful that the awful prospect of a fifth terminal at Heathrow has been removed for the foreseeable future and perhaps for ever, but a number of questions remain to be answered. First, if the Secretary of State has taken powers to limit flights at Heathrow, when and at what level of aircraft movements does he intend to use them? Secondly, I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wishes to improve the environment of those living around Heathrow but there was a glaring absence of any reference to night flights in his statement today. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will rectify that omission when he winds up the debate. We need clarification as there has been much discussion recently in The Standard and in the local media about why that subject has been left out of the discussions so far. We do not want it to be a wooden horse to increase misery. Thirdly, why is the Thames water authority to be allowed to continue to investigate the removal of the Perry Oaks sludge works?
My constituents utterly rebut the finding of Mr. Eyre that the restriction of air traffic movements makes no significant contribution to the control of aircraft noise. I applaud the Government's actions on this in recent years. In seven or eight months' time, Trident will go and 12 months later foreign equivalents of Trident will also go. Frequency is just as important as noise level. If that is not so, why should there be a limit on Stansted not just for the first phase but for the second phase? We want parliamentary control at Heathrow, too. All airports should be subject to environmental controls over the number of flights. It is a mistake to believe that a reduction in noise should mean an increase in flights. I take the analogy of a little drop of water which is innocent enough by itself, but a constant, unremitting drip, drip, drip becomes Chinese water torture. Heathrow is my constituents' Chinese torture.
94
If all planes were as quiet as the BA146 and the Boeing 757 with the RB 211 engine, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) has said, I am sure that my constituents would not mind an increase in air traffic movements. But all aircraft are not as quiet as that. Nevertheless, the 275,000 ATM limit proposed by the Government is being lifted before the quieter engines come in. That limited but welcome restriction was regarded as correct when the Government introduced the Civil Aviation Bill just a few months ago, but that legislation was rejected by the Opposition, by four Conservative Members as a result of constituency pressure, and by the Liberal spokesman in the Standing Committee. Why, just a few weeks later, has it been decided that that restriction was wrong? If any one of those dissenting members of the Standing Committee had taken a different view, that limit might now be law. The pledge given at the inquiry into the fourth terminal has now been reversed.
Mr. Bill Walker: If my hon. Friend reads the Official Report of the first sitting of that Committee, he will realise that I did not vote as I did as a result of constituency pressure, of which there was none.
Mr. Hanley: I apologise to my hon. Friend. I accept that that was true for him, although not for the other three Conservative Members.
Night is the only time when there is any respite from the possible maximum of 72 flights per hour at Heathrow. It is not good enough to suggest, as the Eyre report does, that double glazing will bring relief. We cannot double-glaze people's gardens, nor can we double-glaze Kew gardens or Richmond park, and people cannot sleep comfortably on warm summer nights with the double glazing closed. People are entitled to some respite, but even then the existing 15 to 20 night flights disturb their sleep. Section 8.2 of the White Paper states:
"There is no absolute measure of disturbance from aircraft noise".
But there is—it is called absolute misery.
There is another reason for limiting the number of flights. Perhaps it has not been mentioned so far because we find it too uncomfortable. Nevertheless, it must be stated, and not just to be alarmist. I refer to safety. We have been lucky that there has been no major accident over a built-up area of London when many other cities have suffered terribly in this way. We are lucky that there have not been more such accidents world-wide, but there have been some, and lives have been lost. Hon. Members should consider what would happen if a really serious accident took place over London. We have been blessed with good fortune but if pressure grows to increase the number of flights, and if the time between planes taking off and landing is reduced, the unthinkable will happen some day. The worst of all turbulence is caused by the vortex behind the bigger planes. We need fewer, not more, large planes if the excellent safety record that we have enjoyed so far is to continue. The airlines will attempt to increase the number of flights to the maximum, but the Government must carefully monitor the spacing of flights and not allow an increase beyond what is absolutely safe.
On both safety and environmental grounds there must be a limit. We are not all killjoys or environmental Luddites in Richmond and Barnes. We do not turn our backs on the demand to fly or pretend that we do not use Heathrow airport ourselves. Through our suffering we

95
have contributed to the growth of one of Britain's major industries—the aircraft industry—but enough is enough and it is time to spread the load. We should like to have the best airport in the world, but we do not believe that it should built inside the M25 close to one of the biggest cities in the world. We do not believe that the best airport in the world should have aircraft flying directly over 3 million people and affecting 5 million people indirectly.
Planning permission for the fifth terminal has been withdrawn, but there has been much comment on the Government's invitation to the Thames water authority to investigate the removal of the Perry Oaks sludge works and 1·5 million tonnes of sludge. There are still questions to be answered. I accept that it is a very valuable site—doubtless extremely valuable to a privatised Thames water authority or a privatised British Airports Authority—and much could be built on it, whether it be warehousing, factories or whatever. The fact that the sludge works might be removed will improve the value of both airport and water company, but it is time to rule out any possibility of a fifth terminal being built on that site, which would almost double the number of aircraft movements. Speculation about grandiose schemes of that kind should not be allowed to flourish and to cause anxiety as they have in recent weeks. In any case, it will cost millions of pounds to remove the sludge works and it will take years to go through the public inquiries and planning procedures all over again. It would be far fairer to the potential shareholders of the BAA and Thames water to clear up the prospects now.
I greatly welcome the encouragement given to the expansion of the northern airports. It is strange that many hon. Members have steadfastly refused to recognise how Government policy has increased the number of destinations from Manchester airport by more than 75 per cent. in the last 12 months. This Government really have done something for the northern airports, and they have done wonders for the numbers of people flying out of Manchester. Why would there be celebrations about Singapore Airlines if it were not for the Government's policy on liberalisation?
Perhaps in 15 years' time there will be even greater demand in the north. It is up to the north to prove that demand and to try to get people to fly from Manchester to foreign areas. We in the south do not want to accommodate those who do not want to come, but other areas must prove that demand and work for it. There must be an equitable spreading of the burden and a recognition of the reality of the unpleasant side of aeroplane travel. My constituents realise that aircraft noise will not go away entirely. However, it will reduce, and numbers must not make up the equation.
There is nothing sinister in trying to improve access to Heathrow. In particular, we must improve the rail network. The improvement to infrastructure is not a wooden horse. Existing facilities and levels are bad enough now, and they will get even worse if there is an increase in the number of flights. Luggage carrying must be catered for, as it is at Gatwick.
I therefore welcome this White Paper, but I beg an answer to these questions.
8.51 pm
Mr. Tony Lloyd: No other debate in this Parliament has typified the gulf that exists between the north of England, Scotland and Wales and the south-east cult which has permeated our discussions. The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) talked about the problems of his constituents who cannot sleep without double glazing. I sympathise, but my constituents cannot sleep because of the problem of lack of jobs. The unemployment rate in Manchester is twice the national average. In my constituency, there is 50 per cent. male adult unemployment within 15 minutes of Manchester airport. That is why the development of Manchester is so necessary, and that is why the Government have not done enough.
The White Paper deals with the future development of the London airports and the role of the regional airports. Much is summed up in that philosophy. In effect, it says that for London airports one should read "national" and that the regions comprise the rest. We are told that civil aviation is vital to our prosperity, but that means the prosperity of the south-east, with the regions taking their share of what is left.
I speak in defence of Manchester airport, but I am confident that I speak for the airports of Scotland, the north-east, and Yorkshire—[Interruption] The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) nods in agreement. I am glad, because this is a common cause outside the south-east.
Throughout the White Paper we are told that an airport creates employment. It does so in the south-east, but if that prevents the development of airports in the north-west or any other region employment does not matter. This Government of two nations have a national airports policy for the south-eastern region and a regional airports policy for the rest.
However, it would be uncharitable if I did not recognise the fact that the Secretary of State has moved some way towards recognising the case put forward by the North of England Regional Consortium and others who have lobbied him. I pay a limited tribute to the Government in that what we now see has been modified compared with what we saw at the beginning of this year and last year. We have made some progress, although not enough.
I also concede that at the third time of asking Singapore Airlines was given its route into Manchester. That is welcome, but we do not welcome the fact that the Government have not yet put pressure on other airlines with licences to operate those routes. The Government are not in negotiation with the United States Government and others to bring other airlines into Manchester where, as the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) said, there is a proven demand. We do not need lessons and lectures from the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes that we need to prove the viability of our airports. That is mere cheek and insufferable pomposity from someone who, rightly, is trying to protect his own constituents but is denying my constituents the right to fly from their own airport. My constituents know where they want to fly from. They live only minutes down the road. This is one of the largest unemployment black spots in the country, yet it is a mere 15 minutes from the airport. Manchester needs that airport for its economic prosperity. We need that airport, because in a modern economy it is not satisfactory to have airport infrastructure

97
based on one region. If the industry of Manchester and other areas is to be resurrected, it is not satisfactory to have our air traffic shipped through the south-eastern airports. We demand that we be given viable national hub airports. That is what Manchester is asking for, and that is what it needs, given the size of the city. That is what it needs as the prime economic region of the north-west.
That is also mirrored in the needs of the other regions such as the west midlands, Scotland, Wales, the north-east and Yorkshire. The Government should not take the view that because of their inertia they have a policy that does not treat the regions unfairly. They must not lose sight of the fact that the action they have taken inevitably favours the south-east. All the British airlines have failed to develop Manchester and the other regional airports, and they will operate on the safety-first principle—that it is far safer to go into Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted rather than adopting the entrepreneurial stance which the Government favour and proving that it is viable to operate from Manchester and other regional airports.
We welcome the Secretary of State's comment that there will be no hidden subsidy for Stansted airport. However, I believe that that promise is akin to the already criticised promise about air traffic movements at Heathrow, which showed that when it suits the Government to change their mind there is a change of policy.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) challenged the Secretary of State to say whether he would do something immediately about cross-subsidisation. The right hon. Gentleman said that he does not yet have the power. But he certainly has the influence. If he says to the BAA that he will insist that it takes this action, is he seriously telling the House that the CAA will say, "No"? Is he seriously saying that if he were to threaten adding a rider that the CAA management should conform with his wishes, he would be told, "That is none of your business. We will not do that"?
If the Secretary of State is telling us that, he is literally not a fit person to command his office. He should take that action, in the interests not only of Manchester airport but of all BAA airports, in Scotland, elsewhere in the north and even at Heathrow and Gatwick, because every person who flies through them is subsidising passengers going through Stansted. It is in the Secretary of State's power and patronage to take this action, and he should do so tomorrow morning, if not tonight, if he is genuine about his commitment that charges will rise at Stansted. The charges will begin to rise if he tells the BAA to put them up, because it will listen to him. It would be foolish and dishonest to pretend otherwise.
Manchester needs the unfreezing of the present structure of the licensing policy. We want unrestricted access to Manchester because we know that there is a future for an airport of that size in that region. We have already seen the pattern of charter flights and what happened in that market. The restriction of the system under the present structure is a disadvantage to regional airports but is an advantage to the safety-first policies of the airlines and the south-eastern airports. By unfreezing the structure we can offer not only Manchester airport but, more generally, the Manchester economy some help.
I remind the Secretary of State that some time ago he said that there would be no subsidy to develop Stansted and that the £270 million from private capital was a modest amount of money. That modest amount of money would
98
so dramatically transform the economy of the north-west that we would gladly see the development of Stansted there, but under this Secretary of State we shall not see it because his commitment is not to the northern region. He represents the south-eastern region.
9 pm
Mr. John Mark Taylor: As the protagonists of north and south take a short, compulsory break in these affairs, perhaps I might be permitted to say a word for the English midlands, and in particular for Birmingham airport. It is not in my constituency of Solihull—although it lies in the borough of Solihull—but in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills). I think that he will agree that Birmingham airport is possessed of uniquely fine surface communications—surface access as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) described it.
Birmingham airport has a frontage to the A45, M45 continuum to the M1. It is on the crossroads of the M6 and the M42, leading to the M69, and northwards again to the M1. It is flanked by the London to Birmingham railway, a famous railway that has a marginal utility in the other direction as well. From the airport to the station there is the unique Maglev. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) accidentally I think called it a pneumatic operation, and said that it operates from the car park. Actually it links the airport terminal and the station using a unique piece of technology—magnetic repulsion providing the weight support for the vehicle and its passengers. On the same campus, in the National Exhibition Centre, we have the foremost exhibition centre in the United Kingdom.
The airport is a municipal one, and, under the ownership and management of the West Midlands county council, a splendid new terminal has recently been completed. I was involved, and pleased to have been so, in the municipal decision and subsequently in another place in securing some funding from the European Investment Bank. I pay tribute to the architect, Mr. Alfred Wood, and to the airport manager, Mr. Bob Taylor. In short, we have an excellent airport, well able to take its place in a free and fair aviation market.
Birmingham's ambition, which is a good one, is to consolidate a basic framework of scheduled aviation operations and, as an overlay to that scheduled framework, it can expect to provide a comparable amount of charter aviation and some general aviation as well. The Birmingham airport lobby asks only of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he keeps our merits in his mind whenever he considers and reviews airport policy. It is asking not for any favours but that he does not give its competitors unfair advantages over it. That is I think a very reasonable request for one of this Government's supporters to make of them.
I make one other request to the Secretary of State, and it is a more local one. I ask him, please, to hasten the transition to plc status and encourage private equity holding in the airport. However, until that process is completed, I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that he protects the standing of Solihull borough council and its proper desire to see one of the most important assets in the borough move to the desired new ownership in a proper, responsible and organised way.
9.5 pm
Sir Walter Clegg: This has been a most interesting debate. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was almost incoherent in the way that she put forward her own policies and criticised those of the Government.
Having an interest in the North of England Regional Consortium, I was struck by the fact that, even though it is supposed to be an all-party group, the response of Opposition Members from the north to the contents of the White Paper was such that I was made to feel that the all-party aspect of the consortium could stand very little more of that niggardly attitude.
The consortium said that it
"recognises that the strength of its case has forced the Secretary of State and the Government to impose drastic modifications on the proposals which the BAA were invited to bring forward in 1979 and which were largely endorsed by the Eyre report."
That is a very fair assessment. We have talked a great deal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the regional problem, and he has understood it completely.
Of course, the regions have reservations, especially the north-west region. They want to be sure that there will be no cross-subsidies at Stansted. My right hon. Friend referred to that, and I can assure him that we shall be watching to see that there are no subsidies to Stansted. It is vital to the development of air traffic into Manchester that there is no cross-subsidy. We want fair competition.
We also welcome what my right hon. Friend said about the rail link and that probably we shall have a report on the Manchester link before we get one on the Stansted link. Opposition Members representing northern constituencies have failed to acknowledge that a great deal has been done by Governments of both parties in the past to ensure the availability of road services to Manchester airport and the development of the environment round the airport. Therefore, there is only the rail link to complete the pattern of access to Manchester airport. We already have a magnificent series of motorways round it. If we can get that rail link, we shall have completed the pattern.
The White Paper is clear that Manchester will be the international airport for the north of England and the midlands outside the south-east, and we want that to continue.
The other problems of the north have been somewhat overlooked. I have in mind the smaller regional airports, and I think especially of Blackpool, which is quite close to my constituency. The development of the STOLport in London's docklands giving access to aircraft from the north-west capable of landing and taking off in a short distance would be a great advantage to the smaller airports in the north and feeder airports such as Carlisle and Liverpool.
The airports in the north-west need to be assured that they will have continued access to Heathrow for a considerable time to come. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put Manchester's problem admirably. More flights into Manchester are needed. It has the capacity to absorb another 35 per cent. before another terminal would need to be considered. The White Paper refers to the possibility of a second terminal at Manchester. Perhaps British Airways should consider making Manchester airport its hub for the north. The White Paper clearly envisages that possibility.
My right hon. Friend has had a difficult task to perform in formulating his conclusions, and he has been criticized
100
by almost everybody. He has had to take some very difficult decisions. Because of the pressure that it has been able to apply, the North of England Regional Consortium has produced a good result for the north. We ought to welcome it, not criticise it.
9.10 pm
Mr. Sydney Chapman: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to this debate. It is good to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg). May I concentrate on that part of the White Paper that relates to the proposed expansion of Stansted. Perhaps I should preface my remarks by saying that I cannot detect any benefit of convenience to my constituents if that airport is expanded; nor can I detect any environmental disadvantages. Therefore, I hope that I speak with a reasonably open mind.
I realise that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had to take some appallingly difficult decisions. I understand and sympathise with the general thrust of his recommendation—that there should be a gradual rather than a radical approach to the provision of airport facilities in the south-east of this country. However, the expansion of Stansted to 7 million to 8 million PPA will have serious environmental consequences. If that expansion takes place, we shall be creating not only a third airport for London—and an international airport, to boot—with a sixteenfold increase in the number of passengers using the airport; we shall also be creating the equivalent of a new city in what by any criterion is beautiful English countryside.
I disagree with the Eyre report about the likely expansion, not of developments within the curtilage of the airport, but of the facilities without that are linked to a modern international airport. If Stansted is substantially expanded, effectively we shall give the green light to the maximum capacity use of a single runway airport. This has happened at Gatwick. There may be only 7 million to 8 million passengers, but ultimately there will have to be a second terminal, with 25 million PPA using the airport. That problem has to be faced now rather than later. That cannot be allowed to happen by default in a few years' time.
I cannot accept some of the Eyre report's conclusions about the environmental consequences. The report says:
"Harlow, Bishop's Stortford, Stansted and its environs can accommodate the order of development associated with the expansion of that airport."
I do not believe that that will be so. I speak with the perhaps modest authority of being a fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute, which obviously takes some interest in town and country planning. I cannot believe the Eyre report's conclusion that the
"balance of urban growth can be accommodated by relatively modest increments to existing towns and settlements, without unduly affecting the character of the area or abandoning the policy of general restraint."
I believe that the exact opposite will happen on almost all counts.
We are accepting a decision to increase Stansted's size from 900 acres to about 2,300 acreas, and we are using some of the highest quality agricultural land in the country in order to do so. We are talking not only about a new terminal building of 1 million sq ft, a maintenance area, and all the cargo handling and rail and motorway link roads that will be necessary, but, in the case of Harlow

101
—to quote the report—about "relatively substantial urbanisation growth." In the case of Bishop's Stortford, there will be "airport related residential development".
I am appalled by the report's admission that the green belt to the east of Harlow would go. As president of the London Green Belt Council, I must say that it is quite wrong for Mr. Eyre to suggest that it would have gone anyway. I believe that far more than 10,000 extra dwellings will be needed in the vicinity of the airport in Hertfordshire and Essex.
I detect a strange theme running through the Eyre report when it addresses itself to environmental issues. Mr. Eyre seems to be minimising the adverse environmental effects involved in a one-runway airport expansion, but maximising and underlining the evil consequences of a second runway, which he says would be a
"grotesque invasion of pleasant countryside."
The report says that it would have "grievous visual consequences" which would be "wholly unacceptable". If that is so for a two-runway airport, it must be partly true for a one-runway airport.
From my study of air traffic growth forecasts, I believe that the forecasters have nearly always got things wrong and have nearly always overestimated. Of course, they may be right now, but we should be slightly cautious about the figures. If I am opposed to the expansion of Stansted to the 7 to 8 million PPA mark, let alone the 15 million mark recommended in the report, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is perfectly entitled to ask what policy should be adopted. I believe that we must utilise to the maximum the existing facilities at airports in the south-east. We must go for the maximum 25 million passenger throughput at Gatwick, and we must accept that Luton should be encouraged to take the full 5 million. I add to those figures the 1 million that will come with the STOLport, which is an eminently sensible development.
Existing capacity at Stansted amounts to 2 million passengers, although at present it is only a quarter utilised. However, Stansted could take 4 million passengers. I think that that would be the maximum throughput of passengers for Stansted, using its existing perimeters and existing parameters. Ultimately, we must develop terminal 5 at Heathrow. I cross swords with some of my hon. Friends, as I believe that that is the most ideal parcel of land in the south-east of England, and even in England, for airport development, and I do not believe that the development of terminal 5 would have any perceptible effect on the level of noise. I join those of my hon. Friends who have said that the 1986 and 1988 regulations on noise will be a considerable help and will substantially improve the noise level in the Heathrow area over the next few years.
Compared with Gatwick, Stansted has poor rail links. It is not only further from central London, but the rail link would have to go into King's Cross, which is substantially further away from central London than Victoria. Stansted also has a poor road link compared with Heathrow.
I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that if Stansted is expanded and developed along the lines of the White Paper it will become the charter and tourist air traffic Mecca of the south-east. It is in that area where, with imaginative and positive planning, more than a marginal amount of traffic could go to the regional airports.
It is for those reasons that, I regret, I cannot support the White Paper. We all tend to use selective statistics to the best advantage in making our case. If the Government accept that the existing Stansted airport, within its
102
perimeters and parameters, could take a throughput of up to 4 million or possibly 5 million passengers, what the White Paper is doing is embarking upon the building of a new international airport for the south-east which is ill placed strategically and in the most sensitive and important environmental area, simply to cater for an additional 2 million to 3 million passengers.
The Government have the wit to find alternative ways and other sites to provide for those additional 2 million to 3 million passengers. It is because of the appalling environmental consequences that I regret to say that not only can I not vote for the Government motion, but that I feel impelled to vote against it.
9.21 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I welcome the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) because I agree that the development of Stansted will be environmentally disastrous for the south-east. It will also be disastrous for the country as a whole. The Government are again allowing so many national resources to be invested in the south-east rather than in the north-west.
I do not believe that any Government, of any party, have given much help to Manchester international airport. It has reached its present position because of straightforward municipal enterprise and has prospered in spite of Government rather than because of them.
I regret that many Conservative Members from the north-west appear to have been bought off by the Government, and in exchange for very little. All that the Government have done is to license a few additional routes into Manchester. Some of the routes are not that important. Indeed, it is not the number of routes but the frequency of the service that is the key to whether the routes are used. It is unfortunate that some hon. Members have so easily given up on the north-west and are not prepared to sustain pressure on the Government.
I would have more sympathy for the Secretary of State if he would deal with the cross-subsidy of Stansted. Earlier in the debate he said that there was nothing that he could do about until he had legislation. He knows perfectly well that if he told the BAA that he wanted the cross-subsidy stopped, there would be a good chance of that happening and of him being able to enforce that. He would carry a great deal more credibility in Manchester if that happened this year rather than next year or the year after. It is certainly one of the issues on which we shall press him hard.
There is also the psychological problem that causes a great deal of resentment in the north-west—the assumption by travel agents and others, especially in the south of England, that it is perfectly reasonable for someone in Manchester to work out how to get to Gatwick, Luton or Heathrow, but it would be absurd for people in the south-east to work out how to get to Manchester. We must convince people that already in many instances it is much easier to get to Manchester international airport than to many of the airports in the south.
Not only is there a psychological problem, however, but there is the problem that the Government have not paid sufficient attention to building up the infrastructure around Manchester international airport. The hon. Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) said that there were superb motorways into Manchester airport. While it is true that the roads coming from the Wirral and the north are quite

103
good, the routes coming from around the Manchester area, including the M61—we must not overlook the Barton bridge problem—create a major bottleneck, and business people using that airport are constantly complaining that the two lanes over Barton bridge become a traffic congestion area every morning and put people off using the airport.
From the east side of Manchester, the fact that the M66 still has not been built and that, up to now, there has been only public consultation on it is a handicap. It would make a great difference if that were completed, as it would if the piece of the M63 in my constituency, from Portwood to Denton, was built, improving the link to the M67 and the Sheffield area. There is much that the Government could do in terms of the motorway network around Manchester which would have a big effect on Manchester international airport.
In the short time available to me I wish to concentrate on the rail link. It is sad to think that, although Manchester international airport is within two miles of the railway and that for the last 10 years people have been talking about making the link, the furthest we have got is a feasibility study. I accept that many airports are within two miles of a railway line. However, the line of which I am speaking, coming from Wilmslow to Manchester, would enable the station to be called airport station. I assure the Secretary of State that the addition of that two-mile railway link would make a tremendous difference to the airport.
In his opening remarks, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would consider the feasibility study carefully. I press him hard to do that. He should study in detail the position of British Rail in the matter. At present, BR is running a major advertising campaign and is trying to draw people away from the Manchester-Heathrow shuttle and on to the railways. In virtually all the stations in the Greater Manchester area are pictures of an aeroplane with the question:
"How can you improve the shuttle? Turn it into a train."
I do not blame BR for that sort of advertising, although I must, cynically, point out to BR that if only it had kept its existing services up to May, particularly in terms of the time it takes to travel from Manchester to London, rather than reduce the frequency of trains—particularly dispensing with some of the early trains which enabled passengers to get from Manchester to London early in the morning—it would have done better in terms of competing with the shuttle.
Many people fear that because BR sees itself competing with the Manchester-Heathrow shuttle, it is less sympathetic to putting in the two-mile rail link of which I spoke. I repeat, it is vital that that rail link is made. It would improve the journey time for many people travelling to Manchester airport, and I hope that the Minister will examine that with great care.
Attention must also be paid to developing the cargo aspect of Manchester international airport. I appreciate that much cargo travels with passengers, but more could be done in business terms, with more destinations for cargo. Nowadays, many items of machinery are sent by plane, and that trade could be developed.
In relation to interlining, it has been pointed out that Heathrow is becoming less attractive for people from Manchester, particularly in view of problems with delays at Heathrow. The size of the airport make it unattractive.
104
People in the north-west want the opportunity to have through services to their destinations in Europe, rather than having to consider interlining at Amsterdam or one of the other European centres.
It would be wholly unacceptable to the people of the north-west if they had to interline through an airport such as Stansted. They would regard that as deplorable. They want the necessary services provided at Manchester.
I appeal to the Government to permit more licences in Manchester and to come up with some of the basic money for the infrastructure of Greater Manchester, which would help the airport to expand, encourage an improved road network and establish the two-mile rail link, which would make a great difference in practical and psychological terms in that it would help to convince people that Manchester international airport had a major role to play in Britain's airports policy.
9.30 pm
Mr. Terence Higgins: I am sorry that my Select Committee duties prevented me hearing the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. My contribution to the debate will be appropriately brief. I wish to take up some of the issues which have been raised in the speeches of those who have contributed to the debate following my right hon. Friend's introduction.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right to ask the House to approve the White Paper. His policy of having adequate airport capacity with the minimum environmental damage seems to be exactly the right approach. Gatwick is already the fourth largest international airport in the world and my right hon. Friend was right to say that there should not be a second runway. Some time ago the West Sussex county council and the British Airports Authority came to an agreement on the issue. If we had opted for a second runway, the damage to the environment would have been considerable. Development around the present airport has been greatly increased by the existence of the airport and by industrial and light industrial expansion. If there were to have been further expansion, the almost total build-up between London and the south coast, with virtually no countryside intervening, would have had a serious impact.
The second reason why I am glad that we did not opt for a second runway at Gatwick is based on aircraft noise. Over the years aircraft noise has caused considerable trouble in my constituency. Originally, there was great trouble over the noise caused by piston engined aircraft. Eventually we managed to get the route changed but only after General de Gaulle's death. It transpired that the route went over Worthing so as to avoid the general's country home. Subsequently, I had a sympathetic response from the Civil Aviation Authority when the stacking area was moved from above my constituency to a less highly populated part of the region.
Aircraft noise is a serious problem and I am disturbed by the references in the White Paper to night flights. Unless I have misunderstood the White Paper, it is curious that there is reference to night flights in the summary and conclusion but not in the sections that are directed to aircraft noise. This is a factor that my right hon. Friend will be right to consider in the light of the study that is being carried out into sleep disturbance.
In directing my remarks to sleep disturbance I shall talk of Heathrow as well as Gatwick. I find little justification

105
for aircraft flying over central London at three o'clock or four o'clock in the morning. I hope that my right hon. Friend will carry out a further review of policy in the light of the study that has been undertaken. I hope that he will consider also whether there is not a case for a ban on night flying. If capacity is extended generally, the need for night flights should be reduced significantly.
My right hon. Friend's decision on Stansted is the right one but it raises a number of difficult questions. Much reference has been made in the past few speeches to cross-subsidy and I welcome my right hon. Friend's determination to ensure that that does not create a false balance between the various airports that are now projected. I welcome very much the action that my right hon. Friend is proposing to take following privatisation to prevent a monopoly position being exploited by the privatised operation. A separate plc under a holding company should provide a solution, especially if it is supervised by the CAA. Emphasis is placed on the need to charge a commercial rate of interest in the context of investment decisions.
I hope that the Treasury will take up the frequent recommendations of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service and will not continue to treat the proceeds of privatisation as a reduction in public expenditure. I hope that it will regard the proceeds as a means of funding the public sector borrowing requirement, which seems to be the more rational approach.
We shall have to be rather careful in deciding exactly what it is that we are privatising. It is well known that a great deal of the revenue that is derived from our airports comes from duty-free shops, which are effectively retail shop concessions. In the context of the statements in the press today about the harmonisation of internal taxes and value added tax, for example, within the Community, we should consider whether the duty-free arrangements will continue indefinitely. If they are not to continue, what is likely to be the effect on airport revenues? We may be selling off something which in the event turns out to have a comparatively short life when set against the length of life which airports typically enjoy.
The overall balance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has struck is right. It would not have been possible to produce a solution that had the support of every hon. Member. There are many who, in no circumstances, want further airport capacity and many others who say that we need it. My right hon. Friend is doing all that can reasonably be done to encourage regional development. It would perhaps be going too far to say that the balance was a judgment of Solomon, not least because, effectively, my right hon. Friend has been faced with the proviso that various aspects of the industry have to be split up between the various claimants, whether he likes it or not. My right hon. Friend has struck the right balance and I hope that the House will approve it. As my right hon. Friend said when stating his objectives, the measure will provide adequate capacity with the minimum disadvantage to the environment.
9.35 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me to speak for the first time in a Stansted debate on behalf of my constituents of Bishop's Stortford, Sawbridgeworth, Hertford and Ware whose area will be most affected by the urbanisation and housing aspects about which my hon. Friend the Member
106
for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) spoke so eloquently. I acknowledge the great help and sympathy that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Ministers have exhibited and the courtesies that they have extended to me and others who represent the area most effected by the White Paper's proposals.
If, during my speech, I appear to be bitter and angry, I hope that the House will forgive me, because the decision to build a large international airport at Stansted is a source of deep resentment and anger for many of my constituents, who have been fighting this development for more than 25 years through three different public inquiries. They have paid the bills in both time and money to resist successfully the possibility of locating a three or four runway system at Stansted. They have now been told that, because a runway built by the Americans in 1947 can accommodate additional air traffic movements, they must accept an airport which is initially capable of handling more traffic than is at present handled at Gatwick and potentially able to handle at least 25 million PPA—just under the number handled at Heathrow at present.
With Gatwick, Stansted is the obvious site for a second runway, should it be needed, simply because open fields provide the required space. Apart from our vigilance and resources, we are comparatively defenceless in the face of the much larger number of Members of Parliament who represent more populous constituencies around Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester. Perhaps even more importantly, we are unable to muster the resources of the Government or the British Airports Authority to present and plead our cause before inquiries or Government Departments. The selection of Stansted for expansion is inevitable, not just because of the figures presented by the inspector, but because we can command far less political clout.
There can do no doubt, whatever else is said, that the White Paper does not present the best solution to our airport problems. It presents a solution for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State believes he can obtain a majority in the House. It is as cynical and repulsive as that to my constituents. Let us be clear: it is the wrong policy.
What would be the best policy? I hasten to explain that my constituents are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices in the national interest to provide the necessary airport facilities in the London area, should they be required, and to allow Stansted to expand to meet market demand unimpeded by BAA's financial requirements to make a 15 million PPA terminal pay. The present capacity of each of the airports should be, and must be, fully utilised. My right hon. Friends say that that is their policy. Not only should the capacity be fully utilised to save my constituents from the noise, pollution, urbanisation, traffic congestion, and the ruination of thousands of acres of agricultural land which already the areas round Heathrow and Gatwick must tolerate, but because it makes industrial and commercial common sense.
For passenger and cargo interlining on scheduled services—a unique advantage with which Britain's geographical position endows us—we need one London airport, not three. It is that feature that would distinguish us from the European alternatives in Frankfurt, Paris and Amsterdam. We need two London airports only as a second best; with three we lose our commercial advantage over the European competition.
If proof is needed, look at the failure to get airlines to move from Heathrow to Gatwick. Iberia Airlines refused

107
to move to Gatwick. British Airways moved to Gatwick because the Spanish airlines said that if they were moved out of Heathrow British Airways would be moved out of the central airport in Madrid. Having said that, I should like to examine the alternatives to the White Paper under the following headings: a terminal 5 at Heathrow; a second runway at Gatwick; Manchester; Stansted; urbanisation and denationalisation.
Terminal 5 at Heathrow is clearly necessary for the development of that airport, in order to accommodate traffic not only in passenger numbers—on which we have tended to concentrate too much in the debate—but in terms of the number of aircraft coming into Heathrow. My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) poured scorn on the Secretary of State for accepting different figures for airport runway capacity at Heathrow from those enunciated by Mr. Eyre in his report after a three-year inquiry. There is undoubtedly additional runway capacity at Heathrow which should be fully utilised if the Secretary of State is to be consistent with his original policy aims.
Terminal 5 at Heathrow not only offers additional passenger capacity; it offers cargo capacity, car parking capacity, and airport-related activities which are not at present entailed within the confines of the airport boundaries, much to the disadvantage of those who live around that airport.
Terminal 5 would improve Heathrow airport so that it would no longer be a second-rate airport. Most of us have had to suffer the indignities of travelling through Heathrow. I refer particularly to terminal 3. The airport needs drastic improvement. It needs it not only at terminal 4, which will be a great improvement, but terminal 3 needs to be reconstructed, as does terminal 1. Terminal 5 is needed to take the additional capacity while those improvements are being made.
In particular, we need a first-class international airport so that we can receive our valued guests in the way that we would like to receive them. They should not have to arrive at a second-rate, scruffy airport, much of which does not work. The building of terminal 5 is necessary not merely in statistical terms and in terms of passenger movement; it is necessary from every other consideration, so that we can be proud of our premier airport.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) said, a second runway at Gatwick would undoubtedly create a miserable additional environmental imposition on the area round Gatwick. My right hon. Friend's plea and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) are equally valid in relation to Stansted; in fact, more so. The policy advocated in the White Paper will mean visiting upon Stansted the indignities visited upon those in the Gatwick area. As such indignities are not imposed on Stansted at present, the proposal would create a third misery area when we need have only two.
There is no quarrel between me and hon. Members who advocate Manchester as a second hub airport for Britain. I hope that my right hon. Friend will urge the CAA and his officials to ensure that airlines wishing to come to Britain can go to Manchester if they choose, and that Manchester will be developed. It is nonsense to bring people down our roads to London airports. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett)
108
complained about the inadequacy of the motorways around Manchester. There is no motorway around London, let alone cross motorways to the east, west, north and south. None of the London airports is as well served as Manchester.
The crying need for a rail link is to Heathrow, not to Manchester or Stansted. Heathrow needs a dedicated rail link to alleviate the congestion from the airport into west London. My right hon. Friend should develop Stansted, as he proposes, only if he wishes to make the Finchley road as impassable as the Cromwell road. I am sure that he does not wish to do that.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has been dealing with this matter. I received a welcome letter from him today. My hon. Friend said that the inspector's recommendation for an initial 7 million to 8 million PPA at Stansted had been accepted. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet and I do not believe that limit will be maintained. My hon. Friend the Minister said that only 10,000 dwellings would be needed and that they could be accommodated within the curtilage of Bishop's Stortford, Sawbridgeworth, Harlow, Birchanger—a neighbour of Bishop's Stortford although in Essex—one other small village, and Stansted.
If my hon. Friend has accepted the expansion on that basis, he should not approve planning applications that the district councils have refused. I believe that only 5,000 dwellings should be needed—half the figure—because the passenger figures have been halved. The district councils have been refusing planning permission and—I believe cynically—there has been a refusal to establish a green belt to protect Bishop's Stortford. I am sure that they did that because they wanted to keep open the option to expand Bishop's Stortford when Stansted was developed. My hon. Friend the Minister said that when he considers the establishment of a green belt around Bishop's Stortford he will take into account the alteration to the structure plan. We shall all be watching that carefully and we shall be vigilant to guard against any encroachment.
On the advice of my hon. Friends, I went to see members of the BAA on Friday. I had great difficulty in obtaining an appointment with any of BAA's senior people. They eventually agreed to see me at 8.30 am. I went to plead, after consultations with the leading group that has opposed the development of Stansted for 25 years, that the BAA should increase the terminal capacity incrementally. That is what the inspector's report recommended and what my right hon. Friend intends.
I told the authority that we could gain a reluctant acceptance of and play our part in the national airport strategy if the authorities agreed to build the terminal to take only 4 million to 5 million passengers initially. I have never come away from a meeting feeling so angry. Those members of the BAA should take a course in the Industry and Parliament trust which you, Mr. Speaker, chair so ably. The BAA is planning to build, in accordance with its outline permission, a 15 million PPA terminal. It is intent upon providing the infrastructure to accommodate that figure. It is reluctant to build a terminal which will carry only 7 million to 8 million PPA. That is its intention, despite the Secretary of State's advice that it will have to get the House's approval to do so. That is the unacceptable face of public monopoly. It needs to be controlled, and the

109
BAA should be told that its proposals need to be subject to the will of the House and of the people. It should be particularly sensitive to my constituents' needs.
The figures in the White Paper state clearly in table 5 on page 13 that in 1990 the shortfall in London airport's capacity will be no more than 3·5 million, and in 1995 it will be 5 million. Therefore, there is no earthly reason to provide additional capacity over those figures at Stansted. I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when negotiating with the BAA, will say that he will not tolerate any additional capacity over those figures.
I should like to refer to privatisation. I am not convinced by the proposed safeguards against cross-subsidisation that are envisaged in the seven-company plc with a holding company. It would be so easy to make losses in any one of the seven companies and absorb them into the holding company. I believe that cross-subsidisation of all kinds and inter-company pricing arrangements will take place so that Manchester will not compete in a free market.
The local government airports are to be made plcs but they should also be unsubsidised by their local authorities so that we can compete fairly in the market. To try to slow down the development at Stansted, we must have separate airport companies that compete. In that way there will be competition and service to the passenger. That is the best solution.
Stansted is the victim of the failure to develop Heathrow properly, of the failure to build a second runway at Gatwick, and of the selfish lobbying of those who live around those airports and politicians who fear them. Acres of countryside will be despoiled by the development of the third airport, and there will be an imposition on a whole new group of inhabitants. That development will be commercially disastrous.
I believe that my constituents will not rest and will not be content until the best use of existing airports is made. In that connection, I welcome the expansion of Luton and the STOLport. Terminal 5 must be built, and Heathrow must be made into a first-class airport. The expansion of Stansted should take place slowly, to a total of 4 million to 5 million passengers, and not straight away to 7 million or 8 million, and then to 15 million and possibly 25 million passengers. Urbanisation should be severely restricted and controlled by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction. A dedicated rail link to Manchester and Heathrow must be built. We must privatise all airports individually. We must encourage tourism to the north and the developmemt of Manchester as a hub airport.
If we do not receive those things, we shall oppose every planning application; we shall oppose every attempt artificially to increase traffic at Stansted; we shall oppose the development of that area into one urban sprawl because we could build houses on the whole of east Hertfordshire and north-west Essex even now. We do not have any unemployment. This imposition is a terrible thing for my constituents. Unless we have to play that part for a national purpose, to provide the capacity, we should not be asked to do so.
9.54 pm
Mr. Toby Jessel: I can well understand the feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), who spoke with great force; but my constituents and those of many hon. Members with constituencies near Heathrow are just as concerned about
110
their environment as are my hon. Friend's constituents and have suffered far more than their fair share of noise and traffic congestion.
There are about 750 flights a day in and out of Heathrow. It is too much. Not only the peak loudness, but the sheer frequency of flights interferes with people's quiet enjoyment of their homes, especially in the summer when the windows are open, and gardens and with the work of churches, schools and hospitals. People's whole way of life is affected. They cannot tolerate it any more. The noise must be reduced.
The great majority of the 1·75 million people living around Heathrow dreaded the intolerable increase in noise and traffic congestion that would have resulted from a fifth terminal at Heathrow airport. They are grateful and relieved that the Government have decided to turn down the planning application for a fifth terminal. I was particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who told me:
"I am pleased to be able to honour … the Government's pledge that terminal 5 would not be constructed."—[Official Report, 5 June 1985; Vol. 80, c. 312.)
As the inquiry inspector showed, there was never a chance that the fifth terminal could be completed before about 1996. Planning permission has now been refused. My right hon. Friend has confirmed that the decision has not been merely postponed or fudged. He has repeated that, after the opening of the fourth terminal, the major limiting factor at Heathrow—taking all the technical factors into account—will be runway capacity Even from an aviation point of view, a fifth terminal would not be needed, as there would not be the matching runway capacity for it. In the light of that, the confidence of my constituents has been reinforced and we have every reason to believe that the Government will hold to their decision.
The planning application for a fifth terminal has been refused; and there is no reason why such an application should not be refused again if anyone has the temerity to apply in the future.
Mr. Snape: Has the hon. Gentleman read the White Paper?
Mr. Jessel: Yes.
Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not understood it. Will he address himself to the point raised by the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst)? When the sewage works at Perry Oaks are moved, what will they put in their place? A dance hall?
Mr. Jessel: I do not believe that the sewage sludge works will ever be moved. If there is one thing that is more unpopular than an airport, it is a sewage works. Many people find the smell of a sludge works at least as unpleasant as the noise from an airport. An acceptable alternative site will never be found. The study will be a futile exercise.
If a planning application for a fifth terminal has been refused once, it can be refused again. One cannot stop another planning application from being made. Anyone can apply for planning permission for anything anywhere. That is the law. The previous application came from a rural district council 40 miles away. I have no doubt that people will apply again and that they will be turned down. The political factors—the concern and anxiety of many people around Heathrow to prevent more noise and traffic congestion—will remain.
Mr. Haselhurst: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that he is privy to the views of the Thames water authority and that an alternative site does not necessarily have to be found for sludge works of the size of the Perry Oaks works? There are under consideration at least three options for what would happen after the sludge works were moved.
Mr. Jessel: There is no evidence that that is likely to work out. The evidence presented to the public inquiry by the Thames water authority was that it did not know of any way in which that could be done and that no alternative was likely to be cheaper or more practicable than the existing system at Perry Oaks.
Mrs. Dunwoody: There seems to have been some change in the attitude of the water authority since one of its members worked for the airports authority.
Mr. Jessel: The policy of the Thames water authority is decided not by the chairman but by the authority as a whole. It has not produced a satisfactory reason for moving the sludge works from Perry Oaks. I am prepared to bet that the issue will be resolved in a few months' time and that it will not be feasible to do it.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) intervened, because, as she said on 30 January
"The Labour party does not welcome the idea that there should be a fifth terminal at Heathrow."—[Official Report, 30 January 1985; Vol. 72, c. 299.]
I wish that that view had been confirmed by the alliance parties. In another place the alliance spokesman, Lady Burton, said:
"I believe that a fifth terminal at Heathrow should be made available as soon as possible"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 February 1985: Vol. 460, c. 22.]
That view was confirmed by Baroness Seear, the leader of the Liberal party in the House of Lords, who said in a letter to a lady living in Ealing:
"In the airports debate we have been following the line adopted by Lady Burton who is leading for the Alliance on this subject and who has studied the matter in great detail."
Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Give way.—[Interruption]
Mr. Jessel: I shall not give way more readily as a result of shouting and screaming. I shall give way in a moment. I only wish that my concern for the environment was shared by the alliance.
Mr. Stephen Ross: The hon. Gentleman is deliberately misleading the House.
Mr. Speaker: Order. No one in the House deliberately misleads, so the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) must rephrase his remark.
Mr. Stephen Ross: The hon. Gentleman is misleading the House, and he knows it. The leader of my party has explained our position, and the remarks of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) are not strictly correct.
Mr. Jessel: I have received letters from the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party which said nothing to contradict the statement by Baroness Burton which I have just quoted. That statement was confirmed by Baroness Seear.
I regret the abandonment of the 275,000 ATM limit. That limit was killed by the Standing Committee on the
112
Civil Aviation Bill by a majority of 10 to eight. Had the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) voted differently, the Chairman of the Committee would have had to use his casting vote so that the proceedings could have continued.
The current figure as shown in the White Paper is 274,000 ATM, and I am told that the runway capacity will limit flights to between 305,000 and 310,000 at the peak in 1990, and that thereafter the figure will drop due to the changes in the average spacing of aircraft and the fact that there will be fewer middle range aircraft. If I had to choose, I would rather we had no fifth terminal and that we had to abandon the ATM limit.
In the 10 days since the Secretary of State made his planning decision, my constituents have expressed increasing anxiety about night flights. They are worried that with no fifth terminal, but with no ATM limit, the pressure will be for more aircraft to be allowed to operate from Heathrow at night. I have conveyed my anxiety to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has referred to that, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). I hope that the Minister will make it clear that no increase in night flights will be allowed at Heathrow.
10.4 pm
Mr. Robert McCrindle: To judge from the contributions so far from both sides, in an ideal world we should all seek to travel freely wherever and whenever we chose, with an airport close at hand but with no noise or pollution and no effect on the environment, but that is clearly not possible, so some suffering by some people is inevitable. Perhaps ideally the aim of an airports policy should be the lowest common denominator of shared misery for all who have an airport in their vicinity. In other words, Government policy should move towards some use of all airports and no absolute concentration on one airport and, to be fair, the White Paper is to some extent aimed in that direction and to some extent achieve that aim.
What, then, are my reservations and objections? Unlike my hon. Friends the Members for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) and for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), I have a constituency interest in two directions. In the populous southern part of my constituency there is a broad welcome for the prospect of developing Stansted airport because it is perceived that that will bring to the county of Essex a level of prosperity which, it is hoped, will spill over into the area around Brentwood. It is no secret that that part of the constituency is a very long way from the flight path into Stansted. People in the Ongar area are not so fortunate. They are very close to the flight path and I have to report a very profound objection on their part. In the absence of a clear-cut constituency interest, I sought a compromise and it is abundantly clear from the White Paper that the Government have done the same. My only regret is that in seeking a compromise on the Stansted issue the Government and I do not seem to have connected.
Had it been decided to develop Stansted to a capacity of between 7 million and 8 million passengers per annum, full stop, I could have supported that, but 15 million represents a sword of Damocles to those of my constituents who live near the airport. It is with some regret, therefore, that I must tell the Government that I cannot accept the proposal for 15 million passengers per annum. Before my

113
hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State or anyone else points out that that can take place only after a parliamentary vote, I must make it clear that I am not greatly impressed by that safeguard. Anyone who looks beyond the print of the White Paper knows—indeed, it has been partially proved by the difference in attitude that the Government have been able to generate since the last time we debated the matter—that a determined Government who believe that we should move to the second stage of development at Stansted are likely to get their way in the House.
That is bad enough, but there is then the possibility of an increase to 25 million passengers per annum at some time in the future. I am aware that that would be subject to a fresh planning application but, given the ease with which the planning application to move towards 15 million was apparently accepted, albeit in two instalments, my hon. Friend the Minister will appreciate that my constituents are not reassured and regard as unacceptable the possibility of an increase not just to 8 million or 15 million but to 25 million passengers per annum.
To some extent their anxiety might be lessened if an assurance could be given—it may still be possible to give it this evening—that when or if in the mid-1990s some further expansion of airport capacity is required, there should be a further full inquiry as to whether such expansion, which is clearly proven, should be catered for via a fifth terminal or stage two at Stansted, which would increase that airport's capacity to 15 million passengers per annum. The findings of such an inquiry should be debated, and should not merely be subject to approval by affirmative resolution. I suspect that hon. Members on both sides of the House would concede that that is one of the flimsiest protections that could be extended to constituents around the Stansted area.
I am personally convinced that the growth in air traffic over the next decade is more likely to be in scheduled services. At the very least I envisage that there will be an end to the distinction between charter and scheduled services. If I am correct, the fifth terminal is much more likely to be an appropriate vehicle for expansion at that time.
If that is also the Government's assessment, it would greatly assist us if they now indicated whether they would be prepared to move beyond what they conceive to be the safeguard of an affirmative resolution and to say that they will require a fresh study whose findings will be debated on the Floor of the House.
Let me assume that my eloquence does not succeed in persuading the Minister, and that Stansted expands to between 7 million to 8 million passengers per annum in the immediate term. I wish to explore the nature of this expansion and to examine the likely effects on my constituents. I have a few questions that I wish to put to the Minister. To what extent will the Government indicate a preferred pattern of traffic mix at Stansted airport? They may say that they may wish to leave this to the market or to the CAA, but in recent history they wished to encourage the transfer of scheduled services from Heathrow to Gatwick, and they indicated that as their preference. Therefore, there is no reason why this evening we should not press them to underline the pattern of traffic they would prefer at Stansted as it develops.
Do the Government envisage a pattern of services that is predominantly charter and which provides more package tour facilities, with travellers coming predominantly from
114
the northern home counties? That is important. Alternatively, do they foresee a major extension of scheduled services from an enlarged Stansted?
Here I declare an interest in that, as the House knows, I am an adviser to British Caledonian. Although most of my points are pure constituency matters, I make no secret of the fact that I wish to see the maximum development of Gatwick. Does the Minister foresee a necessity to transfer some of the charters from Gatwick to Stansted, or will it merely be necessary to stop any further expansion of charters at Gatwick? On both matters I remind the Government that they are on record as saying that they wish to see the expansion of further scheduled services from London's second airport.
My constituents are also concerned about the adequacy of the road and rail facilities, to which many hon. Members have already referred. One has only to travel along the M11 to anticipate that it would be extremely overloaded, leaving aside the bottlenecks that would result where it ends in the London borough of Redbridge. Has adequate consideration been given to the great difficulties in that regard?
There are problems also with the rail link that is contemplated between London and Stansted. If I am correct in discerning that the pattern of Stansted traffic is likely to be such that it comes predominantly from the northern home counties and the north and east of London, can the Government begin to justify the development of a road link? If they cannot because there is insufficient traffic coming from central London to Stansted, it is extremely difficult to see how Stansted airport can ever effectively get off the ground.
It may be that even to develop Stansted to the 7 million to 8 million PPA level would be extremely difficult to achieve. I am not saying that that would come as a great disappointment to me, but the Government must have some thoughts about the pattern and type of traffic likely to use Stansted and the adequacy of the road and rail links. Do they have any idea about where the main traffic is likely to come from? If it is from Essex, Hertfordshire and the northern home counties, there will be no justification for a rail link, which in turn would seem to show that even to think about developing Stansted up to the first level is difficult to justify.
I wish that we could have restricted the expansion of Stansted to 7 million to 8 million passengers. As we are not able or prepared to do that, I doubt whether I can find myself supporting the White Paper. If, as I suspect, we have given the green light to Stansted to move ahead to 7 million to 8 million, some questions must be asked about the anticipated pattern of flights. I want also to know a little more detail about the restrictions on night flying, which would, I hope, make it more bearable for my constituents around Stansted. Finally, I should like a word about road and air links.
Shared misery is one thing, but completely to change the pattern of life is another. It is incumbent upon those of us who represent areas around Stansted to do all in our power to minimise its effect on the way of life of those whom we represent.
10.17 pm
Mr. Ken Eastham: It is only a little while since we last debated this important subject. In January the debate was well attended, and many Conservative Members were extremely critical about the

115
proposals. One after another they opposed the possible changes in the south-east. It was clear that the Government were so concerned that the Whips Office had to organise a special voting procedure to give them some respectability and to ensure that there was no rebellion. That opposition showed the Government what their Back Benchers thought of these proposals.
However, since then there have been one or two changes. Numerous Conservative Members have reversed their arguments and tonight have made points different from those that they made in January. One becomes a little suspicious. How many of those Conservative Members have been nobbled and persuaded into praising the report, which has been changed little since January?
The Government are trying to put a gloss on it and to say that things have improved, but we should remind Conservative Members who represent northern regions that they have a responsibility to serve the people who elected them. Never mind about their loyalty to the Government. The people who supported them at the ballot box in the past in turn expect their support when they consider this very important basic issue. For that reason, I have been extremely disappointed by the attitude expressed by some Conservative Members in the debate.
We have now had an opportunity to study the White Paper, and I for one am interested to see that it says that the regional airports must play a greater role in the handling of traffic. Hon. Members representing constituencies in the northern regions have been saying precisely that ever since this debate first began, and I give notice to the Government that northern Members will continue to make the point, because no case has been made to justify the Government's present proposals.
It is also recognised that too many people from the north are forced to take flights down to airports in the south-east before they can make connections for continental destinations. Our objections are constant, and this massive, consistent investment in the south-east has to end somewhere, somehow. The rest of the country does not seem to matter to the Government. The areas of highest unemployment in Britain are the very areas being neglected in the White Paper's proposals.
We maintain that development in the north would be far cheaper than the proposals in the White Paper. Not only would it be cheaper, but it would save much of the heavy burden that will fall on the taxpayer if the Government's proposals are approved.
I am sure that many of the arguments advanced today repeat what has been said in earlier debates. When the Minister made his statement a few days ago, he said that the investment in Stansted would represent a cost of £270 million, but we know that that is not the sum total of the investment. As I have said before, it is little more than a toe in the door, and later no less than £1,000 million will be spent in the south-east.
It is also said that there should be an inquiry into the feasibility of a Stansted rail link. I remind the Government that Manchester airport has been begging for a rail link for the past 10 or 12 years. A small spur of line could link the airport to mainline communications, thereby greatly improving its freight potential and profitability. But even in British Rail thinking there appears to be a preference for the south, and I have no doubt that later on British Rail will justify adding a rail link to Stansted. The proposal for such
116
a link to Manchester international airport could be implemented at a very small cost, yet this is an area where British Rail cannot see the justification for the expenditure.
Manchester international airport has a long history of sensible investment. Decisions have been taken over many years by men of vision and courage. They have not asked the Government to get them out of difficulties. Local politicians were confident that there would be a need for greater airport capacity, and their confidence has been fulfilled.
Manchester has a very good safety record. It is provided with the most up-to-date landing equipment which equals the best international standards. Manchester airport is well run and reliable and, what is more important, makes a magnificent profit. Few other United Kingdom airports can boast of similar profitability and such sensible management.
People in the north do not want to have to travel south to make international flight connections. Tourism is in difficulty and cost is therefore of great importance. Extra flight connections to the south-east, or from the south-east to the north, would add considerably to the cost of tourism. Ministers recognise that tourism would create many job opportunities in the north.
If the Government believe in competition, our demand is that no hidden subsidies should be given to the airports in the south-east. The profit and loss accounts show that financial support of all kinds is given to the unprofitable airports. If the Government believe in free and fair competition, their airports should be run as Manchester runs its airport.
The Secretary of State has promised that opportunities and new routes will be offered to the airports in the north. I hope that he will fulfil those promises. It is not unreasonable to remind civil servants of those promises, because they can influence Ministers. We want them to ensure that no obstacles are placed in the path of competition and of the new opportunities which the Government claim will be offered to the north. I have very serious reservations, but only time will tell.
We have heard that the residents of Stansted do not want this expansion to take place. Nor do the residents around Heathrow. The environmental lobby in the south-east does not favour this expansion, either. Reference has also been made to the loss of prime agricultural land, yet the north is crying out for its fair share of this development and possible prosperity. Many people in the north are already expressing bitter disappointment. The Secretary of State has made a bad decision that will be very costly for the United Kingdom.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The winding-up speeches are expected to begin at 11 pm. Seven hon. Members still wish to speak, and they have strong constituency interests. May I appeal to them to restrict themselves to about four minutes, and it will then be possible to call them all.
10.30 pm
Dr. Alan Glyn: I shall be as brief as possible.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) about the rail link. I do not deny

117
that I have a constituency interest. I oppose the fifth terminal at Heathrow for three principal reasons—first, access; secondly, increased noise; and thirdly the congestion that would be caused if the Perry Oaks site were moved.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a dextrous, political compromise. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) on his excellent speech. He has helped us to defend the interests of our constituents who live under the flight path. If the numbers of air traffic movements are increased, I hope that they will be balanced by quieter aircraft. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State promised to keep a close watch on night flights, and I am sure that he will honour that pledge. If the airports are privatised or municipalised, I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that they do not exceed the limits.
About 80 per cent. of the traffic to Heathrow is by road, despite the underground rail link. Other existing rail links could be used. Because of the winding of the Thames, it is virtually impossible to widen either the Talgarth or Cromwell roads. We know that they are absolutely saturated and there is no hope of improvement. That is one of the cardinal factors.
Noise insulation grants are minimal and the White Paper promises that that will be considered. Of course, it will not help people in their gardens in the summer, but it will give them some alleviation of the noise.
I hope that my hon. Friends will follow my lead and be brief. I do not believe that terminal 5 should be built. I hope that my right hon. Friend will confirm that it will be a very long time, if ever, before it is considered, and even longer before it is built.
10.33 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: Not for the first time, I rise to question the logic of the Government—indeed, to question their sanity. Last week the Prime Minister said that the Government appoint expert advisers and then retain the right to reject their advice. I remind the House that exhaustive public inquiries have been conducted into the Stansted proposals which, on both occasions, have come out with firm conclusions against them. Yet, again the Government have cynically chosen to disregard those conclusions.
My naked plea tonight is for my patch because of the levels of unemployment in the region. In my constituency is the airport of Teesside, known during the war as Goosepool. Every borough that contributes to the maintenance and management of the airport has an unemployment level for adult males of slightly above or below 30 per cent. I suggest that the level of adult male unemployment in Stansted is less than one tenth of that. Therefore, people in the north-east are justified in asking whether the Government proposal is based on political vindictiveness simply because the north-east is a stronghold of the Labour party.
We have heard of the need at airports for runway capacity, road links, rail links, potential traffic volumes and all-weather flying capability. As I explained when we last debated this subject, Teesside airport has excellent road links—motorway standard roads right to the gates—and excellent runway capacity. It is capable of taking any aeroplane flying in the world today, and in any kind of weather, because it has excellent all-weather flying records. Sadly, it proves that only when other airports fall
118
down on their provision in that respect and they have to use Teesside in a fall-back situation. We can get them in when the others cannot.
Teesside airport has excellent rail links, so much so that when Jumbos land at Teesside, because they cannot land anywhere else, we can manage to put on class 125 trains which get passengers from Teesside to central London little more than an hour later than they would get there from Heathrow. As for potential traffic volumes, anyone flying from Heathrow to Teesside or from Teesside to Heathrow will agree that it is like travelling in a community of the United Nations, because so many people have to be ferried to the north-east, having landed in the metropolis.
In other words, Teesside has all the factors that hon. Members are complaining other airports do not have—the road and rail links, the runway capacity and the all-weather flying capability. Teesside would, therefore, be easier to develop than any other airport in the country.
Sir Norman Payne said of the Stansted decision:
"It is one for which the BAA has striven long and hard because we believed"—
that is, the BAA—
"it is the only way of meeting our duty to provide enough airport capacity in time to meet demand."
If that is so, will the Secretary of State say so? If not, will he say so? If it is so, how can any of those 70 hon. Members who voted against the Government in January now support the White Paper proposals? How can the Government now expect support from the regions for their policy?
I rose to question the logic and sanity of the Government. My sanity questions the Government's logic and my logic sees that the Government have no sanity.
10.38 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I must at the outset declare my interest in that I am chairman of two companies which have an interest in flying and, therefore, in airports.
I welcome the White Paper and I am sure that I speak on behalf of many in the aviation industry who believe that my right hon. Friend has, for once, listened to what those who fly in and out of airports have to say.
Airlines go where they believe there are customers and they fly those routes on which they believe they will make profits. All the talk that we have heard about airlines not going to different places derives not from a lack of runways or terminal capacity but simply from the fact that the airlines have not particularly wanted to go there. One must go on to ask why.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, and I am not the first Scot to say that in this debate. My right hon. Friend has given deep consideration to the many problems of passengers, of those who fly them and of those who operate airports.
I welcome also the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is insisting through the White Paper that the Civil Aviation Authority is given additional powers so that it can oversee the new public limited companies and the new monopoly that could and may occur, which could have an adverse effect on the airlines and subsequently on the passengers. I am glad that my right hon. Friend recognises that there is a need, even when deregulation takes place, for the customers' interests always to be borne in mind. I remind my right hon. Friend that in a democracy it must be right that in matters so vital as airports and civil

119
aviation policy there should be a recognised appeal system direct to the Secretary of State for Transport through the House. I should like to see written into any subsequent civil aviation Bill a proper appeal procedure so that we can ensure that Parliament still has some say over the plcs.
The Scottish lowland airports are controlled by the British Airports Authority. The plc arrangement will generate the right circumstances and enable Prestwick, which is the only one not in profit, to return to profitability. It was in profit until 1981, and with a relatively low-cost operation it should not be too difficult to bring Prestwick into profit.
There are eight Highlands and Islands airports and I recognise the advantages of having one company running them. The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) chose to ignore the £3·7 million that comes from the Scottish Office to subsidise their operations. There is scope for some savings and perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will choose in due course to examine the franchising of the management of the airports. I believe that it is through the management that savings can be achieved as a result of greater efficiency. That would be in keeping with our intention of providing a proper service and facilities to the people of the Highlands and Islands. More importantly, the service and facilities must be provided at a price that the taxpayer feels is justified. Therefore, we must examine costs constantly. I do not say that they can be eliminated but it is vital to achieve the best possible value for money.
There are some parts of the White Paper with which I would argue, but they are not sufficient to cause me to feel that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not done a good job.
10.43 pm
Mr. Graham Bright: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows that over the years that we have discussed airports I have always pleaded a special case for Luton. I am delighted and grateful to him for
120
recognising that Luton has a part to play in the London airport system. The fact that this has been spelt out has lifted an enormous black cloud that was threatening Luton airport with possible closure.
Luton borough council is prepared to tackle with enthusiasm the task of preparing Luton airport to take its quota of 5 million passengers a year. The newly refurbished terminal will be opened next month and that will be a milestone in achieving that which I know the Government want to be done.
I shall re-emphasise the damage that has been done by cross-subsidisation. If anything has stunted the growth of regional airports, it is cross-subsidisation. It has certainly damaged Luton airport.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: And Manchester airport.
Mr. Bright: Luton has a capability of 3·5 million passengers a year, but it is handling about 1·8 million. That is the consequence of the predatory pricing policy that the BAA has implemented in trying to shift lucrative trade from airports such as Luton. That is ludicrous when the BAA has argued that more capacity is needed in the London area. At the same time it has been doing its level best to close one of the London airports.
I welcome the proposal to form local authority airports into public limited companies. It will free those airports from the restraints imposed by local authorities and will enable us to reward airport directors. Airport managers will not be tied to local government pay structures, and we can welcome these airports to full commercial operation. I hope that we will recognise the need in this modern world to involve managers and workers and to allow workers to participate not only in management but in the success of airports. This will make all local authority airports more successful.
The threat to Luton has been removed. In the future, the Chilterns will reflect very much what has happened in the M4 corridor in the Thames valley. I believe that Luton airport will ensure that much prosperity comes to the area, which has more than its fair share of unemployment.

Airports Policy
10.46 pm
Mr. Patrick Ground: I welcome the White Paper and the intention to privatise the British Airports Authority, and I hope that BAA's journey to privatisation will be short and quick.
For the air traveller and the air transport industry, the best aspect of the decisions on Stansted and Heathrow is the fact that the option of packing increasingly greater numbers of people into increasingly larger aeroplanes from Heathrow and preventing major expansion outside Heathrow has been abandoned. The choice offered in the White Paper will leave some freedom for the air transport industry to develop in the way that people want. When people have a choice, they frequently prefer to fly in smaller aeroplanes and at more convenient times.
There is no doubt that the commitments made at the time of the terminal 4 planning decision are very important to the people of west London. Those commitments have been accepted by elected representatives of all parties.
Section 5.14 of the White Paper contains a very important statement. The Government express their belief that other effective ways of limiting the disturbance of aircraft noise should be pursued. That is an acceptable attitude so long as those steps are taken. The Government are committed to reviewing the noise insulation grant schemes once the 1985 noise climate is known. My postbag is full of letters from constituents who have just missed out on obtaining noise insulation grants because of bad luck or bad advice. I hope that a more flexible system will emerge.
The Government intend commissioning research into roof insulation. I hope that particular attention will be directed towards those who receive no benefit, or next to no benefit, from the runway alteration system. I hope that the recommendations on special provisions for schools and hospitals will receive urgent consideration from the Government. The proposals allowing properties to be acquired compulsorily at the owner's wish where they are blighted by noise should be included in the powers of the airports authority.
In chapter 20 of the Inspector's report there are some extremely important recommendations about night movements of aircraft. The report says that it is unacceptable in a caring society that even one or two aircraft should be permitted to disturb sleep at night. In 1982–83, there was an average of only 12 movements per night at Heathrow, which represented less than 2 per cent. of the total traffic. Therefore, there is a strong justification for the inspector's recommendation that there should be a complete night flying ban at Heathrow, as already practised at many important airports throughout the world. I accept that, as the Government suggest; there should be full consultation with airlines and charter operators about the matter.
I urge the Government, as part of their commitment to reducing noise, to pay particular attention to the inspector's recommendations in relation to night noise. I believe that if those measures are conscientiously and determinedly taken they will be just as acceptable to the people of west London as the existing commitments in relation to aircraft movements.
10.51 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin: I am most grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) for cutting his remarks short. I appreciate the sincerity and the passion with which hon. Members have fought their corner this evening, but I speak as one of only two hon. Members who have taken part in the debate without having a direct constituency interest. Perhaps one can stand back and take a less partial view of the matter.
I do not think that it is a question of deciding whether we want more development at Stansted, even up to 15 million passengers, a fifth terminal at Heathrow, or more regional growth. In time we shall need all three, and probably more besides. The Government's main difficulty is first in agreeing forecasts on which to base their plans, and then in deciding how and when additional airport capacity should be provided, particularly in the south-east, where 75 per cent. of international passengers come from and go to.
In a growth industry such as civil aviation, it is extremely difficult to estimate demand in terms of aircraft movements or passenger numbers. That is why I agree that the new system for making forecasts is an improvement on the previous one.
I welcome the Secretary of State's caution concerning terminal 5. I am a terminal 5 fan, and I caution those who suggest that terminal 5 is dead and buried, because it is not. My right hon. Friend talks in his White Paper about investigating the removal of the Perry Oaks sludge works. It is a practical and important thing to do, because it is a valuable piece of real estate, whether it is used for a new terminal or anything else. The last thing for which the site should be used is a sludge works. The building of terminal 5 should go ahead. I believe that in the end it will be built.
I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who said that terminal 5 would double the capacity of Heathrow. That is not correct. It would add 15 million passengers to the capacity of Heathrow. The present capacity of Heathrow is 30 million and it will go up to 38 million when terminal 4 is fully operative, so terminal 5 would not even add a further 50 per cent. to the capacity of Heathrow. It is important to make that correction.
Much had been said this evening about the importance of regional airports by hon. Members who want to see their further development. Some Opposition Members see regional airport development as a form of job creation scheme. It is not. There is no way in which we can force passengers to go to the regions. We do not live under a dictatorship. No doubt a dictatorship would find it easy to run airport policy, but we live in a democracy, and in a democracy we cannot force passengers to go where they do not want to go.
According to the inspector's summary, in December 1984 regional airport terminal capacity was 20 million PPA. At present the use is 12·2 million PPA. That shows that there is an enormous capacity in the regions which has yet to be taken up.
I support the plea that has been made for Manchester, because Manchester airport is nearly full and will probably require a second terminal. A great deal has been said about the infrastructure around Manchester, and I agree with the views that have been expressed on the matter. Those who say that my right hon. Friend is ignoring Manchester

123
airport have not read the White Paper, because it receives more of a mention than Gatwick. Too many Opposition Members have not read the White Paper properly. Regional airports can accept large increases in passenger numbers without major expenditure on additional facilities.
That brings me to another principle of the Government's airport policy which should prevail. The policy should be based upon the most effective use of airport facilities. Clause 3 of the abortive Bill placed an obligation upon the Secretary of State to give directions to the CAA to secure the most effective use of airport facilities. I hope that when another Bill is introduced it will contain such a clause.
My right hon. Friend has had a bad press over his airports policy. It has been described in most newspaper headlines as "a fudge". I should like to draw the attention of the House to what the Sunday Telegraph leading article ended by saying:
"It is a fudge. Mr. Ridley may feel frustrated, the people of Essex betrayed. But it is good that this should be so. In this case, fudge is beautiful."
If it is fudge, I like it. It would have been impossible to produce an airports policy that would please everyone. A pragmatic solution, such as that contained in the White Paper, will not please some of the people all the time, but it will please all of the people some of the time.
I welcome the proposal that the 275,000 ATM limit should not be pursued and that traffic management should be the criterion for imposing such limits. There is another self-imposed limit which, to some extent, restricts the use of Heathrow and which should be removed. I refer to the curfew.
During his inquiry Mr. Eyre took no evidence on that matter, and yet he recommended that there should be a complete ban on night movements at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. In the view of the airlines, as expressed by IATA, that would sabotage the airport's ability to compete and set a dangerous precedent for other international airports worldwide. IATA also thought that the imposition of such a limit at Gatwick would be disastrous in view of the need for charter flights to make use of some of the night hours. It thought that aircraft utilisation by Gatwick carriers could be cut by one third if a curfew were imposed. The same could apply to Stansted.
The Government are probably correct to soft pedal on that issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes said that the point was not mentioned in the White Paper, but sections 5.6 and 5.7 mention it.
My right hon. Friend has given an undertaking that the phasing out of noisy aircraft and consultations and measures further to reduce disturbance from night noise are matters that he will take carefully into account when reaching a decision, but that he will not reach a decision in the near future.
I know that as far as airports are concerned, NIMBY usually prevails—the "not in my back yard" syndrome—but there is no doubt that with a growth industry such as civil aviation this country must have the airports that it needs. The Secretary of State, when he left the debate on Second Reading of the Civil Aviation Bill, said that he had never heard so much rubbish spoken in his life. It is so nice to see so much of that rubbish which was spoken included in the White Paper which we have before us today. It is
124
for that reason that I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having second thoughts, and I say to the House that I think we ought to give the White Paper our fullest support.
11 pm
Mr. Peter Snape: I think that the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) might have truncated his remarks a little to allow his hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) a chance to speak. We made it plain at what time we wanted to commence the wind-up speeches. I hope that the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood will forgive me for getting up at the time arranged.
This has been the third such debate in a comparatively short time. For once, reference has been made to the cleverness of the Secretary of State for Transport, and the rather artful compromise that he has put before the House, which appears at least on the surface to have quelled this massive rebellion, about which we had been warned for a considerable time. Rebellions in the Conservative party never normally amount to very much, as we all know. I realise that one or two Conservative Members are determined to demonstrate their concern at the decisions that are outlined in the White Paper, by voting against their own Government, and I congratulate them on their consistency. I cannot congratulate the rest of the would-be rebels on their consistency, because it took very little in the way of compromise to persuade them that their Government should be supported in the Division Lobby.
As I said, there is nothing particularly unusual about that. Fights and revolts in the Conservative party here at Westminster normally have all the impact of the annual camp fire get-together of the second West Bromwich girl guides. They make plenty of noise, but there is comparatively title fury at the end of it. However, congratulations are due to Conservative Members who have seen through the Secretary of State's compromise, because all of us in the House know that the decisions—those nasty but necessary decisions—have been merely postponed. I make no guesses about the right hon. Gentleman's prospects for survival in the much-vaunted reshuffle in October. As I have said before, I hope that this particular fox continues to run and run. It is more fun chasing the right hon. Gentleman than it would be to chase the real thing. But the fact is that at some time in the future, one of his successors will have to take the decisions that he has postponed tonight. In order to defuse the rebellion in the Conservative party, many much-needed decisions have been fudged.
If there is one—perhaps the only one—expanding industry in this country, it is the one under discussion today. Its turnover amounts to billions of pounds, and it employs over 85,000 people. Any decisions that any Government take in that area should reflect the importance of that industry to Britain. [Interruption.] I realise that some Conservative Members have only just come in, and perhaps do not have the same interest in the debate as those of us who have sat through most of it, but I should be grateful if they allowed me at least to reply to some of the points that were made in the debate.
The saga of London's third airport is worthy of a script for that popular television programme, "Yes Minister". We are debating the future of an international airport where expansion has twice been rejected. We had the intervention of Maplin, from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). The hon. Gentleman was

125
as consistent as ever today. Despite the majority view of the House about Maplin, the hon. Gentleman still insists that he was right.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his recent elevation. Despite what I say about some of his views, no one could ever say that the hon. Gentleman regards a knighthood in the same as Lloyd George did. Within a day or two of his elevation, the hon. Gentleman is telling the Government that he does not intend to support them tonight. Let us admire a rare example of consistency on the Government Benches.
Every time proposals for Stansted have been rejected, they have been dusted down and reintroduced subsequently. There may have been no continuity among Ministers in successive Governments, but there has been continuity among civil servants and a determination to ensure that London's third airport was built at Stansted—come what may, and no matter how many decisions to reject that view were taken by the House. Seemingly inevitably, we keep returning to the same arguments and eventually the right decision—in the civil servants view—is reached.
Most of the anxiety expressed by Labour Members and by some Conservative Members has been about the north-south imbalance and the further expenditure of resources in a comparatively affluent part of England at the expense of other parts of the United Kingdom that are anything but affluent. Despite investments and, in most cases, profitability in regional airports, air travellers in Lancashire, the west and east midlands, north-east England and on Teesside have to travel via London to reach international destinations on scheduled services and to pick up charter and holiday flights.
As hon. Members on both sides have pointed out, that arrangement seems to be more for the administrative convenience of airlines and tour operators than for the convenience of holidaymakers. It is obviously nonsensical that holidaymakers from Scotland or the provinces have to pay more for the doubtful privilege of flying from their own regional airports when they operate such services.
Given the overcrowded skies and the airport capacity problems in the south-east, it should surely not be beyond the wit of even this interventionist Government to point out that that arrangement is nonsensical. If tour companies or airlines wish to use airports in this part of the country, they should be charged more for that privilege. I hope that one or two Conservative Members who have expressed such views will demonstrate their consistency in the Division Lobby.
The hon. Members for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) and for Crawley (Mr. Soames) were among the few hon. Members who greeted the White Paper with acclamation. One can understand that, from a constituency point of view, the hon. Member for Luton, South would think that Luton had done rather well out of the White Paper.
Proposals have been made for the expansion of Luton airport, yet the Government merely piously hope that some expansion will take place. I spend eight months of the year working in London and I prefer the journey by rail to Birmingham's international airport to pick up a charter flight to the journey up the M1 to Luton airport—particularly in the light of the closures on part of that motorway. I cast no aspersions on Luton airport, but I think that my hour-long journey by rail to Birmingham is quicker than a journey by motorway to Luton. I do not mean to be controversial.
Mr. Bright: We have a railway station at Luton. The journey from London is just 30 minutes, and the transfer to the airport takes only seven minutes. One does not have to tackle the M1 to come to Luton.
Mr. Snape: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. I do not know how many suitcases he takes on holiday, or how many people he takes with him, but the journey from Birmingham station to the airport is quicker than the journey between Luton railway station and Luton airport. The hon. Gentleman might be pleasantly surprised if he sampled Birmingham on his next trip abroad.
The "dissidents" on both sides of the House are worried. The Secretary of State said that approval had been given for between 7 million and 8 million passengers per annum at Stansted. That is not so. I fear that tonight we shall approve a maximum of 15 million PPA at Stansted because if we accept the Government motion we shall give the green light to create the infrastructure to enable Stansted to deal with 15 million PPA.
If it is necessary formally to approve that expansion the Secretary of State would be less than human if he did not say that it would be silly for the House to refuse approval for up to 15 million PPA if the infrastructure were already in place. It would then be necessary for the Conservative Whips to exercise their not-so-subtle armtwisting on one or two rebels, but I have no doubt the Government would get their Majority. Although we do not approve of the Government's proposals, we want the 8 million maximum to be adhered to. I hope that the Secretary of State will be persuaded to publish the BAA infrastructure proposals so that the House can judge whether we are getting value for money. That is not a controversial request since value for money is one of the Secretary of State's favourite phrases. That would provide Parliament with a check on the BAA proposals and the financial realities behind them.
We also seek a proper commitment to the regions and some real encouragement to international services from regional airports. We have heard the saga of Singapore Airlines and we know that the March application was not the first or even the second. Airlines and airports do not operate in isolation and the Secretary of State can scarcely allege that the informed newspaper commentators invented the stories about Singapore Airlines being told to relinquish various slots at Heathrow before they could fly into Manchester. That is not the much-vaunted freedom of the sky that the Government are always talking about. It is a deliberate attempt to control landings and take-offs at one airport by withholding permission for an international airline to fly to a regional airport. That is the kind of attitude that annoys Members on both sides who represent constituencies in the regions.
We also demand assurances about subsidies for Stansted. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and various Conservative Members have referred to the fact that landing charges at Stansted are among the lowest in the United Kingdom. The British Airports Authority, whether it is in the public sector or the private sector, will be tempted to gain the maximum benefit from that, bearing in mind the expansion approved by the Government. Neither the Secretary of State nor any of those who profess to support privatisation have produced a shred of evidence that it would benefit airline passengers in any way at all. We have not heard very much from the Secretary of State

127
about the need to please the customer in this context. The customer has never been consulted about this piece of ideological nonsense. If the Secretary of State has his way, this will be the only country in the world with privatised airports subject to the whims and fancies of virtually self-appointed management. The Secretary of State says that he does not agree with airport management by committee, but what the hell is a board of directors if not a committee? I do not know what experience the right hon. Gentleman has in these or any other matters but he is proposing to transfer control of our airports to the private sector without any consultation with the customers who use them.
Mr. John Mark Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Snape: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will give way when I come to his contribution.
The White Paper also refers to road and rail links with Stansted. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) said that British Rail would probably cook the books and produce some figures to support a rail link to Stansted, but I think that it will have difficulty doing so on the present traffic forecasts. Britain's premier international airport has no surface rail link and traffic to and from it is frequently subject to enormous traffic jams so that passengers miss flights all over the world.
We also need assurances about who is to pay for the infrastructure at Stansted. We are told that much-needed expansion and improvement of the internal road network will be paid for by the British Airports Authority while necessary improvement of the M11 to the Stansted perimeter will be paid for by the Department of Transport. I do not often find myself defending the British Railways Board, but I think that it could legitimately grouse that if the cost of every other part of the infrastructure is being met by someone else it should not have to finance the railway line. If the Secretary of State is so anxious and determined to develop Stansted one would expect him to make a proper financial contribution to the whole infrastructure rather than just to part of it.
This is a debate about Britain's overall aviation business. I wish to refer to a story that appeared on the front page of the Sunday Times Business News only yesterday. Under the headline
"Ministers in fury at Lonrho ploy"
is a rather fetching picture of the Secretary of State, with the caption
"Nicholas Ridley: particularly annoyed".
Mr. Stott: Windblown.
Mr. Snape: The right hon. Gentleman may be a little windblown, but it is none the less a fetching picture. Mr. George Jones, political correspondent of the Sunday Times—obviously a well-informed journalist who perhaps wrote the article on Lobby terms—said:
"Last night ministers were voicing their anger that such a senior Conservative"—
they were talking about the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), the former Chairman of the 1922 Committee—
"should be involved in legal action which threatens a major plank of the government's privatisation programme. Nicholas Ridley, the transport secretary, is known to be particularly annoyed".
128
Annoyance from the right hon. Gentleman is not unheard of, either in this place or outside. However, a story appeared tonight on the Press Association tapes under the heading "Lonrho hits back". It says:
"Lonrho today hit back at a Government Minister's accusation that the company's multi-million pound American court action with Sir Freddie Laker for damages against British Airways was a 'try-on'. A board statement described the comment by Transport Secretary Nicholas Ridley as misinformed and emotive."
Mr. Corbett: As usual.
Mr. Snape: He is rarely emotive. The story continued that the company
"today claimed that the Government 'actively encouraged' them to team up with Sir Freddie after the Laker collapse in 1982. The statement said that Mr. Iain Sproat, then Minister responsible for aviation, held meetings with both sides".
I do not admire Mr. Sproat's political judgment. As we all know, he left a seat which was won by the Conservatives and took one that was won by the Liberals. Nevertheless, it is to say the least surprising that Ministers in the last Conservative Government were actively involved in encouraging a company such as Lonrho to act in direct competition with British Airways, for which they have financial responsibility in that the taxpayer eventually picks up the bill. Perhaps we can have some explanation of those actions—[Interruption.] It is impossible to talk about aviation policy without mentioning the story that involves the Secretary of State for Transport and Britain's premier airline, which the Government hope to place in the private sector at a suitable price in the not too distant future.
That brings me to a contribution to our debate which was never made.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should confine himself to airports policy and not refer to speeches that have not been made.
Mr. Snape: That is exactly what I am doing. An airports policy is the subject of this story, which refers to a speech made in this House—except that it was not. I shall explain that in a second.
A story in The Standard tonight, under the headline
"MPs call for Athens boycott",
says:
"MPs today called on Transport Secretary Mr. Nicholas Ridley to recommend to British airlines a boycott of Athens airport until its 'abysmal' security precautions are tightened up. They urged him to make the recommendation during today's Commons debate on London's third airport".
The author says:
"This sounds drastic, but we must have regard for the safety of British people".
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman concerned had mentioned the subject of Athens airport, I would have been bound to rule him out of order because we are talking about British airports.
Mr. Snape: The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) did not mention it because he was not here to do so. That illustrates the folly of speaking to newspaper reporters about matters that one does not quite understand. Perhaps we should point that out to the right hon. Gentleman. The path that the debate has taken owes a great deal to the artful nature of the proposals in the White Paper.
The Labour party was attacked for the failure of the Secretary of State to secure the passage of the Civil Aviation Bill on three occasions since Christmas. I make

129
no comments on the competence of the Minister charged with getting the Bill through Committee, with an overall majority of four over the combined opposition parties. However, his defeat on the two central questions of air traffic movements at Heathrow, and the auctioning of slots at Heathrow, was due to the actions of no fewer than four Conservative Members on two separate occasions. It will not do for the Secretary of State to attack the Labour Members of the Committee.
The Secretary of State palpably failed to convince his hon. Friends about what he was trying to do, and has still palpably failed to convince his hon. Friends that the compromise that he has stitched together this evening is the right one for Britain. Early in the debate, we heard from the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) that there was a need for regulation. I wondered whether we were hearing a former Conservative Chief Whip. He wanted the regulation of air traffic movement and of noise around Heathrow airport for the benefit of his constituents. The only thing that he wanted to deregulate was airports—some inconsistency there. Although he spoke loyally, as a former Chief Whip would be expected to, he also expressed some concern.
The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) made his usual courageous speech, and left the House in no doubt as to which way he would vote this evening. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) was another Conservative objector, this time on charter flights from Stansted. He knows that the proposals in the White Paper will lead to a further drain of flights away from regional airports to the south of England.
The one Conservative Member who gave full support to the Secretary of State was the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), who claimed, in his usual modest fashion, to have massively influenced the Secretary of State's decision. I would be the first to concede that he has massive influence, but I never heard an hon. Member make such an appalling cauldron of claptrap in my life. From anybody else it might have been embarrasing, but from the hon. Gentleman it amused hon. Members on both sides of the House. As he represents Crawley, and those living around Gatwick airport, he has something to crow about, but I am not sure about the depths of his influence. He can seek to influence the House about that at some other time.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) also had some strong words for his right hon. Friend. He described the Secretary of State as being clever and devious. He was half right.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) made one of his customary speeches. He made no secret of where his sympathies lay. He demonstrated once again that he is interested in the expansion of Heathrow airport and, for that reason, is against both air traffic movement limits and any suggestion that flights to and from that airport should be restricted. He referred to the saga of Maplin 10 years ago and also, in my view correctly, demanded better surface access to Heathrow.
I mention the contribution of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. Again, modesty has never held back the hon. Gentleman's career, and I make no further comment about that. He insists that he was right 10 years ago with Maplin, and he says that he is still right today.
I found the speech of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) sycophantic. That is about the only description that I can apply to it. He is apparently
130
the one hon. Member with a constituency in the Manchester area who thinks that Manchester airport has got a good deal.
The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) supported Stansted. He would. He is always complaining about Heathrow, so I think that we can leave his contribution on one side fairly quickly.
The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) defended Birmingham airport but wanted to see it privatised. He had better start explaining that to some of his Conservative colleagues on the West Midlands county council which he used to lead with some little distinction—I do not emphasise any specific word in that phrase.
Of course, the Tories will win in the Division, but we all know—even those hon. Members who support their Government in the Lobby—that the hard decisions have been merely postponed and will not go away. For the fact that the Government get away with it tonight some credit is due, reluctantly, to the Secretary of State. But the House should make no mistake. He will be back. Let us hope that on that occasion there is some backbone in those Conservative Members who tonight will sell short British aviation.
11.32 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): I congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) on one count. Usually when he has nothing to say he abandons himself to hysterical abuse about the Secretary of State. His was an extraordinary speech. As a substitute for an Opposition Front Bench speech on airports policy, he read the House an item from a Sunday newspaper and then talked about Greek airports, presumably because Greek airports are part of our airports policy in his book.
On aviation policy, the official Opposition have nothing positive to say. Their recently published "Charter for Transport" at least had the honesty to recognise this by saying precisely nothing about aviation.
Even the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) can do better than the performance of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East, though not much better. Occasionally she mutters something rude about terminal 5. She did it during the debate on 30 January. Then she remembers that regional lobbies want the terminal built, and she goes into a mumble on the subject, as she did today.
Aviation is not one of those declining, state subsidised, demarcation-split industries which the Opposition make their own. The House may think it best if on this occasion a thick veil is drawn across both the Opposition and their hypocritical amendment which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) pointed out, flies in the face of their own White Paper and of many of their public pronouncements in the House and elsewhere.
Contrary to the expectations of some and the hopes of others, this has been a deeply thoughtful debate. The anxieties expressed have been genuine and demand specific responses.
Many points have been made and several clearly defined themes have emerged. First, there have been the anxieties of those who represent the constituencies around Stansted, most notably my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst). These have been, above

131
all, about the effect of planning decisions on the daily lives of their constituents, especially the effect of noise and of a possible threat of urban sprawl.
Then there have been the speeches of hon. Members who represent regional, especially northern, constituencies extolling the virtues of their airports—sometimes, as we have seen tonight in conflict with each other: for example, the interests of Scotland and Manchester. Those hon. Members who are concerned about noise and nuisance at Heathrow have sought reassurance about terminal 5 and the ATM limit. Other hon. Members feel that the Government have not taken sufficient account of Heathrow's potential for further utilisation. Finally, there have been hon. Members who have spoken for no particular regional interest but either to support British aviation in general or to voice their concern, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) about the effect on the environment of too rapid a development of the industry. Finally, the Liberal party's views do not seem to fit into any category, although the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) recently admitted that he had changed his mind about Stansted. He used to believe that it could take 15 million passengers. He now thinks that 5 million passengers would be about right. The House will have to form its conclusions about the resolve of the Liberal party on this matter, as on others.
I shall try to respond to the major themes that have been raised. The first matter about which I have fully to satisfy the House is whether we really need the development at Stansted and, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) at Luton: whether, for instance, we could have avoided taking the decision to expand these airports by making better use, as some have suggested, of Heathrow and Gatwick. In one sense, only time will tell. The White Paper is cautious about forecasting beyond 1995. It is not, however, a matter of clever forecasting or even guesswork but of contemporary fact that as we sit here tonight we have already reached saturation point at certain peak hours at Heathrow and Gatwick. The White Paper makes it clear that even in 1984 Heathrow was working at full capacity for at least five hours a day for the majority of a seven-month summer season, and at Gatwick runway capacity was fully subscribed for seven hours on one or more days a week during August.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does not my hon. Friend agree that although Heathrow may be saturated at certain peak hours it cannot possibly be the case that Heathrow is completly saturated until such time as the available slots are not taken up by airlines and they move elsewhere? Until that happens there is no need to put an ATM limit on Heathrow. Therefore, it is up to the airlines to decide when Heathrow is full.
Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) has given a great deal of thought to the capacity at Heathrow and I shall have further comments to make about it. But whether or not distribution should be left to the scheduling committee, at peak hours there is a capacity problem. The question is not whether or not we should do something, but what we should do, and that problem is with us already.
The urgency of the question is caused by the continuing astonishing growth of traffic in the London system, which
132
has been at an 8 per cent. compound rate during the past 24 years and is now growing even faster. An important part of our case is that this has happened despite the equally astounding traffic growth at many of the regional airports, in particular at Manchester, Glasgow, East Midlands and Bristol. Incidentally, we forecast that regional traffic would grow at even faster rate than in the London system.
Some of my hon. Friends, including my hon Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood, have argued that saturation of the London system is more apparent than real. They have said, for instance, that airports in America are able to accommodate a higher landing and take-off rate per hour than does either Heathrow or Gatwick.
Leaving aside the fact that the Americans seem to be prepared to accept longer delays at their airports than our travelling public, the argument ignores one rather important factor, which is the special mix of aircraft at Heathrow and Gatwick, to which reference has been made this evening. The matter is complex, and I do not intend to bore the House with it. The House might consider whether a Select Committee should probe the matter a little more deeply. Broadly, the problem is one that air turbulence left in the wake of large aircraft can seriously destabilise the smaller aircraft following behind.
As the proportion of larger aircraft rises, so the spacing between the aircraft must widen and the total number of landings diminishes. That is the reason—and this meets the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel)—that despite the fact that we have removed the air transport movement limit at Heathrow, we expect ATMs, having risen to 300,000, to fall back to more than 290,000 by 1990 and right back to 275,000 by the year 2000. I hope that that is some reassurance to my hon. Friends, especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley).
Mr. Haselhurst: How does my hon. Friend attempt to disprove to the House the careful and detailed analysis of Mr. Graham Eyre which showed the very opposite of what my hon. Friend is saying?
Mr. Spicer: I listened to that point in my hon. Friend's speech, as I always listen to his points. One answer is that Mr. Eyre did not have at his disposal all the facts that we know now—for instance, the effect of our liberalisation policy on traffic into Heathrow. He did not know that traffic from Edinburgh into the London system was this year to rise by 20 per cent., which it has. Therefore, there are new facts as a result of our liberalisation and competition policies.
We expect that landing capacity at Heathrow will fall from its present rate of 34 aircraft per hour to 32 aircraft as the proportion of heavy aircraft rises. I hope that the House will accept that after terminal 4 becomes operational, the development at Heathrow will be constrained not by lack of terminal space but by take-offs and landings—in other words, landing capacity. If a fifth terminal were to be built to give a capacity of 53 million passengers in the year 2000, with a 275,000 ATM limit, average aircraft loadings would need to increase from their present level of 112 passengers to 193. That point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. That is an average increase in passenger

133
loadings of 3·5 per cent. per year. It compares with an increase in the last 10 years of 2·3 per cent. That is making dramatic assumptions about the average loadings of aircraft for terminal 5 to be viable.
The main reason we have decided not to go ahead with T5 is that as we sit here tonight we do not need it—
Mr. Jessel: On the question of Heathrow and night flights, as no fewer than six Conservative Members—my right hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) and for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) and I have all expressed anxiety, can the Government reassure us, and put us in a position to tell our constituents, that they will not permit any increase in night flights through Heathrow following the refusal of planning permission for a fifth terminal but no ATM limit?
Mr. Spicer: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we have no intention of removing night flying restrictions at Heathrow. What is more, the position is at present satisfactory in that there is under-utilisation of the night quotas, particularly by noisy aircraft.
The next question I have to answer is whether, given the constraints on the London system, we could do more to divert traffic to the regions. That question was asked by many hon. Members on both sides of the House. What the Government have done for regional and local airports is, by now, well known to my hon. Friends, if not to Opposition Members. Since 1979, £200 million has been allocated for capital development, and hundreds of route licences have been issued to airlines wishing to fly from regional airports. As the House knows, 1,500 routes can now be operated from regional airports to foreign destinations, although only 100 of those have been taken up.
Mr. Corbett: Is the Minister saying, as I say, that London and the south-east is a region no more and no less than any other region? Or is he saying that, by some sleight of hand, London has suddenly become a national airport?
Mr. Spicer: The London system is the airport system of the capital city of the nation. That is a fact of life, as it happens to be a fact that many people want, for whatever reason, to travel by that system. I am simply saying that a vast opportunity has been given in the form of route licences to regions outside the London system, but that few, in terms of international flights, have been taken up.
Manchester, however, serves 33 foreign destinations with scheduled services, 14 of which have been started in the last year. Birmingham supports 15 foreign routes, four of which have been started in the last year. The growth rates at regional airports, as has been said, have been phenomenal in the last year or so.
Last year the number of passengers travelling through Manchester grew by 17 per cent., which was an enormous growth rate, particularly taking account of the base. The comparable figure at Bristol was 27·8 per cent.; for the east midlands it was 12·7 per cent.; and the Humberside rate grew by the extraordinary figure of 53·6 per cent. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Brown) said that Newcastle airport was growing successfully. I hope that we shall be able to do even more for Newcastle in the months ahead.
134
In pressing forward with their plans and policies for regional airports the Government have been greatly encouraged by the tireless efforts, on behalf of their local airports, of many of my hon. Friends, especially those representing constituencies in the north. The Government therefore paid particular attention to the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester. Withington (Mr. Silvester) when he spoke in June of this year and said:
"I congratulate my right hon. Friend on continuing to be the Minister who has done most for regional airports of any since the war".—[Official Report, 5 June 1985; Vol. 80, c. 315.]
My hon. Friend will not mind my saying that no sooner had he sat down than he was arranging to see my right hon. Friend and myself to keep the pressure on us. It was, in that case, about the American Airlines application to fly into Manchester from Chicago. The matter was raised again today by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale—
Mr. Frank Cook rose—
Mr. Spicer: I want to deal with the American Airlines point. In any event, having listened for seven hours to the debate, I feel that I should now give some answers.
We have said that we welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue with the United States Government, and we have arranged to meet them about it at an early date. We are now in the process of discussing with United Kingdom interests affected, including Manchester airport, the basis on which the necessary traffic rights should be made available to American Airlines. I hope that we can speedily conclude with the United States Government a satisfactory basis, under the Bermuda 2 air services agreement, on which United States airlines can be allowed to develop services to Manchester. As my right hon. Friend has said, we shall need to bear in mind in all our negotiations that it is British airlines and not foreign ones which create the most jobs in Britain. that is one answer at least to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) when he calls for an open skies policy for Manchester.
The positive approach of my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the north—for example, my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre (Sir. W. Clegg), for Manchester, Withington and for Altrincham and Sale—has coincided with that of the director of Manchester international airport, Mr. Gil Thompson, who, contrary to some of the aspersions which have been cast by Opposition Members, has been single minded, not to say ruthless in his determination further to develop the airport, and who last week publicly accepted the White Paper as giving great new hope for Manchester international airport.
As we are witnessing now, this positive attitude is in strong contrast with the persistent, ungenerous, and falsely based carping which we have had from Opposition Members tonight and on other occasions. They are so much the victims of their own propaganda and false rhetoric that they themselves constitute the main danger that Manchester airport faces by threatening to talk it out of its own success.
For our part, we shall continue to press ahead, especially with our discussions with governments in Europe, to try to build on the existing fairly liberal inter-regional air services regime. We see no reason, for

135
instance, why the type of aircraft benefiting from the EEC inter-regional regime should be restricted to 70-seaters as it is now.
Only last week I was in Scandinavia seeking to establish a regime for interregional travel which would allow any airline to fly between regional points using any aircraft charging any fare subject to the approval of the country of origin only. I am delighted to say that the Scandinavian countries have agreed that discussions of this and other matters should for the first time be pursued at official level. Increased aviation business with Scandinavia can only benefit our northern airports.
The fact is that in co-operation with the Manchester airport authorities and with the persistent encouragement of my right hon. and hon. Friends, from the north-west, we are developing Manchester international airport into one of the most successful hubs in western Europe. This success will be maintained unless the Labour and Liberal parties manage to talk down our efforts to the point where the new confidence is undermined and the present astonishing momentum is brought to a halt.
I turn next, and most importantly, to the very understandable list of issues which have been raised by my hon. Friends representing constituencies around Stansted. Much of what we have done to ensure that, subject to the necessary legislation, Parliament will be able to control the expansion of traffic at Stansted, has arisen directly out of the very effective representations that my hon. Friends have made to us, notably by my hon. Friends the Members for Saffron Walden, for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) and for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). In the same way, my right hon. Friend and I have listened very carefully to the many constructive comments that my hon. Friends have made about several specific aspects of the White Paper as it affects Stansted airport.
On the question of the possible over-rapid development of Stansted through cross-subsidies from the profits made at Heathrow and Gatwick, and on the related question of the structure of the ownership of the privatised airports, we recognise, of course, that these matters will be the subject of detailed discussion when the House debates the Bill that we intend to bring before it as soon as possible. That Bill will certainly contain measures to ensure that the accounts of the various airport plcs are separate and totally transparent and that all loans, for instance made to the Stansted plc, are paid for at market rates of interest. It is important that watching over the new companies—this answers some of the snide comments of Opposition Members—and their operations will be the Civil Aviation Authority, which will be given new powers to ensure above all that airport charges at Stansted are related to costs and that the BAA is not able to attract business from airports in the north by predatory pricing. Once every five years, the BAA would be subject to a review by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
As to the arguments for and against the separate ownership of BAA airports in the London system, we recognise that these are finely balanced. The point that above all persuaded us when drafting the White Paper is that the BAA airports do not in a true sense compete with each other. If the airports were separated, airlines would undoubtedly scramble for access to Heathrow until charges there were so high as to produce astronomical profits and
136
as completely to prohibit entry by smaller, particularly domestic, airlines. That aspect is extremely important in relation to the regions.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my hon. Friend assure me that the expansion of the terminal building at Stansted will be phased in relation to demand, and not in accordance with what the BAA deemed to be its given right to develop a terminal with a capacity of 15 million PPA?
Mr. Spicer: The condition for granting planning permission was clear. It said:
"The phasing of the construction … shall be as may be agreed from time to time with the local planning authority: provided that in the first phase of construction of the terminal building, its net floor area … shall not exceed 50,000 sq metres."
This condition could hardly be clearer. It will not be possible for the BAA to go ahead immediately with the construction of a terminal that does not meet this restriction.
Three other specific anxieties have been raised by those representing Stansted airport. The first is noise. The White Paper is very clear that we shall at a minimum apply the noise restrictions which currently exist at Gatwick and Heathrow. These include night quotas, especially for noisier aircraft. The Establishment of noise preferential routes and noise limits at take-off. Noise insulation grants will be available.
The White Paper shows how these measures, together with the impending ban on noisier aircraft, have been successful in substantially reducing the area covered by the 35 noise and number index. Nevertheless, we are considering what further measures we can take—for instance, whether insulation grants should be made available to schools and hospitals and whether owners of noise-blighted properties should be able to require an airport authority to purchase them. We certainly agree with the inspector that airport authorities should be able to acquire, by agreement with the owners, those properties that are seriously affected by noise.
Secondly, I can give this assurance on urbanisation. There is no question of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the environment granting indiscriminate planning permission in the way feared by some of my hon. Friends. I can assure the House that no change in our general policy towards the green belt is implied by our decisions at Stansted.
Thirdly, I can certainly confirm that the British Airports Authority will be selling the land around Stansted which was identified during the public inquiry as being surplus to the requirements of a single runway airport. The sale of this surplus land will be allowed for in the calculation of the BAA's next external finance limit.
It is as well that we should be clear that what we have been discussing tonight—though it has been hard for the Opposition to accept it—have been the problems of success. The British aviation industry, as Conservative Member after Conservative Member has stressed, is now the strongest and the most successful outside the United States. No other country outside America can boast two profitable and popular long haul carriers, three large medium distance international airlines, several more strong domestic airlines and as many as 20 commuter and short haul carriers.
Our airports, too, dominate the international network. Heathrow is the busiest international airport in the world

137
and Gatwick the fourth busiest. Manchester international is one of the largest airports in Europe, outranking those of many European capitals. Most of this astonishing success has been created in the lifetime of this Government.
Our aviation policy has been designed to build on this success by striving for further excellence through competition; by opening up air travel to more and more of our citizens; by creating more jobs around British airlines and British airports; but, above all, by presenting to the House tonight a policy that provides for the needs of the aviation industry, while at the same time containing the nuisance for those who live around airports—a policy which for the first time in living memory, is an airports strategy for the whole nation.
I ask the House to vote for the motion standing in the names of my right hon. Friends.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 332.

Division No. 239]

[12.00 midnight

AYES

Abse, Leo

Ewing, Harry

Alton, David

Fatchett, Derek

Anderson, Donald

Faulds, Andrew

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Ashdown, Paddy

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Fisher, Mark

Ashton, Joe

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Forrester, John

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Foster, Derek

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Foulkes, George

Barnett. Guy

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Barron, Kevin

George, Bruce

Bell, Stuart

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Benn, Tony

Godman, Dr Norman

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

Golding, John

Bermingham, Gerald

Gould, Bryan

Bidwell, Sydney

Gourlay, Harry

Blair, Anthony

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Hardy, Peter

Boyes, Roland

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

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

Haynes, Frank

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

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Heffer, Eric S.

Buchan, Norman

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Caborn, Richard

Home Robertson, John

Campbell, Ian

Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Cartwright, John

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Janner, Hon Greville

Clarke, Thomas

John, Brynmor

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Kennedy, Charles

Cohen, Harry

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Conlan, Bernard

Lambie, David

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Lamond, James

Corbett, Robin

Leadbitter, Ted

Corbyn, Jeremy

Leighton, Ronald

Cowans, Harry

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Craigen, J. M.

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Crowther, Stan

Litherland, Robert

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Cunningham, Dr John

McCartney, Hugh

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Deakins, Eric

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Dewar, Donald

McKelvey, William

Dobson, Frank

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Dormand, Jack

McNamara, Kevin

Douglas, Dick

McTaggart, Robert

Duffy, A. E. P.

McWilliam, John

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Madden, Max

Eadie, Alex

Marek, Dr John

Eastham, Ken

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

138

Martin, Michael

Ryman, John

Maxton, John

Sedgemore, Brian

Maynard, Miss Joan

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Meacher, Michael

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Meadowcroft, Michael

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

Michie, William

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Mikardo, Ian

Skinner, Dennis

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

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

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

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

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Snape, Peter

Nellist, David

Soley, Clive

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Spearing, Nigel

O'Brien, William

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Stott, Roger

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Straw, Jack

Park, George

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Parry, Robert

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Patchett, Terry

Tinn, James

Pavitt, Laurie

Wainwright, R.

Pendry, Tom

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Wareing, Robert

Prescott, John

Weetch, Ken

Radice, Giles

Welsh, Michael

Randall, Stuart

White, James

Redmond, M.

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Wilson, Gordon

Richardson, Ms Jo

Winnick, David

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Woodall, Alec

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Robertson, George

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Rooker, J. W.

Tellers for the Ayes:

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Mr. Don Dixon and

Rowlands, Ted

Mr. Peter Pike.

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Butterfill, John

Alexander, Richard

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

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

Amess, David

Cash, William

Ancram, Michael

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Arnold, Tom

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Ashby, David

Chope, Christopher

Aspinwall, Jack

Churchill, W. S.

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

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

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

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

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Clegg, Sir Walter

Baldry, Tony

Cockeram, Eric

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Colvin, Michael

Batiste, Spencer

Coombs, Simon

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Cope, John

Bellingham, Henry

Couchman, James

Bendall, Vivian

Critchley, Julian

Benyon, William

Crouch, David

Best, Keith

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Dickens, Geoffrey

Blackburn, John

Dorrell, Stephen

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Dover, Den

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

du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Dunn, Robert

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Durant, Tony

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Dykes, Hugh

Bright, Graham

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Brinton, Tim

Eggar, Tim

Brooke, Hon Peter

Emery, Sir Peter

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Evennett, David

Browne, John

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Bruinvels, Peter

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Bryan, Sir Paul

Fallon, Michael

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Farr, Sir John

Buck, Sir Antony

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Budgen, Nick

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Burt, Alistair

Fletcher, Alexander

Butcher, John

Fookes, Miss Janet

Butler, Hon Adam

Forman, Nigel

139

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Forth, Eric

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Fox, Marcus

Lightbown, David

Franks, Cecil

Lilley, Peter

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Freeman, Roger

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Fry peter

Lord, Michael

Gale, Roger

Luce, Richard

Galley, Roy

Lyell, Nicholas

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Macfarlane, Neil

Garel-Jones, Tristan

MacGregor, John

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Glyn, Dr Alan

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Maclean, David John

Goodlad, Alastair

McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

Gorst, John

Major, John

Gow, Ian

Malins, Humfrey

Gower, Sir Raymond

Malone, Gerald

Gregory, Conal

Maples, John

Griffiths, Sir Eldon

Marland, Paul

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Marlow, Antony

Grist, Ian

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Ground, Patrick

Mates, Michael

Grylls, Michael

Maude, Hon Francis

Gummer, John Selwyn

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Mellor, David

Hampson, Dr Keith

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Hanley, Jeremy

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Hannam, John

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Harris, David

Miscampbell, Norman

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

Moate, Roger

Hawksley, Warren

Monro, Sir Hector

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hayward, Robert

Moore, John

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Heddle, John

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Henderson, Barry

Moynihan, Hon C.

Hickmet, Richard

Neale, Gerrard

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Needham, Richard

Hind, Kenneth

Nelson, Anthony

Hirst, Michael

Neubert, Michael

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Newton, Tony

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Nicholls, Patrick

Holt, Richard

Normanton, Tom

Hordern, Sir Peter

Norris, Steven

Howard, Michael

Onslow, Cranley

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

Oppenheim, Phillip

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'Idford)

Osborn, Sir John

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Ottaway, Richard

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Irving, Charles

Parris, Matthew

Jackson, Robert

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Jessel, Toby

Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abdgn)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Pattie, Geoffrey

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Pawsey, James

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Pollock, Alexander

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Porter, Barry

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Portillo, Michael

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Powell, William (Corby)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Powley, John

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Knowles, Michael

Price, Sir David

Lamont, Norman

Prior, Rt Hon James

Lang, Ian

Proctor, K. Harvey

Latham, Michael

Raffan, Keith

Lawler, Geoffrey

Rathbone, Tim

Lawrence, Ivan

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Renton, Tim

Lee, John (Pendle)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

140

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Terlezki, Stefan

Rifkind, Malcolm

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Rost, Peter

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Rowe, Andrew

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Tracey, Richard

Ryder, Richard

Trippier, David

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Trotter, Neville

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Twinn, Dr Ian

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Sayeed, Jonathan

Viggers, Peter

Scott, Nicholas

Waddington, David

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Waldegrave, Hon William

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Walden, George

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Shersby, Michael

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Silvester, Fred

Waller, Gary

Sims, Roger

Walters, Dennis

Skeet, T. H. H.

Ward, John

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Warren, Kenneth

Speed, Keith

Watson, John

Speller, Tony

Watts, John

Spencer, Derek

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Wheeler, John

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Whitfield, John

Squire, Robin

Whitney, Raymond

Stanbrook, Ivor

Wiggin, Jerry

Stanley, John

Wilkinson, John

Steen, Anthony

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Stern, Michael

Wolfson, Mark

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Wood, Timothy

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Woodcock, Michael

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Yeo, Tim

Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Stokes, John

Younger, Rt Hon George

Stradling Thomas, J.

Sumberg, David

Tellers for the Noes:

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Mr. Robert Boscawen and

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Mr. Carol Mather.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 326, Noes 190.

Division No. 240]

[12.14 am

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Alexander, Richard

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Bright, Graham

Amess, David

Brinton, Tim

Ancram, Michael

Brooke, Hon Peter

Arnold, Tom

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Ashby, David

Browne, John

Aspinwall, Jack

Bruinvels, Peter

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Bryan, Sir Paul

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Buck, Sir Antony

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

Budgen, Nick

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Burt, Alistair

Baldry, Tony

Butcher, John

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Butler, Hon Adam

Batiste, Spencer

Butterfill, John

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

Bellingham, Henry

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Bendall, Vivian

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

Benyon, William

Cash, William

Best, Keith

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Blackburn, John

Chope, Christopher

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Churchill, W. S.

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

141

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

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

Clegg. Sir Walter

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

Colvin, Michael

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Coombs, Simon

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Cope, John

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Couchman, James

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Crouch, David

Irving, Charles

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Jackson, Robert

Dickens, Geoffrey

Jessel, Toby

Dorrell, Stephen

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dover, Den

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Dunn, Robert

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Durant, Tony

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Dykes, Hugh

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Eggar, Tim

King, Rt Hon Tom

Emery, Sir Peter

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Evennett, David

Knowles, Michael

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Lamont, Norman

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Lang, Ian

Fallon, Michael

Latham, Michael

Farr, Sir John

Lawler, Geoffrey

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Lawrence, Ivan

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Fletcher, Alexander

Lee, John (Pendle)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Forman, Nigel

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Forth, Eric

Lightbown, David

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Lilley, Peter

Fox, Marcus

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Franks, Cecil

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Lord, Michael

Freeman, Roger

Luce, Richard

Fry, Peter

Lyell, Nicholas

Gale, Roger

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Galley, Roy

Macfarlane, Neil

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

MacGregor, John

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Maclean, David John

Glyn, Dr Alan

McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Major, John

Goodlad, Alastair

Malins, Humfrey

Gorst, John

Malone, Gerald

Gow, Ian

Maples, John

Gower, Sir Raymond

Marland, Paul

Gregory, Conal

Marlow, Antony

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Grist, Ian

Mates, Michael

Ground, patrick

Maude, Hon Francis

Grylls, Michael

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Gummer, John Selwyn

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Hamilton Hon A. (Epsom)

Mellor, David

Hamilton. Neil (Tatton)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Hampson, Dr Keith

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Hanley, Jeremy

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Hannam, John

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Miscampbell, Norman

Harris, David

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Moate, Roger

Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

Monro, Sir Hector

Hawksley, Warren

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

Moore, John

Hayward, Robert

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Heddle, John

Moynihan, Hon C.

Henderson, Barry

Neale, Gerrard

Hickmet, Richard

Needham, Richard

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Nelson, Anthony

Hind, Kenneth

Neubert, Michael

Hirst, Michael

Newton, Tony

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Nicholls, Patrick

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Normanton, Tom

Holt, Richard

Norris, Steven

Hordern, Sir Peter

Onslow, Cranely

Howard, Michael

Oppenheim, Phillip

142

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Stanbrook, Ivor

Osborn, Sir John

Stanley, John

Ottaway, Richard

Steen, Anthony

Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

Stern, Michael

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Parris, Matthew

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abdgn)

Stokes, John

Pattie, Geoffrey

Stradling Thomas, J.

Pawsey, James

Sumberg, David

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Pollock, Alexander

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Porter, Barry

Terlezki, Stefan

Portillo, Michael

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Powley, John

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Price, Sir David

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Prior, Rt Hon James

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Proctor, K. Harvey

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Raffan, Keith

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Rathbone, Tim

Tracey, Richard

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Trippier, David

Renton, Tim

Trotter, Neville

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Twinn, Dr Ian

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Viggers, Peter

Rifkind, Malcolm

Waddington, David

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Waldegrave, Hon William

Roe, Mrs Marion

Walden, George

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Rost, Peter

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Rowe, Andrew

Waller, Gary

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Walters, Dennis

Ryder, Richard

Ward, John

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Warren, Kenneth

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Watson, John

Sayeed, Jonathan

Watts, John

Scott, Nicholas

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Wheeler, John

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Whitfield, John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Whitney, Raymond

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Wiggin, Jerry

Shersby, Michael

Wilkinson, John

Silvester, Fred

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Sims, Roger

Wolfson, Mark

Skeet, T. H. H.

Wood, Timothy

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Woodcock, Michael

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Yeo, Tim

Speed, Keith

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Speller, Tony

Younger, Rt Hon George

Spencer, Derek

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Teller for the Ayes:

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Mr. Robert Boscawen and

Squire, Robin

Mr. Carol Mather.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Adley, Robert

Boyes, Roland

Alton, David

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Anderson, Donald

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

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

Ashdown, Paddy

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Buchan, Norman

Ashton, Joe

Caborn, Richard

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Campbell, Ian

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Barnett, Guy

Cartwright, John

Barron, Kevin

Chapman, Sydney

Bell, Stuart

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Benn, Tony

Clarke, Thomas

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

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Bermingham, Gerald

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Bidwell, Sydney

Cohen, Harry

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Conlan, Bernard

Blair, Anthony

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

143

Corbett, Robin

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hayes, J.

Cowans, Harry

Haynes, Frank

Craigen, J. M.

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Cranborne, Viscount

Heffer, Eric S.

Crowther, Stan

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Home Robertson, John

Cunningham, Dr John

Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'Ili)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Deakins, Eric

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Dewar, Donald

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Dicks, Terry

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Dobson, Frank

Janner, Hon Greville

Dormand, Jack

John, Brynmor

Douglas, Dick

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Kennedy, Charles

Eadie, Alex

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Eastham, Ken

Knox, David

Ewing, Harry

Lambie, David

Fatchett, Derek

Lamond, James

Faulds, Andrew

Leadbitter, Ted

Favell, Anthony

Leighton, Ronald

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Fisher, Mark

Litherland, Robert

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Forrester, John

McCartney, Hugh

Foster, Derek

McCrindle, Robert

Foulkes, George

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

George, Bruce

McKelvey, William

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Godman, Dr Norman

McNamara, Kevin

Golding, John

McTaggart, Robert

Gould, Bryan

McWilliam, John

Grant, Sir Anthony

Madden, Max

Griffiths, Sir Eldon

Marek, Dr John

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Hardy, Peter

Martin, Michael

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Maxton, John

Harvey, Robert

Maynard, Miss Joan

Haselhurst, Alan

Meacher, Michael

144

Meadowcroft, Michael

Sedgemore, Brian

Michie, William

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Mikardo, Ian

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Milian, Rt Hon Bruce

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

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Skinner, Dennis

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

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

Murphy, Christopher

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Nellist, David

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

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Snape, Peter

O'Brien, William

Soley, Clive

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Spearing, Nigel

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Park, George

Stott, Roger

Parry, Robert

Straw, Jack

Patchett, Terry

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Pavitt, Laurie

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Pendry, Tom

Tinn, James

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Wainwright, R.

Prescott, John

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Wareing, Robert

Radice, Giles

Weetch, Ken

Randall, Stuart

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Redmond, M.

Welsh, Michael

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

White, James

Rhodes James, Robert

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Richardson, Ms Jo

Wilson, Gordon

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Winnick, David

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Woodall, Alec

Robertson, George

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Rooker, J. W.

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Tellers for the Noes:

Rowlands, Ted

Mr. Don Dixon and

Ryman, John

Mr. Peter Pike.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House approves the Government's White Paper on Airports Policy, Cmnd. 9542.

Darlington (Primary Schools)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]
12.25 am
Mr. Michael Fallon: I am grateful for this chance to raise an issue which is of concern to all my constituents in all parts of Darlington and which in Haughton at least has united all parties, councillors and governors, headmistresses and parents. I am referring to the provision of primary school education in Darlington.
I raise this not just as an issue of parental preference, although all the evidence before me shows that parental choice is being widely and arbitrarily denied at schools such as Whinfield and Springfield, Abbey and Heathfield, but as an issue of the town's basic needs and the most efficient way to meet them. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science has taken a keen interest in the matter and I am grateful to him for that. He will know the background, as we have corresponded in the past two years on the subject of Whinfield and Abbey schools in particular.
If I give less time to Abbey school in this debate, it is not because it deserves less attention. My hon. Friend the Minister will recall that the Abbey junior and infants schools are very popular and efficient schools and constantly over-subscribed. This year there were 84 applications for only 64 places in the infants school. Yet the county council has continually sought to reduce the admission limit both for infants and for the junior school. In 1982 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State blocked an attempt to reduce the admission limit for juniors, but the limit for infants was reduced to 70. A further reduction to 60 was proposed in 1984, but as the county council had based the reduction on an erroneous standard number it later had to raise it to 62. In any event, the county council has continually refused to provide the additional teachers and facilities which the demand for Abbey school seem to require.
The demand within the catchment area is increasing and will continue to do so. We therefore face more and more appeals from parents whose children have been rejected, and more heartache as families are split up and brother separated from sister. The authority's failure to appreciate the increase in demand and to take steps to deal with it lies at the heart of this debate. No one denies that there are surplus places in the north and the centre of Darlington, but new housing is developing fast elsewhere, around Abbey school in the west and in Haughton in the north east.
Darlington is the one area of county Durham in which the birth rate is rising rather than falling. It has been rising since 1982 and is now 1,500 per year. The county council does not deny that. A report submitted by the director of education to the building and resourcess sub-committee of the council on 12 June states that primary enrolments across the county are now approaching stability after some years of falling rolls and forecasts a considerable rise in the figures. That rise is much greater in the Darlington area, and the bulk of the increase is to be found in Haughton in the north-east.
My hon. Friend may not know that Houghton is centred on a village older and higher than Darlington, inside the town, but not part of it. It is physically separated from the old northern part of the town as well as the town centre.
146
It is an area of rapid housing development. Several hundred more homes are planned there, and my hon. Friend will be interested to know that the council ward is being redrawn and expanded to allow for a further council seat. The director of education admits that more than 3,000 new homes are being constructed or planned in that area.
This growing community is served by Whinfield infants and Springfield county primary schools. As the catchment area for the two schools shrinks, both will become hopelessly overcrowded. In fact, Whinfield school is already overcrowded. Last year there were 79 applications for about 60 places. This year there were 80 applications for the same number of places, and the headmistress already knows of 71 forthcoming applications in 1986. There is the same story at Springfield—67 applications this year for 60 places. This year alone, 27 children must find places elsewhere, and more than 50 parents are being denied their preferences. My forecast is that next year even more parents will have to appeal and even more will be rejected.
What does this mean for those parents whose appeals are turned down? First, it means a long journey into the northern part of the town. I accept that it is just within the two-mile limit, but it is a journey across open land and along busy roads into a part of the town that is physically separated from the community in Houghton. Secondly, it means extra costs—perhaps up to £10 a week in bus fares and lunch money—as the children will be unable to return home at lunchtime. Thirdly, it means that families will be broken up. Even the sibling connection will be disregarded, and friends will be separated The community around Whinfield school will be slowly pulled apart.
The solution to this problem is simple, obvious and long overdue. It is the provision of an additional classroom at Whinfield infants school at a cost of several thousand pounds. That has been called for by the governors, parents, local councillors, staff and people of all political parties in Houghton, and it has been the subject of submissions to my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend over the last couple of years.
That classroom would never be wasted. Even if subsequent demand fell, the headmistress has pointed out that the school is so overcrowded that the extra space would be an invaluable asset in future years as an additional mathematics room, music room, remedial room and so on.
This application for one additional classroom, even a simple demountable facility, has been turned down by Durham county council. Just last week the education department refused to accept any case for basic need at this school and considered only minor adjustments to the intake limit. I am sorry to say it—I hope that my hon. Friend will agree—but I find that response predictable from an education authority which is notoriously indifferent to parental choice and from Labour councillors who are notoriously indifferent to the real feelings of people. That decision from the education authority is bitterly disappointing for the parents of Houghton, and it will cause great hardship for those who will have to take their children outside this community to have them educated further afield.
The authority will claim that there are unfilled primary school places across the town, and I have seen its submission that there are up to 840 places available to meet

147
a demand which it measures as a potential maximum of 600. I cannot accept that its figure of 840 is realistic. About 81 of those places are in Roman Catholic schools, while others are in older schools which will eventually have to be pulled down and replaced. Almost all of those places are simply in the wrong areas of town.
The responsibility in this matter rests with Durham county council, which has known of the situation over the past couple of years, but has failed to do something about it. That may come as a surprise to my hon. Friend when we recall that this county council was able to find £750,000 to assist the miners in their futile dispute last year, and £500,000 from the education budget alone to provide free school meals for miners' children and to keep schools open over the summer and Christmas holidays. That council still cannot find a few thousand pounds for an extra classroom.
Not only is parental preference being denied in this matter—40 or 50 appeals across the town is ample evidence to justify that statement, and those appeals will be added to next year—but the authority is failing in its primary duty under section 6 of the Education Act to provide sufficient education to make efficient use of its resources.
Education cannot be efficient either if a school is overcrowded or in a dilapidated, century-old school in a rundown industrial part of the old town. Nor can the county council be said to be making efficient use of resources when it overspends its target by 1·5 per cent., some £3·2 million, and thereby incurs a penalty of £5·27 million. The county council cannot find from an overall budget of £214 million the few thousand pounds needed for an additional classroom at Whinfield. The authority has a case to answer and is failing to carry out its statutory obligation under the Education Act. I ask my hon. Friend to consider the case.
12.27 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) on obtaining this Adjournment debate about the provision of primary schools in Darlington. I am pleased to be able to reply to him. He has spoken tonight about a matter which is of immediate concern in his constituency—the very important matter of parental preference for a school place for their children. That of course is of national, as well as local, concern since it relates to the Government's policies in relation to giving parents the maximum possible choice of school within the inevitable limitations of finance and availability. In raising these issues tonight, my hon. Friend has demonstrated the active and diligent way in which he represents his constituents' interests. Indeed, he has corresponded with my right hon. Friend in the past about some of these matters.
My hon. Friend spoke about the position at two particular schools maintained by the Durham local education authority—Abbey county infants and Whinfield county infants schools in Darlington. I shall come to that in a moment but before I do so there are a number of relevant issues of national policy that need to be set out because they form the background to a full understanding of the local position. If I may, I should like
148
to run briefly through those first. Essentially, these relate to three matters: parental preference, falling school rolls; and public expenditure.
The central issue is that of parental preference. The principle that pupils should be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents is one that Conservatives have espoused for a very long time, and the Government are committed to the maintenance of development of parental preference. The provisions that we made in the Education Act 1980 gave parents, for the first time, a statutory right to express their preference of school and extended the practical effect of that principle.
The Act requires local education authorities and the governors of voluntary aided and special agreement schools to publish their admissions and appeals arrangements and information about individual schools. That information provides parents with the basis upon which they are able to express preferences as to which schools they wish their children to attend. LEAs are therefore under a duty to meet those preferences except in certain narrowly defined circumstances set out in section 6(3) of the Act, broadly speaking to do with the efficient use of resources, and provision of efficient education.
For those parents whose preferences are nevertheless not met, the Act established a new right of appeal to an independent local appeal committee, whose decision is binding on the authority or the governors as the case may be. If parents feel that there has been maladministration in the way a case has been handled by an appeal committee, they of course have the right to complain to the Local Commissioner for Administration.
That brings me to the question of falling school rolls and the extent to which the problems which they have generated bear upon the exercise of parental preference. My hon. Friend quite rightly talked about an increase in births of recent years which will bring about a small upturn in primary rolls. But that will not bring us back to anything like the numbers of children we used to have in our schools, and there thus remains a very considerable surplus of school places. Whilst the breathing space which this has given to many schools may be superficially attractive—and, indeed, it has had real benefits in enabling pupil-teacher ratios to be reduced to the lowest levels ever—surplus places present LEAs both with problems of adequate provision of the curriculum in very small schools and with costs which the education service as a whole can ill afford to bear.
This is why my Department issued circular 2/81 four years ago setting out the case for taking surplus places out of use and offering guidance on strategy in achieving a reduction. Better to spend the money that we spend on education on the children who are there, and not on empty desks.
All this has an important bearing on the issue of parental preference. An LEA needs to consider its provision to assess what scope there is for securing a reduction in surplus places, whether by closure, by amalgamation, or by taking part of a school out of use. My hon. Friend will understand that a review of that kind can introduce an element of conflict with the principle of parental preference in a situation where one school in an area is popular with parents and others within a reasonable distance have significant spare capacity. In circumstances of that kind, authorities must have regard to the totality of

149
their provision and to the need to avoid retaining too great a margin of surplus accommodation with the educational and revenue costs that flow from it.
Then there is the inevitable issue of cost. My hon. Friend will not need to be reminded by me of the crucial importance of continuing control over public expenditure in the battle for national economic regeneration. There are of course circumstances in which new school building is essential, where school rolls are rising above the available schools capacity, but national funds for capital provision are necessarily limited and some hard choices have to be made. Given those restraints, it would be very difficult for my Department to sanction a capital project, to add to a popular school so as to enable it to increase its intake when, at the same time, other schools within a reasonable distance already had spare capacity. To do so would be a waste of scarce capital resources and would inevitably divert funds from some more urgent need.
In the light of those national considerations, let me now turn to the issue of the particular schools about which my hon. Friend has spoken tonight. Although the circumstances are different at each, both are popular schools currently receiving more applications for entry than they have places available. Earlier this year, a constituent of my hon. Friend wrote to my Department about the admission limit set for Abbey infants school by the Durham LEA. Officers of the Department consulted the authority to establish the facts so as to consider whether statutory proposals under section 15 of the 1980 Act were needed. That section requires such proposals to be made where a school's annual intake is to be reduced to four fifths or less of the standard number. The standard number is defined as the number of pupils admitted in the admission age group in the school year 1979–80. In this case, I understand that there had been some dispute about the standard number. That was resolved, the school's admission limit was raised from 60 to 62 and statutory proposals under section 15 were not then needed. In the event, the parents of 88 children expressed a preference for Abbey as their first choice for this September. This is in excess of the school's capacity and therefore not all of them could thus be successful. It would not be feasible to consider providing additional accommodation at this school when sufficient spare capacity exists at other schools not very far away. Following the initial allocation of places, 17 parents submitted appeals. A total of 64 pupils were allocated places at the school, including five who had been successful on appeal and seven who were granted a place before appeals were heard to replace children who had moved out of the area. That left five disappointed applicants whose appeals were unsuccessful. It would not be helpful of me to say only five were disappointed, because of course for each of those five parents it is very disappointing, and I fully understand that. However, I gather that there is capacity for those children at the alternative schools within a reasonable distance. To have admitted more to Abbey infants school would have put it under unreasonable pressure to the detriment of all the rest of the children. The LEA decided that it could not do that and of course that is within its judgment, and not mine or my right hon. Friend in our locally administered education system.
At Whinfield county infants school the position is rather different, but its effects on individual parents are much the
150
same. As my hon. Friend has said, there is housing development under construction and planned in the area. Last week the LEA considered whether that housing development would justify its putting forward a case to my right hon. Friend for a capital allocation so as to allow it to build an extension to Whinfield infants school. In doing so, it had, of course, to consider the situation in the light of alternative capacity elsewhere. The nearest alternative school, Springfield county primary school, has a full intake planned for this September; but there were last April 650 surplus places at the eight other primary schools within two miles of Whinfield. I understand that the journey to these alternative schools is not particularly difficult or dangerous, and that there are school crossing patrols on the few major roads. Although—against the county trend—the birth rate in Darlington has increased in the past two years, this will not compensate for the decline of previous years. In the light of this—and of the surplus places elsewhere in the area, to which I have already referred—the authority concluded that it could not mount a case for new building on grounds of basic need.
The Durham LEA originally set the Whinfield admission limit at 60 places for this September. The parents of 82 children expressed a first preference for a place there, and 69 places were eventually made available on the basis of the admissions criteria which Durham—like all authorities—is required to publish. The independent appeal hearings have yet to be held. Some appeals at least may be upheld, but, even if all were upheld, they would not be sufficient to constitute a new form of entry.
My hon. Friend will understand that ministerial powers in all of this are limited. The law lays down clear responsibilities to be met by LEAs and procedures to be followed by them in considering applications for admissions to schools. My right hon. Friend has no power to intervene in those processes unless an authority is acting unreasonably within the strict legal definition of the word "unreasonably" or unless it is in default of a statutory duty. Those circumstances may not apply here. Nevertheless, I fully realise how important and difficult a matter this is for the parents involved, and I shall ask my officials to make further inquiries of the Durham LEA so that I can be kept fully informed of developments—in particular, about the numbers to be admitted this year to Abbey infants school.
I accept that that will not be the reply that my hon. Friend hoped for, but I hope that his constituents will recognise that the case for new building is not sufficiently strong, given the surplus capacity at so many other nearby schools.
Having said that, let me reiterate that it remains our policy, within the necessary practical and financial limitations I have already indicated, to afford to parents the maximum possible choice of school and choice of type of education, at both primary and secondary level, and that we do look to all education authorities to respect both the spirit as well as the letter of recent legislation that seeks to put that principle into effect.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to One o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Terrace Pavilion
  Terrace Pavilion
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
ENERGY
  Power Station (Norfolk)
  Power Station (Norfolk)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  North-East Drift Net Fishery
  North-East Drift Net Fishery
  Agricultural Wages Boards
  Agricultural Wages Boards
  Badgers (Tuberculosis)
  Badgers (Tuberculosis)
  Beef Imports
  Beef Imports
  Freezer Trawlers
  Freezer Trawlers
  Glysophate
  Glysophate
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Molesworth (Leaflet)
  Molesworth (Leaflet)
  Magistrates' Courts
  Magistrates' Courts
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Buildings
  School Buildings
  University Posts
  University Posts
  Computers
  Computers
  Deputations
  Deputations
  Primary Schools
  Primary Schools
  Comprehensive Schools
  Comprehensive Schools
  Grammar Schools
  Grammar Schools
  Educational Maintenance Allowance
  Educational Maintenance Allowance
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
PRIME MINISTER
  Confectionery Industry (Ministerial Responsibility)
  Confectionery Industry (Ministerial Responsibility)
  Bradford Disaster Appeal Fund
  Bradford Disaster Appeal Fund
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Life Sentence Prisoners
  Life Sentence Prisoners
  Italians (Extradition)
  Italians (Extradition)
  Concessionary Television Licences
  Concessionary Television Licences
  Firearms Act 1968
  Firearms Act 1968
  Computer Fraud
  Computer Fraud
  Coal Industry Dispute (Police Costs)
  Coal Industry Dispute (Police Costs)
  Metropolitan Police (Manning Levels)
  Metropolitan Police (Manning Levels)
  Television Licences (Refunds)
  Television Licences (Refunds)
  Video Works (Classification Authority)
  Video Works (Classification Authority)
WALES
  Foreign Investment
  Foreign Investment
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Education
  Education
  Combined Heat and Power
  Combined Heat and Power
  Courtaulds (Greenfield Site)
  Courtaulds (Greenfield Site)
  Early Potatoes
  Early Potatoes
  Afforestation
  Afforestation
TRANSPORT
  Estuarial Crossings (Tolls)
  Estuarial Crossings (Tolls)
  Common Transport Policy
  Common Transport Policy
  Marine Rescue Services
  Marine Rescue Services
  Merchant Ships
  Merchant Ships
  Merchant Fleet (Overseas Earnings)
  Merchant Fleet (Overseas Earnings)
  Vehicles (Regulations)
  Vehicles (Regulations)
EMPLOYMENT
  Factory Inspectorate
  Factory Inspectorate
  Merchant Fleet
  Merchant Fleet
  International Labour Organisation
  International Labour Organisation
  Skillcentres
  Skillcentres
  Travel-to-Work Areas
  Travel-to-Work Areas
  Job Release Scheme
  Job Release Scheme
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
ENVIRONMENT
  Right-to-Buy Legislation
  Right-to-Buy Legislation
  Non-combustibility Levels.
  Non-combustibility Levels.
  Empty Dwellings
  Empty Dwellings
  Housing (London)
  Housing (London)
  General Improvement Grants
  General Improvement Grants
  Nuclear Installations (North-West)
  Nuclear Installations (North-West)
  STOLport (London Docklands)
  STOLport (London Docklands)
  Maltby Far and Low Common
  Maltby Far and Low Common
  Urban Aid (Bradford)
  Urban Aid (Bradford)
  Right to Buy (Southwark Council)
  Right to Buy (Southwark Council)
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Rate Limitation
  Rate Limitation
  NHBC Repair Scheme
  NHBC Repair Scheme
  Urban Programme
  Urban Programme
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Aid and Trade
  Aid and Trade
  Export Controls
  Export Controls
  COCOM Regulations
  COCOM Regulations
  United States (Technology Restrictions)
  United States (Technology Restrictions)
  US (Export Controls)
  US (Export Controls)
  Electrical Appliances (Fitted Plugs)
  Electrical Appliances (Fitted Plugs)
  Hotels and Guest Houses (Grants)
  Hotels and Guest Houses (Grants)
  Telephone Sales Promotion
  Telephone Sales Promotion
  Frozen Food
  Frozen Food
  Scott Lithgow Ltd.
  Scott Lithgow Ltd.
  British Overseas Trade Board
  British Overseas Trade Board
THE ARTS
  European Discussions
  European Discussions
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Pound Sterling
  Pound Sterling
  Parliamentary Votes (Allocation of Expenditure)
  Parliamentary Votes (Allocation of Expenditure)
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Johnson Matthey Bankers
  Johnson Matthey Bankers
  European Community (Legislation)
  European Community (Legislation)
SCOTLAND
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Afforestation
  Afforestation
  Certificate of Education
  Certificate of Education
  Forestry Commission (Consultation)
  Forestry Commission (Consultation)
  Primary and Secondary Schools
  Primary and Secondary Schools
  Fife Regional Council (Budget)
  Fife Regional Council (Budget)
  Pupil-Teacher Ratio
  Pupil-Teacher Ratio
  Edinburgh District Council (Budget)
  Edinburgh District Council (Budget)
  Glysophate
  Glysophate
  Broadleaved Woodland
  Broadleaved Woodland
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  South Africa
  South Africa
  EC (Voting Procedures)
  EC (Voting Procedures)
  European Council (Luxembourg Meeting)
  European Council (Luxembourg Meeting)
  British Nationals (Prison Sentences)
  British Nationals (Prison Sentences)
  Mr. Marwan Lostan
  Mr. Marwan Lostan
  Syrian Nationals
  Syrian Nationals
  Tel Aviv (Palestinian Attack)
  Tel Aviv (Palestinian Attack)
  Old Admiralty Building (Security Cover)
  Old Admiralty Building (Security Cover)
  Diplomatic Immunity
  Diplomatic Immunity
  Sri Lanka (Visas)
  Sri Lanka (Visas)
DEFENCE
  Nerve Gas Bombs
  Nerve Gas Bombs
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Chile
  Chile
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Royal Navy (Dental Work)
  Royal Navy (Dental Work)
  Naval Vessels (Port and Refuelling Facilities)
  Naval Vessels (Port and Refuelling Facilities)
  RAF Alconbury
  RAF Alconbury
  Airborne Early Warning System
  Airborne Early Warning System
  Molesworth Cruise Missile Base
  Molesworth Cruise Missile Base
  Fleet Headquarters, Northwood
  Fleet Headquarters, Northwood
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Hospital Nursing Provision
  Hospital Nursing Provision
  Cattle
  Cattle
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Health Education Council
  Health Education Council
  Social Security Review
  Social Security Review
  Ancillary Services (Bradford)
  Ancillary Services (Bradford)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  North-Western RHA (General Manager)
  North-Western RHA (General Manager)
  Statutory Sick Pay Scheme
  Statutory Sick Pay Scheme
  Drugs (Adverse Reactions)
  Drugs (Adverse Reactions)
  Pensions (Channel Islands)
  Pensions (Channel Islands)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Nurses
  Nurses
  NHS (Pay)
  NHS (Pay)
  Newcastle Office (Members' Correspondence)
  Newcastle Office (Members' Correspondence)
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Frozen Food
  Frozen Food
  Departmental Computers
  Departmental Computers
  Specialist Claims Control
  Specialist Claims Control
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Health Charges
  Health Charges
  Disability Benefits
  Disability Benefits
  Consultants (Private Work)
  Consultants (Private Work)
  Consultants (Contracts)
  Consultants (Contracts)
  Orthopaedic Treatment
  Orthopaedic Treatment
  Dental Hospitals
  Dental Hospitals
  Efficiency Savings
  Efficiency Savings
  Nye Bevan Lodge House
  Nye Bevan Lodge House

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

City Action Teams
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made with the introduction of the city action teams.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): My Lords, a total of 1,810 units have now been completed on the sites. Of these, 1,492 are for owner-occupation. Forty-two per cent of the new occupiers previously lived within the three dockland boroughs.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, that is the wrong Answer.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I knew that this would happen one day. There may be a certain sense of déjà vu later.
The city action teams, if I have the subject right, were introduced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, by my noble friend the Minister without Portfolio and by other Ministers at a series of regional launches on 18th and 19th April. The teams operate in the inner-city partnership areas of Birmingham, Liverpool, London, Manchester-Salford and Newcastle-Gateshead. Their task is to improve the contribution of the policies and programmes of my department, the Department of Trade and Industry, and the Department of Employment and Manpower Services Commission in tackling the problems of these areas.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that eventual Answer. I was slightly confused when I heard the previous one. May I ask my noble friend whether the Government are spending substantially more money on inner cities than have previous Governments? Also, will these city action teams help to develop the physical and economic facilities of the older cities?
Lord Elton: My Lords, since 1979 the Government have allocated £1,890 million to inner-city areas—and through the urban programme alone. That is more than 10 times what was allocated between 1974 and 1979. We shall continue to give priority to schemes to strengthen the economy, but we shall also continue to help local authorities to tackle social problems through the inner-city partnerships and to address them directly through the programmes of the Department of the Environment, the Home Office, the Department of Education and Science, the DHSS and other departments.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, can the Minister give any examples of how the inner-city teams have been able to use Government funding more effectively than Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle were doing before the teams moved in?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the purpose of the teams is to assist, not to supplant. They have been going for only two months, but there are signs that they are already improving effectiveness.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, my question was whether the Minister could give us examples of any action taken and about what the teams have done. Can the noble Lord give details of any positive schemes that they have set up?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness expects these people to go out and do something in a building, on the ground, within eight weeks of being set up. Their function is to improve co-ordination between Government departments and public bodies. That will take more than eight weeks to bear fruit.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say which particular areas of London will be dealt with by the city action teams and what funds will be made available to them for this purpose?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the answer to the second part of my noble friend's question is that this is an organisational way of spending existing funds better. As to the areas on the ground that my noble friend asked about, I do not think I can give him an accurate answer in the time available at the Box.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, while I recognise the ambitions of the Government in this matter, may I ask the Minister whether he will not acknowledge that these teams are very poor substitutes for giving councils, who know their problems well, increased support in the rate support grant so that they can get on with doing the job in their own areas?
Lord Elton: My Lords, there is a certain tendency on the Front Bench opposite to think that any problem is best solved by throwing more money at it. On this side we think it is best to use the money we have more effectively.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, in view of the fact that this situation has arisen over many years, and to some extent in the case of London because of the policy of moving people out of London, does my noble friend the Minister not agree that there is a great reversal of previous policies and that this will take considerable time to effect?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it will take time, but the effects will begin to be seen quite early.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that in an answer to his noble friend he placed a figure on the amount of money that the Government have "slung" at the problem, to use his own term? Is it possible, in the fullness of time, that the House may be presented with a report showing the exact activities in which these teams have been engaged with reference to particular areas? Does the noble Lord not agree that that may be helpful to your Lordships' House?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the question which my noble friend asked was about help which we had given to the inner-city areas, and to that there is a numerical answer. The noble Lord asked whether we will publish further details of progress. I am not aware of what plans there are, but I am sure that if they are not published without his instance, he will put down another Question.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister said that this was an organisational method of spending existing funds in a better way. Can he say how the city action teams will improve on the measures taken up till now for the achievement of racial equality in inner-city schemes?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the function of the teams is to look at what is called in jargon the interface between
4
public bodies and to see that they operate in support of and not against each other. That will have benefits for all members of the community who are in receipt of the effect of public money spent on their behalf, including the ethnic minorities.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is a tendency on the Front Bench opposite to believe that the setting up of teams and units is something which will resolve the enormous problems that they have created over the past five years, especially in terms of unemployment and the more acute problem that exists in the inner cities? Can he say who works on those teams and what co-operation they have with the local authorities, which, as my noble friend said quite clearly, are the basic hope for improving these inner city areas? Can he say a little bit more about? Does it mean anything other than the setting up of a team?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the teams are made up from representatives of the departments which I listed to start with. The London team has met formally three times and has held meetings with private and voluntary sector interests, including business in the community and the NCVO. The noble Lord asked whether we did not have a tendency on this Bench to provide more organisation, which I think he thought was reciprocal to the tendency which I identified on his Front Bench to provide more money. I think that that is fair. We believe that if one is to spend vast amounts of public money it should be done in an organised and effective way and we should make sure that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. It has not done for many, many years.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, can the noble Lord enlighten us a little as to what is the status of these teams? Are they set up, as it were, comparable to quangos, or is this merely another example of the Government's determination to insert an additional level of local government?
Lord Elton: My Lords, this is not the insertion of an additional level of anything. It is a way to see that the existing levels work better together.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what he meant when he referred to the CCVO?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think that it would have been the NCVO: the National Council for Voluntary Organisations.

Polio Immunisation: Statistics
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the national annual rate and the lowest inner city annual rate of immunisation against polio.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is estimated that in England 84 per cent. of children born in 1981 and 74 per cent. born in 1982 had been immunised by the end of 1983. The difference in those figures reflects the large number of children who were immunised in the second year after birth. Figures are not available on a district basis for children born in 1981 because of boundary changes in that year. For children born in 1982 and vaccinated by the end of 1983, the lowest estimated rate is 46 per cent.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that reply, which is slightly more favourable than had been feared? Can I ask him whether he is aware that many handicapped polio victims can hardly believe that informed parents would wish to deny their children protection from that dread disease? Is he satisfied that parents realise the mortality rate of such an epidemic, as well as its crippling power to render limbs frail and useless, to twist spines and to paralyse breathing muscles, leaving victims to struggle on without the award of any financial damages such as are received for similar injury through accidents at work and in other places? Finally, may I ask him whether in his view those facts are widely enough known by all those who like himself are too young to have experienced the consequences of a polio epidemic?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her questions. If I may rather lump the answer together, yes, the Government are very concerned that we get our policy across on a voluntary basis. We try to explain to parents through various means, with booklets and with the help of educationists, the pros and cons to give them an informed choice and present the true picture.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, when the Minister is able to target areas that are particularly low in response, can he consider the possibility of undertaking a definite educational campaign in those areas? Is it not a fact that school medical officers are not allowed to distribute the sugar lumps but can only tell parents to take their children to their NHS doctor, and there is many a slip between the advice being given and the children being taken to the doctor? Can we not involve the school medical service more actively?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we hope to get the children before they get to the education process. The ideal is to try to immunise all children in their first year of birth, with a further booster between the age of 15 and 19 years, as the noble Baroness will be aware. We monitor carefully what the districts are doing. Where low rates are identified those are discussed with the appropriate regional health authority with a view to remedying the situation. In the area that has the lowest rate, which is in a part of London, we have an agreement with the RHA that the situation will be dramatically improved, and we hope that that will be so in the foreseeable future.

London Docklands: Housing
2.49 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many new houses have been built by the London Dockland Development Corporation, how many have been sold for owner-occupation, and how many of the new occupiers are previous residents in the dockland area.
Lord Elton: My Lords, may I remind my noble friend that the Answer to his Question is as follows? A total of 1,810 units have now been completed on these sites. Of those 1,492 are for owner-occupation Forty-two per cent. of the new occupiers previously lived within the three dockland boroughs.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, can the Minister say—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I am sorry.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I am sure he will have his opportunity to speak in a minute. I should like to thank my noble friend for repeating that piece of very good news. Is he aware that the total number of houses built there makes a substantial contribution to London's housing needs? However, is he also aware that the very large number of houses, nearly 1,500, in that particular area which are now owner-occupied is a novelty, an innovation, which is tremendously welcome in that area for the prospects of new businesses, of which there will be so many more? Is he also aware that a large number of dwellings, about 42 per cent., are occupied by local people who have never had a chance to buy their own houses before? In enabling them to do that, the Government have done something for which they are to be most warmly congratulated.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's question. When the corporation was established in July 1981, the level of owner-occupation among the total population of its area was 5 per cent. The present level is 15 per cent. The corporation's target is to bring it up to at least 30 per cent., which is, I may add, the average for inner London.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I apologise for former constituency zeal leading me somewhat astray. Can the noble Lord say how much reasonably priced rental accommodation has been made available in the new developments for the citizens of the area? Did not the House of Lords Select Committee stress that the real need was for the provision of publicly rented small houses? Is not that necessity being overlooked in the undoubted desirablility for some owner-occupied accommodation being available?
Lord Elton: My Lords, some 410 units have so far been provided for rent on both the LDCC and privately owned land: 335 units through housing associations, and 75 through council schemes.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that some of the most expensive housing in London is that which fronts on to the river? Yet, when one travels downstream from Tower Pier, one sees that most of the premises on the banks of the river are industrial or warehouse in their use. Can the London Docklands Development Corporation not take a significant initiative in making more of the river bank available for housing, whether owner-occupied or rented? Will the Government press it to do so?
Lord Elton: My Lords, of course there are a number of well-known schemes for developing warehouses for residential purposes. However, I shall bring the noble Lord's remarks to notice in the proper quarter.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the major part of these housing schemes is comprised of small, relatively inexpensive houses? Is he aware that I have visited some of them? It is true that I have not been there for about 18 months to two years but their price range was between £20,000 and £30,000. This does not seem to me to be an excessively high price for a house in London. Is my noble friend aware that the noble Lord opposite has quite the wrong impression and should go and have a look at the development?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I see that the noble and learned Lord would like to answer for himself. I am not in a position to complain about the order of business at all; but if I can anticipate him, the corporation intends there to be a proportion of dwellings on each site to be sold at or below £40,000. The proportion varies according to the land value of the site. Where the land value is very high, it is the corporation's policy to arrange equity-sharing schemes wherever possible. This makes a lot of housing affordable.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I shall endeavour not to be taunted by what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has said, since I had the honour to represent the area for 29 years. I know it well and still maintain a close connection with it. However, what the noble Lord the Minister has not answered is this. Why has not sufficient regard been paid to the recommendation and view of the Select Committee of this House that the real need was for the provision of publicly-rented accommodation?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think that the noble and learned Lord's assumptions are open to question. There is a proportion of affordable rented accommodation available. As always, I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, on a personal note, is my noble friend aware that my comment was not directed to the noble and learned Lord on the
8
Front Bench but was directed to the noble Lord sitting behind him, who had referred to the highly expensive housing, which of course is not typical of this scheme?
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me what proportion of these new houses has been designed specifically for physically disabled people?
Lord Elton: My Lords, not without notice. However, it is a perfectly proper question and I shall put the answer in the Library.

London Docklands: Employment
2.55 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many new jobs have been created in the Dockland area since the advent of the Dockland Development Corporation, and how many are in an enterprise zone.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the corporation was formed in July 1981. Between then and 30th November 1984, 4,129 permanent new jobs had been created in the Docklands areas. Of these 1,302 were located within the enterprise zone. In addition, an average of 1,500 people were employed on construction work at any one time.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that welcome Answer. Is he aware that in that particular part of London, the derelict Dockland area, where there has been a steady rundown of employment now for decades, to get an increase of over 4,000 jobs is really a complete transformation? May I ask whether he is aware that it is immensely to the credit of the Government? Is he also aware that this was done in the teeth of the most fierce opposition from all the local authorities there? Is my noble friend aware that that is all the more to the credit of the Government for going ahead with it?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am always happy to answer any question to which the answer can only be, "Yes".
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, are the Government aware of this fact and, if so, will my noble friend take steps to ensure that it is more generally publicised? The areas to which my noble friend's questions are directed actually cover an area half the size of Manhattan Island. Is my noble friend aware that it is fast becoming the greatest example of urban regeneration that the world has ever seen? Is he aware that it is a magnificent example of what the private and public sectors can do when working together, to turn areas which were for many years previously sterile and derelict into something which is becoming a great success story all round?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I believe a very great deal of what my noble friend wishes is achieved by the annual report and accounts which are generally available. I shall make further copies available if they are needed.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, are any figures available to show how many new jobs are really new? If it is felt satisfactory to produce figures to record the number of employees on enterprises operating in enterprise zones as newly-created jobs, may we be told how many of the jobs are simply transferees from enterprises outside the zones? Those are enterprises such as distribution and warehousing, which have moved into the enterprise zone simply to take advantage of the rate and planning benefits, which of course are real benefits but which are unfair to those operating outside.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the jobs which I referred to as new jobs are new jobs. I am not aware that there is any evidence to show that there is a kind of vacuum being filled in the zone, represented by vacancies around it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that people would be surprised, and it is inexplicable, that an Opposition which puts unemployment figures on the top of its list should be so sour and lukewarm about the help that the Government have been able to give in that particular field?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I remember from my days in Opposition that one never had much joy from giving credit to the Government of the day.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, since we are talking about development corporations, is it not the case that this side of the House has been fully in favour of these kinds of development corporations throughout the 'sixties and 'seventies, and even the 'eighties? Is not the Docklands corporation another example of showing how the success of the new towns is now being applied in the urban situation in a special form? Since it is now an ongoing success, are the Government giving consideration to applying this success in a purely urban regeneration situation to other parts of Britain that could do with some help from development corporations?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I acknowledge at once the noble Lord's special experience and authority in the matter of new towns. However, it is not for me to answer for the policy of previous Governments. I accept that this is a very major development in existing urban renewal. I do not doubt that we shall continue to profit from the lessons therein. I hope opportunities will arrive for us to do so on a wider scale.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware, if only for the avoidance of doubt, that we on this side very much support any effort that is made by Her Majesty's Government, whether in collaboration with a development corporation or with a local authority, to increase employment in this country? The fact that they have only just made a modest beginning in this respect, which we hope will be
10
extended, does not mean that our full enthusiasm is not behind the efforts by way of Government intervention that have been made.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I look forward with great pleasure to the enthusiasm which the noble Lord promises us in support of our efforts.

Business
3 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say that after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on British Leyland.
It may also be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Local Government Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for about one hour, and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Rating (Revaluation Rebates) (Scotland) Bill will be taken.

Weights and Measures Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to weights and measures. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill now be read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Copyright (Computer Software) Amendment Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Local Government Bill
3.2 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill now be further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 42 [Reorganisation of functions]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 80AA:
Page 26, line 22, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I shall also be speaking to Amendments Nos. 80AD and 80AG. Also, in order to save your Lordships two speeches from me, I shall in the course of my remarks introduce the relevant matters to Amendments Nos. 80AB, 80AE and 80AH.

11
Amendment No. 80AB: Page 26, line 25, leave out paragraph (b).
Amendment No. 80AD: Page 26, line 40, after ("functions") insert ("except functions relating to police").
Amendment No. 80AE: Page 26, line 40, after ("functions") insert ("except fire and civil defence functions").
Amendment No. 80AG: Page 27, line 2, leave out paragraph (a).
Amendment No. 80AH: Page 27, line 11, leave out paragraph (b).
I shall be asking for the opinion of the House to be taken (unless, of course, the Minister, with his usual conciliation and adjustability, in fact accepts these amendments) in regard to the police force as distinct from the fire and civil defence authorities.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the noble Lord help us further? I ticked off what he said. I understand that he is not proposing to speak to Amendments Nos. 80AC or 80AF. The understanding I was given after midday today was that the grouping would run from Amendment No. 80AA to Amendment No. 80AH, and that only Amendments Nos. 80AJ and 80AK, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, were to be taken on their own. Having been given that information very late in the day, it is slightly disturbing to have it altered at this stage.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, no. If I may follow, as I hope I do, the noble Lord the Minister, my understanding is that my noble friend Lord Carmichael will be speaking to Amendments Nos. 80AF, 80AJ, 80AK and 80AC. I shall be speaking to the rest of the amendments until Amendment No. 80AH. I shall, however, be asking for the opinion of the House to be taken in regard to the police separately from that in regard to fire and civil defence. I believe that the House would wish to take those matters separately, although the case for them may be very much the same.
In talking particularly to Amendment No. 80AA, I hope the House will agree that there is no one who could say that these amendments hit at any of the principles behind the Bill. I believe this to be a submission that not even the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, would make; nor the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, if he were in his place, or the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, if he was in his. They are the three great proponents, if I may say so, of answering any amendment that they feel can be so appropriately answered by saying that it infringes in some way the principle of the Bill. There is nothing in these amendments that does that.
The amendment, together with its brother amendments, if I may so call them, does what this House always wants to do: that is, accepting for a moment all the aims and principles of the Bill, to see that the Bill properly carries out sensible and reasonable provisions, that it does no harm and that, if possible, it does some good.
These amendments relate to Clause 42 of the Bill. I wonder whether I may be permitted to remind your Lordships of what the clause seeks to do. It seeks to do something to fundamental activities for securing the safety of the state and (if I may use a phrase beloved of the Government and, indeed, fully supported by the Opposition) to matters that deal with law and order and security. All of a sudden in Clause 42, a power is
12
given to the Secretary of State which I shall quote. The clause reads:
"The Secretary of State may by order make provision for any of the following purposes".
I concentrate on paragraph (a), which states:
"the constitution of a metropolitan district or of the county of Northumberland as a separate police area with its own police force and police authority".
In other words, this clause seeks to give permission for the fragmentation of a police area to be vested under the Bill in a joint board.
I do not need to remind your Lordships that when the Secretary of State does something by order he does it with the approval of both Houses of Parliament. It is done by affirmative procedure or negative procedure. This is to be done by the affirmative procedure. Your Lordships will know that, certainly in regard to this House, it is almost unprecedented that a vote is taken even on an affirmative Motion to approve an order. Your Lordships will most likely consider that if any case at all is made by the Minister for this long-stop power, one should see, when dealing with the police force, that when an area, happily and satisfactorily developed over the course of years, is to be upset, it should be done by primary legislation and not by an order of the Secretary of State.
Having said that, I should like to quote several passages this afternoon. I do not usually quote so many passages as I shall this afternoon. However, before I indulge in these quotations, perhaps your Lordships will allow me, as the person on these Benches privileged to have the responsibility for home affairs, to beg your Lordships to consider the matter from the point of view of home affairs' responsibility, regardless of party and regardless of what Government may be in power.
With your Lordships' permission, I shall indulge in some quotations in order to see just where we had reached before Clause 42 found its way into this Bill and before your Lordships at the Report stage. As a matter of courtesy, as you would expect of me, I have given the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, notice that I should be quoting what he recently said in an interview which he had with Mr. Barry Loveday of the Birmingham Polytechnic, who was carrying out a certain inquiry.
On 18th January 1985 the noble Viscount was interviewed by Mr. Barry Loveday. We all know the noble Viscount's great experience at the Home Office, quite apart from the other offices of state which he has dignified by holding. The noble Viscount said:
"I would stand up for the Police Authority. I think it is going to be a difficult problem getting the Police Authorities right after the Metropolitan Counties are over. I think this is going to be difficult. I always thought that was one of the difficulties of doing this. It is, and I don't think you would find anyone in the Home Office who does not accept that".
How right is the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, and how chary one must be before dealing with these police areas and police authorities after this Bill has passed. The difficulties facing police authorities are being deliberately increased by the inclusion of the secession option in Clause 42, and it is not too dramatic to say that the Sword of Damocles is now hanging over them because of this residuary power of the Secretary of State.

13
Before I deal with the opinion of the chief constables and Ministers, let me first deal with the view of the experts. PA Management Consultants were called in by the six metropolitan counties to examine what might be the position relating to various matters, having regard to this Bill. They issued a report. I should like to quote from their report. It says:
"the Government's proposals to allow districts to opt out of Joint Boards will introduce a strong element of instability into their arrangements … The wish on the part of districts to opt out will colour their attitude to the Boards from the start".
3.15 p.m.
Let me now deal with the Government's own expert views as set out in their White Paper entitled Streamlining the Cities. At paragraph 2.18 of that White Paper the Government stated that they were,
"satisfied that the present general structure of police authorities is working well and that it would not be appropriate now to consider breaking up existing police forces".
In order to save making two long speeches I have said that I would include the fire authorities, but in this speech and for the purpose of your Lordships making a decision, I am emphasising the position of the police force quite separately. Paragraph 2.19 then says:
"the Government believe that the present fire service organisation in the metropolitan counties and in Greater London is broadly appropriate on both operational and cost grounds and the existing brigades will be retained".
Is this a quarrel between the Home Office and the Department of the Environment? If it is, it ought to be resolved in the fact that the noble Lord the Minister in this House who graced the Home Office now graces the Department of the Environment. Therefore, I hope that in some synthesis he can resolve any difficulty there might have been between the departments.
However, in July 1984 the Secretary of State for the Environment issued some more details of the Government's proposals in a document entitled Abolition of the Greater London Council and the Metropolitan County Councils. At paragraph 2.12 the Secretary of State gingerly said:
"The White Paper proposed statutory joint boards for a small number of services: police, fire and public transport in the metropolitan counties, and education and fire in London. But it made clear that the Government would consider on their merits any proposals by individual district councils to provide separate transport services outside the Passenger Transport Executive framework".
Then he went on:
"They have decided that, for the other services, joint boards remain the right solution, although they also announced on May 4th that they would provide for the possibility that individual authorities or groups of authorities could take over responsibility for fire and police services in their areas. The local authorities would be required to satisfy the Home Secretary, once the joint boards had been in operation for a reasonable time (and no application would be entertained before then), that they would administer the services more effectively, and that provision in the rest of the metropolitan area or nationally would not be adversely affected".
Let me explain to your Lordships why I spoke about the opposing views, so it seemed, of the Home Office and the Department of the Environment, which seem to want to throw something for the edification, if not for the appetite, of district councils in regard to this Bill. If The Times is an accurate reporter of events, on 30th July 1984 it published an article which stated:
"Conservative MPs concerned about effective policing have been given private assurances by Mr. Leon Brittan, the Home Secretary,
14
that powers which would allow the break up of police authorities in the metropolitan counties will never be used".
If that account, that they would never be used, is accurate, why include the clause in the Bill and why have the Sword of Damocles hanging over the police authorities? If there be an exceptional event, which not even the Home Secretary can foresee, why not deal with such a serious matter by primary legislation, and not by an order?
I shall now deal with the chief constables. Your Lordships usually take chief constables to be people who are not actuated by any self-aggrandisement or by any political considerations, but are experts in their own forces and, by and large, do a national job which we admire so much. What do they have to say? A Parliamentary Question raised by Mr. Eldon Griffiths, on 31st January in another place, as reported at col. 245 of the Official Report, asked:
"How many chief constables have made known to the Home Secretary their views on possible breakaways from the proposed police joint boards?"
I quote from part of his Question. That part was answered by the Minister, Mr. Giles Shaw, in the following terms:
"No chief constable has indicated to my right honourable and learned friend that he favours a change in existing force areas".
I now quote from a gentleman whose name is not unknown to your Lordships, Mr. James Anderton, the chief constable of Greater Manchester, who is not known to be a rebel against the establishment. What he had to say, as quoted in the Manchester Evening News, is something that I find necessary to quote before your Lordships. It is the Manchester Evening News of 10th January, and this is what he said:
"the possibility of the county force being broken up either wholly or in part was 'totally ludicrous'. He added: 'I can't understand why this particular clause is in the Bill'",
and he was referring to the clause that I am dealing with before your Lordships today.
"Serious disruption of the major metropolitan forces in this country at perhaps the most sensitive period in police history in modern times makes no kind of sense at all".
He added that it was,
"nonsense to say that the clause would not be invoked ant then leave it in the Bill".
If I may say so, what a sensible observation and how moderate in its tone!
Then there is Mr. Geoffrey Deare. On his appointment to the post of chief constable of the West Midlands on 22nd February of this year he said that he was,
"opposed to moves to split the force into smaller 'borough style' forces on abolition of the County Council. I think it would be a pity if it happened".
There I am quoting from the Birmingham Post of 23rd February 1985.
I referred to Mr. Loveday of the Birmingham Polytechnic who was asked to conduct an investigation and research on behalf of the Merseyside Police Authority. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I quote from this relevant portion of his report, as follows:
"The provision of this additional clause within the Local Government Bill came as something of a surprise to senior members of the Police Service. There had been an assumption among Chief Constables within the Metropolitan areas that the maximum

15
reorganisation to which their service would be subject would entail the replacement of the existing Police Authority by a Joint Board. It would not be an exaggeration to state that the inclusion of Clause 42 within the Bill has caused some consternation among members of the Police service. It is of interest that the Association of Chief Police Officers was not consulted prior to the decision to add this new power. Even more surprisingly, members of Her Majesty's Inspectorate at the Home Office were not informed either. In addition to the reservations which members of the Inspectorate have expressed as to the viability of Joint Boards must now be added the problems which will arise from de-amalgamating"—
I ask your Lordships' forgiveness for that word—
"some, if not all, of these Metropolitan Forces. One HMI commented that the decision made by the Secretary of State for the Environment concerning the creation of District Forces appeared to him to be 'inexplicable'.
"An immediate issue arising from this is the degree of commitment to the proposed de-amalgamation of Metropolitan Forces within the Home Office itself. It is of interest that the general view held within the Police Department is that there is not justification for de-amalgamation whatsoever. This view was expressed by the Deputy Under-Secretary who stated that he 'saw no need for any increase in the number of police forces' ".
What is almost my last quotation goes back to something said by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw. It is a quotation of 18th January, and I ought to say that I made inquiries, having given notice to the noble Viscount, and in answer to my inquiries I was told that the transcript of the interview with the noble Viscount was sent to him before publication and that he had no amendments to make. It reads:
"In response to an inquiry as to whether the Government would implement the provision of de-amalgamation powers, Lord Whitelaw commented: 'That is certainly not the Government's intention. They (the Districts) may believe that is what will happen in the end. They have always wanted it to happen. I think, myself, that the Home Office will be very much against that. After all, having put all those police forces together, they are hardly going to want to split them up again'".
I wish that the noble Viscount would have consented to add his name to my own support of this amendment, but in a sense he has done so by making these pregnant sentences available to me in pursuance of what I am moving.
Lastly, I should like to turn to the ordinary members of the police forces—not the chief constables. What do they think? Perhaps I may quote from the Police Magazine of March 1985:
"Home Office resistance to what appears to have been originally an initiative of the Secretary of State for the Environment, has most recently been evidenced in correspondence between the Home Secretary and the Police Federation. In a letter to the Secretary of the Police Federation the Home Secretary stated:—'We have stressed that it is not our intention to use these powers in the foreseeable future. No application from a Metropolitan district to have its own police force will even be considered until the Joint Authorities have been in operation for a reasonable time"'.
The article in the Police Magazine of March 1985 continues:
"Further, in the light of the Government's justification for the abolition of the Metropolitan Counties, the Home Secretary concluded his statement by commenting that:— 'I am satisfied that the Metropolitan County Forces are efficient and I see no justification for altering the Force Areas'".
The professionals, the experts, Ministers, past eminent Home Secretaries, all say that this is never likely to happen. I repeat: if, indeed, the Minister wishes to reply that a reserve power is always useful, may I say that we are very careful about the reserve powers we give in an Act of Parliament. If the
16
exception of the rule, the million to one chance, which seems to emerge from the quotations that I have given is the only time when this clause will ever by brought into effect, perhaps may I say that your Lordships would expect that it be done by primary legislation, properly considered after full consultations, and with Parliament knowing what they are doing to the great police force of our country. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am glad to be able to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who has close relations with the police. He has had association with the police in the same sort of way that I have had; that is, close association with the police for a long time. Together we should be able to make a strong case.
My name appears on three amendments compared to a much longer list of his, but I shall try to keep my few words to these three amendments and I shall try to avoid repeating what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has already said so clearly.
I think both he and I can agree on the first thing that comes to mind; and that is that too much power is likely to be in the hands of the Home Secretary. The Bill could bring big changes in our police. There may be cases come forward with poor reason, subject, perhaps, to political pressures, but when one considers police business it is always necessary to look ahead.
3.30 p.m.
What distresses me particularly is that we have not had a public inquiry before any decision, such as we could see, with the splitting of a metropolitan district from a metropolitan county. In practice the Minister's powers seem almost unlimited. The clause appears to be drafted both ways. It is possible for a district to break away from a metropolitan county, while it is possible for there to be amalgamation under the powers in the Bill. These might be parochial matters or there might be decisions which would have some effect throughout the country, and still there would be no proper inquiry.
Reference has been made to the constitutional issue which the noble Lord has been speaking about. There is another and practical side. We live in a world where police efficiency depends to some extent on the size of the force. However, that happens not in this country alone. The 1964 Act and later provisions were drafted with this trend in view. It would surely be foolish now to risk fragmenting larger forces against this trend, which cannot be ignored or overlooked.
I make no great claims to professional experience, but I have spent some time with police forces, probably more abroad than at home. I have tried hard to learn, to get into their minds and to try to live in their world, because it is a special world. In Britain, I am sure there is no feeling against the idea of a national force. But where could the Home Secretary's powers lead under the Bill? We might find ourselves well on the road to a single national force.
I have not yet heard any expression of the view or preference of the police authorities. It is strange that in the police world the main control has been in the hands of those who move in a grey area which is very imprecise. First, we have the authority of the Home Secretary, which is difficult to grasp; then we have

17
chief constables, who tend to seek more power; then we have the police authorities, which do not know what their own position is. I have spoken to many of them. In the near future we must think clearly ahead as to how we would like this control. We do not now want to bring arrangements into being under this Bill which could make it more difficult to work out. It would be best to leave well alone for the time being and, while there is no clear evidence of any breakaway, let us leave the words out of the Bill that we are considering.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am anxious to find the right speech on this occasion! Clause 42, to which these amendments are addressed, provides for the reorganisation of the functions for the joint authorities to be set up under Part IV. I shall from time to time refer to transport issues because they are embedded in the workings of the clause. I want to start by ensuring that your Lordships are familiar with the way the clause works as now drafted, because it is to changing that that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with the assistance of my noble friend Lord Inglewood, has addressed himself, and it is proper so to do.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the Minister continues, I wonder whether he would help me in the same way as I was trying to help him in having this matter dealt with tidily. What I thought was (I should love him to agree or disagree) that the opinion of the House, and therefore, the debate, ought to be limited first to the police, then to fire and then to transport. Otherwise we shall have speeches on transport, on fire and civil defence which will muddy the whole issue. To be frank, I regard the police as possibly the most important, although I do not in any way diminish the importance of civil defence, fire and transport. However, they are separate issues and I therefore do not want them to be muddied by a mixed debate, as I said. In my speech I tried to talk only about the police and I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister may agree that it is proper to do the same in his.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think I ought to take your Lordships a little into my confidence about the background to this. I was not surprised when at the close of business on Friday, which was about seven or eight o'clock at night, it was not possible to get any indication of the groupings which noble Lords opposite wished for these amendments. I was not altogether surprised when I telephoned the usual channels on Saturday to get the same response. I was a little surprised when at nine o'clock, ten o'clock, eleven o'clock, half past eleven and at twelve o'clock today I could still get no groupings from the usual channels. When I thankfully received the groupings they were, as I stated at the beginning of this debate, that all the amendments down to Amendment No. 80AH were to be taken together and Amendments Nos. 80AJ and 80AK were to be taken separately. I was content with that and it was on that basis that I put my remarks together.
I have endeavoured to mark out in my speech the passages which refer exclusively to the police, those which refer to fire and civil defence and those which refer to transport. It is my honest intention to try to
18
follow the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, but I must say that it would have been useful it I could have known them sooner through the usual channels. I do not propose to make a great song and dance about this or score any runs off it. I do not ask your Lordships to give me any credit for coping with a difficult situation. I merely say that I shall do my best, but the Bill is constructed with these three facets interwoven and when I deal with the way the Bill works I shall refer to transport, fire and civil defence. But they will not be germane to my arguments and I am perfectly prepared to look at the police alone, which is what the noble Lord wishes me to do.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I interrupt for the very last time, but I am trying to get things clear for the future. I want to make it abundantly clear that not over the weekend when I was abroad but certainly not in the course of this morning did I receive any message about the groupings—this is, after all, an amendment to which my name is attached as is the name of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood—but if the noble Lord the Minister had indulged in the often more convenient channels of a personal call to me I should have told him at any time this morning that the police were being taken separately from civil defence and fire and that transport was also being taken separately. I regret that we were not in touch.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I always regret an opportunity missed to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, particularly outside the Chamber, where we more frequently agree than we do inside it. The amendments to which I refer carried also the names of my noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and, until we discovered that they were not a part of this, there were amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. It is the function of the usual channels on the noble Lord's side of the House to make the communications which the noble Lord says were not made and not for the usual channels, or indeed the unusual channels on this side of the House, to volunteer and, as I always do when I interfere in other people's business, get things in a muddle. We seem to have done it without my assistance on this occasion.
Having said what I intended to say and why I am going to say it, I shall proceed to say it. Clause 42, to which all these amendments are addressed, provides for the reorganisation of the functions of the joint authorities that are to be set up under Part IV. The joint authority with which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is particularly concerned is that for the police. The other two dealt with in the clause are for the fire service and civil defence, which now have one authority, and for passenger transport. The noble Lord's interest in the police is shared by my noble friend Lord Inglewood, but not the other two.
Broadly, the first subsection of the clause enables the appropriate Secretary of State to make an order withdrawing any district from the police authority or any borough or district from the fire authority and constituting it a separate police or fire authority in its own right. Under paragraph (c)he could also withdraw a district from the passenger transport area— but I shall leap over that passage.

19
The second subsection of Clause 42 provides for the Secretary of State, again by order, to arrange for the re-combination of seceding districts into new police or fire authorities where that is appropriate, or for them to amalgamate with other existing police authorities. The Bill as at present drafted therefore permits the Secretary of State to take one of four courses in respect of the police authorities.
The first he can take is what I would call the normal one. It consists of leaving things as they are or rather as, after abolition, they will be. The second is to take one district out of the joint authority on its own and leave it on its own as a separate authority in its own right. The third is to take two or more districts out of the set and to set them up together as a new joint authority. The fourth and final course is to take one or more districts out of the set and put them straight in with the existing shire county police authority next door.
Subsection (3) requires the Secretary of State to consult with the parties to any such reorganisation before he makes an order to do any of the things that I have described, whether they relate to the police or to another authority.
What I have so far described are the provisions of the Bill as it is drafted. Before I deal with the changes that noble Lords opposite want to make in these provisions, I ought to state why we put them in in the first place. It could be called an act of humility or common sense because what we have done is to look at the recent history of local government in this country and to learn an important lesson from it. It is a lesson, I should add, that nobody in the world but Ministers and politicians would have to learn because everybody else has known it all along.
It is simply this. No matter how right what we do may seem to us now, it is almost certain that it will not remain the best arrangement for ever. Later, if not sooner, we shall need to make changes. That has been proved by the reorganisation of 1965 and proved again by the reorganisation of 1974. If the changes needed later prove to be fundamental or sweeping, then clearly they must be made (as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, suggests that these should be made) by primary legislation. But primary legislation is slow and expensive when it can be obtained, and very often there is a long wait for it. Often, it also calls into question by politicans much larger areas than actually require attention; and this alone curbs the enthusiasm of governments to embark upon it.
There ought therefore to be in the Bill provision for change of lesser matters that will otherwise have to remain unaltered long after they have been proved to be unsatisfactory. I am speaking now of things not big enough for statute but too big for the Secretary of State to do, as it were, at will. There must still be safeguards in the form both of consultation and of parliamentary procedure but not full-blown legislation.
It seems to us that the pattern of allocation of functions between grouped local authorities falls into exactly this category of change and that the consultative duty and the affirmative procedure in both Houses of Parliament provide exactly those safeguards. I repeat that we would be very arrogant if
20
we now were to assume that we have all these arrangements exactly right already, and we would be very optimistic if we assumed that the minute we or our successors thought that they were wrong, time would be available for primary legislation to right them.
But that is what Amendments Nos. 80AA to 80AH would in effect be saying; and I address myself only to those on Lord Mishcon's list. Amendment No. 80AA strikes clean out of the Bill the Secretary of State's power to set up a single district as a police authority on its own; and Amendment No. 80AG strikes clean out of the Bill both his power to take two or more districts out of a joint authority and form them into a new joint authority by themselves and his power to take a single district from a joint authority and put it with an adjacent one.
I ask your Lordships—and in particular I ask my noble friend Lord Inglewood, who wishes to help the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in this matter and who has such long and creditable police service experience, as I very well know from conversations I had with him on a number of occasions when I held office in the Home Office—to ask whether you are absolutely, 100 per cent., rock-bottom, solid certain that we have got these groupings right—not just for now, as I for one believe we have, but for all time or, at least, for the entire life of this legislation.
Indeed, did not the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, say a great deal on his own behalf and even not a little on behalf of my noble friend Lord Whitelaw to the effect that it is difficult to get these arrangements right even to start with? The noble Lord quoted my noble friend. And talking of quotations reminds me that he referred to, and put some weight on, the Loveday Birmingham Polytechnic Report. Obviously, I cannot comment extensively on a report which has only just been sent to the Home Office for information but it may be of interest that the chief constable of Merseyside has told us that he is seeking legal advice on the possibility of taking action over some of the statements in the report. Obviously, I can say no more than that—
3.45 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Lord continues, I was very careful to say—and I am sure that he heard me—that I would not quote what the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, had said without two precautions: first of all, a courtesy call to his office to say that I would be quoting from this report of what he was supposed to have said; and, secondly, that I obtained information that the transcript of the interview was sent to the noble Viscount before publication for any observations that he had to make. My report is that he had no such observations. Since I am only relying upon the accuracy of the report for the quotations of what the noble Viscount had to say, I do not think that the Minister ought to take any more joy out of referring to the fact that somebody or other may be taking certain proceedings against the gentleman who edited or compiled that report.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I rather think that the noble Lord will find that we are at cross-purposes when he reads Hansard. I have no quarrel with the noble Lord's wish to quote my noble friend. Indeed, my noble friend has no quarrel and, as the noble Lord has said, he has accurately quoted a transcript which my

21
noble friend had no wish to correct. However, I am heartened in saying that and would not have said it if it did not strengthen my argument which is that we cannot be confident that we get these things immediately right and that we ought to have some means of putting them right if we prove not to have got them right after they have been running for a while.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, might I ask my noble friend one question if he will allow me? Can he confirm that the Government are doing their best to bring the police and the public really close together? In the times in which we are living it is very important that that should happen; and there is a terrible tendency that their ways should part.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I can confirm that, with the close personal experience of the way in which community policing was developing when I was at the Home Office and is continuing to develop. I would endorse absolutely my noble friend's thesis which underlies what he has said in his question; that policing is something which ought to come from the community and not be imposed upon it. Once you have community policing, you have an orderly public. But I am not quite certain how that knits into the matters that we are discussing now because plainly that will remain the case whatever the size of the police authority. Indeed, I suppose that there are those who would suggest that a smaller authority would be closer to the public and that there might be something to be said for reducing the size of the authorities which the noble Lord asks us to leave intact unless we have primary legislation to enable us to change them.
Since we are on the subject of the Home Office position, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, suggested that there was a divergence of view between the Home Office and the Department of the Environment, or more particularly between my respective right honourable friends who stand at the head of each. I am glad to reassure him that we are in fact at one; and so are they. We both believe that there ought to be arrangements for secession, and we both hold that they should be used only in a way that will not harm, and which ought actually to benefit, the service in question.
May I also reassure the noble Lord on another point, which he could with advantage pass on to his senior friends in the police force? My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said, I confirm, publicly as well as privately, that he would not consider applications to secede until existing forces had been in operation for a reasonable time after abolition. That he has said both in public and private, and, indeed, in my hearing. But what he has not said in any of those contexts is that he will never do so, and that none of his successors will do so, either. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, accurately predicted that I would say this, that a reserve power is often very useful—and a reserve power is indeed what this is.
I then come to the difficulty of extracting the telling points that I wish to make about the police from the telling points I wish to make on other subjects which the noble Lord denies me. I have in fact covered the ground in some detail. I am convinced that it is right to provide flexibility, as this clause does, for the
22
boroughs and districts to take over, in the future, responsibility for functions which, on abolition, will be transferred to joint authorities. I believe the safeguards which already exist to protect the interests of the other authorities involved, and of the services themselves, are adequate in the Bill. Your Lordships know that the Secretary of State would never contemplate allowing secession unless he was thoroughly convinced that the services offered would be as good as or better than those under the joint authorities. Your Lordships will know that neither would the Secretary of State contemplate allowing secession unless he was thoroughly convinced that the new arrangements will be economic and sound. If the Secretary of State decided in favour of secession it would not he who had the final word: it would be Parliament.
We are proceeding by the affirmative procedure. This is not something which a Secretary of State could do, by any sleight of hand or stretch of the imagination, in private. It is something which would, by the nature of the scope of the operation, be very public, which would be tabled as an order before it was debated in both Houses. I know that your Lordships feel—and frequently say—that the affirmative procedure is a weak one because your Lordships do not in fact amend an order. But your Lordships have been over this ground with the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, as it now is, very carefully, and have pronounced yourselves satisfied with the procedure for that very delicate purpose on a suggestion brought in by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and I think consented to by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. It is therefore not the case that Parliament is powerless. It is not the case that Parliament would be deceived. It is the case that your Lordships would have a voice in this decision. I ask your Lordships therefore to bear that in mind before coming to a conclusion on this matter. I shall speak at the end of the debate very briefly. I think I should now ask your Lordships to bear that in mind while making your own views known.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, when the Minister tells us that we cannot be sure that we have got it right, surely he must realise that that applies to almost every Bill that comes before this House. It does not apply only to this Bill or to a few Bills; it applies to almost every Bill. We cannot be sure that we have got it right, and because we cannot be sure, have we to put reserve powers in every Bill so that it can be changed quickly? Surely this is nonsense. This is a phoney argument. The Minister must know that if there is a case for avoiding reserve powers it must be where it concernss the organisation of the police. That is something which ought to be done by primary legislation. I have never seen such a poor case put to the House against any particular amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I regard that as a most welcome introduction to my closing remarks. I wonder whether I may summarise the case in literally a couple of minutes before I ask your Lordships to decide. First, this is not a Motion that comes to your Lordships' House, as the noble Lord the Minister at one time inferred in only one sentence, from these Benches opposite to the noble Lord the Minister This

23
is something which is essentially non-political; which has nothing at all to do—and I repeat this—with the principles behind this Bill; and where the support is available of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, to whose co-operation with and knowledge of the police force the noble Lord the Minister bore testimony.
I want to make these few points. First, it is debatable that where your Lordships are not perfectly sure that you have the solution for all time it may be a sensible thing to put in a reserve power. My noble friend Lord Jacques intimated to the House very correctly that if one wanted to do that in regard to every measure that one passed it would not only make the particular Bill most cumbersome but would also give untold power to a Secretary of State to do anything he liked in order to upset legislation later on.
But let us take for granted for one moment that that point is a valid point. What your Lordships have to do is to set against what the noble Lord the Minister himself admits is a most unlikely situation the apprehension of police forces throughout the country as to the security of their position and their areas because of this reserve power. Your Lordships have to put against it, too—and this is such an essential point—the fact that one will get district councils off on the wrong foot the moment that this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament in regard to their relationships with the joint boards which have police powers, because they will be very conscious of this Clause 42, very conscious of the fact that it may be better if they looked after their own—the noble Lord the Minister wants to intervene.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I had intended to wait until the end of the sentence, but I was going to ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the powers already exist in the Police Act 1964 and the Fire Services Act 1947 for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to amalgamate or combine police and fire authorities. They do not seem to have been acting as a Sword of Damocles since 1964.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister is not unaware of the fact which I shall now recite to him; namely, that in this Bill the passing over to the joint boards is something which the police forces of this country have to swallow. It is indigestible enough as it is, without the noble Lord making it a matter of the gravest possible duodenal ulcer by introducing Clause 42 into this Bill.
I should like to continue my point if I may, but, as soon as I have finished it I shall readily give way to the noble Lord the Minister, who is always courteous enough to give way to me. What I am saying is that it is starting the district councils off on the wrong foot. They will be encouraged to take a local partisan view on the basis that all they have to do is to show that it is desirable for there to be a secession to the district council police powers and they will face the joint boards in that way, when I and, I believe, your Lordships would want them to face the situation that there is a vesting with the same areas in the joint boards.
24
The third and last point concerns the disadvantages as against the possible reserve power advantage. What is the difficulty if there occurs that million-to-one chance of primary legislation? The noble Lord the Minister indicates that this is a cumbersome procedure which may take some time. It will be a very short Bill. It will be a Bill after consultation, the noble Lord the Minister says, with all the parties concerned. It will be a Bill which will follow upon the Home Secretary deciding that great advantages will inure if this change is made. Can your Lordships not envisage in any such instance that there will be facilities afforded to both Houses of Parliament if, indeed, there is any urgency in the matter? If the present siting of and confinement to these areas has stood the test of some time, is it likely to be a matter of so much urgency that the normal courses of primary legislation cannot take place? I repeat, my Lords, that the police forces of this country regard it as the Sword of Damocles. The district councils will regard it as affording the possibility of having the wrong relationship with the joint boards.
4 p.m.
Lastly, I say this: really, is The Times inaccurate and is the Home Secretary wrongly quoted, or have the Conservative Members of Parliament been misled? I repeat that The Times, on 30th July 1984, said:
"Conservative MPs concerned about effective policing have been given private assurances by Mr. Leon Brittan the Home Secretary that powers which would allow the break-up of police authorities in the metropolitan counties will never by used".
Take it for granted, my Lords, that that is inaccurate and that Mr. Brittan instead said, "unlikely ever to be used". Are not the disadvantages which I have recited to your Lordships greater than the advantage of having a possible reserve power? I ask for the opinion of your Lordships—
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has very kindly said that he would yield. He has managed to deprive me of my winding-up speech and so I think I should exploit that courtesy. To start with, perhaps I may reply to the question he asked me, which may have been an oratorical one, by saying that the account I gave of the conversations, speeches and writings of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was accurate and that he has never used the word "never".
The noble Lord prompted me to come to my feet when he started talking about both duodenal ulcers and the Sword of Damocles—a very uncomfortable condition for a local authority to be in. But why has the Thames Valley police force managed to get on so well when it is a combined police authority with exactly this possibility hanging over it? Why have the other six combined police forces managed to operate so well? This must not become a speech; it is an intervention. However, your Lordships will see the tendency of my argument which is that the noble Lord is wrong and that the Government are right.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it is a tendency that I have noticed the noble Lord the Minister has had very often. But before he accuses me of using a mixed methaphor, perhaps I may tell him that there are

25
many doctors who would agree with me that if you have a Sword of Damocles hanging over your head, you are likely to get a duodenal ulcer. My last response to him before I sit down is this. He must not quote what has happened in regard to past legislation where there have been no joint boards and where the police did not have to get used to joint boards. This is very new legislation in regard to the police. I want them to have, not just from these Benches, but from all your Lordships' Benches, the security of knowing that paragraph (a) is not in the Bill and that they are secure in their boundaries and in the efficiency that is achieved as a result of having those boundaries. I hope that your Lordships will accordingly vote for this amendment.
4.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 80AA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 102; Not-Contents, 124.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Jeger, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Aylestone, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Bacon, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Banks, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Beswick, L.

Listowel, E.

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Blyton, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Boothby, L.

McNair, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mayhew, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Melchett, L.

Brockway, L.

Milford, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mishcon, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Monson, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Moran, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mulley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Northfield, L.

Collison, L.

Oram, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Parry, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Phillips, B.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Porritt, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Denington, B.

Reilly, L.

Diamond, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Roberthall, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Ezra, L.

Serota, B.

Faithfull, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Falkland, V.

Shinwell, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Simon, V.

Fitt, L.

Somers, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Stallard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stamp, L.

Galpern, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Strauss, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hayter, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Walston, L.

Ingleby, V.

White, B.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Wilson of Langside, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Jacques, L.

26

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Allerton, L.

Kitchener, E.

Ampthill, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Arran, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Atholl, D.

Long, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bellwin, L.

Luke, L.

Beloff, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Bessborough, E.

McFadzean, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Caccia, L.

Margadale, L.

Cairns, E.

Marley, L.

Caithness, E.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Middleton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cathcart, E.

Mottistone, L.

Cayzer, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Newall, L.

Cowley, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cox, B.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Craigton, L.

Orr-Eving, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Portland, D.

Croft, L.

Radnor, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Reigate, L.

Davidson, V.

Renton, L.

De Frevne, L.

Renwick, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rodney, L.

Digby, L.

Romney, E.

Dormer, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Eccles, V.

St. Davids, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Sandford, L.

Effingham, E.

Savile, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Seebohm, L.

Elliott of Moroeth L.

Sempill, Ly.

Elton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Fortescue, E.

Sudeley, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Swansea, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Gibson-Watt, L.

Terrington, L.

Glanusk, L.

Teviot, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Gorell, L.

Thomeycroft, L.

Gowrie, E.

Tranmire, L.

Gray, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Trenchard, V.

Grimthorpe, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Vickers, B.

Halsbury, E.

Vivian, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Westbury, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hertford, M.

Wise, L.

Hives, L.

Wynford, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Young, B.

Hooper, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Kilmany, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 80AB not moved.]

British Leyland 1985 Corporate Plan
4.14 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, for the convenience of your Lordships and with the permission of the House, I

27
shall repeat a Statement on the British Leyland 1985 Corporate Plan, which is now being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a Statement on the British Leyland 1985 Corporate Plan. I am making available in the Library of the House and in the Vote Office a report by British Leyland on its recent performance and details of the 1985 Corporate Plan.
"The Company submitted its corporate plan in December 1984, at the end of a year in which British Leyland's recovery had been slowed by continuing over-capacity and highly competitive conditions in most of British Leyland's markets. There has however been a significant improvement in performance in the first part of this year.
"In March the company put to us outline proposals for further collaboration between Austin Rover and the Honda Motor Company, extending the successful collaboration on the Acclaim, Rover 200 series and XX executive car project. The central element was a joint design and development programme on a further new car, embodying the best technology of both companies. It was also proposed that ARG would manufacture in the United Kingdom the Honda version of the new vehicle and Honda would manufacture in Japan for ARG. British Leyland would also manufacture other Honda models for European sale. Honda also said it was considering setting up its own engine manufacturing plant in Swindon to supply engines for these Honda vehicles and the Rover 213 which currently uses an imported engine.
"The Government welcomed these negotiations and have given their approval in principle to these proposals, which, now also agreed in principle between Honda and British Leyland, provide for collaboration on the new model, the manufacture of certain other cars for Honda by British Leyland and Honda's further consideration of the engine factory at Swindon.
"The Government undertook with the company an examination of both the basic corporate plan and possible variants. In the light of this, the Government have given approval to the plan as amended by British Leyland to incorporate the substance of the collaborative proposals.
"As the House knows, one of the British Leyland board's objectives is to return the business to the private sector as soon as practical. Further steps towards this objective are under consideration, and I will keep the House informed of progress".
My Lords, that ends the Statement.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we on this side of the House should like to thank the noble Lord for the Statement that he has been kind enough to repeat. It is of course a little early for us to comment on the British Leyland 1985 Corporate Plan and its report for 1984 because these have only just been made available and they will take some time to study. One observes in the Statement that the Government have welcomed the negotiations and given approval in principle. This
28
term "in principle" occurs on two occasions. Would the noble Lord be kind enough to indicate what exactly agreement "in principle" means? Does the use of the term mean that the Government are entitled, on more detailed examination, to take a different view from the one they take at the moment?
It occurs to us on this side of the House that there has been no mention at all, despite figures that have been bandied about in sections of the press, of the financial commitments, if any, that result from the approval by the Government of the corporate plan. The Statement mentions—and then I think skates over a little—the fact that the Government considered a number of variants to the plan. Perhaps the noble Lord will confirm that one of these was a suggestion which emanated from No. 10, that British Leyland should be required to install engines manufactured by Honda. It may be only a rumour; but in the light of that, one should like the assurance of the noble Lord that, despite the intention of Honda to set up a manufacturing plant in Swindon—and one welcomes any endeavour to set up manufacturing capacity in Swindon—British Leyland will, in all circumstances, retain its responsibility for engine manufacture, which indeed is a key aspect of the car manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom. We on this side of the House are extremely nervous of abandoning to any foreign company, or any company from overseas, responsibility for making engines for British cars, leaving the car industry here in the position of being purely an assembly operation. We on this side of the House regard the retention of an engine manufacturing capacity in this country as being one of the basic essentials for the retention of the integrity of the British motor-car industry.
From what one has been able to gather from a very brief glance at the 1985 corporate plan and its supporting documents, one gathers that there has been a decline in the demand for buses in the United Kingdom. Will the noble Lord take it on board that one of the principle causes for the decline in the prospective demand for buses has been the Government's ridiculous proposals for deregulation, which have spread considerable uncertainty in the whole of the transport industry? We should like to consider further details of the 1985 corporate plan, as and when we have had an opportunity of examining it. But, in the meantime, we should be pleased to have the Government's assurance of their firm intention, come what may, that a car manufacturing industry will be fully maintained in this country in the national interest.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I should like to thank the Government for continuing the practice of issuing a Statement of this kind to accompany the publication of an important and detailed document. It is a wise practice and it enables us the better to read the document in question. Of course, it means that those of us who have to deal with a Statement and have had no time to read the accompanying document must be a little guarded in what we say. I am grateful, also, to the Minister for repeating the Statement. It is in that context that we on these Benches give a guarded welcome to the Statement, especially the reference to Swindon where, undoubtedly, those who are about to

29
become unemployed in railway manufacturing will look forward to employment in engine manufacturing.
But, as has already been said, the Statement is curiously silent on finance—a most important aspect. Do I understand the position correctly, that the undrawn balance of agreed finance amounting to £110 million has been decided to be withdrawn by agreement between the Government and BL; that is to say, that BL have forgone their right—not their wish—to draw £110 million, which the Government had previously undertaken to provide by way of funds, and that no further funding is contemplated?
In that connection, therefore, one should like to know to what extent the company have been leaned on, if I may use a political expression, in order that this, so far as the Government are concerned, satisfactory conclusion could be arrived at. In short, have their plans been altered in order to enable them not to ask for the £110 million to which they were entitled, and, in particular, has this any relevance to the manufacture of the Metro replacement engine to which a good deal of publicity has recently been directed?
The Statement refers a great deal to partnership with Honda. One understands that and one also understands that it is a continuing partnership. What we on these Benches should like to ask the Government is whether inquiries have been made and consideration given to partnership with manufacturers within the Community. It seems to us a little odd, unless the commercial circumstances so compel it, that we should be looking only to far eastern horizons and not at all to European horizons in order to develop our partnership, which may be a very good thing for both partners.
The final question which I should like to ask is whether, having regard to the statement both in the report and in the Government's Statement, that one of the BL board's objectives is to return the business to the private sector as soon as practicable, the Government are satisfied that that is the best motivation for a board which is concerned to bring success to a company working in the public sector.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, can the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—
Noble Lords: Order!
4.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I wonder whether I may, in conformity with our usual practice, answer the main Opposition speakers' comments, and in doing so perhaps I may thank them both for their reception of this important Statement. First, I wish to deal with the points made with regard to the financial arrangements and say that British Leyland themselves have not asked for any additional moneys and are anticipating that their forward investment programme, which has been agreed with the Government, can be funded from self-generated profits.
In so far as their borrowings are concerned, as in earlier years, there have been discussions with the Government on British Leyland's borrowings, and in these discussions the Government have reached agreement with British Leyland on the likely pattern of
30
their future borrowings. Agreement was also reached on the treatment of receipts from the privatisation; whether British Leyland would have the whole benefit in cash or whether their borrowings would be reduced. I am thinking particularly in terms of the widely publicised privatisation of Unipart.
The Government will carefully monitor all aspects of British Leyland's performance, including borrowings. If it becomes clear that British Leyland would want to deviate from the agreed pattern, of course the company would be talking to the Government. The board and the Government agreed last year, as has been made clear in the company's annual report, that the company would not ask for the £110 million to which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has specifically referred. That was the amount outstanding from sums previously indicated as being available.
So far as the engines are concerned, as your Lordships will probably know, some of the models that British Leyland market are, in fact, powered by foreign engines, notably the diesel engine in their motor-cars. But the K-series engine, which ARG have been developing for some time, will continue. On the subject of engines, whether or not Honda proceed with their plans to build an engine plant at Swindon remains to be seen. If they do proceed, we expect that Honda would include in that engine build programme a substantial local content. With regard to whether those engines would then be fitted into cars produced at British Leyland's factories, for whichever market they may be produced, we would be expecting substantial local content for those cars, and an engine built in Swindon would make a contribution there.
With regard to the decline in Leyland bus business, I cannot accept that the uncertainty in the United Kingdom and the European bus market is in any way a reflection of the Government's current proposals on bus deregulation. There is a decline in both truck and bus usage across Europe, and indeed across the world. British Leyland, sadly, have suffered their share of that decline.
The Government have a firm intention to maintain car manufacturing in this country. That is why we welcome the collaborative arrangements that have been made with Honda. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked why British Leyland make collborative arrangements with a company from the Far East. The only thing I really need say here is that such arrangements are made between two willing partners for their joint benefit. I assure your Lordships that the discussions which the Government have with British Leyland—these discussions are on a continuing basis —do not include (I quote the noble Lord, Lord Diamond) any "leaning upon". These discussions take many forms. The Government recognise British Leyland's wishes; and, equally, British Leyland accept that the Government also have some desires, particularly recognising that some £2,230 million worth of taxpayers' money is being used by that company. It may be useful if I say at this stage that the company have and are enjoying an improved acceptance or their products, and currently have about 18·3 per cent. of the United Kingdom market. The products are well accepted, and we would expect the company to achieve greater success as time goes on.

31
I think I have answered all the questions. Perhaps I may add that, with regard to the Swindon project, the Government look to and encourage inward investment, especially where it shows benefit to this country and to the motor industry.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, my noble friend seemed rather hazy about what is likely to flow from the important question of the provision of engines. Would it not be reasonable to expect that at any rate the joint cars that were sold in Britain and Europe contained the British constructed engine and those sold in the rest of the world perhaps contained the Honda engine? My noble friend said that the discussions were still going on. I hope that in those discussions, as a minimum, he will push for what I have suggested.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the engine programme of British Leyland—the A-series, the S, O and V8-series—is continuing. As I understand it, the K-series, which is to replace the A-series which is now fitted to all the Metros, some Maestros and some Montegos, is to be further developed by British Leyland. With regard to a collaborative motor car —the Rover 213 and the XX—various engine options will in all probability be utilised, dependent, I would imagine, on the markets into which those motor cars will be sold. With regard to the next stage and the collaborative motor car which will succeed the XX series, I think it would be premature of me to suggest to British Leyland or to Honda which engine should be fitted and where it should be made. I do not think that either of the two companies has come down firmly on that point.
It is recognised by British Leyland, and has always been recognised, that an engine is very much the heart of the motor car and should be produced by them. Whether a collaborative arrangement for engines is ultimately decided upon is for the commercial decision of those two companies, but certainly any engine that is produced in this country by virtue of such an arrangement will have a local content. Any motor cars that are produced for the overseas market by British Leyland to use up some of their spare assembly capacity would have a substantial local content. That would be good for the British motor car industry and the people employed in it.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, as a non-expert may I ask whether the production in this country of what would obviously be to a large extent Japanese motor-cars, and their export, notably to the Community, under British labels as British cars, is likely to appeal to our colleagues in the Common Market and, indeed, to the United States Administration? Has there been any expression of concern on the part of our colleagues?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I cannot accept that a motor car which is built as a result of collaboration would be not British. If one accepts a substantial local content under whatever badge it may be, it will be largely a British motor car made in the United Kingdom by a United Kingdom workforce. That it may have variants to satisfy different world markets is
32
a rather different point, but I am quite satisfied that any motor car produced as a result of these arrangements will be largely British.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, my question has partly been answered in that it is impossible at the moment to say what will be the local content of XX machines, on which we are placing so much hope. If we do proceed with making engines at Swindon under Japanese plans, will that put Longbridge out of work?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, has had most of his question answered. Local content is on a value formula and is accepted by all the leading manufacturers and by those who seek to make an inward investment. With regard to the possibility, or one might say the probability, of an engine plant being set up in Swindon, I do not believe—it is certainly not my understanding—that this plant would in any way reduce engine-building capacity or engine production in British Leyland's own factories.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, may I press the Minister further on that question? Those of us originally from engineering have seen, all too often in the past, a manufacturing base in this country surrendered for what, at the time, looked to be rather an attractive financial deal. It would be no good swapping jobs in the West Midlands to satisfy the very important need for jobs in Swindon. The Minister ought to be aware that if we now surrender our engine manufacturing capacity, which is totally British, and go out of it in this round of discussions, we will never get back in. Top priority must be given to ensuring that a fully British input in the manufacturing of motor car engines is retained, irrespective of the Japanese involvement.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I understand exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, is saying. Let me reply immediately that there is no question of swapping jobs between the Midlands and Swindon. Indeed, we are talking of a project which Honda are considering, but no firm decision has been made. The British input to an engine is assured. There is no question of a takeover. I have said that the K-series engine—the one to replace the current A-series used in the Metros, a number of Maestros and a number of Montegos—is continuing. That the two companies may exchange technological expertise to their joint benefit would, I should have thought, have been welcomed by your Lordships. Certainly what one might call the British motor industry, with which the Government are always in contact, have expressed no fears in this regard.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why it appears so difficult for a large firm to design and manufacture a new engine, whereas a very small firm, like Aston Martin, to the best of my belief produced, or gets produced, an engine without any trouble at all?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I understand what the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, is saying but I do not think that it is totally germane to British

33
Leyland's engine programme. British Leyland is developing its own engines. I have said, and I repeat, that it is developing a replacement to the A-series. It is looking for, and Honda are looking for—as has been demonstrated in the very successful collaboration on, for example, the Acclaim and the current series of Rover 200 cars—the joint benefit that there is in exchanging technology and in collaborating. There is nothing mysterious in that.
Lord Somers: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned the possibility of the return of British Leyland to the private market. Can he give some sort of assurance that when that long-awaited event occurs, British Leyland will be broken up into its component parts? I am sure that the noble Lord will agree with me that there is just as little competition with a private monopoly as there is with a public one.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that kind of assurance. The board of British Leyland wants to return to the private sector. We shall be discussing with the board, at the appropriate time, the best way in which this might be done to the advantage of all concerned.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord was careful in what he said about continued engine manufacturing by British Leyland. However, am I correct in believing that what he is actually saying is that there will be no diminution of engine manufacture by British Leyland? Can he also say whether local content means what he actually said; that is, that it will be British content and not EC content? He will recall that the Nissan deal was made for 80 per cent. local content but that meant EC and not British content. Does he really mean that there will be 80 per cent., or more, British content and not EC content?
May I also ask the noble Lord how quickly the jobs with Honda will build up in Swindon and how many jobs will be involved? Will it be possible for the jobs lost by British Rail Engineering to be taken up?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I certainly did not wish to be guarded. The Austin-Rover group is alive to the opportunities for improving performance through collaboration with other manufacturers, including Honda. However, I do not think that British Leyland or Honda would expect me to refer in public to their confidential discussions about commercial matters which include the contents of motor vehicles, their engines, and so on. I can confirm—and this is only repetition of what I said earlier—that British Leyland is proposing to continue with its own engine manufacture.
Local content, which the noble Lord mentioned, does mean, of course, the European Community as well as the United Kingdom, because we belong to the Community. In so far as Swindon and jobs are concerned, I am sorry that I cannot tell the noble Lord when a job take-up might occur or, indeed, how many are involved, since Honda's plans for the Swindon site have not yet been determined or communicated to Her Majesty's Government.

Local Government Bill
4.48 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 80AC:
Page 26, line 29, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to discuss Amendment No. 80AF at the same time.
Amendment No. 80AF: Page 26, line 40, after ("functions") insert ("except passenger transport functions").
The purpose of the amendments is to prevent the break-up of the joint transport authorities by excluding passenger transport functions from the provisions of Clause 42. In the White Paper, Streamlining the Cities, the Government, in referring to the current trend of PTEs to break up their operations into smaller accountable units, stated that,
"these are unlikely to coincide with district boundaries"
A group of international consultants—Booz, Allen and Hamilton—examined the possible break-up of West Yorkshire PTE and found that a rationalisation of facilities such as those for servicing and garaging has slowly taken place since the setting up of the West Yorkshire PTE. The rationalisation was an intelligent thing to do, and anyone operating or examining a service would agree with that, but it has produced a situation whereby if districts opted out of the PTE E and tried to operate their own services some would be without adequate facilities and others would be over-provided. They concluded that the inevitable result would be a substantial increase in overall costs.
That confirms the White Paper statement that the organisation of passenger transport services does not necessarily, or even very frequently, coincide with district boundaries. That is inevitable because transport patterns pay little respect to boundaries. They tend to be rather complex. For example, 25 per cent. of employed people work outside the district where they live. Again, I refer to the West Yorkshire area. Public transport must recognise this, and appropriate structures have grown up over the years to accommodate the needs of the community. That is why the first PTEs were established in 1968 and why metropolitan counties were made passenger transport authorities in 1974.
Since then each of the six metropolitan counties has made great progress in co-ordinating bus and rail services, fares, ticketing arrangements and concessionary travel across the whole of its area, much to the benefit of passengers. For instance, Tyne and Wear Metro operates in every single district of the county, supported throughout by properly integrated bus services. Old and disabled people can travel the length and breadth of their counties under a single concessionary scheme. Prepaid, county-wide, all-mode tickets of various kinds have improved patronage and encouraged interchange between bus and rail to the benefit of both—for example, Merseyside's zone and "saveway" tickets.
That would be very complicated and bureaucratic, if not impossible, if some areas dropped out and different arrangements had to be made on crossing a

35
district boundary. It would be a chequerboard pattern, with those in and those out, and so on. It would be extremely complicated. Breaking up the joint boards would increase costs and would not bring about more effective services. It would also adversely affect the areas that wish to stay inside the system. I say that on the basis of your Lordships having accepted Amendment No. 58D in a much earlier debate. I think that that would be detrimental generally to public transport in the counties and in the PTEs. The clause should not be amended in the way previously suggested, and I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I shall now endeavour to salvage those elements of my last speech which applied only to transport and which were snatched from my lips by the untimely decision of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to speak only on the police and marginally on the fire and civil defence services aspects. I am well served and I think that I have something coherent to say.
As far as public transport is concerned, we made it clear in the original White Paper, Streamlining the Cities, that we would be prepared to consider on their merits any proposals which a metropolitan district council wished to put forward—proposals, that is, for taking over some or all of the responsibilities which the passenger transport authority would have for the provision of public transport services in the metropolitan area.
Paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (1) of Clause 42 fulfil that commitment. Paragraph (c) would make it possible for an order made by the Secretary of State to remove a metropolitan district entirely from what is now the strategic transport authority. Indeed that power could be used to dissolve a strategic transport authority if, but only if, that was what the constituent district council wished to see. Paragraph (d) provides greater flexibility. The PTE is responsible for the actual running of the public transport services under the policy direction of the joint board. The paragraph makes it possible for my right honourable friend to transfer some but not all of the powers of the STA or the PTE to an individual district.
Before he made any decision on an application for secession under those provisions he would of course need to be convinced that the proposed change was in the best interests of transport services for the area in question. As was made quite clear in Streamlining the Cities, he would also need to be satisfied about the relationship between the district and the joint board as regards facilities such as rail services, or indeed the Tyne and Wear Metro, which benefited the metropolitan area as a whole. The provisions in the Bill therefore allow the greatest possible degree of flexibility in arrangements for future public transport provision. That would be particularly necessary if the new joint board were to retain the wider strategic functions which it at present possesses under the terms of amendments passed in your Lordships' House.
Decisions as to future transport provision would of course depend on the nature of any proposals put forward by individual district councils as well as on the circumstances of each particular case. It may well be, for example, that a district would wish to take over
36
responsibility for its own bus services. If that was its wish, and if my right honourable friend found that acceptable, that provision would of course be subject to the provisions of the Transport Bill, which has now achieved its Second Reading in your Lordships' House. That would mean that the bus operation would be formed into a separate company owned by the metropolitan district council. It would run bus services on a commercial basis and would also bid, along with other bus operators, for contracts for subsidies offered by the district council.
As to timing, I am not sure whether the noble Lord adverted to the subject of concessionary fares.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in that case, if it was agreed that a district council should take over responsibility for the support of its own bus services in the way I have just described, the Government believe that it would also be right for it to take over responsibility for its own decisions on concessionary fares. We can see no grounds for denying a metropolitan district which has those responsibilities the same powers to take its own decisions and exercise its own judgment and priorities as would be enjoyed by any other local authority.
As to timing, my right honourable friend does not believe that it would be practicable for secession to take effect immediately on abolition day. It would not even be possible for it to come into force before the beginning of the next financial year on 1st April 1987. But my right honourable friend would be prepared to consider any proposals which any district council wished to put forward as expeditiously as possible, and would urge any council which wished to put forward such proposals to do so as soon as possible.
The Government have from first to last made it clear that they would be prepared to consider proposals from districts which want to take over some or all of the relevant public transport functions. That is not something which we have put into the Bill as an afterthought. This provision therefore fulfils a clear commitment.
We have also made it clear that before accepting any such proposals Ministers would want to be fully satisfied that they were in the best interests of transport provision in the district in question and would not be to the disadvantage of other districts in the metropolitan area. Their interests therefore would be protected. I must ask your Lordships not to be persuaded by the noble Lord's cogent but I think unsuccessful arguments.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, it was an interesting reply. The noble Lord kept making the point that the Secretary of State had to be fully satisfied. He said that more than once. He said that the proposals had to make transport sense, though that was not his actual phrase. He said that particular metropolitan districts could be drawn out and it would still make sense, but I think that that is most unlikely. If the Secretary of State is reasonable—and another Minister may be in the position by that time—when a district asks for permission and he considers whether it will make transport sense, he surely cannot be fully

37
satisfied. The noble Lord said that the Secretary of State would need to be fully satisfied, and I hope that that will be remembered when the time comes that a metropolitan district asks to secede. However, I do not propose to take the matter further at this point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 80AD to 80AK not moved.]
5 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 80AL:
Before Clause 43, insert the following new clause:
("Open spaces and London Recreation Authority.
. —(1) On the appointed day there shall be established for Greater London a body corporate to be known as the London Open Spaces and Recreation Authority, in this section referred to as "the Authority".
(2) The Authority shall consist of members of the constituent councils appointed by them to be members of the Authority.
(3) The constituent Councils in relation to the Authority shall be the London borough councils and the Common Council.
(4) The Secretary of State shall by order taking effect on the abolition date make provision for vesting in the Authority the lands, property and functions to which this section applies.
(5) This section applies to—

(a) the parks, open spaces and sport facilities owned immediately before the abolition date by the Greater London Council which are situated in more than one London borough or outside Greater London or which in the opinion of the Secretary of State are for the benefit of an area of Greater London greater than the London borough in or near which are situated or which require the resources of a London-wide authority for their future development;

(b) the functions of the Greater London Council with regard to the management of those parks, open spaces and sports facilities including powers to provide public events and entertainments therein;

(c) any interest in land held by the Greater London Council immediately before the abolition date under the Green Belt Act 1938;

(d) the functions of the Greater London Council under the Green Belt Act 1938; and

(e) any sports facilities not otherwise transferred by this section which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, could with advantage be vested in the Authority.

(6) The Authority shall be a joint authority within the meaning of Part IV of this Act and the provisions of that part shall apply to this section as if this section were included in that Part.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, since I have been a Member of this House, this is the second time I have been landed with a job that I was not prepared to take on. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, is not carrying out his duties as efficiently as he should! My task on this particular amendment was to deal with the question of agricultural land. That has been mentioned only very briefly by my noble friend Lord Melchett, I think at Second Reading. However, I consider it an important item in the layout of the various duties of the GLC.
Before I speak about that, I can certainly say a little about the main gist of this amendment, which of course is to try to co-ordinate all the ramifications of what the GLC does for the people of London where it has control in the green belt. There is no doubt that there is to be fragmentation of all these various jobs, and farms, recreational grounds and so on are to be broken up between numerous local authorities and counties. The Countryside Commission is extremely
38
worried about this. If I may, I should like to quote what it says on the subject:
"For many people in Greater London and the other metropolitan areas the countryside on their doorstep is a very valuable and much appreciated asset, as recent public opinion surveys have shown. As the statutory body responsible for the conservation of the countryside, access to it and recreational opportunities within it, the Countryside Commission is concerned that legislation should not damage the very considerable advances made in recent years"—
and I emphasise that to noble Lords.
"The Commission has not adopted a position for or against the more controversial provisions of the Bill. It merely wishes to ensure that the roles and resources proposed provide for at least as effective management of the countryside in and around the major conurbations as before. Sadly, because this is not a matter of contention between the parties, there is real danger of the issue being overlooked.
"The Commission set out detailed views on the Government's White Paper Streamling the Cities in October 1984 and a copy is attached. It is recognised that the issue is as much one of providing a co-ordinating role"—
I repeat, "co-ordinating role"—
"as of providing additional resources, and it may well be that this can be on a temporary and transitionary basis. What is certain is that explicit government action will be required if the momentum is not to be lost".
That was written by the statutory body responsible, as it said, for the conservation of the countryside. I think its opinion should be given consideration. I am quite certain that other noble Lords will go into the details of all the various ramifications that are at issue. I must emphasise that of course the Countryside Commission is interested not only in the green belt around London but in all the areas concerned in the metropolitan counties as well. I now see the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, in his place. He will deal more adequately than I have done with some of the major issues.
I wish to speak on the farming estate belonging to the GLC. This estate extends to nearly 13,000 acres, of which just under 10,000 acres are let farms. There are just over 100 farms in the accepted sense of the word, and there are just under 100 statutory smallholdings. The farms vary in size from about 90 acres up tc the biggest one of 600 acres. The horticultural holdings go all the way from one acre upwards to about 50 acres.
I have no interest in that way now, but I was a tenant of the GLC from 1967 to 1979. I found it a particularly good landlord. I just want to illustrate how good it was, because I think it is an essential part of my argument that it has been a very good landlord. I should like to speak of a situation that arose in relation to the farm that I tenanted. The farm was in two parts, about 400 acres and 100 acres. The main reason for that was because there were only two cottages on the main farm and the other farm had one house on it. That augmented the stock of houses for labour in that area, which of course is very difficult to obtain unless one has a house. The GLC came to me because a farmer had to leave his farm near Heathrow Airport because of the expansion of the airport. We came to an agreement whereby I gave up my 100-acre farm to this farmer and the GLC provided me with a house on the other farm to replace it. That kind of arrangement can only be made when there are good landlords and tenants willing to co-operate.
The other thing the GLC does is to operate the farming ladder. Where it is appropriate, smallholders

39
are given a chance to step into bigger farms on this estate. Last year, two smallholders stepped up into farms on the estate. I have heard it said that, on the whole smallholdings do not provide this ladder. I think it is because they are separate from any other estate. In this case, they are part of an estate with farms, and the farming ladder therefore operates there.
The amenities side of the estate is well maintained. Since the dreadful loss, about which we all know, of over 7,000 elms, a major tree planting programme has been taking place. The council runs a farm, Park Lodge Farm near Harefield, as an educational centre, providing facilities for Londoners, especially children, to gain a greater understanding of the working of the countryside in all its aspects—farming, amenities, recreation, and so on. Many thousands have taken advantage of this. The project received an RICS award in 1983. I have the submission here. It is a very good one indeed. It is great credit to the GLC and the estate management section of it that it carried that out.
The GLC has also a contributory interest in 20,000 other acres in the green belt. It carries out very close surveillance on this to protect these areas from undesirable development. All this is managed by a team of certified land agents. The chief land agent, who I know well, has been there for over 20 years and has gained a tremendous knowledge of all the farms and the area. I should hate to think that that knowledge will be lost.
What will happen to all this if the Government take their way? (I suppose one should say "have their way", but this present Government, with their huge majority, can of course just take their way). Leaving aside the recreational and contributory lands, more than half the farming estate will go to the boroughs. Not one of these boroughs has a qualified land agent or any other agent with any experience of agricultural estates. The rest will be fragmented between the counties, which of course have land agents but which are receiving only less than half of it. Thus a 10,000-acre estate, a going concern, well managed, is to be handed over piecemeal to 12 different authorities. No wonder the NFU is concerned about some of its members! Nothing is more upsetting than a change of landlord. I have had it happen to me. It upsets tenants no end.
There is also little wonder that there is a heading in the Farmers Weekly, which I have here, which says:
"GLC's demise may bring chaos for farm tenants".
They use the word "may": I use the word "will" bring chaos to farm tenants. The Government pay lip-service (I see the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in his place: he has paid lip-service, but I hope it is not only lip-service in his case) to the need for a tenanted section in agricultural occupation. We had the Agricultural Holdings Bill a couple of years ago. This was to bring a stream of tenancies on to the market to compensate farmers for losing their three-generation security of tenure given to them by the Labour Government. No stream of tenancies has appeared. In fact, I think the opposite has happened: more and more farms that had been tenanted have been sold. One of the best farms in Scotland was sold this year when some of the estate land became vacant. When
40
the NFU looks down the garden path it was led up, it must have great regrets over what it did.
The Government also give lip service to the farming ladder. Here is an estate with a complete ladder, one acre to 600 acres. Why break that up? There are 16 smallholdings, very small ones, of about two to three acres each, that will go to Surrey but only one farm of just over 100 acres. The borough of Enfield is getting 2,500 acres—to be exact, 2,439 acres—consisting of farms but no smallholdings. What chance has the efficient smallholder in Surrey of being considered for a farm in Enfield? This is the point that I wish to make. The estate is broken up. The smallholdings go to a county whose stock of smallholdings is increased. Those fellows on an estate at the moment—two of them, as I say, stepped up last year—have no chance.
What is to stop the counties or the boroughs selling off land? They have been doing so already. I hope that the Government have been warned as a result of what happened in Somerset when this was an issue at the local elections. With all due respect to the borough of Enfield, and I represented a large part of it for 16 years—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: And very well too, my Lords.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, thank you. Who, on its staff, knows about agricultural estate management? It is ridiculous to hand over 2,500 acres with no arrangements for their management. I could go on pointing out the chaos, as Farmers Weekly puts it, resulting from the break-up of the estate. Who will run Park Lodge Farm? It had 10,000 visitors over last weekend. Which borough will get this demonstration farm and run it for the whole of London? Will it be Harrow, Hillingdon or Ealing? It will not happen. It is ridiculous. If the Government really believe in a tenanted sector and the farming ladder, this estate must not be broken up. I plead with the noble Lord to accept the amendment, which would keep together the estate and all the other things that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, I am sure, will now put before the House. I beg to move.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for not being in my place when the amendment was called. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, for moving it. At the Committee stage, I moved an amendment to set up a London regional parks authority. It received some encouraging support although it did not quite carry a majority of your Lordships. This amendment is, I believe, an improvement. It covers not only the parks but also the green belt that was previously included in a more ambitious amendment, featuring arts and recreation, which your Lordships did not accept. There is a natural and logical connection between the parks and the green belt. Both serve recreational and environmental purposes and share common services. I hope therefore that the new version will appeal to your Lordships.
I do not want to repeat what was said at Committee stage, but I should remind the House of the GLC's holdings. First, the parks. There are 43, totalling 5,500 acres containing many sports facilities including 230

41
football pitches, most of which serve wide areas of London larger than a single borough. Indeed, many parks cross borough boundaries, including Hampstead Heath, Golders Hill, Blackheath, Abbey Wood, Crystal Palace, Hainault Forest, Hackney Marshes and Wormwood Scrubs. The GLC's green belt holdings, to which the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie has already referred, consist of 12,500 acres which it owns outright and a further 21,000 acres in which it has a contributory interest. Of the 12,500 acres owned outright, 8,000 acres are working farms and about 1,100 acres are smallholdings. The remaining 2,000 acres are country parks such as Trent Park, Hounslow Heath and Hainault Forest.
5.15 p.m.
I want to turn to the reasons for keeping the GLC's parks and green belt lands under one authority instead of splitting them up among the boroughs and the county councils. I shall deal first with the parks. The GLC parks are different from those currently run by the boroughs. The borough parks are primarily of local significance, whereas the GLC parks serve wider areas of London and indeed, in some cases—for example, Hampstead Heath and Hackney Marshes—they serve the whole of the metropolis. When the GLC was formed, the 1963 London Government Act required that there should be a review of the parks that t he GLC had inherited and only those that served an area substantially larger than a single borough were to be retained. This was done, and a number of small parks passed to the boroughs. This happened, I believe, while the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, was leader of the GLC.
As recently as 1978, Lord Marshall's inquiry into the GLC concluded that the present division of the parks between the GLC and the boroughs was correct. That was back in 1978. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will take note of these points. His comment during the Committee stage that the boroughs already have 20,000 acres of parks in comparison with the GLC's 5,500 acres misses the rather important point that the GLC's parks are of a different character from the borough parks, as recognised by the 1963 Act and by the Marshall inquiry.
Administrative efficiency and economies of scale are obvious reasons for keeping the GLC parks together. But there is another telling reason. It is that sports facilities are not spread evenly across London. Under the Bill, some boroughs will find themselves running facilities which mainly benefit residents of other parts of London. Some boroughs may respond to this; others may not. The Minister may say that the boroughs will no longer have to pay the GLC precept. This is true. But there is no guarantee whatever that they will spend these savings on this type of service. Hackney may have urgent priorities that take precedence over the maintenance of 100 football pitches on Hackney Marsh when most of the users come from outside the borough.
As regards the development of new parks, especially Burgess and Mile End parks, the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, spoke powerfully about these in Committee. I am glad to see that the noble Lord is again in his place. He also spoke passionately about Park Lodge Farm
42
and Langley Farm. I shall therefore leave these matters in his capable hands.
I turn now to the question of how parks which cross borough boundaries are to be managed. This is important because Ministers have made some rather misleading statements on the matter both at our Committee stage and in another place. To the layman, it would seem obvious that there are bound to be difficulties if two or more boroughs are expected to run a park when they may be of different political colours and have different management policies and different demands on their financial resources. In another place, Sir George Young suggested that such problems would not arise because a number of parks are already run jointly by two or more boroughs. As examples, he cited Clapham Common, Tooting Bec, Wimbledon Common and Wanstead Flats.
At our Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, repeated the examples of Clapham Common and Tooting Bec. I am afraid that both Ministers were wrong. None of these parks is managed by two or more boroughs. So they cannot be used as examples of successful inter-borough management. Clapham Common is owned and run exclusively by Lambeth; Tooting Bec is owned and run exclusively by Wandsworth; and Wanstead Flats are part of Epping Forest, which is managed by the City of London. These instances seem to me to be important, not only because they show that Government assertions that everything will be all right on the night are not supported by their chosen examples but also because they show clearly that the Government have not given serious consideration to the likely effects of these proposals. Had they done so, they would surely have discovered that the examples they have chosen to support their arguments do not stand up to examination.
I turn now to the GLC's green belt responsibilities. Although there is nothing in the Bill about these, we know from a Government Statement made on the 7th November last year that it is intended to transfer them to the boroughs and the county councils. The effect of transfer on this basis will be to fragment the green belt so that there will be no overall policy on preservation and resistance to undesirable development. Where land which the GLC owns outright is concerned, it will pass to bodies which could be highly vulnerable to pressures for development. Where the GLC has only a contributory interest, the other landholder will no longer be required to gain GLC consent for development under the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938. Such matters will be decided by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Indeed, the Secretary of State's statement, also contained in the press release of 7th November, is tantamount to an admission that he knows that the green belt lands will be less safe in the hands of the boroughs and counties than they are at present. On that occasion he said:
"I am also taking this opportunity to remind authorities of my own considerable powers and responsibilities for the oversight of all 1938 Act interests, including those being transferred when the GLC is abolished, and of my continuing determination to regard this land as inalienable".
That all sounds very fine, but does it inspire the fullest confidence? It certainly does not in the light of a

43
remark made by the Secretary of State in an article published in the Sunday Times on 5th May, when in relation to the Government's policy for the green belt, he was quoted as saying:
"We want to keep the green belt green but a balance must be struck between conservation and development. I have little sympathy for those who believe that we can stop the clock and say no to further development. That would be an extreme example of the 'I'm all right Jack' attitude".
I must confess that I find it very difficult to reconcile these two statements. The Secretary of State appears to be saying that the green belt is inalienable except when he says that it is not. Of course, the present Secretary of State may turn out to be a splendid guarantor of the green belt, but that does not bind his successors.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps I may put the noble Lord right on one matter. I think that he should have said that green belt land will not be available except when the Minister says it will.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that correction. I shall read this very carefully when I come to look at Hansard. I do not think the noble Lord was saying that the Secretary of State did not make the statement which was attributed to him in the Sunday Times.
It is also of some importance that the Government have no support for their proposals from prominent organisations which are concerned with the preservation of the green belt. For example, the Civic Trust has said that it believes that the proposals in Streamlining the Cities could set back the implementation of Sir Patrick Abercrombie's vision of green belts and green wedges by many years. Indeed, the Trust went further. It said with regard to environmental quality that it,
"can find nothing to commend in the White Paper proposals".
The Countryside Commission takes the view that abolition of the GLC would be a step towards weakening the protection of the green belt because of the greatly increased number of authorities which would become involved, each with more local and conflicting interests.
The Council for the Protection of Rural England believes that recreational projects in the green belt which cross boundaries will become more difficult to initiate and, for those already in existence, increasingly difficult to ensure uniform standards of maintenance. I should have thought that the views of these organisations are not to be dismissed lightly.
I have spoken at some length, and longer than I intended, but the future of London's green parks and green belt is so important a subject. Up to now discussion in this area has been somewhat overshadowed by perfectly legitimate concerns about arts funding and the management of Hampstead Heath, on which I see that another amendment has been tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe. Of course, I am sympathetic towards that, but I am bound to say that I think the general principle of London's parks management is one which we should try to establish, in which case the worries about the heath will fall away.
Finally, I should like to summarise the main reasons why we need a London open spaces and recreations
44
authority, although I am prepared to negotiate on name if other noble Lords can think of a better title. They are as follows: first, the special character of London's parks and the fact that they serve much wider areas than a single borough; secondly, economies of scale and administrative efficiency; thirdly, to avoid conflicts which will arise between boroughs where a park crosses borough boundaries; fourthly, to preserve the valuable teams of experts, such as the GLC Landscape Architects Division.
Few London boroughs employ any landscape architects and, therefore, they often have to turn to the GLC's experts for advice; indeed, only an organisation with a large number of parks could justify employing such a group. There are other specialist groups which it makes sense for the GLC to employ, which are uneconomic for individual boroughs, and one example is the GLC's horticultural unit. There is also the matter of completing Burgess and Mile End Parks. The final reason is to prevent the green belt being subjected to almost irresistible development pressure. In this context we have to remember the long-stated strategy of Consortium Development, for instance, which is to build 15 new towns in the South-East, and where more tempting than the green belt? I repeat, the glory of London is in its greenery; not in its avenues, boulevards, Roman antiquities, dazzling light or crisp air. The glory lies in the parks, the terraces, the gardens and the cordon sanitaire, which we call the green belt. This Bill does not offer adequate protection for these unique aspects of London's heritage.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I oppose this amendment. We are now at the stage of the Bill where it is difficult to avoid repetition. The various aspects of this amendment, acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, very fairly to be a more ambitious amendment than previous amendments, in truth and in substance have already been spoken to seriatim, but not in relation to this form of grouping. This is really a new bite at an old much-nibbled cherry.
The farming activities and the green belt under paragraphs (c) and (d) may well call for special consideration and long-term co-ordination of policy. The point is well made about the qualified land agents and the tenanted sector, but no doubt how that is dealt with is a matter for further consideration. However, in its present form the amendment is open to very serious objection on any showing because it is again an attempt to co-ordinate activities of the GLC, transferring them to a recreational authority. What recreation has to do with farming and so forth is difficult to understand.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, with the leave of the House, if the noble Lord will forgive me, it has a great deal to do with farming. If the noble Lord knows Hackney Marshes, he will know that about 100 football pitches are sited there. There are about 230 football pitches throughout the whole of the GLC's estate.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble Lord and I can take different views about that. As I regard this clause—and, if I may say so, it has been spoken to with great ability from the Opposition Front

45
Bench—there is a serious problem about the question of farming. The GLC has had a good record in that area. There are problems about the qualified land agents and the tenanted sector. At least I was trying to come to grips with the sense of the part of the argument which certainly impressed me. That does not square with the broad concept in paragraph (e) of sports facilities and a recreational authority. That is the point I was trying to make, on which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, took me to task. But I am unrepentant.
We are really here again creating unrelated, assorted, disparate functions and loading them all into another of these joint authorities. As your Lordships know, they are joint authorities with a limited lifespan. So what happens when the temporary and transitional transfer has taken place? In the main, although perhaps not all, these activities lie within the remit of the boroughs in accordance with the concept of devolution, and by and large the boroughs are competent to manage their affairs without the superimposition of this tier. It is for those reasons that I oppose this amemdment not only in substance, in spirit, but also in particular in the form in which it is presented, carrying in so many disparate functions into what is called a recreation authority.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, this is one of those occasions on which I must not only declare my interest but declare it very particularly, especially in view of what the noble Lord has just said. I feel slightly hurt because the amendment has been described as covering various altogether too disparate territories. This territory is exactly my concern every day of the week. It is precisely my territory.
I am a director for recreation and the arts. Recreation and the arts cover not merely all the green spaces of London but the recreation which happens within them: the sports, and, in a slightly separate way, the arts; although often they are not as separate as one would think because the entertainments programme extends right through the parks. "Recreation" is not one of my favourite words although it occurs within my own title. It has that slight flavour of bureaucracy about it which does not endear it to me. If one looks at it and wonders what it really means I suppose that "re-creation" is what our green spaces, what our parks, and what our arts and our sports do for us. They put us together again. Recreation, or re-creation, is essentially what the services that the GLC in my particular department provide. Therefore, I find that this amendment, although admittedly it is broader then ever before, commends itself more to me than it has done before simply because of that breadth.
I could wish that there has been fewer engagements, fewer skirmishes, across the Floor of this House on the subject of this enormously complicated Bill. I sense that so many of your Lordships care so much for the precise area of this amendment—indeed for parks, open spaces, the countryside, recreation and sport, everything contained within it—that had we reached this point in the continuing debate weeks earlier, I would have hoped that I might have persuaded both sides of the House to vote for this amendment because
46
I believe that it concerns the most serious danger, certainly within my own area, that abolition presents to us.
It has been said that today's debate can only echo, or re-echo, things that have already been said. Therefore, I shall not weary your Lordships for long. But I must re-echo three elements of that area of recreation, of sport, and of art about which I am talking. One is the green belt itself, which has been mentioned many times this afternoon. It is a pity that this amendment comes today on a Monday and was not considered last Thursday because I could have urged all your Lordships to go to Park Lodge Farm in Denham and see the open day there. However, I may be forgiven for that regret because, as has been pointed out, 10,000 people went without us.
What I might have been able to urge upon your Lordships was to look not merely at Park Lodge Farm itself but upon its two neighbours; upon Knightscote Farm next door and upon Langley Farm just beyond it because they are one day to be the complementary farms. Park Lodge Farm is a modern, active, 1980s farm. Knightscote Farm is the museum of the farm world, and Langley Farm will be a re-creation of a Victorian farm, which is where it has its origins.
That trio will be of educational benefit, of entertainment benefit—if that is the right phrase—and it brings up in my mind one of the greatest regrets that I nave about this entire abolition proposal, and that is not so much what will be abolished that we have already done, but what I sense will be abolished is the potential for doing the things that we have not done.
This is not merely an admission that we have not done things which we should have done. Money is never limitless, whatever your Lordships may think of the GLC. Time is never limitless. Talent and imagination are not limitless. There is so much still to be done. That applies to Burgess and Mile End parks. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will be concerned about the future of those two because they concern me more than any other open space. They are half-finished. They consume a large amount of money. Laying out London into parks does consume money. The future of those two parks, half-finished as they are and consuming millions a year, must be of concern to us all. I have wearied your Lordships before on this subject and I shall not do so further again; but that is another unfinished task before us.
The third point is to re-emphasise how much of London's green and open space depends on the teams of people I am happy to control at the moment. There are specialists like tree pruners, entertainments people, dog handlers, the special duty keepers, play leadership, and a great raft of people who live centrally. They look for where they are needed from week to week. They do not belong to a borough. It cannot be expected that boroughs will pick them up individually because they do not belong there yet.
I look in vain to find an authority which will understand the strategic functions they perform. For that reason too I regret what is before us. If this amendment is broad, it is broad with a purpose. I hope that we can all agree that that purpose, which is looking after recreation and everything that the countryside of London means to us, is not something

47
which will be lightly disregarded. I beg to support this amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if one had not known it already, I think all your Lordships would have sensed that the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, is the son of the man who was in his day perhaps the greatest advocate at the Bar. In a hereditary House it is nice to see hereditary abilities coming out. One can understand—if it is not impertinent on my part to say so—that when you have been doing the kind of obviously fascinating and interesting job that the noble Lord has been doing on behalf of the Greater London Council, he would be I do not know whether it is more or less than human, or anyway quite different from human kind, if he did not intensely resent its breaking up, and feel instinctively that those to whom these functions would be entrusted would not do them as well as he did.
I accept at once that if you are to have a GLC then it is sensible to put a Lord Birkett in charge of these activities. But your Lordships' House has decided, as the Commons has decided, as the electorate has decided, that there is not to be a GLC. Therefore, we come up against an amendment which proposes once again the setting up of a London-wide authority with precepting powers.
On an earlier amendment the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, warned me that I could not, if I had spoken—which I did not—use the argument that the amendment went right against the spirit, or the philosophy, or the policy of the Bill. I am not absolutely sure on that point that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was right on that amendment, but as I did not seek to intervene then I must leave that point with him. But it is as plain as a pikestaff that this amendment, which proposes the setting up of a London-wide authority with precepting powers and a wide variety of functions, goes slap against the major policy of the Bill. It proposes that functions which under the Bill will go to the boroughs should be retained in a new authority set up London wide.
That is a totally different situation from the situation which still exists today while the GLC drags out its last few painful months of life. When there is no GLC is there any case for saying that functions, which throughout the rest of the country are generally performed to the satisfaction of their electors by local authorities, shall not be transferred to the boroughs together with the other functions which are being so transferred under this Bill from the GLC? It is difficult to justify saying that the London boroughs are incapable of undertaking these functions.
The only possible exception is the case of Hampstead Heath, but as that is covered by another amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Cottesloe, I should be wasting your Lordships' time if I were to direct argument to that. Otherwise, throughout the country parks, recreation areas and all these other various amenities, spelt out at great length in this amendment, are discharged by the elected local authorities. If they are not discharged satisfactorily, the electors of those authorities can always effect a change in them. Therefore it seems wholly wrong at this stage of our discussions of this Bill to propose the
48
setting up of this large authority. It would be a massive affair. With all these functions it would have very substantial staffs and have further staffs on top for the purpose of co-ordinating them and their activities. It would plainly be an expensive addition to the burden which is already carried by London ratepayers and would be carried in the future.
Therefore, though one sympathises in human terms with the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, and feels that in losing the services that he so well undertakes, we may be losing something, it is plain that the continuance of this kind of thing under a new authority would plainly not only be contrary to the spirit and intentions of the Bill, but would be wholly anomalous, expensive and unnecessary.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I, too, wish to oppose this amendment. The implication that the Greater London Council owns the green belt is quite inaccurate. Much of the green belt is in private ownership and yet from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, there came the implication that the GLC was the owner as well as the protector of the green belt. The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, spoke about the farm in Denham. To my knowledge Denham is in Buckinghamshire and I think the Buckinghamshire County Council would be quite capable of protecting land there. Most of these farms—a number are in my own GLC constituency—are tenanted and the tenants have every right that farming tenants have everywhere else. Therefore I see no sudden dramatic change about to take place.
Hackney Marshes were mentioned. I was the vice chairman of planning when Hackney Marshes were to be developed. We found that because the GLC had been dilatory for a long time all sorts of wonderful conservational projects had been built up. Due to pressures from local residents we went to inspect and it was decided to turn it into a conservation area. However, that happened almost by chance, not by deliberate and careful planning.
There is the suggestion that local boroughs are incapable of caring for open spaces in London. The City of Westminster has not one but dozens of open spaces and recreation patches already. People underestimate these matters. It was certainly underestimated by a gentleman from overseas who bought what was described as a desirable building site in Rutland Gate in the central square garden. When he applied for his planning permission to build on it he had quite a nasty shock; so the local borough certainly cares.
I should point out that Paddington recreation ground is a large and successful amenity run by the City of Westminster and it attracts people from a much wider area. That is just an example of how local boroughs can and do run recreational facilities. We have had excellent recreational facilities from the GLC. The expertise is there and I hope that the people with that expertise go to the boroughs where these most important sites will be. But to underestimate the boroughs would be a mistake. They are used to running parks and recreation areas. They have tree experts and other experts.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, stated that the GLC was responsible for all the green spaces in London, and

49
I feel that that statement is rather an exaggeration. The GLC may look after a large number, but it does not look after all the green spaces of London; there are other experts as well. This present amendment would create a new and unnecessary structure. I oppose it.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I did not intend to intervene, but what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, have said is not in line with the facts as they are. First, we are not talking about odd urban parks which belong to and are run by many of the boroughs. We are talking about open spaces and green belt land which does not always respect borough boundaries. A widespread city such as London is so built up that it is of tremendous importance to ensure that the land which we call green belt or open space is kept and is respected; otherwise it will be encroached upon and there will be no rural surround to London at all. Everything will be built up.
What I find impressive in the argument for this, or a similar amendment, is that organisations such as the Civic Trust, which has no particular interest in who looks after what, are concerned about the best way of carrying out these functions. The Civic Trust has come out strongly against the present system, saying that it can find nothing to commend in the White Paper proposals that will protect the green belt as it is now. Similarly, the Countryside Commission takes the view that abolition of the GLC would weaken the protection of the green belt and the Council for the Protection of Rural England has the same views. There is no political or other reason why these groups should take these views unless they believe them. They are specific organisations, concerned with specific functions. I do not think that this argument can be dismissed. There are many other examples, but I do not wish to take up the time of the House. To dismiss this matter in this way as though it was something which individual boroughs could look after is grossly unfair. They cannot, and they should not be asked to do so. The proposal will not work by default. I am sure this is quite plain and it will be a great pity if we lose the opportunity in this House to do something about it.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, on the impressive way in which he sprang into the fairly large breach left by the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, not only from the place where he now sits, but from his usual place as well. The Bill before the House is a Bill to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan county councils and to transfer as many of their functions as possible to the borough councils in London and the district councils in the metropolitan counties. These purposes already have your Lordships' declared approval, as well as that of another place. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, will be able to read this tomorrow. One complete set of the functions in question is that of owning and managing public open spaces. The Bill as drafted provides for those functions to be transferred in line with the principal purpose directly from the upper-to the lower-tier authorities.
The effect of the amendment now before your Lordships is only upon London. In London the upper-tier
50
authority is the GLC and the lower is the London boroughs. The Bill accordingly would transfer parks, open spaces and sports facilities from the GLC to the boroughs. The amendment would intercept that transfer and direct both ownership and the responsibility for management of all these facilities not to the various boroughs but to a single body composed of members of those boroughs, adequately and accurately described by my noble friends Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, brought to this debate an agricultural tang which I do not think it had to that degree at Committee stage. I was interested in what he had to say. The GLC's farms are principally in the 1938 green belt and are located, as my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes said, in the counties outside Greater London. If they are tenanted, all that will happen is that the landlord will change its identity. I know of no reason to suppose that the county councils do not have the service of adequately certificated land agents. I suspect that the noble Lord was thinking that the farms in the outlying districts would go to the boroughs; but if he looks at the map, I think he will be reassured.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I was given the particulars of exactly where the farms were going to go. The Borough of Enfield certainly is getting 2,500 acres and one or two other boroughs are going to get quite a lot. But the point that I was making was that more than half was going to the boroughs and, of course, less than half going to the counties.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, and I shall take further advice but, at least as to the half that is not going to the boroughs, he may be reassured. Statutory smallholdings will also pass to the county councils and this will not have the effect of dispersing smallholding ownership, therefore, but of concentrating it in different hands.
As far as the acreage is concerned, as I understand it, the boroughs will receive 7,500 acres and the counties 5,300 acres. But the Department of the Environment—and all this bears on what the noble Lord has just correctly drawn to my attention—has just invited the authorities to discuss a different distribution if this would be more appropriate. We are prepared to be flexible and I shall see that the noble Lord's point is brought to the attention of those who are considering this possible redevising of the distribution.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, in his amendment proposes the interruption of the devolutionary process for a variety of reasons which include the protection of the green belt, the scale of the present operations of this kind by the GLC, and its acquired expertise. Perhaps I may look first at the green belt. I was a little surprised by the tenor of what the noble Lord said about where he thought we now were and what he thought was the attitude of the present Secretary of State. What is proposed in the Bill is a transfer of assets and interests. There is to be no change in the law protecting this land. Receiving authorities will have the same obligations as the GLC to protect the land under the 1938 Act and the Secretary of State's consent will continue to be required for disposal or development of the land.

51
I am not sure what the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, was quoting, but I can say that in his statement of decisions in response to consultation issued on 7th November 1984 (which is the authoritative source) the Secretary of State made clear his policy that this land should continue to be protected, and he reminded authorities that he regards this land as inalienable. I remember having difficulty with the pronunciation of that word at Committee and I know, therefore, that I have referred to this before.
Agreements were acquired giving a public authority interest in each holding. The intention then was that this should be in perpetuity and, while the Secretary of State must continue to consider any proposals on their merits, he would agree to changes only in the most exceptional circumstances. Green belt land will, of course, also continue to enjoy protection in structure and local plans prepared under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, as amended in accordance with the policy advice in Circulars NHLG 42/55, 50/57 and DOE 14/84. I read those slowly into the record. The point that I wish to make, as it were verbally, is that there is no change whatever in the legal protection of this land and that the Secretary of State's commitment to its protection actually has been reinforced within the last 12 months. So, in that respect, your Lordships can set aside the anxieties which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, sought to link with his amendment, because they do not apply.
In welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, to this debate, I hasten to acknowledge his expertise. Indeed, if any of your Lordships doubted that the expertise of the GLC was enlightened and efficient, you had only to listen to the noble Lord speaking in the Committee debate eloquently and, as I recall, helpfully—although not exactly in the sense that I would have wished—from the Cross-Benches. He did so with all the authority of the person now responsible for discharging that duty for the GLC. I am glad to take this opportunity of acknowledging that there are some things that the GLC has been doing well, that this is very much one of them and that the noble Lord has played a conspicuous part in that achievement. I hope that he will not entirely disappear from the scene when the present regime does so.
The noble Lord spoke not only of expertise, but also of scale. He mentioned at Committee stage, certainly, that the GLC was responsible for over 5,000 acres of public open space; and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, reminded us that, as I reminded your Lordships at Committee stage (which was on 14th May) that the borough councils, on the other hand, already manage nearly 25,000 acres of similar land; that is, incidentally, nearly five times as much as the GLC. So that that disposes, I should have thought, of the argument of scale as well as the argument of green belt protection. The argument has been put forward that they are of a different nature. I am aware that it is said that at the time that the LCC was succeeded by the GLC there was an inquiry which was designed to separate public open space into those pieces which had a local function and those which had a more-than-local function. I think the expression was "a regional or strategic function". Looking at the list, I am not sure that the argument holds good for very many of
52
them. I do not know whether the Archbishop's Park in Lambeth or Geffrye's Garden in Hackney or Tower Hamlet's cemetery would fall into what I would call the strategic band. But it is about that sort of place that we are talking.
I was also called to account by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock—my honourable friend was similarly called to account for saying in another place what I said here—for saying that the experience in Tooting Bec and Clapham Commons made it clear that land which fell into the ownership of different authorities, even if they had sharply different political leanings as to their elected members, could be peacefully managed. The noble Lord made much of the fact that each is managed by only one of the authorities acting as to half of the territory or thereabouts on behalf of the other. I do not see that that is any argument against my argument which is that the fact that the boundary runs through the land in question does not stop it being properly run because, manifestly, it is properly run. So I do not see that the difficulties regarding the green belt or scale or shared ownership are anything like big enough to justify the breach in the general intention of the Bill which this amendment proposes.
That brings me to the actual content of the text of the amendment which your Lordships may have found a little familiar, and you were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, in case you had missed it, of its parentage. Your Lordships can see it in col. 1024 of the Hansard of 14th May, almost the whole of it, word for word, in Amendment No. 132E. That was the Committee stage amendment which we debated. The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, said that he only wished we could have discussed all this three weeks ago; his wish has been granted, because we did so. The Committee stage amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, proposed, as this one does, a joint authority which, like this one, is to be a body corporate made up, like this one, of members of the borough councils and the common council and charged, as this one will be, with the lands, property and functions of the GLC related to the parks, open spaces and sports facilities at present owned by them where they fall into or benefit more than one borough area or which require, as he put it, "the resources of a London-wide authority for their future development". That amendment, like this one, provided for the new authority to run all those facilities and to take on, like this one, the green belt responsibilities of both the City and the GLC.
The difference between the amendment lies, first, in the name of the new body. The old one was called the London Authority for the Arts and Recreation, while this one would be called the London Open Spaces and Recreation Authority. The second difference, which is of course paid for by the first, is that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has dropped out of the text—which he has taken from the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi—the references to museums, concert halls, theatres, galleries and artistic and cultural activities.
6 p.m.
I shall come back to the composition of the new body in a moment; but the first point that I wish to make arising from that is about its functions. It is simply this. All the functions listed in this amendment

53
for transfer to the new body proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, were listed in the same order and the same words in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, at Committee stage. That is important because your Lordships considered them with some care along with the other functions to do with the arts from roughly five past three in the afternoon until twenty-three minutes to six in the evening and then threw the amendment out by a majority of 29 votes.
It is true that more time was given to the arts than to the parks. Today's debate has provided a welcome remedy for that. Nevertheless, we are by convention obliged to abide at Report stage by the decisions that we took at Committee stage. It therefore follows that the only merit the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, can claim for his amendment, over and above what your Lordships have already rejected, is not that it contains provisions for the parks, open spaces and recreation, but that it does not contain provisions for the arts. The improvement on what the noble Lord now proposes over what was proposed before amounts to no more than this: he has dropped the arts.
The only remaining difference—and one have not mentioned before—is a further deletion from the text of the Committee stage amendment. Whatever the merits or demerits of what the noble Lord otherwise proposes, this deletion seems to me to be fatal to his proposal. What he has left out is the careful reference by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to the provisions in Part IV of the Act. That is more than a drafting error because it leaves us entirely in the dark as to the composition of this body, other than that it is made up of councillors. We do not know how many members there are to be; how they are appointed, either at first or on a vacancy. We do not know what attention, if any, is to be paid to the political balance between the parties; we know nothing about remuneration or expenses. We do not even know if it is to have a chairman. As to where its money is to come from, that remains a total mystery; and a very important one.
This unnecessary committee appointed to deprive the London boroughs of functions they are well equipped to discharge, suffers from what in other circumstances noble Lords opposite would vigorously call the disadvantage of not being directly elected. It is a mystery as to where the money is to come from; or how it is to be controlled; it is without limit of size; without any distinct form; and without any discernible source of finance. It is a pig in a poke and I advise your Lordships not to buy it.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to try to correct the situation about the land. The figures I have given refer to the land that is present in the various boroughs. As I understood it, a statement was made that that land would pass to the boroughs and the land in the counties would pass to the counties. If that is not correct, then I think the noble Lord will need to tell us. But it does not alter my main argument: that it is a major mistake to break up an estate of 10,000 acres which is working so well at the present moment and of great benefit to smallholders and farmers.
Lord Elton: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, I do not think there will be time for me to get an exact form of words. I was quite careful in what I said in reply to the noble Lord after he intervened for the first time in my speech. If he would read that, I conceded that the acreage was greater to the boroughs than to the counties, but I also said that we were looking at this and would consider his views (which are on the record) as to any further alterations in the boundaries. The noble Lord was kind enough not to interrupt my peroration. I hope your Lordships have not forgotten it.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, with the leave of the House, we have had an interesting debate and I shall not delay your Lordships very long. There are one or two points that I should like to bring out. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, referred to our simply setting up a temporary body; and he asked what was the point of that. This is not the case. The body was designed to be a Part IV body within the terms of the Act. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, also argued that—
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, goes too far along this road, I have observed that, although technically speaking it is his amendment, he did not move it but the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, did. The noble Lord therefore has already spoken once; and we are at Report stage, which puts the House in some difficulty.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I requested the leave of the House. Will the House allow me a minute? I shall pass on if I may simply from the points I was making concerning the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to the important points that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, made.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, with the leave of the House, would the noble Lord tell us whether he is winding up to finish this amendment?
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, that was my intention, with the permission of the House.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Sandford: My Lords, the House was glad to give the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, leave to make a short point but I am sure that the House does not intend to give him leave to wind up a debate that he did not move.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, if that ruling is accepted, may I make the one point? We shall then test the opinion of the House. It was simply that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, accused me of in effect reverting to the umbrella authority which would have covered the arts and recreation. I want to assure him that all I have done is to take the parks amendment, to which I spoke at Committee stage, and to add to it the green belt. As regards what type of animal is proposed—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Kilmarnock:—it is already, as I have said, a Part IV body subject to the finance provisions of Clause 67 of the Bill.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I moved this amendment earlier and I see no reason why we should not test the feeling of the House.
6.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 80AL) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 109; Not-Contents, 160.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kennet, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilmarnock, L. [Teller.]

Attlee, E.

Kirkhill, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lawrence, L.

Bacon, B.

Listowel, E.

Bamett, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bernstein, L.

Longford, E.

Beswick, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

McNair, L.

Birkett, L.

Mayhew, L.

Blyton, L.

Melchett, L.

Boothby, L.

Meston, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Milford, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mishcon, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Monkswell, L.

Brockway, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Nathan, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Nicol, B.

Buckmaster, V.

Northfield, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Ogmore, L.

Caradon, L.

Oram, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Parry, L.

Chitnis, L.

Phillips, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Collison, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Rea, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Diamond, L.

Roberthall, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Rochester, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Ennals, L.

Serota, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Shackleton, L.

Falkender, B.

Shepherd, L.

Falkland, V.

Shinwell, L.

Foot, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Simon, V.

Gallacher, L.

Stallard, L.

Galpern, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Heycock, L.

Walston, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

White, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Jacques, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham. E.

Jeger, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

John-Mackie, L.

56

Abercorn, D.

Ingrow, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Aldington, L.

Killearn, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kilmany, L.

Allerton, L.

Kimball, L.

Ampthill, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Arran, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Atholl, D.

Kinnaird, L.

Barber, L.

Kitchener, E.

Bauer, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Bellwin, L.

Liverpool, E.

Beloff, L.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Lothian, M.

Boardman, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lyell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McFadzean, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Caccia, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Cairns, E.

Mancroft, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Marchwood, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Margadale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Marley, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Cayzer, L.

Coleraine, L.

Merrivale, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Middleton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Cowley, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V

Cox, B.

Mottistone, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Munster, E.

Craigton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Croft, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cullen of Ashboume, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Davidson, V.

Orkney, E.

De La Warr, E.

Pender, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Perth, E.

Digby, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Donegall, M.

Radnor, E.

Dormer, L.

Reigate, L.

Eccles, V.

Renton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Renwick, L.

Elibank, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Ellenborough, L.

Rodney, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Romney, E.

Elton, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Energlyn, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Faithfull, B.

St. Davids, V.

Falmouth, V.

Salisbury, M.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ferrers, E.

Sandford, L.

Fortescue, E.

Savile, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sherfield, L.

Gainford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Somers, L.

Geddes, L.

Stamp, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Glanusk, L.

Sudeley, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Swansea, L.

Gowrie, E.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Grantchester, L.

Terrington, L.

Gray, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Torphichen, L.

Tranmire, L.

Hanson, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trenchard, V.

Hemphill, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hertford, M.

Vickers, B.

Hives, L.

Vivian, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hood, V.

Wise, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Wynford, L.

Howe, E.

Yarborough, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Young, B.

Inglewood, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi Lord Strabolgi moved Amendment No. 80AM:
Before Clause 43, insert the following new clause:
("Arts Council Funding
.—(1) The Minister shall make available to the Arts Council of Great Britain such sums as are sufficient to enable it to exercise its functions under this Act and to undertake such new responsibilities as are necessary in consequence of the passing of this Act.
(2) The sums paid under subsection (1) above shall be additional to any moneys which are paid to that Council in any year in respect of its other functions and responsibilities.
(3) In this section "the Minister" has the same meaning as in section 46 of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 80AM. As the House is aware, on 6th June, just two weeks ago, the Arts Council of Great Britain made a very disturbing statement about their capacity to take over the arts-funding role of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils after abolition. Having now looked carefully at their financial situation, the council have concluded that if they are to receive only the £16 million the Government have offered them to compensate for the loss of GLC and MCC funds, they will not be £4 million short, as the Minister had previously indicated: indeed they will not be £8 million short, as Mr. Luke Rittner, their secretary-general, had originally thought. No, my Lords, they will be underfunded by the staggering figure of £30 million.
It is estimated that the GLC's and the MCCs' arts spending in 1984–85 was £46 million, excluding films and museums. The Government have offered £34 million to compensate for the loss of funds from the GLC and the MCCs, and of this £17 million is earmarked for museums and galleries and £1 million for the British Film Institute. This leaves only £16 million for the Arts Council to fund all the other arts bodies which the GLC and the MCCs currently support and for managing the South Bank arts complex in London.
If we take £16 million from £46 million, we arrive at the £30 million shortfall I spoke of a moment ago. The Arts Council have now made clear that unless there is a very substantial increase in the funds the Government make available the council will not be able to run the Royal Festival Hall and the rest of the South Bank as the GLC currently does. The council will not, at the present level, be able to cover the replacement of metropolitan grants even to the major companies.
The council take the view that of the £46 million, £9 million is spent on countrywide activities, and they expect, regretfully—and I regret it too—that there is no prospect of this being made up. That still leaves a requirement of £37 million to be given to the arts through the council and through local authorities. The Arts Council, I understand, believe that no substantial part of the £37 million will be found by successor districts, for the reason that the great majority of metropolitan grants do not go to organisations whose work is conveniently located within the geographic boundaries of a single district.
If the Government are to honour their pledge to protect arts funding so that the arts do not suffer as a result of abolition, the sum of £16 million that has been made available so far will have to be substantially increased to close the gap. The Arts Council are making a case for about 550 arts organisations out of the 600 funded by the GLC and the "mets". These cover the whole spectrum of cultural activities throughout England and Wales and many of these will be at risk.
Concerning the South Bank arts complex, the Arts Council have now made allowance for the capital needs of the South Bank; that is, the money to maintain the fabric of the buildings, which the Government in their haste forgot all about—it is not the first time they have forgotten something in this Bill. It makes an allowance of £1.7 million for inflation over the two-year period from 1985 to 1987. So these figures are certainly much more realistic than those that have been quoted in the past; but they make no allowance for running the facilities adjacent to the Festival Hall, which we understand the Government intend to pass to the Arts Council; facilities such as the Jubilee Gardens, the Riverside Walk, the Hungerford railway arches, which contain Felix Topolski's mural, and probably the new Festival Pier.
I do not know how much all this will cost to run, but it will certainly be a substantial sum. I would remind the House that during Committee on 14th May, the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie said, rather rashly I thought, if I may so, that;
"the Arts Council is frankly delighted" [Official Report, 14/5/85; col. 1058.]
at the prospect of taking over the South Bank complex. We now know that that is not the case. Far from being delighted, the Arts Council are very apprehensive indeed. I understand that they are so worried, in fact, that they may even refuse to assume responsibility for it.
The worries about the future of arts funding in England and Wales which are being voiced on all sides of the House, and indeed outside this House and throughout the country, are in our view fully justified. The Government have to do a great deal more if they are to honour their promise that abolition will not harm the arts and our cultural life. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, whatever the anxieties about the arts to which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has referred—and on that point I think your Lordships will want to await what the noble Earl on the Front Bench, who is of course the Minister for the Arts, says—I suggest to your Lordships that this amendment simply will not do. Perhaps your Lordships will look at subsection (1), which reads:
"The Minister shall make available to the Arts Council of Great Britain such sums as are sufficient to enable it to exercise its functions under this Act and to undertake such new responsibilities as are necessary in consequence of the passing of this Act."
In whose opinion are those sums to be assessed? Is it to be the opinion of the Arts Council? It does not say so. Is it to be the opinion of the Minister? It does not say so. It simply puts it vaguely like that. In this day and age, when, as your Lordships know, this country is facing very severe economic difficulties, it really has a

59
touch of irresponsibility about it to put forward an amendment in such loose terms in respect of financial provision.
Having said that, there is only one other point that I want to make. I hope that the Arts Council will take over the South Bank complex. I have a very high regard for the Arts Council and I believe that it will be able to operate that complex much less extravagantly than the GLC has done. I will not go into details, but everything, from the salary paid to the director to the general laxity over finance that has been shown there, suggests that when it is handed over to a responsible body like the Arts Council it will cost a great deal less than at present.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment very strongly. I do not think there is any noble Lord here tonight who would sincerely want to see the arts dying of starvation; but I am quite certain that unless something is done by the Government, that is what will happen. I must say it is very good news indeed to hear that the Arts Council is preparing to take over the South Bank, which of course includes the Queen Elizabeth Hall. But the Queen Elizabeth Hall is not a great deal of use if there are no orchestras to play in it, and that is precisely what will happen unless the Government supply a little bit more in the way of funds to the Arts Council to support them. Not many noble Lords realise, perhaps, that no major orchestra ever gives a concert without ending up in the red, and it is that debt that has to be paid by the Arts Council or somebody else. That is the painful fact of life for any orchestra.
Therefore, we have to face the fact that if we want to keep these sources of really fine music going we must pay for them. It would be rather interesting to know—though I do not think that any of us will attain to that knowledge—just how much the Government have benefited by what has happened. I should say that probably it is a sizeable amount, but, surely, if they are going to take away the source of life of orchestras, and other arts, too, it is up to them to provide something which will take its place. I sincerely hope that they will provide something more than they have at present.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Somers, I have a great deal of sympathy with what I know the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has in mind. We want to maintain and, if we can, improve the arts in this country, but I do not think for one moment that the noble Lord who moved this amendment expected it to be accepted. He knows that in purely parliamentary terms, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has said, it is too open-ended. You do not know to what you are committing yourself.
I do not think that any responsible Government could possibly accept an instruction which is as open-ended as this. One does not know what it would cost. One does not know whether or not the extra money that would flow as a consequence of it would be properly spent, so as to maintain the standards to which the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has been referring. In addition to that, I think that from the tactical point of view it would be wrong to
60
contemplate accepting anything like this, because I do not think the Arts Council figures stand up to really detailed scrutiny. I do not think that what they say it would cost to do the things that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and I want comes anything like within them, and if you give them an open cheque such as this there is no inducement at all for them to provide the quality and the amount that we want within a sensible budget. So I do not think we ought to give them that sort of open cheque, to spend as they like.
The other factor that I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and his friends have properly taken into account is what they will get from the boroughs as a consequence of their being relieved of the precept. They will be left with the same amount of money in their hands as now goes through the Greater London Council system. Why should we think that the boroughs are not going to make a reasonable contribution to the arts? It is the same money. It merely comes directly from them instead of going via the Greater London Council under the form of their precept.
So I think that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is very valuable. It is on the record. It will let this Government or any Government know, with the support it is getting from both sides of the House, that we want to maintain our arts at a level which is commensurate with the vital part they play in our lives today. We want that. But, at the same time, I think that when we are preparing statutes, as we are doing now, we ought not to give open cheques to anybody, and when we are setting out on a slightly new road, as we are, there ought to be every inducement for the Arts Council to be as economical as they can be, and for the boroughs to be in a position where they are shamed into making the same contribution directly as they now make through the precept. To act differently would be damaging to the way in which we spend the nation's money.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I should, very briefly, like to approach the matter from a different angle and say a word about the regional arts associations, which have not had very much said about them in all the debates that have taken place in the last few weeks and months. We have heard a great deal about the Arts Council, the GLC and the metropolitan counties, but we have heard very little about the regional arts associations, which have over many years done a very fine job in the arts. I say this particularly because they have paid attention to small and, sometimes, amateur groups of artists and this has very often been unheard of.
I should also like to say that the Greater London Arts Association is working in close collaboration with the London boroughs and there will be a great opportunity for the arts associations of the north, for the Merseyside to work with the Merseyside area, for the Northern Arts to work with the Tyne-Wear area and for the West Midlands and Yorkshire to work with those areas, in softening the blow that abolition will cause. I hope it will be possible to have as generous a grant for the Arts Council as possible, in order to support the very excellent work that has been done,

61
and is being done, by the regional arts associations. Therefore, I support this amendment.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, I came here with the intention of voting for this amendment, because I know of the immense services that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has rendered to the arts in the past and no doubt will in the future. But I must say that I have been convinced by the speeches which have been made that the proper authority for running the arts—whether we have a Local Government Bill or not, and whatever happens to the GLC—is the Arts Council. I have great confidence in Sir William Rees-Mogg and in all the work that he has done. I believe, apart from the financial reasons cogently advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that the proper authority to administer the arts throughout this country is the Arts Council, for which it has been set up and about which there has been no complaint yet made to justify interfering with the powers that they already have. Therefore I intend, greatly to my own surprise, to support the Government.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for one second if I speak about the South Bank and take up a point which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, made. He accused the GLC of being rather profligate and expensive in its running of it and he mentioned the director. Profligacy is a matter of opinion, but there must be confusion here because, unless he is referring to me—and I suspect that he is not; it is, of course, part of my empire like everything else—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the reference was to the director of the National Theatre.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I missed the reference to the National Theatre. I thought the noble Lord was talking about the concert hall, and I was going to point out that it is only a matter of weeks ago that we even appointed a general manager there. I stand corrected. I am most interested to hear what the noble Earl has to say about this amendment, because I think that the phrase "I told you so" is the most attractive ever invented. Therefore, I shall now be tempted to bring it out.
But your Lordships will recall that we started with the famous figure of £16 million, out of the £34 million which the noble Earl promised for arts grants after abolition. He himself reckoned that it would be some £4 million short, expecting, as I understand it, that what remains of local government after abolition would, and should, pick up that sum of £4 million out of the £16 million. Assuming that even £5 million were picked up by local authorities, or sources other than large local authority funds, I have calculated that there would be £8 million to £10 million short and have said so loudly. It now appears to me that the sum is exactly £16 million short. If you take £5 million from £37 million, it leaves £32 million, of which £16 million is promised and another £16 million is necessary. Everybody's mathematics will differ, but that is the position as I understand it. Therefore, I am waiting to hear the noble Earl's mathematics—I am sure he has them well up his sleeve—because that is what is before us this afternoon.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, before the noble Earl gives us the benefit of his mathematics which, unhappily, have proved faulty in this matter—and I have no doubt that he will present to us an argument to the contrary—perhaps he will permit me to rehearse the position which has brought us to this pass. We on this side of the House are, in effect, acting as the agents of the Arts Council. For this reason, the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, should change his mind again and come with us, because it is the Arts Council who have put the cat among the pigeons and have said that the Minister is misleading them and everybody else by stating that they can get away with a figure of £16 million—
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): No.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Yes.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords the noble Lord mentioned me, so would he care to give way? The Arts Council have not accused me of misleading anybody.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if I have offended the noble Earl by using the word "misleading", I withdraw it. But I must say, as I shall demonstrate in a moment, that what the Arts Council have said is that the figures given by the Minister are inaccurate to a fantastic degree. He has said that the amount which is sufficient to cover their needs in this matter, to enable them to do the job that they are required to take on under this Bill, is about £16 million. They have said that they want twice as much as that. That is the reason why we are here, that is the reason why this amendment is on the Marshalled List, and that is precisely why I say that, unintentionally perhaps, the noble Earl has misled the Arts Council in this matter.
It is 21 years since I first entered Parliament—I was a late entrant—and I have never encountered a Bill which has lost friends as rapidly as has this one. As we approach the later stages of this measure, we find that not only are the Opposition parties united against it, not only are many Cross-Bench Peers opposed, but support on the Government side is, to say the least, luke warm. Noble Lords opposite are going into the Government Lobby out of loyalty, I think, rather than out of any conviction. I have been informed, and I think reliably, that in the Government itself there are an increasing number who take the view that the day this Bill was embarked upon was a disastrous one, not only for the country but even for the Conservative Party.
It may yet be possible to do something fundamental about that, but at the moment what this amendment seeks to do is to mitigate some of the damage. It seeks to ensure simply that the Arts Council have sufficient funds to replace the arts support provided by the Greater London Council and the metroplitan county councils. In doing that, they cannot state a figure. It would be totally improper to do so and the Government, on the whole, are not anxious to state figures. They prefer, on the whole, not to do so and in this respect we are right not to try to state a figure. But, of course, the figure under the heading of "such sums",

63
which appears whenever such matters are mentioned in legislation, gives the decision to the Government. It is the Government, it is the Minister, who will decide—one hopes in consultation with the Arts Council—what such sums are. Therefore, there is nothing here that we need to be afraid about.
This is an astonishing development which has happened at the Arts Council. In the persons of its chairman and secretary-general they originally stood firmly by the Government; so much so that they were widely criticised as being the Minister's puppets. But now that they have had time to look at the facts they have changed sides. They now say, "No, not on your life. On this basis, disaster will follow."
It is, nevertheless, difficult to withhold sympathy from the Minister and I certainly do not do so. He has been deserted by his friends. He begins to resemble Casabianca, the boy who stood on the burning deck whence all but he had fled. The noble Earl had one or two standing with him still, but the latest to go overboard is the significant figure of Sir William Rees-Mogg, followed closely by Mr. Luke Rittner. If I may mix my ships a little, the good ship "Monetarist" is beginning to look more and more like the "Titantic". As for the design of Mr. Milton Friedman, he has gone back to the drawing board and has not been heard of since.
I must make it clear that in reaching its claim for at least an additional £17 million the Arts Council has taken the view that this is the minimum sum which wilt enable it to do the job which it has been required to do by the Minister. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the Arts Council's statement of 6th June. The council said that its first preference for the organisation of arts funding in the event of the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties was not that the Arts Council should be given extra funds but that a joint board for the arts and heritage with power to precept should be created in London and in each of the metropolitan counties. The Government, sadly, opposed our attempts to introduce sensible arrangements along these lines, but they cannot, if they are to maintain the slightest shred of credibility, oppose this amendment which seeks, now that we know the real scale of the shortfall in arts funding, a scale supported and stated by the Arts Council itself, to ensure that the Arts Council gets most of the funds that it needs.
This amendment does not run counter to the Government's stated intentions, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, I think quite correctly, in relation to an earlier amendment. This amendment simply seeks to give legislative force to enable the Minister to get enough money to fulfil his own promises. That is all it seeks to do. It enables him to give his friends on the Arts Council the money they now know they need and have said that they need. I hope that the noble Earl the Minister will therefore adivise the House to accept this amendment. If he fails to do so, I would urge the Minister's friends and all other noble Lords to save the noble Earl's face by accepting this amendment even if he should feel forced to ask you not to do so.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I shall be very brief. First of all, I agree entirely with my two noble friends: we could not put in an Act of Parliament an open-ended financial commitment such as that contained in this amendment. That is certainly true. My noble friend who sits beside me mentioned the Director of the National Theatre and the high salary. I know nothing about that. I have very great admiration for Sir Peter Hall. When he was appointed I was Minister, and I received a postcard from the first Viscount Chandos which read as follows:
"Do you realise you have appointed the most expensive boy in the business?"
Never mind that, my Lords.
What I should like to say, having had to get money for the arts out of the Government as best I could for a long time, is that in my opinion my noble friend Lord Gowrie is doing very well indeed—far better than we had ever expected. I think it is remarkable in these financial times that he has extracted so much money. What always concerns me is that the Arts Council has to look after two sections of the arts which are so different. The national companies, which take such enormous sums of money, should, I think, be financed directly by the Treasury or the Minister. The Arts Council's real job is in the smaller artistic efforts, especially in the provinces. I do not think that the metropolitan counties—I really only know about the north-east coast—were anything like as extravagant as the GLC. It is very important that those metropolitan counties should get the money that is necessary to carry on. As for London, it is a very difficult case to argue, as undoubtedly a great deal of money was wasted.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I was moved to rise by the extraordinary statement, based on no evidence that I know of, that there are no noble Lords on this side of the House who are enthusiastic for the Bill before us. It is true that there are some noble Lords on this side of the House who have reservations about one or other aspect of it, but the attempt to suggest that the majorities in the Division Lobby today and on other days do not represent a carefully thought out policy in which we support Her Majesty's Government is offensive.
Secondly, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, with all his experience, really intended this amendment to pass for the technical reasons that have already been given. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, says, "Of course, it is the Minister who would decide how much money". It is not even the Minister. Public expenditure is governed by the responsibility of Ministers to Parliament. Public expenditure, of which this would be only a part, is not something that can be dictated here and there by an amendment to a Bill dealing with a specific issue such as the arts. However much we may prefer public expenditure on the arts to public expenditure on many other aspects of our national life, this cannot be made an exception. Therefore, although I strongly feel with the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and others about the importance of this form of funding, it does not seem to me that those who are concerned with it have done their cause much good with this amendment.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I sometimes have sympathy with the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, because I know he shares my own interest in, and passion for, the arts. But what usually riles me are the noble Lord's rhetorical and parenthetical asides. It is always a great temptation not to sit on one's hands about them. All Governments, I might point out to him, are monetarist these days: printing money has gone out of fashion. If the country is sufficiently unfortunate as to have a Labour Government again in the foreseeable future, I will bet the noble Lord a grant of £100 from each of us to any arts body which he cares to name that that Government will employ a methodology of cash limits and monetary control just as any other Government will.
The other parenthetical aside from the noble Lord which created some irritation for me was this business about my puppet friends, as I think he put it, Sir William Rees-Mogg and Luke Rittner. Ever since I have been Minister both Sir William and Luke Rittner have said that they needed more money for the arts, and ever since I have been Minister I have told them that I would try to get them some more but nothing like as much as they wanted. We have always known exactly where we have stood on that matter. As to the general policy, which is an important aspect of the debate, I have to say that I stand on record, I think, as one who has opposed the GLC and urged its abolition since 1971, when it was in Conservative hands. I have always thought it a wholly supererogatory tier of government, and that remains my view today.
Perhaps I may turn now to the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, very fairly said that his amendment referred to the recent statement by the Arts Council that the £16 million which I undertook last year to make available for the performing arts and the South Bank complex after abolition is insufficient. Of course, there will alway be room for differences of view as to how much money is sufficient, and with nearly every other speaker on this side of the House—my noble friends Lord Harmar-Nicholls and Lord Eccles in particular—I really do not see how the amendment which has been tabled could have been made effective. I do not believe that this issue of the amounts of sufficiency or insufficiency of money is a matter which can be dealt with by legislation. I suspect that on reflection the movers of the amendment may themselves share that view.
I have of course discussed the funding situation with Sir William Rees-Mogg, and I am studying the Arts Council's press release. The Arts Council has not yet put any specific proposal to me for an increased level of central Government funding in 1986–87. It would not come as an enormous emotional blow or mental shock if at some point in the foreseeable future it did so. I shall at that time study its calculations most carefully, as I always do. However, no direct comparison, it seems to me, can be made between the £16 million—out of £34 million altogether—which I undertook last year to make available and the £37 million which the Arts Council, to judge from its press release, is now talking about.
I want to make it clear to the House on just what terms my £16 million was offered. My £16 million is what the Government have undertaken to contribute.
66
It is based on what the GLC and the metropolitan counties budgeted to spend in the year 1983–84. I deliberately left a proportion of that to be picked up by the boroughs and districts. The proportion is £4 million, and my criticism of myself is that this is an insanely modest sum. I believe that it is in the interests of arts bodies to have a funding relationship with their local authorities as well as with the Arts Council of Great Britain, and other sources of funds.
By contrast with that the Arts Council's £37 million takes account of increases in GLC and metropolitan county councils' spending in the last two years. It also goes beyond that to include sums which are not being spent by the abolition authorities at present but which the Arts Council, perhaps very fairly, thinks ought to be spent in support of the arts next year in the areas affected by abolition. I say "ought to be spent." They ought to be spent by somebody, but it is not yet clear by whom. Thus, the £37 million includes £3½million for the total replacement of GLC support for 160 smaller organisations which affect more than one single borough. At least some of that figure should,, in my view, be provided by the boroughs and districts.
It includes £4½ million for purely local activities. I have always said, I think from the first week of my appointment, that the boroughs and districts should surely pick up the bill for these activities, and that remains my view. When one considers what Bristol, Bournemouth and Thamesdown, to take but three examples, manage to do for the arts, it is rather absurd and insulting to suppose that boroughs and districts in the abolition areas can do nothing. If I were Bristol, Bournemouth or Thamesdown or, come to that, Glasgow or Edinburgh, I would resent what the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, said when he asked, "What local government remains after abolition?" I remind the House that abolition involves only one tier of Government and only seven areas of this country.
The £37 million also includes a substantial capital provision of £3½ million for the South Bank, most of which seems over and above what the GLC is spending at present, let alone what it was spending in 1983–84. As regards revenue funding, I should say that I have budgeted for the revenue cost of the South Bank in my £16 million contribution. There may well be some arguments between the Arts Council and myself, as funding Minister, about whether or not more is needed or at what stage more is needed. The Arts Council and I will, as always, have to come to the most equitable and best agreement that we can.
The £37 million of the Arts Council projection includes £2 million for other "capital replacement funding." I am not saying that capital replacement funding is not desirable, but it is additional to what is being spent today. It includes £2 million to replace matching funding from the GLC and MCCs which has not yet been obtained but which might have been obtainable if those authorities had survived. I am very glad to say that the Arts Council—and I congratulate it on this—has so far done very well in attracting matching funds from boroughs and districts to help with its Glory of the Garden policy. I back that matching, or challenge, or partnership funding approach. I certainly think that to accept this amendment would throw that out of the window as well as other things.

67
I hope that it is evident from these examples that the figure of £37 million, to put it a little bluntly, contains nearly everything that the Arts Council could think of on the expenditure side. I understand that. At the moment we are in that season of the political year when organisations that are publically funded by the Government start putting in their bids for next year's money. If I were chairman of the Arts Council, that is precisely the kind of approach that I might, at this season of the year, adopt myself. But the whole pressure of the Arts Council's case and, therefore, also the case of the amendment, is that on the income side next year's spending must be contributed by central Government out of general taxation and nothing by anyone else. I see no reason whatever to take that view.
I hope I shall not be accused of any inconsistency in this respect. I made it clear a year ago that the Government were not, and could not be, committed to pick up whatever increases in arts support the GLC or the MCCs might decide to go in for in the last two years of their existence. They have gone in for such increases. Many of the increases have been specifically designed to swell the volume of arts activity—the built space available for the performance or the number of people employed. I do not intend to speculate about the motives for this surge of activity. Like most human motives, they are probably a mixture of good and bad. Central Government and general taxpayers cannot be expected to give any guarantee that they will automatically pick up these decisions and fund their consequences for the indefinite future. I made clear to all concerned a year ago that I would not guarantee that; and I repeat that I do not guarantee it now.
That said, of course I understand—and this is perhaps a point to make in regard to the very sensitive contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Somers—that all change brings some uncertainty and all uncertainty brings some anxiety. It would be wrong for me to ease that anxiety by simply saying that central Government will take on the whole of the replacement task. There is a proper responsibility for the boroughs and districts, as indeed there is for all the other boroughs and all the other districts in the rest of the country outside the affected areas.
I believe my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls pointed out that ratepayers in the affected areas will have a lesser burden to carry as a result of abolition. I agree with him. I hope that they will take that on board and make a generous contribution to this area of our national life about which we all care so much, wherever we stand on the political divide.
There is also a proper responsibility for the arts bodies and organisations themselves to seek what I call plural funding, whether from central Government by coming to Sir William and myself, or from local government, from consumers—the best form of box office that there is—from patrons or from business sponsors. Nor can I defend a situation in which the ratepayers of, say, a city such as Bristol, are expected to make a substantial and generous contribution to the arts—and Bristol is indeed very glad to do so—but for some extraordinary reason, as a result of the amendment, ratepayers of London or of Manchester would be expected to make no substantive contribution whatever.
68
I note, however, as I always do, the great interest and concern of this House in arts matters. I undertake to think most carefully about the calculations which the Arts Council has made in a general context of arts funding rather than in the context of this particular Bill. I shall give the most thorough consideration to whatever bid for central Government resources it decides to put forward. As I said earlier, it has not put forward a bid yet. In short, as before, I will do my best, and my previous best has not overall been all bad. That is as far as I can go today, and I urge the rejection of the amendment if it is put to the vote.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I think that we have had a very interesting debate. I should like to say in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that I am not claiming that the Arts Council can or cannot run the South Bank better or more cheaply than the GLC. But this is a case that the Arts Council itself has put up. It has written to me and to a number of other noble Lords. It has had a press conference, and this has all been in the press. In its letter to me it says:
"If the Government is unable to increase its offer of additional money beyond £16 million currently offered, the Council could not run the South Bank at its present level and cover the replacement of Met grants even to the larger companies".
It goes on to say that the,
"Council's detailed examination of each grant given by the Mets in 1984–85, leads it to believe that no substantial part of that £37 million will be found by successor districts.… There would be no provision whatsoever for smaller regional or county-wide organisations either in London or outside"—
which was a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles—
"organisations which have been assured by the Minister that 'the arts have nothing to fear from this abolition' ".
That point was, I think, endorsed by the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, when he talked about the Arts Council's case. Indeed, what a strong case it has.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, for what he said, but I should just like to remind him that it is to the Arts Council of Great Britain that the amendment is proposing that the sum be directed.
I am rather surprised that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, mentioned Glasgow and Edinburgh. My understanding is that the Bill does not apply to Scotland, and I think that Scotland is rather wise in not having this inflicted on it.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I referred to Glasgow and Edinburgh precisely because the Bill does not apply to them. It would to me be a rather insulting notion to think that other cities in areas not affected by this legislation are not making a substantial contribution to the arts. All I am suggesting is that under the legislation the various parts of the country are put on the same standing where local government and where arts funding are concerned.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. I shall read carefully what he said tomorrow. I am sure that he had so few good examples that he had to choose one or two from north of the border!
This is an amendment to ensure that the noble Earl comes up with the money. At the moment he does not seem to have persuaded his right honourable friend the

69
Chancellor of the Exchequer to do that. There is a large shortfall, as I attempted to show. There is a very large gap indeed. There is great concern throughout the country about the number of arts organisations that are at risk. Therefore I think that we must test the feeling of the House.
7.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 80AM) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 148.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ardwick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Attlee, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Bacon, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Barnett, L.

Lawrence, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bernstein, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Beswick, L.

Longford, E.

Birk, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birkett, L.

McNair, L.

Bottomley, L.

Melchett, L.

Brockway, L.

Meston, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mishcon, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Mountevans, L.

Caradon, L.

Nicol, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Northfield, L.

Chitnis, L.

Ogmore, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Oram, L.

Collison, L.

Parry, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Phillips, B.

David, B. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Rea, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Falkender, B.

Serota, B.

Falkland, V.

Shackleton, L.

Foot, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Stallard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Galpern, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gregson, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hampton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Walston, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Whaddon, L.

Heycock, L.

White, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wigoder, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ingleby, V.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Jacques, L.

Jeger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Beloff, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Belstead, L.

Aldington, L.

Boardman, L.

Allerton, L.

Boothby, L.

Ampthill, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Arran, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Barber, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Bauer, L.

Caccia, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Caithness, E.

Bellwin, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

70

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Liverpool, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Long, V.

Carnock, L.

Lothian, M.

Coleraine, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lyell, L.

Colwyn, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Marchwood, V.

Cox, B.

Margadale, L.

Craigavon, V.

Marley, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Craigton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Davidson, V.

Middleton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Monson, L.

Digby, L.

Mottistone, L.

Donegall, M.

Mowbray and Stourton, L

Dormer, L.

Munster, E.

Eccles, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L

Elibank, L.

Orkney, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Pender, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Perth, E.

Elliot of Morpeth, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elton, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Faithfull, B.

Falmouth, V.

Portland, D.

Ferrers, E.

Radnor, E.

Fortescue, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Reigate, L.

Gainford, L.

Renton, L.

Geddes, L.

Renwick, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Rodney, L.

Glanusk, L.

Romney, E.

Glenarthur, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gowrie, E.

Salisbury, M.

Gray, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Greenway, L.

Sandford, L.

Halsbury, E.

Savile, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Selsdon, L.

Hemphill, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Stamp, L.

Henley, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hertford, M.

Sudeley, L.

Hives, L.

Swansea, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hood, V.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Thorneycroft, L.

Inglewood, L.

Torphichen, L.

Ingrow, L.

Tranmire, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Killearn, L.

Trenchard, V.

Kimball, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Vickers, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Vivian, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Wynford, L.

Kitchener, E.

Yarborough, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Young, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is now probably an appropriate moment to move on to next business. I should say that the House will not come back to this particular Bill before 8.15. I therefore beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Rating (Revaluation Rebates) (Scotland) Bill
7.13 p. m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, I beg to move that the Rating (Revaluation Rebates) (Scotland) Bill be now read a Second time.
Your Lordships may recall that on 14th May last, I repeated in your Lordships' House a Statement about the Government's proposals for legislation to give some relief to certain ratepayers in Scotland faced in 1985–86 by very steep increases in the rateable values of their property. The Statement promised a Bill to give effect to the Government's proposals. The measure which I have just moved is that Bill. The statement of 14th May outlined some of the background to the recent revaluation in Scotland and measures which the Government had introduced to mitigate the effect of revaluation on the domestic ratepayer. I hope your Lordships will bear with me, and find it helpful, if I repeat something of that background.
By law, regular revaluations have to take place in Scotland every five years. It is generally accepted that this is the fair way, as long as we have a rating system, to keep up to date the relative values on which rates are levied.
The Government's intention to have a full Scottish revaluation effective from April 1985 was published in August 1983 in the White Paper on Rating Reform in Scotland, Cmnd. 9018. That intention was approved by all parties and by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. It is not surprising that the principle of regular revaluations is generally accepted. It is manifestly unfair to perpetuate indefinitely old rateable values which become increasingly out of date. The revaluation we face today was, of course, postponed from 1983. But when the time came when the 1985 revaluation could have been postponed in an orderly manner, there was no further justification for postponement.
Notification of the results of a revaluation proceeds by stages. The first results of the assessors' work began to become available in the autumn of last year. At the time the rate support grant for 1985–86 was announced on 7th December the Secretary of State had been made aware of a very substantial shift of rateable value away from manufacturing industry and towards domestic property. It has been suggested that this reflected arbitrary or even political judgments. It does nothing of the kind, but reflects that the assessors have measured over a period of seven years, in which there has been substantial economic change, increases in value which are not the same for the heritable assets of Scottish industry as the increases in value of domestic properties in Scotland.
The Government responded to the situation that this presented by using both the instruments available to the Secretary of State to moderate the general effect of that shift. Accordingly, the Secretary of State adjusted the level of industrial derating down from 50 per cent. to 40 per cent. and at the same time provided in the Rate Support Grant Order for 1985–86 a level of domestic rate relief which, at 5p in the pound, is five times the level prescribed for 1984–85. I must
72
emphasise that the information available from assessors at that time was on the broad indication of the average effect of revaluation in different sectors and not on the effect on individual subjects. The action we took reflected the general information that domestic subjects would lose, commerce would neither gain nor lose, and industry would by and large gain.
Assessors are required by law to deliver valuation rolls to rating authorities by mid-February, and it was very soon after that that it became clear that some domestic ratepayers would be faced with very large increases in their bills once the local authorities had determined their rates. This was a marked change in the situation with which we had been faced in December when there was still some prospect of more general compliance with the Government's guidelines than was becoming evident would be the case in February. This was an exceptional situation and we took the exceptional measure of increasing the domestic rate relief yet further, from 5p to 8p in the pound, at an extra cost of £38.5 million. This was announced early in March.
We were still at this point concentrating on the effects of broad movements of rateable value in terms of the averages for different sectors. It seemed at that time that it was not unreasonable to expect that the measures that we had taken would provide sufficient mitigation of the results of the revaluation, even where those were exacerbated by high rates to fund overspending, to allow the various sectors of ratepayers to live with the results of revaluation in terms of the broad view of the effect on the various sectors which was at that time still all that was available.
It is, however, important to bear in mind that the reason for having a revaluation is to give effect to changes in values both up and down. It is not merely a matter of increasing all values by a common index. That would merely perpetuate the old values and relativities which revaluation is designed to bring up to date.
Up to that time we had been working on the basis of—without being disparaging—statistics and averages. But by the time individual valuation notices had gone out and been associated with individual rate demands, it became clear that however good the information on which we had based the measures we had taken up to that time had been, there were still very many ratepayers whose valuation increases were so steep as to lead to unacceptably large increases in their actual rate bills. This was especially true of the commercial sector, for which, as I have said, the indications were that the overall effect of the revaluation would be that the gainers would balance the losers. This is, however, small consolation to those who are worse off to the extent that the viability of their business is in jeopardy.
In the course of the spring, evidence became available that the effect of the more extreme valuation changes would be very damaging, and the Government decided that the effect of revaluation should be limited. Revaluation increased the value of all property in Scotland on average 2·33 times. It has been suggested that we might have set out to

73
compensate for increases above that level. That would have meant that revaluation would only have been effective in decreasing the share of the rate burden borne by those who gained. This would have gone far beyond mitigating the impact of revaluation. Having gone through the exercise, and in the light that revaluation is generally accepted as desirable, it would have been wrong to have set a threshold for relief at such a low level. The Bill provides therefore for relief to be available to those whose rateable values have increased by more than three times.
The Government are very much aware that even after the proposed rebates there will be many ratepayers in Scotland who will face substantial rate increases in the current financial year, especially in the areas of those local authorities budgeting to spend at a level which I can only describe as less than responsible. The Bill does not, however, aim to reduce high rate bills as such. It is an exceptional measure intended to reduce the burden and hardship which would be suffered by those individuals and businesses facing extremely high increases in the rates they would otherwise have to pay.
The Bill itself is, quite deliberately, a short measure. It provides for two new statutory duties. The first of these is to oblige rating authorities to grant rebates to those whose valuations have increased more than three times between the value appearing in the valuation roll on 31st March this year—the last date on which the "old" roll was valid—and the value for the same lands and heritages in the new roll which came into force the next day. Entitlement to rebate under the Bill is essentially a matter of comparing different values for the same property.
Rebate will not be available for all properties. The Bill lists in Clause 1(2) those properties which are excluded. These are properties already valued by a statutory formula approved by Parliament, properties which benefit from their valuations being already reduced by statutory derating, and local authorities' own properties. Crown properties—hospitals, Government offices and the like—are not liable to local rates and no exclusion is necessary in respect of them in the Bill. The Treasury Valuer makes payments in respect of Crown properties in lieu of rates and this arrangement will continue unaffected by the Bill.
The Bill also creates a duty for the Secretary of State to reimburse to rating authorities the amount of the rebates which they grant. Rebates are, of course, a reduction in rate income and for that reason and because they will be reimbursed 100 per cent. by the Scottish Office, rebates will not be relevant expenditure for rate support grant purposes and will not count against local authority guidelines.
The Bill is an enabling measure. The Secretary of State intends immediately after it is enacted to bring to another place an order making necessary provisions for operating the rebate scheme. These will include a ceiling of £10,000 on the rebate which may be granted for any single property. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is being consulted about the terms of the order. The convention's representatives have already made several useful contributions. In particular, they pointed out that it would be better for rating
74
authorities to take the initiative in calculating and granting rebates rather than for ratepayers to send in individual claims. Only if a ratepayer feels that he has been missed out will there be a claim procedure. The Secretary of State has agreed with the convention that its proposal seems desirable. The administration of the scheme should thereby be more economical and less trouble for rating authorities and ratepayers alike.
As I have said, this is an exceptional measure designed to deal with an exceptional situation. In introducing it, the Government are taking swift, effective action to deal with a situation which has swiftly and comparatively recently developed. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Gray of Contin.)
7.26 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister of State, the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, for his exposition of the Bill. It was calm, it was lucid, it was factual; but, oh dear!, oh dear!, he then said that this was something that had arisen swiftly and that the Government were acting with due expedition and speed. Acting with due expedition and speed? The last statement that I read in the Bill was:
"This Act … shall come into force on the expiry of 2 months beginning with the day on which it is passed".
So it is to be two months after it is passed before the Government take action. That is speed! Can the noble Lord say how one prepares and passes an order in relation to a Bill that has not come into force? It may be the case that, although the Government do not want to do so, they will have to amend the Bill.
I thank the noble Lord for his explanation. It was far better than that of the Secretary of State in another place. The Secretary of State managed, somehow or another, to get an Order in Council into this. That was not the only thing on which he went more than slightly wrong. And you can excuse him. We had a Statement, not just on 14th May. We had a Statement on 7th March, when he thought he had taken action. However, he thought that he had taken the right action way back in the autumn, when he increased the domestic relief in rate support grant by five times, that is to say, it was raised from a penny—it had never been lower, and the Government had reduced it in other years—to five pence. That was at a cost, I believe, of £19 million to the Secretary of State and £31 million to the local authorities. What did he say then about swift action? He said:
"the increases in rate bills now emerging are in general so steep that I must take further action to protect domestic ratepayers"
He finished up by saying:
"the object of revaluation is to apportion the rate burden fairly. This means that some pay a larger share and some a smaller share. That is justifiable, but it is necessary to have regard to the effects on domestic ratepayers in current circumstances. This I have done with a substantial increase in domestic rate relief".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/3/85; col. 1177.]
So he increased it to eight pence. First it was five pence—that was a good increase—and then it was eight pence. That cost another £38.5 million. Where did that come from? It came from the Secretary of State's budget—in other words, £38.5 million worth of cuts in the other services provided and financed by the

75
Secretary of State. That is what he said in his Statement in March.
In reality the Government were guessing at what was happening. They were complacent and satisfied that they had done the right thing. Small shopkeepers, retailers and some domestic ratepayers proclaimed their dissatisfaction. Sir James Gould came down to London to see the Secretary of State and he went back with a flea in his ear—the Secretary of State was going to do nothing.
Suddenly the Government realised that they had a Tory conference on their hands and even the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, could not pull them out of this without increasing the pressure upon the Chancellor to do something. The Government moved from complacency to panic in a fortnight. The most expensive conference ever held in Scotland was the last Tory Party conference at Perth. It cost £50 million.
On 30th May the Daily Express carried an article in which the Secretary of State admitted that the figures for the original calculations were produced hurriedly and were necessarily speculative. As a result of that we had the rebate. It applies only if your revaluation is greater by a multiple of three—that is, if it is three times the last valuation. Therefore, everyone who is in a position of having a valuation multiplied by three is all right. It is only after that point that you obtain any relief. This Bill was produced so speedily that those who were to furnish the figures were not consulted until about 29th May, after the Government had produced this figure. Of course, I refer to COSLA. With the aid of their computers, COSLA have produced calculations of what this will cost and have come to the figure of £29.5 million, not £50 million.
So here we are with people still dissatisfied, the Government having resorted to a scheme which will not satisfy them and which will not spend the money which on this occasion comes from the Treasury. Your Lordships may remember what the Chancellor said at Perth—that everyone was brought up to appease the multitude. The Chancellor had baled out Mr. Younger in his crisis with exceptional funds. That same day, 11th May, in an article published in the Guardian the Chancellor said that no more money was likely for Scotland next year. He said:
"I do not think that Mr. Younger will find me in the same compassionate, open-handed and generous mood next time."
That is important from this point of view. The Government took this action because they wanted the rating system to be fairer and to reduce the unexpected hardship which may fall on people. However, the valuation roll remains in force for five years. If it is unfair this year, it will equally be unfair next year. So the Chancellor is saying "No more money from me, I shall not bale out Mr. Younger again"; he did not say that he would not bale out the Secretary of State. There may be some justification for saying that, in that Mr. Younger may not be the Secretary of State next year. So that pledge can go and a new Secretary of State can approach the Chancellor. But is that likely to meet with generous help? I doubt it very much indeed.
However, the valuation roll is subject to appeal. If people pay by instalments, they would already have paid the first instalment of their rates. It may be that
76
the rates are applicable for this rebate if a particular revaluation is more than three times the last valuation. It is not the rates that must have increased, but the revaluation must be three times the last valuation. They receive relief only on that part of the rateable burden which is calculated as being responsible for an increased revaluation of three times the valuation. It means that people will receive a rebate.
Some people may be satisfied with that, when it is paid. From what is said in the Bill and from all that has to be done, I do not know when it will be paid. Then there is the appeal procedure, which may take place about four years from now. A group of people in Troon only settled their claim against the last revaluation last year. What a mess we are in! If by any chance someone receives a rebate, he may have to pay it back, probably when he least expects it.
There is another point that I should like answered this evening. The Government are responsible for this mess. There is a very considerable administrative burden in relation to this Bill. The local authorities have to go through all the valuation rolls and pick out those who are eligible to receive a rebate. They have to calculate the rebate. It may be that those people will have to return it. That will involve a considerable amount of manpower. If it is to cost a fair amount of money—and although the Government say that it will cost £50 million, I do not believe it will be as high as that—the local authorities will have to wait for that money. The local authorities must have the money or borrow it. If they borrow it, they have to pay high interest charges. Who will pay for all this? Will it be the local authority or the Government? I know that the Government will reimburse the local authorities in respect of the rebates; but what about the cost of the scheme and the cost of the Bill? Surely it is only fair that they should do so.
I was interested in the history given by the Minister of State. In 1983 everybody agreed that there should be a revaluation. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that a Statement was made and an Act of Parliament was passed in this House on this subject in 1981, at which time the Government said that there would not be any revaluation for domestic ratepayers but that there would be revaluation for non-domestic ratepayers. What did they lay down in that Bill? The noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, probably will not remember, but they said that the ratio of the burden between non-domestic and domestic should remain, and that there should be no change. Why could not the same thing have been done in respect of this revaluation and it be left to appeal tribunals to sort out those who were at a disadvantage? The noble Lord said that everyone agreed with it. I do not remember anyone asking me whether or not I agreed with it, but then I am not very important now. That was the start. Why did they do that? I see the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate smiling; he was not even consulted. The party to which he belongs and which he supports as a Minister had pledged that it would get rid of domestic rates; so it thought that there was no point in having a revaluation of domestic rates if it was to get rid of them.
However, by 1983 it discovered that it could not get rid of them. We were back with a revaluation

77
situation. If this had happened in the middle of an election, a great many people in another place would not be there. One Member of Parliament—I think the Member for Renfrew West and Inverclyde—suggested that thanks to the muddle and the mess and the Secretary of State's incompetence there will be only four Scottish Conservative Members of Parliament after the next election.
A noble Lord: That is too many.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I know that it is too many. That lady herself will not be one of them, and that is what is worrying her. That is what is worrying a lot of them. That is why the £50 million was provided. If the Government do not spend the £50 million, they are going to get no thanks for their generosity. It will be seen as £20 million, if there is that difference, filched away from Scotland.
Everybody says—it was said by the noble Lord's own colleagues in another place, and I could list them all—that if there is a shortfall in the expenditure, that must be given back to the Scottish ratepayers. But according to the Government's statements, so far they just do not know what they are going to do with it. I know what Mr. Lawson has probably agreed. It will come back to him. These are points to which we must have an answer.
The other point is: what about future assistance? Have they to be saved this year and perish next year? The Government have given no pledge that they will continue this assistance for another year. I want an answer from the Minister. Then there is the question of appeals in respect of someone who feels that he has been passed over by the local authorities.
I do not know what the Minister of State is going to say about it. I should like to hear in a maiden speech that we are to have in a few moments from my noble friend Lord Morton, who is learned in the law, what he thinks of the idea that the aggrieved ratepayer who has been passed over by the local authority should have an appeal to the Court of Session. To the Court of Session! This was said by a Minister in another place, and he wondered at that time why Mr. Dewar, who is also a lawyer and leads for the Opposition in another place, burst out laughing.
The Government have made an absolute mess of this. Their panic is understandable, considering the position at the present time of the Conservative Party in Scotland and the Conservative Government, never mind the English opinion polls. I suppose the noble Baroness realises that in Scotland the last poll showed Labour with 51 per cent., the Conservatives with about 18 per cent. and 20 per cent. for the Alliance. That is how low they have sunk, and they are going to sink lower from this.
It all could have been considerably helped by an action in this House. I moved an amendment to the last rating Bill exactly a year ago, asking for an inquiry into the Scottish rating system. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, will remember the speech she made on that occasion when she helped to save the Government by five votes. She said that everybody in Scotland to whom she had spoken—presumably both of them—thought that the rating system was right and
78
fair. Of course that is what the White Paper said. It said that the rating system was basically sound but needed improvement, and the improvement was in the Bill about which we are speaking and with which no one is now satisfied.
Does the Minister remember what he said? He said that we did not need another inquiry into the rating system. They had already looked at it. Well, I gather that there is one going on now. They have made a mess of the rating system. They did not take action when they should, and the action they have now taken in respect of this dramatic increase of valuations is not satisfying the people of Scotland at all. We have to accept the Bill. It is something. But we want some reassurances about the future for the rating system and in respect of the continuation of this kind of help, which many people will need for next year.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shona: My Lords, I am in a position of great nervousness, and I would ask your Lordships' indulgence. My trepidation has been increased by the fact that I have been introduced to some of your Lordships as a successor to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. It will quickly become apparent that I am very different and far less able a person than that noble and learned Lord.
This Bill arises out of the recent revaluations in Scotland, which by itself created a feeling which may be right, or may probably be wrong, that Scotland by this revaluation is losing out as against England, which has no revaluation. That feeling of dismay would be increased considerably if it became apparent that the £50 million that we heard about in May was in fact not going to be the figure spent on the rebate for those with high increases in valuation.
In addition to the lower figure suggested by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, it is in the nature of things that there will be an eventual decrease, because one would suspect that people with more than a 300 per cent. increase in their valuation may be the people who are likely to appeal against that valuation, and that at least some of these appeals will succeed. The time that it will take them to succeed may be shown by the fact, as I understand it, that not all the appeals out of the 1978 revaluation have yet been disposed of, but eventually some of them may succeed, and that will reduce again the total amount that central Government require to be paid.
If in the end there is a substantial reduction even below the £29 million figure, I would suggest that the Scottish ratepayer would feel that he had been corned by the offer of £50 million, and the logical position is that the crucial figure should not be a multiplier of three, but some slightly lower figure.
As a secondary matter—as the noble Lord. Lord Ross, suggested—the question of to where ratepayers who think they should get a rebate and the rating authority which thinks they should not should appeal has been dealt with in another place by a suggestion that they should go to the Court of Session. Even with the new procedure in the Court of Session for a review of administrative decisions that would be an expensive and cumbersome procedure.

79
One can imagine a ratepayer with a house in Wick, Inverness, or Portree, having to go to the Court of Session to argue whether, because he had put up a garage attached to his house, it was the same lands and heritage or a different lands and heritage. It would be much easier to have an appeal on that issue to the local sheriff, which would be both cheaper—which I trust might be acceptable to the Government—and much quicker. I gather that it is the practice for maiden speeches to be about 10 minutes. I hope that I have not offended your Lordships by speaking for a much shorter period.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, it is with much pleasure that I rise to remark upon this Bill following the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. It is a pleasure greatly enhanced because it gives me the opportunity to welcome a fellow Scot to your Lordships' deliberations. Moreover, one disciplined, as is the noble Lord, in the mystery of Scottish law can only be of great benefit to Members of the Opposition, although whether in the course of time the Lord Advocate will take that view is something which remains to be seen. As to the speech itself, it surely followed in the great tradition of this House, essentially uncontroversial, yet with subtlety, indicating the probable attitude of the noble Lord. It is clearly a harbinger of many which will follow, which are awaited by the rest of us with keen anticipation.
As to the Bill, the Minister properly said in his introduction that it was an enabling Bill and the statutory instrument will follow, I suppose, in July. Whether that is by design on the part of the Government I am not too sure, but I can see advantages from their point of view. It is the main holiday month in Scotland, and perhaps the part of this Bill which is not effective may slip past without the appropriate public comment which I believe to be necessary.
The main reason I put my name down to speak this evening was because at the time that the Minister repeated the Statement being given in another place in your Lordships' House I took issue with him, as I do today. I challenged him then and I now repeat that I do not believe that the Government could not have postponed revaluation. I believe that his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland made a political miscalculation which reverberated against him at the Scottish Conservative Party Conference in Perth; a fact mentioned by my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock. Because of this political miscalculation, as I believe it was, we are now faced with this most imperfect, albeit short, Bill. I believe it is imperfect, principally because it is becoming clear from all informed opinion which I have contacted—and I have made some contacts—that, although there will be a measure of relief on the factor-of-three formula to some offices, some shops and surprisingly to all licensed premises—
Lord Ross of Marnock: And to lockups, my Lords.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, and to lockups—there will not, in any meaningful way, be relief to the domestic
80
ratepayer. There is, of course, the £10,000 cut-off beyond which no one will receive relief. It is clear now in considering what is likely to happen that many will see, as I do and as the Minister might admit, a higher number of the very large commercial concerns will benefit more than most others. Although they are entitled to benefit, it is not the most desirable thrust of a piece of legislation which comes before your Lordships' House.
As both the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, have said, the figure discussed in the Financial Memorandum is £50 million. Informed professional Scottish opinion suggests that the maximum will be £30 million, and that shortfall will occasion serious criticism in Scotland when it becomes more widely known than it presently is. I suggest therefore to the Minister that the thrust of the Bill is not in the right direction and that the factor of three is the wrong formula calculation. Again I should tell the Minister—he will know anyway but I will still tell him—that informed Scots professional opinion shows clearly that a factor of about 2.75 would have taken up the Government's £50 million and would have spread the load as it should have been spread over a proper and widely-shared basis.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I hope no one will object to my entering this debate. I arrived at a late stage, but no doubt the House will accept my apologies for that. My reason for speaking in this debate is that there are a number of issues that an Englishman can raise in this debate which might bear listening to. The first is that I must declare my own attitude to taxation in this country. To my mind there are two taxes which are basically progressive, in that they tax the rich, who are more capable of paying those taxes, more heavily than they tax those who are poorer and less able to pay the taxes. Those two taxes are income tax and the rates. One is a tax on income, the other is effectively a tax on property and wealth.
In considering our present rating system there are several matters we need to bear in mind. The first is the way that our rating system works, as far as I can gather, which is on the basis of the rentable value of property rather than the capital value of property. That has implications: with a property such as a large factory or municipal undertaking such as a power station, it is almost inconceivable that the owners of that property will rent it. What a nonsense it would be if, for example, Fords or British Leyland rented their factories from somebody else. No, they will buy them outright or build them as part of their own capital investment so that the value of those properties in rentable terms will be significantly different and effectively lower than the value in capital terms. Thus the rates assessment will be correspondingly lower. The implication of that is that the largest establishments in our land, which could probably afford to pay higher taxes, will end by paying less tax.
Another factor in paying rates is the way that values can change over time. We are told that the problems faced by the people of Scotland are because they have had a rate revaluation. I make a plea that in fairness the rateable values in England should be reviewed at

81
an early opportunity because for many years rates have not been reviewed in the same way as they have in Scotland. In fairness we should have the same medicine that the Scots have had.
This brings me to my final point. Surely the major reason for the increases in rates in Scotland and those in England, which have been considerable, has been the lack of support through the rate support grant given by this Government. Effectively we have been subjected for a number of years to cut after cut in the support for local government provided by this Government. That is one of the fundamental problems facing us at present not only in Scotland but in England.
8 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that it has been made known in your Lordships' House in the mysterious way in which these important matters are made known that it should not be customary for more than one speaker after a maiden speech to express his congratulations and good wishes to the speaker. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I make an exception in this case. I have known the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, over these last 30 years, and I have always had the highest regard for his personal and professional ability and integrity. He talked about the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and of course the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, was a great advocate. He is now a judge.
I think that at one stage, if my recollection does not play tricks on me, they were both members of the same team in the Crown Office for a period, and they both contributed differently to a team which, as far as I remember, was never savaged either in Parliament or in public. So I should like to add my congratulations and my best wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Morton, and to hope that we shall hear him often again. He is obviously a man of considerable character because he had been told, as one is told when one is introduced here, that a speech for a maiden speaker should last for 10 minutes. He took three. If I may say so, this could well be an example that might be followed by older and more experienced Members of your Lordships' House. But who am I, a mere tyro myself, to make such an ignoble suggestion?
On these occasions, when we have these almost set-piece exchanges between the two noble Lords, Lord Ross of Marnock and Lord Gray of Contin, I often think about Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Your Lordships will remember them. They agreed to have a battle. Tweedledee said that Tweedledum had spoiled his nice new rattle. Judging by what was said in the other place, I should not be surprised if the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, in reply to the very valid criticisms and the power attack on this Bill after the Opposition had agreed to co-operate in getting the Bill through quickly, felt that the noble Lord had perhaps spoiled his nice new rattle.
But this Government have a remarkable capacity for presenting the steps which they are taking and the measures which they are presenting (which are necessarily only in consequence of their own incompetence) as anything from statesmanship to the smack of firm government—and this is the way both in this
82
House and in the other place that this Bill has been presented. The very clear introductory background report which the noble Lord gave us was very useful and very helpful, but, in the outcome, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, is absolutely right: the situation is a mess. If I may use a good Scots phrase, it is in a "proper guddle". And it is in a guddle because of the Government's incompetence, because the Government have failed to tackle the problem of a radical reform of local government finance.
That is the simple fact of the matter with which I am sure that few of your Lordships, at least in private, would quarrel. It is as plain as a pikestaff. And, of course, this is where Tweedledum and Tweedledee come in again, because we have not always had a Government of this particular party. As far as I am concerned, speaking from these Benches, the one lot are just as bad as the other. I am not sure which is Tweedledum and which is Tweedledee; and the sooner we get rid of them, the better it will be.
That is all I have to say, because I think that we have taken rather longer on this debate so far than the House authorities expected. Just to make it quite clear, let me say that I did not disagree at all with any significant part of what the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, said or with what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. In their day, they never made a speedy attack on the rating system or recognised the need for a radical reform in that area. Indeed, as I have mentioned in your Lordships' House before, the Labour Government of which I was a member pursued the same sort of lines as had previous Governments of both parties so far as concerns worsening that tension between local and central Government which has done so much to damage the government of this country. The only thing is that this Government have made it even worse.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, we have had a useful debate, constructive until the last speaker; but I shall come a little later to what the last speaker had to say. First of all, I should like to reply to the serious part of the debate and to the serious points which were put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. As I explained in my opening speech, the Government, in setting a threshold of three times the old valuation, were mitigating some of the most adverse effects of revaluation. We are not nullifying or neutralising revaluation. That is certainly not the purpose of this Bill. Nor, again, are we seeking to spread thinly some meagre relief over every ratepayer whose share of the rate burden has increased from revaluation. The new rebates are designed to meet the extreme cases on which revaluation is most harsh in its effect. Using a multiplier of 3 extends protection to those who have been hardest hit without entirely wiping out the intended effect of redistributing the rate burden.
No one can deny that there are often very good reasons for changes in assessment. After all, if, in individual cases, the assessor's reasons are not sound, he will be unable to defend such valuations if they are challenged in court. A multiplier of 3 will convey a very generous measure of rebate; indeed, much more generous than the schemes proposed by, for example,

83
the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses and in a 10-minute Rule Bill in another place. The total amount of rebates will be the sum of the individual rebates ultimately settled on the basis of a multiplier of 3.
The scheme is demand-led and, I would emphasise, not the share-out of a predetermined pot of money. These points worried not only the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, but the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, also. I acknowledge his wide experience in local government. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, suggested that a multiplier of 2·75 as a threshold would use up the £50 million. Using up the £50 million is not really the point. It is a demand-led scheme based on a multiplier of 3. Setting a threshold multiplier of 2·75 would virtually remove the effect of revaluation for all domestic property. The average for domestic property is, in fact, 2·7. A multiplier of 2·75 would greatly increase the number qualifying, and put up local authority administration costs enormously.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, asked me about the timetable of implementation and suggested that really it was too leisurely. An order can be passed through the Commons after Royal Assent but while the two-months period is running. No problems are envisaged in getting the Bill into operation in time. COSLA accept this, and the Opposition in another place did so. Indeed, they withdrew an amendment which might have had a contrary effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, as I think I suggested to him at the time I repeated the Statement that had been made in another place, found it rather difficult to find penetrating questions about that Statement because—although knowing the noble Lord as I do he would never admit it—he secretly welcomed in his own quiet way what the Government were trying to do. I think this time the noble Lord decided to fire a barrage of questions at me but I shall not duck them and I shall do my best to try to follow them through.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, would the noble Lord tell me when I was quiet?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, it is very difficult to find such an occasion, I have to admit! The noble Lord suggested that the borrowing costs of local authorities while they waited for reimbursement would be quite considerable. The Government will consider making some early payment to the rating authorities in advance of audited claims. The noble Lord also asked—as did the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill—about the situation next year. As the noble Lord is well aware, decisions on rate support grant and on the domestic relief element of the rate support grant are taken in the autumn each year. Obviously the noble Lord would not expect me to pre-empt these decisions. But I would remind him that the Bill is drafted as an enabling measure by order and that can be applied in any year. There is no question of there not being the power to apply it in future.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, one can deal with the domestic ratepayers under an increase of domestic rate relief but one cannot deal with commercial ratepayers in respect of the rate support grant.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the Bill which we are discussing tonight is not a one-year Bill and it would be possible for the Government to deal with any problems which arise in future years in the same way that they are dealing with the problem this year. But obviously I cannot pre-empt decisions which are taken on such issues in the autumn of each year.
I was delighted that the noble Lord from south of the Border decided to participate in our discussions. Scottish business is something which we consider of such importance that we are always delighted when anybody, whether they have a direct interest or not, takes part. We welcome the noble Lord to our deliberations.
I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna—and in saying that I would break the rule, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside—that his contributions to our debates will be most valuable and, in congratulating him and welcoming him to Scottish debates, I would also commend him for his great brevity by which he lost nothing in his speech. He made his points; and we all appreciated them. I am sure that the brevity with which he made his maiden speech will be widely applauded throughout your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, suggested that we should prescribe the proportional effect of revaluation for different sectors. The order-making power in the 1981 Act is to adjust for properties not valued under powers introduced by the Act for partial revaluation. Such powers do not apply to a complete revaluation such as that in 1985. Both the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, suggested that the ratepayers' right of appeal against not getting a rebate was likely to cause problems. This is intended to be a simple scheme. There should be no need for the complexity of extra procedure. Where a ratepayer disagrees with an authority's decision not to give a rebate there is indeed no specific provision mentioned in the Bill although recourse could be, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, rightly pointed out, to the jurisdiction of the Court of Session. It seems to us most unlikely that such a measure would require to be employed. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, also raised the point about the benefit for domestic ratepayers. I would answer him by saying that an estimated 132,700 domestic properties will qualify. Total rebates on these are estimated by COSLA at £4.2 million. The increase in domestic rate relief in 1985–6 is some £88 million.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister would give way for one moment. Can the noble Lord tell me what proportion of the total the 142,000 represents?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord off the top of my head, but I shall certainly make a point of finding out. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord with that information for him.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, yes.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, could tell the noble Lord. There is very little about the rating system

85
that the noble Lord cannot tell us. I am sure that his great modesty would prevent him from giving us that information at this moment; but he will no doubt have a letter to the noble Lord before I shall.
The latest estimate by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities of the total amount of rebates has been mentioned by a number of speakers. Their estimate is of the order of £30 million. We accept that this is a better indication than the first estimate of £50 million because it is based on a much more lengthy and detailed exercise than it was practical to carry out in the time immediately before the Government's scheme was announced. But the total cost is of relatively less importance. What really matters is getting to ratepayers the right level of help. That is what we think a multiplier of three will do. The total cost, whatever that turns out to be, follows from that. We shall not know what the total cost may be until the last ratepayer has been paid.
I think that we have had a very useful debate. In conclusion, as I promised I would do, perhaps I may refer to the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside. I often find it quite amazing that when Members move from one party to another their enthusiasm for reform increases. Although they had been members of their original party for many years, that bursting zeal for reform had never surfaced. It is encouraging that the noble Lord takes such a view and no doubt as we move through the remaining stages of this Bill he will enlighten us as to how he envisages that the system might be reformed. We are certainly looking for reforms and I am sure that the noble Lord will give us the benefit of his own deliberations and those of his colleagues.
I take no exception to his alluding to Tweedledum and Tweedledee. I am sure that the little bit of levity which he was able to introduce into our debate was welcomed by all sides of the House. I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to apologise to the House and to the Minister. I was a little impatient in view of the time factor and I neglected to refer to this matter. I wish to ask the noble Lord whether he was aware of the great concern which the Retail Consortium has expressed about the detail of the Bill. The Retail Consortium represents some 90 per cent., so it says, of retailers in the United Kingdom. It is known that the concessions in the Bill will amount to about 4 per cent. of the total bill in the commercial sector. The concern of the Retail Consortium is that the impact, so far as the retail trader is concerned, will be even less. I have a number of figures which I received from the consortium this morning and I had intended to put them to the Minister. I should simply like to ask whether he can tell the House that he is aware of the consortium's extreme concern and its rather pessimistic assessment of the Government's proposals in the Bill.
Lord Gray of Contin: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of the letter to which the noble and learned Lord refers. I think that many other noble Lords have received a similar letter. I am studying it at the present moment and in due course I shall be sending a suitable reply to
86
my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, who raised the subject with me earlier this afternoon. I shall make sure that a copy of that letter is sent to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Local Government Bill
8.21 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 80AN:
Before Clause 43, insert the following new clause:
("Sports.
Before the abolition date the Secretary of State shall consult with the councils of London boroughs, the Sports Council of Great Britain, the Arts Council of Great Britain and other interested bodies and persons on arrangements for the continuation of events, entertainments and sports championships organised or promoted by the Greater London Council before the abolition date.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 80AN. The House will be aware that this particular aspect of activities has not so far received the attention which I believe it deserves. The events, entertainments and London-wide sports championships which are organised by the GLC were mentioned briefly at Committee stage. It is almost certain that most, if not all, of them will disappear when the GLC is abolished. That will be a very great pity. The Minister may have a brief which will seek to persuade the House that such a thing "ain't necessarily so". We want more than assurance that he believes it to be unthinkable that these activities will not be taken care of. If ever there was a probing amendment or a peg on which to hang a case, that is the status of this amendment.
There are people outside the House, as the Minister knows very well, who will read with interest and with anxiety what is said here. I think the Minister can be helpful, if he wishes. There are more than 800 events, ranging from small children's entertainments to large-scale entertainments such as the Easter Parade, which are enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people each year. Over a hundred of them are organised on a regional basis and they attract visitors from all over London and beyond. In addition to the Easter Parade, in this category there are the Greater London Horse Show, Thamesday, the Kenwood and Crystal Palace open-air symphony concerts, which enjoy an international reputation, large-scale corn m unity festivals at Victoria Park, Burgess Park and Lampton Park, the Thamesmead Festival, the South Bank Spring Festival, the Holland Park open-air theatre season, the South Bank Weekend, the GLC-Capital Radio Steel Band Festival, the South Bank Children's Festival, the Spirit of London painting and photographic competitions, and many more. Furthermore, there are the GLC's London-wide sports championships, which are held each year, covering athletics, bowls, cross-country running, cycling, cyclo-cross, swimming, table tennis, golf, race-walking, and orienteering.
The problems which face those who organise the events and the sports championships are twofold. First, most of them are held in GLC parks, and if the parks are split up among the boroughs, there seems to be little chance that the boroughs will wish to continue to organise events which are of a London-wide nature. Although the Government have not said anything about these events in the Bill, they have implied that whether or not the events continue will be left to individual boroughs to decide.
In the case of events held on the South Bank, such as Thamesday, the South Bank Spring Festival and the South Bank Weekend, these will be matters for the Arts Council. We know, of course, that after the Arts Council takes over the South Bank it will be seriously short of funds. I would ask your Lordships to remember that only two weeks ago the council revised its estimate of how much money it will be short of when it takes over the arts functions from the GLC and the MCCs. The estimate has been revised from the very worrying figure of £8 million to the quite disastrous one of £16 million. That takes no account of the running costs of the Jubilee Gardens, the Festival Pier, and so on. Is it likely, even if it wants to, that in these circumstances the Arts Council will be able to continue the old GLC's South Bank events? I do not think there is any chance whatsoever.
The second problem is that all these events and sports championships are organised by one highly experienced team from the GLC's Department for Recreation and the Arts. I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Birkett—assiduous as always in these matters—is in his place, and perhaps he can be helpful to your Lordships. This is a very efficient and economical form of organisation, but only a body which organises many events could justify the employment of a group such as this. Therefore when abolition comes the team will be broken up and its valuable expertise lost, unless the Government are prepared to step in and offer a solution which will keep the team together and ensure that these much-loved events continue. That is why this amendment requires the Government to enter into consultations with the bodies concerned to try to ensure the continuation of the GLC's entertainments.
This is a modest amendment. It asks for modest things, such as consultation, to ensure that people can be reassured. It places no onus, financial or organisational, upon the Government. It simply asks for reassurance so that the House may be satisfied that the good things which have been done in the past are at least borne in mind and that there is the possibility of a hopeful framework within which these events may continue in the future. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for the fact that I was not in my place when he moved this amendment but, in recompense, I shall be very brief. Of course the amendment is prompted by the very best of intentions to ensure continuity in sports championships and related matters, but the problem is that it seeks by its terms really to consult to ensure that the old GLC regime shall be continued. That binds the succession and, as I understand it, that is precisely what the
88
Government do not wish to do. It is only for those reasons that I oppose the amendment in principle, although I accept the good motives for its advancement.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I imagine that your Lordships will have anticipated at this moment a very short speech from one of the "old regime". I, too, must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for not being in my place when he moved his amendment. I can only plead that traffic builds up in certain areas of London. Lest anyone should think that there is actually a political connotation to that traffic, I plead ignorance of everything except arts and recreation this evening.
Entertainment, sport and indeed all that might be considered ancillary activities also come within my sphere of influence at the GLC. Not long ago the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said of me that he could understand why somebody in my position would regret the passing of such a fascinating job as I am lucky enough to have. I know he said that with the best possible intentions and with the kindest thoughts in his mind and so I do not for a moment reproach him for it; he is of course right. One of the jobs which gives me most satisfaction—it is not, of course, the job of which the noble Lord was speaking, but job satisfaction is a fashionable but unfortunate phrase, though it is accurate enough in my case—and about which I feel most keenly is entertainments, particularly those large London-wide entertainments which are really the reason for my uttering a few words on the subject tonight.
I am referring to the sort of entertainments which cover the whole of London and which are aimed to attract the whole of London. Your Lordships will be familiar with them. They start at the beginning of the season with the Easter Parade in Battersea Park and they finish up at the end of the season with Thamesday—the kind of four- or five-year-old regattas that we have invented for the South Bank—and include the Greater London Horse Show and, of course, not ours exclusively, let me be clear, but certainly helped and much encouraged by ourselves, the London marathon.
8.30 p.m.
What I find so enormously satisfying on those occasions is not just the fact that hundreds of thousands of people come out to enjoy them. Indeed, on those occasions—I leave aside the marathon, when you can reckon in millions, if you count the roads of London surrounded by well-wishers and excited spectators—such as the Easter Parade or Thamesday one can count those who enjoy them not in thousands, but in hundreds of thousands. We rely always on the police for our guesses because they are cleverer at it than we are, but it is very difficult to know exactly how many people visit occasions of that sort, because you never know whether the people you are counting have been there from dawn to dusk or whether they have "renewed" themselves; that is, they have come for an hour before lunch and totally different persons have come after lunch. Nevertheless, when one is talking of estimates of a quarter of a million people for such events, even supposing one was out by 100,000

89
people, one would still be talking about 150,000 or maybe 300,000 people. So one is talking of enormous numbers of people.
But it is not only the numbers that give me the satisfaction. It is the feeling in the air. Any of your Lordships who have been at the sort of occasions I am talking about will sense in the air the kind of goodwill that is absolutely the opposite of so many glum and aggravating occasions in our life today. The kind of "aggro", as the modern generation has it, that pervades so much of our life on the streets is notably absent on such days. Quite the contrary; I feel that on a day such as Thamesday, at the Easter Parade and certainly at the marathon, if one wants an instance of how society should behave towards itself, those days show it.
Of course, one may say, "Why, that is simply because it is a kind of bunfight, a circus, a free entertainment provided at the ratepayers' expense, at the taxpayers' expense or at somebody else's expense". It is true that it is at the ratepayers' expense or the taxpayers' expense, but, believe me, my Lords, it is worth it because it shows on those days exactly how life ought to he. Life cannot always be free events. I see that as clearly as anybody else. But these are things which should not be lost.
That brings me to the ultimate point of this debate, which has shot through every argument this evening and indeed on many other evenings. Why, if these things are good—and I hope that your Lordships will agree with me that they are—will they not survive after abolition? My argument is that they will not survive because such tasks will be placed in the hands of very local local government in London. A moment ago the noble Earl took me to task for saying, "What remains after abolition?" I should have said that it was that tier of local government that will remain after abolition. The point about my argument is that boroughs will not be able to manage. It is not that I have any suspicion of the goodwill or indeed the financial ability of boroughs.
The noble Earl was quoting local authorities in the arts which he admired enormously. I echo his admiration. He is right of course. What he did not do was to put the opposite case of those local authorities for which he and I will, I know, equally feel no admiration. It would do scant good for the cause of the arts if I were to proceed to mention those authorities by name, as the noble Earl mentioned the good ones, but he, as well as I, knows that they exist. It is the inconsistency of the pattern that troubles me; not the lack of goodwill throughout. I have nothing except admiration for those boroughs which do their job within sports, the arts and recreation. But they cannot be relied upon. That is why I believe that a strategic authority for these matters is necessary, and to leave it to a second tier of purely local authorities will not do. It is for that reason that I support this amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I must confess I derived a certain amount of innocent amusement from the first part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, which sought to knock down arguments that I was not going to use in the first place. However, this new clause requires the Secretary of State to consult all interested parties about arrangements for
90
continuing the various sporting events and entertainments organised by the GLC. That sounds quite unremarkable, until one looks at it again.
The sting of this amendment is in the tail; namely, that it intends that any event currently organised or promoted should be continued by putting pressure on the successor bodies to continue these events in a way which we cannot accept. Decisions on the future of these events are quite properly a matter for the successor authorities. It is not for the Government to interfere in the discretions of London borough councils on what artistic and sporting events they are to organise or promote. The relevant powers are discretionary, and the noble Lord is quite right in saying that such decisions should be taken by the councils themselves. Similarly, it is neither right nor necessary for the Secretary of State to consult the Arts Council or the Sports Council, both of which are independent bodies, on the schemes and events that they are likely to support after abolition. We are convinced that they will continue to exercise their usual good judgment without unwarranted, and I suggest unwelcome, interference from us.
As my noble friend Lord Campbell has said, noble Lords opposite have consistently given the impression that only a unified London-wide body can continue these great sporting events. In this amendment they are replacing the GLC by the Secretary of State. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, is in his place, because my information is that none of the events referred to either by him or by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is supported by the GLC at the moment. By "supported" I do not mean of course the use of the ratepayers' money that the noble Lord referred to; I mean whether the GLC itself, or indeed his own organisation within the GLC, is the sponsor of the individual events.
We have already recognised that after abolition individual authorities may not take sole responsibility for projects and events that benefit a much wider area. That is why we have announced a limited extension of Exchequer funding that will be made available for these to be administered by the Sports Council. Concern has been expressed about the future of the London Marathon, for example, but the contribution of the GLC to the marathon has been much exaggerated in some quarters. The marathon will continue as now to be administered by an independent organising committee, it will continue to seek private sector support from sponsors, and my department will continue to offer what assistance it can to ensure the continued success of the race.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way, perhaps I ought to explain that the events that I was referring to, which included the London Marathon, are all, with the exception of the marathon, entirely organised and sponsored, if that is the right phrase, by the GLC. We have for the most part invented them. Certainly we have run them and they are exclusively the province, the expense and the organisation of the GLC. The marathon is, of course, the exception, and I readily acknowledge that the GLC is not the only organiser. It is, however, the provider of the finish, the provider of the start, the provider of the organisation for the registration of runners—which is

91
quite the most complicated matter of the year, let me assure your Lordships—and it is the provider of a great number of services along the way. It may be that it would survive without us, but it would not survive very easily or very happily without us.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I asked for the noble Lord's view and I am very grateful that he gave it. But the point I was making was that the boroughs will be free to carry on such events as Thamesday, the South Bank Weekend, the Greater London Horse Show, the Easter Parade in Battersea Park or anything else that has been mentioned this evening. The important point is that the decisions on whether they wish to continue these events or organise new ones must be left to them. We expect them to continue to take their sports and recreational facilities seriously, as indeed everyone will admit they have done in the past. Over and over again, the Opposition have based their case on what I can only call not trusting the local authorities. This clause represents another unwarranted and quite unnecessary check on the freedom of responsible and capable successor bodies. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I intend to withdraw it, but it is rather sad that the Minister has so much faith, not in the willingness but in the ability of the boroughs to carry on that which the GLC has carried on. This is the Government that will be screwing down as tightly as possible the resources that the boroughs have to enable them to do a range of things; this is the Government that will be laying responsibility upon responsibility on the boroughs and yet this is the Government that say that they see no reason why, on the question of organising and partially funding these London-wide events, they should not continue in the same way.
If it is possible for the Minister to attend group meetings, Conservative or Labour, in every London borough this week, this month or next year, he will find that they are absolutely eaten up with their ability to do a range of things and it is not possible for them to take this easily on board. The intention will be there, but when the priorities line up this is a priority that will slip and slip and, in the course of time, people will forget these events. All we are asking is: why not consult so as to try to let the boroughs see that the Government are concerned that these events are kept on? I suspect that the Government are not concerned that these events should continue. I do not say that the Government have been destructive or malicious; they are simply saying that they are not prepared to go through the simple exercise of consultation.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, quite rightly pointed out that there is an implication in the words of the amendment that we want what has been successful in the past to continue. That is absolutely right. We also recognise that there will be a new ball game next April and they will be their own masters. We simply sought to get the agreement of the House that what we specify is good and worthy of being preserved, and we wanted the Government to have a duty to consult, which would not have implied anything more than trying to stimulate a desire to keep
92
these events going. I strongly suspect that when, as we shall, we return to these matters in three or four years' time a great many of these events will have gone and the answer we shall get from the London boroughs, whatever their political complexion is, "We've got enough on our plate." I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 80AP:
Before Clause 43, insert the following new clause:
("London Conservation and Heritage Authority.
.—(1) On the abolition date there should be established a body corporate which shall be known as the London Conservation and Heritage Authority.
(2) The London Conservation and Heritage Authority shall consist of members elected by the local government electors of Greater London in accordance with this Act and the Representation of the People Act 1983.
(3) Prior to the abolition date the Secretary of State shall make an Order confirming upon the London Conservation and Heritage Authority such functions under the enactments specified in subsection (4) of this section as will enable the Authority to promote the conservation and preservation of such areas and buildings in Greater London which he shall specify in the Order as being worthy of conservation and preservation, including all Conservation Areas in Greater London designated at the date of the passing of this Act under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.
(4) This section shall apply to—

(a) the Town and Country Planning Act 1971;

(b) the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979;

(c) sections 5 and 6 and this part of this Act; and

(d) any other enactments which the Secretary of State shall consider relevant to the functions of the Authority under this section.

(5) The London Conservation and Heritage Authority shall exercise such functions as are vested in it within the financial provisions laid down in this Act.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, what this amendment seeks to change in the Government's Bill is something which, if not complicated now, gives rise to visions of all kinds of complications in the future. As we see it, the situation is quite simple. The present committee of the Greater London Council, which is probably one of the least party political committees on that council, is the only way by which the ordinary people of London can, through their electoral power, safeguard the heritage of ancient buildings and monuments which we have in London. The picture in London at present is not a pretty one. I do not think any of your Lordships would say that London's skyline is a pretty sight, but it would be a good deal less pretty if this committee of the Greater London Council had not put the brake on and prevented some disasters.
There are some recent ones which will be fresh in your Lordships' minds. The building known as the Palumbo project will probably come readily to mind, but there were such proposed monstrosities as the Hay's Wharf project and an enormous building, the name of which I cannot remember, but which was tall and green and it stood about 500 feet high, dwarfing the Tower of London, all the churches and even St. Paul's. I am reminded that it was called the Green Giant. The name sounds attractive, but the building was most unattractive.
Through the agency of this Committee, which is not only representative of the electors of the City of London but is a carefully chosen body, extremely good work has been done and it has drawn to itself on this subject the advice of some of the most eminent brains in the land. Notwithstanding this brake on the progress of—if I may be contentious at this time of night—rapacious developers; and I do not suggest that all developers are rapacious, because some of them are my best friends, but they tend to be rapacious and heavily armed, and sometimes link with boroughs which do not have the interest of conserving historic buildings at heart—
Lord Elton: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Viscount could enlighten me, because I do not want to listen to the rest of his speech under a misapprehension. He started the passage on which he is now engaged with a reference to the Palumbo development and then went on to the Green Giant. He then said that if it had not been for this committee—and then I lost him. Is he telling the House that it was this committee which decided that the Palumbo development should not take place, because I am sure he cannot be doing that?
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I am grateful to the. Minister and I was not doing that. I rather clumsily bracketed a number of monstrosities together. I was not suggesting that this committee was in any way involved. I was trying to illustrate to the House that over a period of years there have been a number of projects with which this committee was involved. The Palumbo one was not, but I think it groups itself quite naturally in one's mind with those monstrosities. It is the purpose of the movers of this amendment to ensure that all steps are taken to prevent projects of this kind going forward, without every possible precaution being taken through the electoral system.
We have here this excellent committee. There may be noble Lords who will say that in some cases it has not been excellent, but all committees are at times subject to error. But if it had not been for this committee, which affords the people of London a way of expressing their view and their concern for the future of their environment, the position would be a sorrier one than it is today. London must have one of the least attractive skylines in Europe. There is still a lot to be done, there is still a lot to be preserved and there is still a lot left, but even in the short time that I have been in London I am astonished at what has happened from the reaches of Fulham right through past Aldgate Pump. One can produce a myriad of examples of listed buildings and places of interest which have just disappeared.
What we have here is the suggestion that in some way two quangos (that is a very unattractive word, but I must use it) which consist of Government appointees—there are two of them, and that is why I made reference to the complications that could occur—can replace the committee. The two quangos will have to work in unison because their responsibilities overlap. We have the London Planning Commission and the Historic Buildings and
94
Monuments Commission. These bodies will have among their number—some of the names have been whispered abroad—some very eminent and capable people who are as committed as I and my colleagues are, and as most Members of your Lordships' House are, to seeing that at this late stage some kind of uniformity, some kind of cultural symmetry, if I may use a rather pompous phrase, some long-term planning for the cultural heritage of London, can at last be achieved.
Even if the people making up these two quangos should be satisfactory in every degree in terms of their capacity to judge what is conservable and what is not, it is extremely doubtful whether they will be able to play a properly briefed and effective role in a public inquiry. Those people who now take part in public inquiries have a wealth of experience. One thing which has been noted in recent years is the thoroughness of the procedures of public inquiries. Highly complex matters are discussed, and I do not think that some of the members of these quangos will even be willing to involve themselves, at least initially, in the complex issues which are involved.
It will be difficult to oppose the enemies of conservation, if I may thus describe them. I do not think it is too emotive to say that one can visualise the developers and the allies which collect around them. Sometimes these are boroughs which are attracted because of the tightness of their financial budgets. I do not imply anything sinister by this—it is human nature—but there are advantages when you are allied to powerful interests such as some principal developers. If one does not have in the boroughs the kind of expertise and cultural commitment which is available to the present committee, it is easy to see that when issues of this kind come up it will be very difficult to oppose them.
The whole business of conservation has become a difficult area. There is the extremely intense conservation which a lot of people find extremely boring. Many people say there is too much conservation. There is the jocular Mr. Auberon Waugh, who in the latest edition of Private Eye suggests that for one's own good one should go out every day and punch an architect. I hope it is a jocular approach, but there is a kind of desperation in this kind of humour. I hope your Lordships will agree in some measure that we need in some way to emulate the example of other European countries in the way they have tackled the business of conservation in terms of historical continuity. That is evident in their cities.
Indeed, in this country cities such as Bath—I do not know whether many of your Lordships have been to Bath recently; one of my colleagues on these Benches who, unfortunately, is not here tonight, the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has been very much involved with it—and York have against enormous opposition had very satisfactory development and have become prosperous as a result. If London is allowed to continue in this way without at least the elected inhabitants of London being able to express their view and being able to influence the decision about conservation areas, and so on, the whole thing is likely to collapse into utter anarchy and incompetence, and by pure force of expertise and power there is the

95
likelihood that certain projects, which I described at some length at the beginning of my speech, could emerge unchecked and our beautiful city, with its reputation as the seat of Western democracy, could emerge with just the character and flavour of a suburban shopping centre.
This should not be a party political matter. Conservation should cut across political lines. I would suggest to your Lordships that this be considered very seriously. The amendment suggests an elected body—I know that this does not appeal certainly to two noble Lords in this Chamber—which can replace the council. It is hoped that the 13 million people of London will become aware that "environment" does not relate just to the disappearance of buildings of beauty and of historical continuity, but also to the environment in which young people grow up.
I live in Battersea. I live in one of the two remaining Victorian cottages in an area of utter desolation. I am surrounded by enormous blocks which are full of deprived people and people needing psychiatric help. This is the result of the planning, if I may call it that, of the 1950s. Let us hope that this never happens again. I suggest that the only way to develop London in the way it should be developed is by something along the lines of the amendment which we are now proposing. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble Viscount has spoken with verve and eloquence of the complexities of the future, but this amendment, though such is not the noble Viscount's intention, imports its own measure of complexity. In case it be thought otherwise, I speak not as an enemy of conservation. I declare in that regard my interest as a member of the Georgian Group and yet another conservation society.
This amendment proposes a directly elected body corporate with executive functions to promote conservation and preservation in London. But why London and nowhere else? Why assume that the London boroughs are not competent to manage their own affairs in this regard? That is the theme that drives through so many of these amendments.
There are, however, it would appear, no reserve powers in this regard. I wonder whether my noble friend could consider whether in effect a reserve power exists in the calling in procedure, because there should be some form of reserve power. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the technicalities of the Bill to be able to find where it is. I do not think it is in Clause 100, but I cannot believe that there is no reserve power at all. I thought, with respect, that your Lordships might require a measure of assurance in that regard.
Leaving that aspect aside for the moment, important though it is, the setting up of this body corporate, directly elected with executive functions, again as a superimposed tier of administration, is yet another attempt to derogate from the principles of devolution. Apart from the principle—one can leave that aside for the moment, it is so tedious—there does not appear to be any special case made out on the merits of conservation and heritage in this regard. The
96
body corporate would be cumbersome and costly. I suggest that it would do little more than the London boroughs are able and willing to do. Apart from involving an unnecessary derogation from the principle, it involves a permanent bar to devolution because this, as I understand it, is a permanent statutory body. The effect is, whether or not such be the intention, that this is another harbinger of that manifest desire to set up this elected tier of local government as a second tier in yet another area. On those grounds, I oppose the amendment.
9 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, my support for the amendment is based on my unshakeable belief that beauty, harmony and orderliness in one's environment are indispensable ingredients for a balanced, properly adjusted life. It was Plato who said:
"Let our youth live in a beautiful land".
It is perhaps not fanciful to suggest that the lack of beauty and orderliness which one sees in so many of our great cities today is perhaps at least partly responsible for the soccer hooliganism, violence, and so on, which seem to be increasingly prevalent.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said, despite its manifold and splendid beauties, no one could call London a well planned city. While serving abroad one of my chief delights over the years on my spells of leave in London was to visit St. Paul's Cathedral, of which I am a Friend. I expect some of your Lordships are, too. But over the years I have seen this great cathedral increasingly hemmed in by concrete horrors which, particularly when viewed from a distance, shatter the sublimity of Wren's noblest creation. Indeed, so pervasive is the presence of these new buildings that St. Paul's now seems to be the odd man out. How can I answer the many overseas visitors who I take to St. Paul's and who ask how we Londoners can allow such a situation to develop? What can I say to them?
Then there is Euston. For many years I have been a great railway lover and, possibly like many of your Lordships, I deplored the destruction of that great station with its Doric arch, its great waiting hall, and so on. From a railway point of view the station was a mess. It could not exist and cope with the modern electrified trains. It had to go. But was it necessary to destroy the Doric arch? Surely something more lovely could have been built than the monstrous horror which replaced it.
Some of your Lordships will no doubt be familiar with the strict conservation orders protecting the hearts of many of the great European cities. Indeed, I ask: would the French allow skyscrapers to crowd in on Notre Dame? Would the Italians permit ferroconcrete monstrosities to overshadow St. Mark's Square in Venice? I wonder, indeed. However, perhaps even more interesting and instructive than these European examples are the comparisons I could draw with some of the Arab countries with which I am very familiar. It has often been said that Arabs are philistines; that they are totally unmindful of beauty; and that they are uncaring about the preservation of their cultural heritages. Well, some 20 years ago that was so. Then the oil money came rushing in, fast and furious, and the order of the day was, "Build, build,

97
build, expand, expand, expand. Destroy the old, let us build a new city".
Inevitably, many of those building projects were hastily conceived, haphazard and higgledy-piggledy. However, I am glad to inform your Lordships that wiser counsels prevailed and, as many of your Lordships will be aware, that situation does not exist today. In major towns in places like Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Muscat, for example, one sees that the need for sound planning and sensible conservation has been almost universally accepted. Furthermore, these Arab countries have devised building forms which incorporate traditional Islamic features within the framework of modern designs. So the whole concept—although one cannot say that it is necessarily beautiful, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder—is one of symmetry, order and co-ordinated, well-planned design.
That trend does not apply only to the Arab world. In Malawi, for example, one sees the new capital of Lilongwe, where, so extensive has been the beautification of this city that if one walks around it is hard to see the building for all the flowers, the trees and the grass. What a lovely concept that is.
I would suggest to your Lordships that we have failed so far. We have failed to learn the lessons taught us by France and Italy. We have even failed to learn many, of the lessons which the developing world can teach us. Such failures, I would submit to your Lordships, cannot continue. We must surely preserve our great and glorious capital city, London, from the evils of speculative building and unco-ordinated planning.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, suggested that we should leave it to the boroughs. I do not believe that local authorities can satisfactorily execute an overall plan. For example, there may be one borough which believes in small houses and another which believes in high rise. There must surely be an overall, co-ordinated plan. I know that in London we have our preservation areas and our listed buildings, many hundreds of them, and all of us at heart are conscious of the need for preservation and conservation. But unless we create an overall elected authority such as that envisaged in this admirable amendment we shall not be able to save London as a source of solace and inspiration for future generations.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not accept this amendment. The proposal is to set up a new authority altogether—a new corporation to be called the London Conservation and Heritage Authority. What functions is it to carry out? It is to carry out, for instance, existing functions under the Town and Country Planning Act or the Ancient Monuments Act. Let those functions be carried out by the existing authorities—by the boroughs themselves or whatever it may be. They can perfectly well be carried out by them and we should not have a new authority established to take over the position. I would oppose the amendment.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words as chairman of the
98
Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission because the amendment concerns functions which it is proposed should be transferred to us under the Bill. I made the point at the Committee stage that the position of the commission is completely neutral, as we are a non-political body, set up as an non-political body. Therefore we do not wish to get concerned there. Our concern is that satisfactory arrangements should be made for the conservation of historic buildings, monuments and archaeology and that that should continue when and if abolition takes place.
In that context I am not convinced in any way that a single-function authority which the amendment proposes, subject to the inevitable controls on resources and requiring the establishment of yet another bureacracy, would be a satisfactory alternative to the role proposed for the commission in the Bill. I point out that the commission has an enormous amount of expertise within its body which has been inherited from the Department of the Environment. Nevertheless I am aware that there is some degree of concern—and I understand that—about the nature of the commission as an appointed body rather than a directly elected authority as proposed here.
Therefore I think that the House tonight may find it useful if I say a word or two about our intentions should those responsibilities be passed to the commission. We certainly propose to establish a London historic buildings advisory committee to advise the commission on matters affecting historic buildings and conservation areas in London. The chairman of that committee I propose should be a commissioner, but the Secretary of State in his wisdom may wish to appoint yet another commissioner with special responsibilities for London, in which case I would welcome that. We have not yet decided how the rest of the committee should be made up and what balance there should be between experts and those with political experience and affiliations. Obviously that issue will need further consideration. I am sure that the commission will listen with interest to the opinions expressed in this debate. Nevertheless, I feel that we can do a good job in looking after London's historic buildings.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, has just been speaking. I may remind him that since last November all listed building consents have had to come to the commission, and I believe that that system is working well. We gave evidence at the Palumbo inquiry, and I like to believe that our evidence was listened to. I hope that these few words will help the House to know what our intentions are for the future.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for bringing us back from planning to conservation. I thought for a moment I had misunderstood the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. Indeed I interrupted him at one moment to make sure I had him right. He was referring to a chain of developments which could not be laid at the door of conservation but which were the outcome of planning procedures.
I am not sure whether the noble Viscount was here on 10th June when we conducted the second stage of

99
a series of elaborate debates on the planning procedures for London, involving the unitary planning authorities at the London borough level, and the use of Part I of the district unitary plan as the equivalent of the present strategic plan, and keeping the various Part Is of the unitary plans in step with each other by means of the Secretary of State issuing strategic guidance. The point we had reached on the 10th of this month was the point at which we discussed how we should indeed get a voice for London, with some linkage to the electorate of London, into that process. All this, the noble Viscount would have found very fascinating and very relevant to his concerns.
However, they did not seem to me quite to chime in with what had been talked about, which was conservation and the listing of buildings, which is something on which the Secretary of State is already very ably advised in some respects by the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission and to which a larger role is now to be given in London. We are not giving a larger role to some strange animal or new creation. It is a body which we have grown very quickly to know and respect in this House and elsewhere. Nonetheless, insofar as it is necessary, after the excellent intervention of my noble friend, I welcome the opportunity to clarify the position on that and our proposals for it, and to give some reassurance where that is appropriate. What I cannot do is to suggest that the debate is the occasion for anything more.
9.15 p.m.
Again, I am not quite certain whether the noble Viscount has been here at earlier stages when as a House we have repeatedly come to the conclusion that it is not the wish of your Lordships to establish a body corporate made up of people directly elected to discharge statutory functions on a London-wide basis. It has become almost a litany of disapproval. Thus the noble Viscount will not expect me to welcome what he has proposed as the basis for anything except a reassurance.
The Government have for long recognised the high regard in which the GLC is held by very many people in the exercise of its heritage responsibility—and I use that term in its widest sense. It is for that very reason that the Government reached an agreement with the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, whereby their long-standing experience and expertise would be kept together in one place. This agreement has been widely welcomed. Therefore, there is a continuity of which the noble Viscount may not be aware.
The fact is that the commission, although it is still in its formative stages, has already established itself as the leading authority on the conservation of the heritage, including directly, in giving substantial financial assistance to conservation projects, the repair of individual historic buildings. It has established itself as a responsible body which is prepared to work with local authorities and other public and private bodies as well as the individual citizen.
I do not think there is any doubt that it is exceptionally well placed to take on these new
100
responsibilities and that the people of London stand to gain a great deal from its direct involvement in the protection of their heritage. Indeed, the combination of the resources of the commission and the resources of the GLC's Historic Buildings Division will be formidable and are likely to be the envy of others, even those in France which the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, feels are so well protected. Looking at Paris, I am not certain that they are absolutely, completely protected. The people of London therefore stand to gain, not to lose.
I should also like to stress to your Lordships that the commission is not a body which is unaccountable. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is himself accountable to Parliament, approves the commission's budget and the contribution that his grant-in-aid should make to it. All this is done on the basis of a corporate plan submitted to him by the commission. In addition to this, the commission is required to make an annual report to the Secretary of State on the exercise of its function. The Secretary of State is in turn required to lay a copy of that report before each House of Parliament.
Your Lordships may also wish to note that the Bill provides for two very important modifications to existing GLC procedures in respect of applications for listed building consent and the designation of conservation areas. In each of these cases the powers of the commission will differ from those of the GLC in one very important respect. First, paragraph 1(17) of Schedule 2 gives the borough to whom a consent application has been made the power to notify the Secretary of State of an application that the commission has directed should be refused. If that borough, for whatever reason, does not feel able to accept that direction it can then notify the Secretary of State. Secondly, in paragraph 1(14) of the same schedule there is a requirement that the commission shall obtain the Secretary of State's consent to the designation of a conservation area.
In these two important respects the citizen is being afforded a special degree of protection. In effect, the elected body, the council, can appeal over the head of the non-elected commission to the elected Secretary of State. In the event of disagreement, the Secretary of State will always therefore be able to be involved in the decision-making process.
Finally, both the Government and the commission recognise that the assumption of these responsibilities in London will give the commission powers that are not mirrored elsewhere, and give the commission a special London flavour. It is therefore the intention of the Secretary of State to appoint a commissioner, as my noble friend has said he would welcome, with a specific London remit. I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Montagu explain that the commission's intention is to set up a special London advisory committee.
In considering the transfer of the GLC's heritage responsibility, the most important thing is to concentrate on the successor's inherent ability to do the job. The commission has the capacity. That is why it is being given the job. Although the job is not outside its existing broad statutory constitution, both the

101
Government and the commission have accepted that some modifications need to be made. These are being made. I ask your Lordships, therefore, to be reassured. As to the call-in powers of the Secretary of State, I have just recited them in the two paragraphs of the schedule to which I referred. I should also have mentioned the helpful intervention of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway at that stage.
All the other projections with which the noble Lord is concerned that link up in the really elaborate and strong network of planning requirements will remain in place. The form in which they remain in place is under active discussion in this House and outside it. I believe that at Third Reading we shall have an amendment that will satisfy the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, on their particular interest in planning, which is to protect meritorious old buildings, as well as those of your Lordships who feel that it is necessary occasionally to develop, as the noble Lord was good enough to accept at the beginning of his speech. I cannot, for those reasons, ask your Lordships to accept the amendment. I ask the noble Lord to accept the assurances.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for his courteous and lucid remarks. I should also like to express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, for throwing some light on the body and the kind of considerations that it has in mind. I do not like using the phrase "those on this side of the House", because it is a pity that this is something that develops along party lines. I believe that conservation of this kind should go above these considerations. Nevertheless, what concerns us a great deal is the strategic long-term planning of conservation and the preservation of buildings. All of us, I believe, have the same ends in view. It may be upon the manner in which we reach those ends that we disagree. It is perhaps that we have rather vaguer ideas of the monitoring of taste over a long period.
It seems to me that planning and conservation are so closely linked that a difficulty arises when a planning permission which is in every way admirable in fulfilling the desires and aspirations of the creators and, indeed, in adding to the community is granted but other considerations are less seriously considered. The consideration of the preservation of old buildings and of pieces of history could ultimately outweigh, in my view, and also in the opinion of other noble Lords, even those considerations of planning which are acceptable in almost every case. It is the problem of the weight of the preservation against the planning that perhaps concerns us in the longer term.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not wish to protract this discussion, but I should like the noble Lord to take on board the point that preservation is part of planning. It is the function of the Secretary of State, when important decisions are taken to him, to have in mind the conservation considerations and to balance these against what the noble Viscount calls planning, although I think he means development. Planning consists of balancing conservation against development. That is where the protection which the noble Viscount seeks should be. That is why our debate on 10th June was, and our amendments for Third Reading will be, so important to him. That is why he is wrong to pursue the line which he is pursuing at the moment on only one aspect of planning.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I accept the Minister's point. There is an area of confusion here, and it is an area of confusion which is in many people's minds outside your Lordships' Chamber. I think that the whole view of conservation in this area is extremely woolly. In a way I may have projected this woolliness in your Lordships' House; but I think it is useful in that it shows that in public attitudes there are areas which give rise to concern.
Nevertheless, I have been impressed by the sincerity and the helpfulness of the noble Lord the Minister and his noble friends while at the same time I still express anxiety. I am concerned about bodies being created which are made up of appointees. In a society such as ours—indeed, ideally in every society—I believe it is preferable that the views of the electorate should be expressed on all matters of this kind. I believe that t hey should be elected bodies rather than quangos of this kind. However, this may work very well and I have been impressed by some of the remarks that have been made, particularly those by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu. But I do not think it is difficult to project one's imagination into the future, and there may be other overriding factors in the Government's mind. I am a little concerned about the remark made by such an eminent person as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and that made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said that it should devolve to the boroughs; but the boroughs do not have a very good record, particularly in conservation. If one takes a close look, there is cause for anxiety there.
All things being considered, I accept the assurances which have been offered by the noble Lord the Minister and shall wait to see how matters develop and whether we can clear up some of this woolliness. I shall wait for the Third Reading of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44 [Historic House Museums]:
Lord Cottesloe Lord Cottesloe moved Amendment No. 80AQ:
Page 28, line 34, at beginning insert ("Save as provided in section (Hampstead Heath) below,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 80AQ, and at the same time it might be for the convenience of the House if I speak to Amendments Nos. 80AR, 80AS and 80AT.
Amendment No. 80AR: Page 28, line 38, after ("State") insert ("except such lands mentioned in section (Hampstead Heath) below,".
Amendment No. 80AS: Page 28, line 42, at end insert ("(insofar as this relates to Kenwood House and its contents).").
Amendment No. 80AT: After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
( "Hampstead Heath.
.—(1) Hampstead Heath and all land held therewith by the Greater London Council immediately prior to the abolition date, that is to say the land known as Golders Hill, Sandy Heath, The Hill, West Heath, Parliament Hill, Kenwood and Hampstead Heath Extension, shall on the abolition date, unless an order has before that date been made under section 99 below, be vested together with any appropriate functions in the London residuary body.
(2) Any order made under section 66(3) or under section 99 in relation to the land referred to in subsection (1) above shall transfer those lands in their entirety.
(3) In making any order as in subsection (2) above the Secretary of State shall have regard to the functions performed prior to the abolition date by the Greater London Council in relation to Kenwood House and to the desirability of continuing lakeside concerts in the Kenwood part of Hampstead Heath.").
Amendment No. 80AT embodies the heart of this matter. At this time of the evening I shall endeavour to be brief. The purpose of these amendments is to enable the Minister to ensure that all the lands that go to make up the 800 acres and more of rural countryside that is generally spoken of as Hampstead Heath, together with the woodlands and meadows of Kenwood and its lake, are managed as a unit, as they are now by the GLC, and are not fragmented between the boroughs or otherwise.
This would enable Kenwood House and its contents, together no doubt with its terrace and garden, to be assigned, if that is desired, to the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, while the wide expanses of the heath would be under a unitary management which would care for the wildlife and the rural aspects that are so much enjoyed by many hundreds of thousands of people—Londoners and others—keeping in touch with and having regard to the views and interests of the public, as the GLC has done so admirably in recent years. I hope that the Minister, who I know regards these matters with sympathy and understanding, may feel able to accept these amendments. I can see no reason why he should not. They would not tie his hands, but they would enable him to ensure that the arrangements are such as all concerned would wish. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment, to which I have given my name. I hope the Government are going to be able to give us
104
some news of what they intend to do about Hampstead Heath. It is a difficult decision, and there are various options. But until that decision is made it is vital that the Heath should be passed to the residuary body; otherwise, I am advised that it would go automatically to one of the boroughs.
As I see it, there are six options. There is first of all the question of dividing it between three boroughs; and, of course, unlike Gaul, I think Hampstead Heath probably cannot be divided into three parts. If it is a question of passing it to the borough which owns the largest number of hectares, which is Camden, I think nobody would want that. It would be difficult for Camden to run it with the rate capping, and everything else.
Then there are the City of London, the DoE, the commission, and the National Trust. The Government are rather favourably inclined towards the City of London. We were told by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—I am sorry he is not in his place—that they run Epping Forest very well. On the other hand, I am sorry to say that they have not got such a good record over Highgate Wood. I believe they planted beech trees there which are quite inappropriate with oak, as they prevent the regeneration of the oak wood. They have also, I am told, built houses on the edge of the wood—houses for employees, I think, but all the same houses on the edge of the wood.
There is the question of the commission and the National Trust, of course, who would need an endowment. I personally rather favour the DoE. They run the Royal Parks very well. They run Richmond Park, which in many ways is wild country similar to the Heath, extremely well. But I think that while the Government are considering all these options and also the question of the finance, which is important, it is essential that the Heath should be passed to the residuary body—I can see no reason why it should not—in the interim. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elton—I know his heart is in the right place over this—is going to give us some news tonight.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I, too, should like to support this amendment and make two points. It appears that the most favoured body so far as the Government are concerned to take over the running of the Heath is the City of London. I would have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that if that is the case it will meet with fierce resistance, and fierce resistance based on practical experience of the ability of the City of London to manage areas of a similar character.
My noble friend Lord Strabolgi mentioned Epping Forest. Frankly, that is a bad example because the City of London play a very small part, if any, in the running of Epping Forest, which is in the hands of the conservators. It is the conservators who determine policy and carry out management work there. I do not think that the record of the City of London, and in particular in respect of what my noble friend mentioned, justifies anyone placing any confidence in it being able to manage as complex and varied an area of open countryside in the middle of London as the

105
Heath represents. I hope that the Government will try to dismiss that from their mind.
I would agree with the suggestion made by my noble friend that if this has to go to an unelected body it should be the DoE, with their responsibilities for the Royal Parks and, in particular, Richmond, which is by far the closest analogy to the Heath that we have available.
The second point I want to make has not been touched on this evening, and I do not think it was touched on in earlier debates. I have tried to read the debates on all the different occasions on which the Heath has been mentioned, and there are a large number of them and they occur in many different contexts. It seems to me that the Government have not yet fully understood the complexity of the different buildings which surround Kenwood House itself. I am happy for the house and its contents and the formal gardens immediately adjacent and behind the house to go to the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission. That seems a reasonable decision, although it would be much better for the whole thing to be managed as an entity as it is now.
But there are other buildings there, such as the flats which, I understand, are occupied by staff or by retired staff of the heath, not of the house. There is the coach house, which contains an excellent cafeteria and restaurant which really services the heath and the people walking on and enjoying the heath to a far greater extent than those visiting the house. It seems to me that those buildings should be managed with the heath, not with the house and its contents.
There is the land in front of the house, the lakes and Kenwood itself, which historically has never been part of the house although it is widely thought to be the case. Historically it appears to have been a separate bequest to the heath under quite different terms from the bequest of the house and the land that went with the house itself. All in all it would be a tragedy if part of that woodland, or indeed all of it, and the lake in the wood were to be separated from the management of the rest of the open countryside which makes up the heath. I hope the Government will consider that point.
Obviously the concerts should continue and should be considered to be part of the management of the house. I do not think that the wood and the lakes should go with the rest of the countryside to whichever body is thought appropriate. I hope that the Government will come to the conclusion that the Royal Parks administration should do that job.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Cottesloe and to the noble Lords, Lord Strabolgi and Lord Melchett, for bringing this perhaps rather domestic but nonetheless important London concern to your Lordships' attention. It is a subject of close concern to a number of your Lordships, not least to me, and I am glad of the opportunity to reassure your Lordships on one or two issues.
In drafting the principal amendment noble Lords have recognised the normal and expected way in which ownership of the heath and responsibility for its management would be allocated; that is, by order under Clause 99. Subsection (1) of the new clause defines the full extent of the heath. Subsection (2)
106
requires that if an order were made in the normal way under Clause 99, it shall transfer the whole of the heath as a single entity. The first concern therefore is to see that the heath is not broken up like Gad or anything else. I shall return to that in a moment.
The second concern of noble Lords is that if' the destination for ownership of the heath has not been decided by abolition day, it shall not go into some kind of administrative limbo, or indeed to the local borough by default. In subsection (1), therefore, they also provide for that eventuality by saying that in that case it shall pass to the London residuary body. Their second concern, therefore, is to see that the heath does not fall into some procedural hiatus in the devolution process. Again in subsection (2) noble Lords provide that on transferring ownership out of the London residuary body and into the finally chosen destination by means of an order under Clause 66(3) the whole of the heath must be passed on entirely.
The third and final concern of noble Lords is to protect not only the unity of the heath but also the continuation of the lakeside concerts in what they describe as the Kenwood part of Hampstead Heath. This is something that they wish the Secretary of State to have in mind before he makes a final transfer.
I shall deal with the concerns of my noble friend and his co-signatories and of a much wider audience, whose anxieties I am sure they accurately reflect, in the order in which I have illustrated them. First, both my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I remain firmly wedded to the principle of keeping the heath as a single entity. It was because we became aware of public concern about what was seen as the unequal and opposing interests of the three boroughs concerned that we embarked on the present discussions in the first place. It was in the context of the anxiety that the noble Lord and others have expressed that my right honourable friend undertook that the heath should be managed as a single entity. That undertaking I am happy to repeat.
The second concern of the noble Lords is that the future of the heath might be rendered insecure if it has not been finally dealt with before 1st April next year or that it might go willy-nilly into three boroughs. I believe that that anxiety springs, in part, from a perception of the number of subsidiary issues to be resolved and the range of options to be considered between now and then. We have not yet, it is true, come to a final conclusion. I would hope and expect to do so well before April. Even if we had not done so or if, as I think is more likely, we had done so but had not worked out the final details, the result that the noble Lord seeks to guard against could not happen.
If noble Lords look at Clause 61 of the Bill, they will find a reference in subsection (2) to residuary property. The term "residuary property" is then defined as:
"Any property for the vesting of which provision is not otherwise made … under this Act or any other enactment".
If ownership of Hampstead Heath had not been transferred by the beginning of April, it would become residuary property. If noble Lords look at subsection (1) of the same clause, they will see that, as residuary property within the meaning of the clause, ownership of the Heath would pass automatically to the London residuary body.

107
I think your Lordships can agree, on reflection, that my right honourable friend's undertaking and mine and the existing provisions in Clause 61 between them take care of both the first and second of the three concerns. These concerns have been with general principles. We have been looking at the whole Heath, as it were, from a distance.
With their third concern, subsection (3) of the new clause, we zoom in to a precise and particular problem. As background to this problem, those noble Lords not familiar with the issue should know that on the edge of the Heath there is a very fine house known as Kenwood House. This is one of the three historic house museums listed in Clause 44. It came to the GLC from its predecessor, the LCC, and it came to the LCC as a bequest from the late Lord Iveagh, as did a good deal of the surrounding landscape. There is general satisfaction with the decision expressed in Clause 44 to transfer Kenwood House to the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission and the capable and sensitive hands of my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.
I do not propose to go into very precise detail because I do not think this House as a whole would wish to devote its time on Report to matters on that scale. However, there is one important issue beyond the mere practicalities and I am glad that the noble Lords have drafted the amendment in a way that enables me to clarify it. It is this. By defining the Heath as they have in subsection (1) and by requiring it to remain indivisible, as they do, they establish the principle of no separation. Then they indicate in subsection (3) that they are anxious to continue the lakeside concerts. Moreover, they expect this to be achieved by the Secretary of State taking into account the desirability of it happening when he makes the order transferring the heath to new ownership. That can only mean in statutory language that the order itself is to reflect the desirabililty of what they want. The order is an order to transfer property. It can therefore only reflect the desirability of what they want to happen and make it likely that it will happen in terms of the ownership of the property.
There is little doubt in my mind that the concerts—and in this I am at one with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett—are events that go with the house and that the running of concerts is more akin to the running of a museum or a stately home than it is to running a very large public open space like the Heath. If the order were to reflect the desirability of the lakeside concerts continuing after abolition it seems to me the only way that could be done would be by transferring ownership of the lakeside on which the concerts are to take place together with the ownership of the house, which is the natural background and setting.
There is nothing very new in assigning this area with the house rather than with the Heath, because that is what the first recipients of the very valuable bequest themselves did many years ago. It is possible to argue that the land that goes with the house ought to be the land within the fence that the LCC put up some years ago. In support of the view that land should go with the building, I was today approached by the noble Lord, Lord Moyne. Your Lordships will know that he is the
108
grandson of the late Lord Iveagh who gave both the house and grounds in the first place. His view, which he kindly said I should quote, is that the glory of Kenwood is the house in its setting. He said:
"The garden of Kenwood is its landscape and not a few flowerbeds around the house. It seems to me important that responsibility for the house and park should be vested in a single authority".
I know that that is also the view of the Friends of Kenwood House.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord to get something clear? He said in that quotation of the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, that the house and the park should be vested in a single authority. Can the noble Lord say what he was referring to in the term "park"? Is that the ground fenced by the LCC, the ground that was originally granted with house, or the heath plus house as a whole?
9.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it was by way of a telephone conversation at a distance and I could not say what the noble Lord defined as the "park". But I put the matter on the record to show simply this. Your Lordships may not want to dwell on the details for long, but what I have said shows that I have received many submissions on this matter and there are clearly contradictory views on what is best. I spoke on it at length only to make it clear that even on our undertaking to transfer the heath as an entity there is room to differ about the precise location of its boundary and that the solution inferred by the drafting of the amendment would be a respectable one, if that is what should finally emerge.
I return to the various concerns which your Lordships have expressed and to another which we have had clearly shown as underlying them all. I repeat that the heath will be managed as an entity. I repeat that interim arrangements already exist which will ensure that it will be transferred' to the London residuary body if no other single body owns it by 1st April 1986. To that I add the important assurance that the residuary body would take on staff to run the heath, at the same time. I also accept the desirability of continuing the lakeside concerts, although that must rest with the successor authorities and not with central Government.
The underlying concern to which I referred was not so much who the eventual owner should be but that, whoever should finish up in possession, the views of those most interested should be heard and the interests of local residents spoken for. I want to put it on record that I share that concern and that I intend that provisions shall be made for that purpose under any arrangements at which we eventually arrive.
I hope that my noble friend will consider very carefully what I have said and will feel that he may withdraw his amendments of which a considerable part is, as I have made clear, a duplication of what is already in the Bill and which your Lordships could not therefore in any case accept. I hope that he will accept also that he has my entire goodwill and I hope that we arrive at a solution which will not only preserve the heath, but also keep happy those who enjoy it.
Lord Cottesloe: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the assurances that he has given, and,

109
indeed, very grateful to my friends on the opposite side—if I may so call them—for what they have said. With regard to what the Minister has said, there is one thing that I should perhaps say that might be further investigated and found to be helpful. I found to my surprise that there are two separate trusts under Lord Iveagh's will, one of which I understand deals with the house and its contents, and the grounds are in a separate trust. There is no particular reason on that basis why the grounds should not go in with the heath without affecting the trust. However, I am very grateful indeed to my noble friend for what he has said and for the sympathy and understanding with which he regards the whole matter. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 80AR, 80AS and 80AT not moved.]
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 80AU:
Before Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
("Archaeology in Metropolitan Counties
.—(1) The provisions of this section shall apply where immediately before the abolition date there are in being in a metropolitan county arrangements (including the employment of staff) provided by the council of that county for the carrying out of archaeological excavations and related matters within the area of that county.
(2) The councils of the districts in a metropolitan county shall establish a joint committee of members of those councils whose duty it shall be to seek to co-ordinate—

(a) the continued provision in the area of that metropolitan county of the arrangements referred to in subsection (1) above in a form as near as is reasonably practicable to the form of those arrangements immediately before the abolition date; and

(b) the employment, provision or use by those councils for the maintenance of those arrangements, of staff, property and facilities.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is concerned with archaeology. The theme of archaeology, which is an essential ingredient in our understanding of our heritage and history, has been present during the passage of this Bill, from Second Reading through to the Committee stage, and now to the Report stage.
In order not to take up too much time I shall briefly draw the attention of the House to the fact that during Committee stage consideration was given to giving the responsibility for archaeology to the appropriate residuary bodies. That would enable permanent arrangements to be worked out. Although there were some speakers who supported this concept, rather more recognised the absolute necessity for keeping the units together. The amendment was defeated on the basis of not liking the idea (after the Minister had spoken) of archaeology going to the residuary bodies.
Following that, there have been further discussions with the archaeological profession and also with the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Commission. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, was hoping to be present but he had to leave the House. He and his commission support the idea embodied in this amendment of joint committees being set up, as does the Council for British Archaeology.
These arrangements would be simple and effective. They would be tidier and easier to start off at this stage. Although the Minister may mention Clause 94(2)(b), which gives districts the power to get together and set up a body, this would be a much neater way to do it. It would also remove a great deal of the anxiety which archaeologists themselves feel at the moment. There are in the metropolitan counties only 23 professional archaeologists; otherwise they are all people who are either from the Manpower Services Commission or volunteers. It is necessary to group them, in order that the work is done properly and that funding should emerge, into county-wide bodies. There are precedents for that type of arrangement. The Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit is managed by a committee representing the city, the county councils and the university.
I remember that at the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, suggested the attachment of these units to universities. He gave the example of Israel, where this happens to a very large extent. The problem in this country is that we have a history of local government funding, and with the disappearance of the metropolitan counties and the GLC it is a question of what will take their place in regard to funding. Whereas the universities can give archaeology a home by way of giving it a place in the structure, they are not able—and in the future I think they will be less able because of cuts—to find the necessary funding. At the same time, the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Commission and English Heritage funds on a project basis, when it funds. That means that somewhere the core funding has to be found if archaeology is to be an on-going activity in this country, not subject to starts and stops. Indeed, al the Committee stage on 14th May the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, explaining why he did not like the residuary body, said at col. 1076 of Hansard:
"Is there really not any possibility that in a metropolitan county there can be some co-ordination whereby the districts may jointly draw upon the skills of these teams so that they do not have to duplicate them?"
Later on, he said this:
" … there may have to be a co-ordinated county body supported by a number of districts. I would suggest that this matter be carefully considered".
That is almost identical to the amendment which I am moving this evening. It does not go in any way contrary to the grain of the Bill, because quite clearly it is the councils of the district in the metropolitan county. It means that it would save a lot of delay: and with the districts having so many other functions put on them, a leadership of this sort—which is really what it is—would start by being joined together because you cannot divide the 23 specialist archaeologists among the six or seven metropolitan counties. They would start with a proper structure and could then work in that way. I should have thought that this amendment would find favour because of the very respectable and responsible support that it has outside and also because it is a practical solution which is entirely in accord with the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, this amendment, ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is an amendment which she tabled at Committee but which she did not move, advancing instead another related

111
amendment to transfer archaeology, not, as she now suggests, to a statutory joint committee, but to the residuary body. That amendment fell foul of your Lordships' wish to avoid transferring any permanent function to this temporary body without giving it a final destination, and it was defeated on a Division by a substantial majority.
I am sure your Lordships will not wish me to repeat word for word everything that I said when the noble Baroness spoke to her related amendment. Briefly, the fact is that there is some excellent work being undertaken by archaeological units under the auspices of the metropolitan county councils. It is highly regarded. It is well supported by public funds, and the Government accept that there is a need for the work to continue. The Government do not accept that the districts neither can nor will touch it.
In returning to the charge with this amendment, the noble Baroness seeks to overcome her difficulties by handing archaeology not to a temporary body but to a permanent body which is to be a joint committee. That committee, I note, will have a duty that is limited to preserving intact, as far as possible, the local authority archaeological arrangements, if any, which existed in all parts of a metropolitan county before abolition. It has, I note, no duty to create such arrangements where none existed; nor does it have any duty to improve such arrangements that do exist at abolition. Indeed, in subsection (2)(a) it is actually discouraged from doing so. Its duty is not to strengthen, encourage or improve, but to seek to co-ordinate the continued provision of those arrangements in a form which is as near as is reasonably practicable to the form of those arrangements immediately before the abolition date; in other words, to fossilise, as it were, the arrangements for archaeology in a form which all of us recognise as being often far from perfect.
The amendment does not provide for establishing new efforts where there is none; and, as I say, it turns its face against improving that effort where it does exist. I hope the noble Baroness can be persuaded that things are not absolutely as bad and the districts are not absolutely as devoid of interest in her subject as she may think, and that there is a more contructive path that she could follow. Even if she cannot be so persuaded there are provisions either already in the Bill or tabled for inclusion in the Bill by the Government which will, I think, do a good deal to reassure her.
The first thing I ask her to reflect upon is Clause 94 of the Bill as drafted. That Bill already imposes a duty on all districts in every metropolitan area, not just in those with existing archaeological units, to establish by 1st September 1985 a joint preparatory committee. This committee will have a duty to co-ordinate preparatory work for the exercise of functions previously exercised concurrently with the counties. However, under subsection (2)(b) of that clause the joint committees will also have the specific duty to consider whether any of the functions could with advantage be jointly discharged, and if so to promote arrangements accordingly.
10 p.m.
This will enable them to make joint arrangements for the employment of staff and the provision of
112
facilities for their archaeology. It will also enable them to consider the provisions for archaeology in the context of their other related activities; for example, in the fields of historic buildings, county sites, monuments, records and conservation. It will also allow them to decide on the best arrangements in the light of those that exist at present.
My second point, on which again I should like to reassure the noble Baroness, is that the districts can be assured of support in this work. I have previously drawn your Lordships' attention to the initiative being undertaken by the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission in offering help and advice in setting up joint successor arrangements of the sort I have described.
The noble Baroness told us in Committee that the districts, at least in West Yorkshire, are willing to cooperate. So they are, I believe, elsewhere. But there remain inhibitions against co-operation which I can only describe as political and which are profoundly worrying to the staff who actually man the service. Failure to co-operate until after abolition will not, it is true, necessarily result in the dispersal of an archaeological service. To those whose concern is only for the service and not for the small band of dedicated officials who deliver it full-time, that can only be reassuring.
As I have already mentioned in other debates, Amendment No. 81C will place a duty on each residuary body to contact all successor authorities in this area to see whether any of them wish, or are likely to need, after abolition any professional or technical services for which prior arrangements have not been made, and if so to enter into agreements for the residuary body to provide professional or technical services on a temporary basis. That gets the archaeological service to where the noble Baroness wanted in Committee to get it, but not on a permanent basis as she wished. We can discuss that amendment later this week.
Archaeological services will come within the scope of this duty. Thus the residuary body will be actively consulting successor authorities about the need for it to take over certain staff on abolition date, in order to provide services temporarily. The residuary body will then collaborate with successor authorities in actively promoting permanent arrangements for services that it takes on on this basis. I stress to your Lordships that this means that valuable expertise will not be lost. Provided there remains a need for any services that the residuary body takes on to continue, there need be no hiatus during the transitional period.
That is, as I say, very important and reassuring to those concerned only with organisation, but we must also be concerned—and I know that the noble Baroness is concerned—about the implications for the people who work in archaeology, and indeed for other public servants of every description, of the prolonged and unnecessary uncertainty caused by the refusal of some authorities of any sort of co-operation on any front.
The way to break that deadlock is not by an amendment such as this, nor by one that has been redrafted to remove the shortcomings that I have described in it; nor can it be to impose, as some noble

113
Lords would wish, any functional statutory duties where none at present exists. The purpose of this Bill, I remind your Lordships, is clearly stated and we cannot go beyond it now. It is to transfer functions and duties; not to create them.
Therefore, what I ask the noble Baroness to do is something I ask of all people who wish to avoid local authority staff having to suffer totally unnecessary anxiety in order to satisfy political aims cherished by their elected and their trade union masters long after they have the remotest chance of fulfilment; because, let us face it, the only possible justification of non-co-operation was to ensure that abolition never took place at all, and now this House has joined with another place to say that it shall. The purpose of non-co-operation is defunct and the harm it does is therefore now entirely without point.
What the noble Baroness might do, I therefore hope, with the advantage that I do not have for this purpose of sitting on the other side of the House, is to remind those authorities of their duty to the staff as well as to the electorate of the metropolitan counties to which they are the heirs, and to mention to the districts in West Yorkshire, which she assures us are prepared to co-operate, that they should start to do so, and that they could do worse than take up the offer of help made by the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission in the letter to which I referred a moment ago. With that, she could, I am sure, do more good than she could with any amendment like this one, which, for the reasons I have given, I fear I cannot commend.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I must say that that was a hell of a long answer to a very simple and quite short amendment and introduction. At one point the noble Lord the Minister rendered me almost speechless when he talked about fossilising the arrangements for archaeology. If we are going to stay with archaeological metaphors, I would say that I feel he is absolutely scraping the barrel in order to find reasons for refusing the amendment. Incidentally, I did not move the amendment in Committee. It was my noble friend Lady Lockwood, who unfortunately cannot be here this evening, as her husband is unwell. I have read very carefully everything that was said. On that occasion the noble Lord the Minister carefully explained how wrong it was for this responsibility to go to the residuary body. Now he is talking about it going to the residuary body and suggesting all sorts of extraordinary motives behind this very simple amendment which suggests only that the districts should get together. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, said in Committee at cols. 1077–78 of the Official Report for 14th May:
"I will admit that the commission is concerned that there may be a reduction in archaeological conservation work in the metropolitan counties as a result of the abolition of those councils and the disbandment of the teams. We have been discussing with Government various matters and have pressed them to find some method of ensuring that funds are available for the continuing work of these archaeological and conservation teams or whoever may take over from them. We have been writing to the archaeological units up there, suggesting that we establish trusts or companies limited by guarantee to take over the work".
Having discussed that with him, the noble Lord agreed that the joint committee would fulfil the same function. The whole question of non co-operation is a
114
different one. I agree that it causes difficulties at the moment, but the Minister knows perfectly well that once the Bill goes through, as I fear it will, another situation will arise.
I shall not repeat all that I have said before. However, in view of the small number of professional staff and the importance of using them to the best of their ability and using the structure, a provision of this kind is needed. If the amendment had said that everything should be improved or increased, the Minister would have had some very good answer as to why that could not be accepted. The noble Lord knows that perfectly well. This is just a case of nit-picking.
At this time of night I am certainly not going to go any further with the amendment. The Minister mentioned that he would be coming along at Third Reading with some amendments. I do not think that this is MI5 stuff or anything like that, and if he could indicate the lines along which the Government are thinking about archaeology, we would all be much happier and I could withdraw my amendment feeling that something constructive was to be done.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I just want to confirm that the amendments are already on the Marshalled List. Unfortunately, a good deal of explanation is needed and I do not think I can provide it in an intervention in the speech of the noble Baroness. She will remember that we have previously had debates about professional and technical services. If she looks around Clause 61, she will find what we are looking for. I would rather not try to get into that debate now. However, we are proposing that where there are available in the field valuable professional and technical teams who would be dispersed for lack of adequate reasons, for whom it appears that there will be a call after abolition date but the arrangements are not yet made, the residuary body will be under a duty to go to the Secretary of State and ask for an order to transfer them and their equipment and property to the residuary body pending the making of those arrangements. I hope that I got that right in what was a very condensed form. It is certainly the shape which the noble Baroness asked me to give her.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much. I have seen that amendment on the Marshalled List; it has been there for some days now. I find it rather weak in structure but we are not discussing that at the moment. I am disappointed that that is the answer but perhaps as we go along we can strengthen it. However, I do not think I shall get any further tonight so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strabolgi Lord Strabolgi moved Amendment No. 80A V:
Before Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
("Arts in Metropolitan Counties.
.—(1). The councils of the districts in a metropolitan county shall not later than 31st Deccember 1985, establish a joint committee of members of those councils whose duty it shall be from the abolition date to exercise the functions to which this section applies.
(2) This section applies to the functions of a metropolitan county council exercised immediately before the abolition date relating to powers to make grants or loans and to give guarantees to bodies or persons carrying on artistic or cultural activities (including the provision of museums and art galleries").)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, whom I am glad to see in his place, stated that the arts will not suffer as a result of abolition. It is, of course, appropriate to recognise the value of the promised additional central funding.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am reluctant to interrupt the noble Lord but what I have always said, in various idioms, is that there is no need for the arts to suffer as a result of abolition. If people are wilfully determined that they should, that is another matter.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am the last person to want the arts to suffer. That seems to be a most extraordinary statement from the noble Earl and is one that could only be made late at night. If the noble Earl prefers the words, "the arts need not suffer" I am absolutely at one with him.
The point I was making is that it is appropriate to recognise the value of the promised additional central funding for the arts. However the Minister has ackowledged that this does not replace in full all that the GLC and MCCs spend on the arts, and therefore that the borough and district councils will be expected to play their part after abolition.
The recent Arts Council press release which we discussed earlier on a previous amendment, and bid to the Minister for an increase in this sum, have dramatically underlined this financial shortfall. Should the council be successful in its bid—and I hope it will be—that would of course solve most, if not all, of the financial problems. However, it would totally remove the responsibility for funding those organisations currently supported by the metropolitan county councils from the successor authorities, thereby removing any direct local authority involvement in the arts and also the vitality of plural funding, both aspects of which have been so highly praised by the Arts Council.
I should like to stress that this amendment does not seek to replace or contradict any of the Minister's proposals, but rather to complement and supplement them by creating an efficient mechanism by which the anticipated funding by the district councils could be managed. It is not a covert attempt to increase funding for the arts; rather, it is to ensure that the arts do not suffer. The amendment seeks to establish a joint committee representative of the district councils seeking to allow for the funding of the arts through an efficient system. It would assist both district councils and other funding agencies, and the organisations involved, by saving them the additional time—and, therefore, the cost—spent dealing with the multiple applications. It would spread funding over a wide area so that the contributions are fairly distributed throughout a region, reflecting the regional significance of the activities. It also seeks to avoid a possible downward spiral of funding created by individual districts choosing the lowest possible figure and others following suit.
It is our submission that a joint committee would provide a forum for discussion and for funding and would thereby assist in maintaining arts provision on an equitable basis throughout the county area. It is our view that such joint committees would be able, as the MCCs do now, to work in partnership and close cooperation with the relevant regional arts associations
116
and the Arts Council. I hope that the noble Earl will feel that this is a constructive amendment that is helpful and complementary to what he is seeking to do. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, if the local authorites are to be called on to do a lot to replace funding that was undertaken before by the county authorities, we cannot expect that they should deal with all multiple applications individually. One cannot imagine a situation in which an arts organisation has to go to half a dozen different district or borough authorities in order to persuade them to support some scheme. It is also extremely complicated for those councils to have to consider different applications from different quarters.
I know that there is provision in the Bill whereby a two-thirds majority of a group of councils can give authority for supporting some particular venture, but it seems to me that that process is likely to be cumbrous and complicated and likely to militate against innovation, initiative and new ideas. There is always a tendency on the part of bodies of people considering new ideas to say, "No." It is much easier to say, "No" than to say, "Yes". As I say, I think that a scheme whereby different councils have to consider a certain application would be much more likely to produce a negative rather than a positive answer.
There is also the question of continuity of funding. All arts organisations give cries from the heart that whatever funding they receive they should have the feeling that it will be continued and will not be spasmodic, in order that they may plan for the future. That is one of their recurrent cries. I fear that if individual councils were the sole bodies considering applications, they might so easily say, "Well, we supported you last year. I am afraid that there are higher priorities this year. Sorry, old chap, you will have to go somewhere else."
I think that a joint committee such as the one proposed in this amendment is more likely to do two things. I think that it is more likely to continue to support anything that it has already committed itself to supporting; and also that consideration of arts ventures will be its specialty and it will not be spending its time weighing up priorities in the way that the individual councils will.
It is true that the regional arts associations are already providing overall regional strategic funding for the arts, but it should be borne in mind that they are handling mainly central funds. Indeed, the promised £16 million and any additional sum that they may be lucky enough to get constitute central funds. A committee drawn from district and borough authorities would be handling locally raised funding and would be representative of those who had actually contributed. There would therefore be involvement of ratepayers through their representatives. They would not just be handling funds that had been dropped like manna from on high, which is what the regional arts associations are more concerned with. It would be an example of the principle of no taxation without representation.
We should consider, too, that a committee would be an organ of multiple funding, and multiple funding

117
should always be the aim, both to ensure some degree of continuity and to provide variety in planning. Also, a committee could cover areas where there is poor provision. Some councils are likely to be stingy. Some areas are likely to have a greater need than others. A committee could take an overall view, make provision where that seems necessary and stimulate a generous response where that might be lacking. For those reasons I urge your Lordships to support the amendment, which I believe to be essential for the vitality of the arts in the areas formerly so well served by the "met" counties.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I certainly acknowledge to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that he intended this amendment wholly constructively. I acknowledge that he moved it in an attempt to be helpful and to ensure support for institutions which may be suffering from anxiety at a time of change. The way the noble Lord moved the amendment reflects the concern, which the Government share, concerning the anxieties that may come about as a result of change, especially perhaps in the context of certain integrated services. I am thinking of the integrated museum services, for example, at present maintained by the Tyne and Wear and the South Yorkshire metropolitan county councils
That said, I do not think the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, would be the right solution in the present situation. The reason is that district councils already have powers to establish joint committees to administer arts and museum activities on a shared basis within their areas. It seems to me that it would not be appropriate to single out the successor authorities in the metropolitan areas and, as it were, to force them to do what in all other areas would be done on a voluntary basis.
We have gone far enough in the metropolitan areas to urge co-operation and shared solutions to problems or functions which cross district council boundaries with the introduction into this Bill of Clause 94. The House will recall that this clause requires the establishment of joint preparatory committees of the successor districts no later than 1st September of this year to discuss matters of common interest. I do not see that such preparatory committees could be considered as a model for the permanent statutory provisions moved by the noble Lord in his amendment. It may be—and I very much hope it will be—a decision of such preparatory committees to establish permanent joint arrangements for museum and art gallery services where they feel this to be appropriate. However, I do not think it proper to anticipate the deliberations of local authorities, which should surely be free to decide their priorities, especially where discretionary expenditure on the arts is concerned.
The reality of discretionary spend would still hold, even if the principle were to be dented by accepting the new clause. It does not make explicit the financial provision which would be needed by the joint committee. It is implicit that some financial agreement would need to form part of a joint committee, but this would remain an area in which each district council would of course be free to argue for greater or for lesser annual spend. The museums,
118
theatres or other institutions involved would have expectations of greater security which might not be fulfilled. Most likely there would be no built-in compulsion for district councils forming a joint committee automatically to increase their support because, of course, that would be contrary to all the democratic principles of local authority budgeting and planning.
The new clause proposed by the noble Lord envisages the joint committee making grants or loans to bodies in the performing arts field. I see no harm, and in many cases I see much advantage, in districts voluntarily getting together to support bodies whose scope and importance transcends a single district. However, I very much doubt whether they should be compelled to do so. If they do combine, they will have the backing and expert independent advice of the regional arts associations, as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, acknowledged, as well, of course, as the backing and advice of the Arts Council. Joint voluntary funding could be an advantage to the regional arts bodies, which would need to discuss their finances with one funding source rather than with six or ten district councils. Perhaps the joint preparatory committees would put this on their agenda for further discussion.
Therefore, in conclusion, I should hope that the district councils, in particular in Tyne and Wear, will wish to see the continuation of the pioneering and, from my experience, having visited it, the absolutely first-class integrated museum service. I hope also that they will weigh up the best means of securing this, either by establishing a trust or by establishing a joint committee. I have made clear since April last year that if a satisfactory arrangement is agreed, I shall contribute annually a reasonable sum towards the future maintenance of the service. But I would not, for the reasons I have given, wish to see this Bill compel these councils or fetter their discretion in any way.
At the end of the day, I believe that the local authorities in the metropolitan areas will wish to show both the Government and their own ratepayers that they are responsible and clear-sighted when it comes to support for the arts and museums and galleries. They would rightly resent any implication to the contrary. Such proposals as are before us in the new clause could well prove counter-productive if accepted. Given that I have accepted the very constructive spirit in which the amendment was moved, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will not press it.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for what he has said. I am sure that he will agree that over the last decade or so the Arts Council and the local authorities, working together, have been responsible for some noted developments. Nowhere has this success been greater than in the GLC and MCC areas. The GLC and the MCCs taken as a group have been the unquestioned leaders in the field of local authority support for the arts. From the councils' point of view, it is difficult to envisage alternative arrangements that, taken as a whole, would serve the arts as well as those they are designed to replace.
I have listened carefully to what the noble Earl has said. I think that he has accepted a good deal of the spirit of the amendment. What we have done is to

119
establish the principle that some form of countywide administration is needed in the metropolitan areas for the continued and effective operation of the existing county authority functions relating to the arts and cultural matters. With that, the noble Earl and myself, not for the first time and, I hope, not for the last, are at one. I think he has accepted the spirit of the amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46 [Metropolitan county museums]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 80AW:
Page 29, line 31, at end insert—
("(3) A trust shall be established for any museum or gallery service and any collection of works of art or objects of historical or scientific interest belonging to a metropolitan county council and not vested on the abolition date in accordance with subsection (1) above.
(4) Any trust established under subsection (3) above may make grants towards the upkeep of museums and art galleries and any collection of works of art or objects of historical or scientific interest housed within the area of the metropolitan county.".
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to establish the principle that some form of countywide administration is needed in the metropolitan areas for the continued and effective operation of the existing county authority functions relating to museums. The present proposals in Clause 46 and in related ministerial statements cover Merseyside, with the exclusion of Speke Hall and Croxteth Country Park, and Greater Manchester. They provide for the integrated service in Tyne and Wear only if the districts co-operate in management and funding. They omit the countywide service in South Yorkshire and all the other grants, both revenue and capital, given by MCCs to museums and art galleries.
The amendment does not conflict with Clause 46. It adds to it without necessarily adding to the central funding arrangements and would create efficient management arrangements for existing museum services which are not otherwise coped with by Clause 46 or related ministerial statements. I beg to move.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I shall be brief in my response to the arguments put forward on behalf of this amendment simply because much of what I have just said in response to the proposed new clause moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is apposite in this context. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his concern for museum and art gallery collections for which no specific statutory provision is appropriate but which are in a position of anxiety which I understand and with which I have some sympathy.
The alarm with which many of these bodies face the future is not of the Government's making since I have made clear since April last year that I will make a sum of money available by way of the Museums and Galleries Commission to assist the smaller museums and galleries over the transitional problems, mentioned by the noble Lord, after abolition. I am afraid to say that the alarm is a political consequence of those district councils, particularly in Tyne and Wear, which refuse—I think now largely out of
120
pique—to face the fact that abolition day is fast approaching. Here I echo the comments made by my noble friend Lord Elton in the debate on archaeological services.
10.30 p.m.
These councils have ignored my invitation to discuss the continuation of the integrated museum services and the result inevitably has been despondency among the staff and growing concern in the museum world generally. That seems to be a very high price to exact to threaten such a service for the sake of a little discussion between themselves and with my department.
As it stands, the amendment would not achieve very much. Outside of property on Merseyside, for which a trustee body will be created under Clause 46(1), there is very little in the way of collections owned by a metropolitan county council. For instance, in the case of Tyne and Wear the district councils own the majority of the collections and the buildings in which they are housed. With so very few objects to care for and own, we are therefore essentially looking at the establishment of trusts as channels of funding for museums and art galleries within the metropolitan areas. This is unnecessary. The Museums and Galleries Commission is at the moment applying for a royal charter which will, when granted, enable it to make grants to local authorities and independent museums and galleries. A suitable amount from the £17 million of additional central funding, which I will make available to support the museums affected by abolition, will go to the Museums and Galleries Commission. Therefore, I envisage that most of the grants will be in addition to those made by local councils or on a similar matching or challenge basis—perhaps it is best put as a partnership basis—to the practice of the Arts Council. I certainly hope that the Museums and Galleries Commission will go down that road as it is very effective.
Therefore, we do not need a proliferation of trusts to do the job either of the district councils or of the Museums and Galleries Commission. Both have the expertise to make judgments on what museums or galleries to support, and both, after abolition, will have quite adequate funds. On the subject of funds, this amendment suggests no pattern for trusts, and like other amendments recently it is ominously silent on the question of money. If it is expected that central funding would be forthcoming, I am afraid that I must disillusion the House. Beyond that part of the £17 million which I shall make over to the Museums and Galleries Commission, I expect local councils to continue to fund local institutions of enjoyment, benefit and enlightenment to their own ratepayers. The metropolitan areas are no different in this from, for example, Stoke-on-Trent, Leicester, Bristol or Portsmouth. Indeed, the major collections in Birmingham, Leeds and Sheffield, which are affected by the legislation, are never passed out of district council hands.
Therefore, while I appreciate the concern which the noble Lord has expressed in moving the amendment, I emphasise that it is misplaced. Adequate funds exist; adequate channels exist to make those funds available for the smaller museums' services and institutions.

121
Trusts are not the answer. Common sense and a more responsible attitude on the part of a few district councils is. I urge such councils to enter into discussions with me, and I urge your Lordships to reject this amendment if it is pressed.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I took one minute in moving the amendment and the Minister has, quite properly, taken five minutes to reply. I am absolutely certain that the value of the debate to those outside will be in direct proportion to the time taken. I am sure that the Minister has said something that will be helpful to those who have sought this opportunity to raise the matter here. I very much hope so. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Buckmaster Viscount Buckmaster moved Amendment No. 80CA:
After Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
("Report on Welfare Benefits Projects.
Before the abolition date, the Secretary of State shall consult with the Councils of London Boroughs on arrangements for the continuation of projects undertaken previously by the Greater London Council with the object of informing the public of their entitlement to welfare benefits and encouraging the take-up of those benefits.")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a simple and straightforward amendment. It is perhaps the simplest of all the amendments on the Marshalled List tonight, and perhaps one of the easiest for the noble Lord the Minister to accept. It seeks to ensure the continuation of the valuable work done by the GLC in the sphere of informing the public of their entitlement to welfare benefits. The need for such a service is revealed by the fact that many millions of pounds-worth of social benefits remain unclaimed every year. Over the last year the project ensured that no less than £10 million-worth of unclaimed additional benefits was claimed by pensioners so entitled.
Now what does the project do? The services which the welfare benefits project runs are as follows: it provides local information campaigns which give advice and information at bus stops; a free phone and free post inquiry service; it provides monthly features on television explaining how to claim such benefits as attendance allowance, mobility allowance, maternity benefits, special heating allowance, housing benefits, and many others.
The most important area of all is that it translates all this information into no less than 10 ethnic minority languages. As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will agree, this is important in the context of our ethnic minorities here. How difficult it is for us Britons to understand the immensely complex regulations relating to benefits; how much harder it must be for so many of our ethnic minority residents who have limited knowledge of English. This applies particularly to women. It applies to Asian women, Bangladeshi and Pakistani women, and so on. It applies to many of the Vietnamese boat people, again particularly women, and it is a valuable service.
Then there is an additional provision of training in welfare benefits work for ethnic minority groups, and also the project has developed a remarkable computer which enables operators, after a brief period of
122
training, to go into a house and just press a mass of little digits and they can discover straight away what the claimant is entitled to. This is in no sense a radical amendment. No one could possibly call it a wrecking amendment. I consider it a reasonable and restrained amendment. In that sense, I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I have a number of reasons for wishing to support the amendment, which had originally been tabled in my name. I was then not certain that I was going to be here at this moment, and the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, put his name down first.
Often those who are in greatest need of the help provided by social services and social security are those who are least liable to apply. The amendment is to ensure that the most needy in our society are not deprived of this information, and have it brought to their attention. In the Green Paper which we are to debate in this House on Wednesday, the Government have expressed the view that entitlements are complicated. Whether their proposals will simplify this is another matter, and it is a matter for debate, but the Government's acceptance that they are complicated is enough of a reason to make sure that the work now done continues to be done.
The GLC has done an excellent job, as stated by the noble Viscount, in supporting welfare rights centres. The Government must surely recognise this and must want to ensure that that work goes on. If it were not such a late hour, I should also want to refer to refugees, who, as well as ethnic minority groups, are, for linguistic reasons, less likely to know what their rights are and therefore more in need of welfare rights centres.
The amendment, as has been said, makes no demands upon the Government and does not seek to create a new organisation, but simply calls upon the Government to have discussions to see that these needs are met. It would probably have been a better amendment if it had taken in the metropolitan county councils, because the point applies not only to the GLC, but to county councils in West Yorkshire, the West Midlands and Merseyside, all of which have been active in initiatives to inform the public of benefit entitlements. In West Yorkshire, for example, the county council in 1984 commissioned a study on the availability of welfare rights advice throughout the country. On the basis of the Government's national figures on unclaimed benefit the study estimated that up to £40 million benefit entitlement was unclaimed each year in that county alone, affecting the most needy and vulnerable sectors of the population. They have sought to ensure that as high a proportion as possible receive their entitlement. In some cases this has been done by sustaining and developing the work of citizens' advice bureaux. Sometimes it has involved setting up welfare rights centres. My final reason for supporting this amendment—and I hope that the noble Lord will accept it—is that one of my sons runs a welfare rights centre.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I hope the Government will feel that they can accept this amendment. It is not subject to some of the objections that have been raised to similar previous amendments. For example, it does not compel the London boroughs to do this or that; it simply requires that the Secretary

123
of State should consult them on arrangements for the continuation of the projects previously undertaken by the Greater London Council. In the course of those consultations it is entirely open for the boroughs to say that they want to continue those arrangements with this, that or the other modification. There is no straitjacket imposed on the boroughs as to what they should do, but their attention is drawn to this important subject of seeing that people receive the benefits to which they are entitled.
Early in their life the Government made it known that one of their policy objectives was to prevent what was called "scrounging" from the welfare state. That no doubt is an appropriate activity for Government, but a Government who undertake it are surely under an obligation also to do the reverse, to see that people are not deprived of the benefits to which they are really entitled because the system is too complicated or because they belong to a group in the population who find it difficult to understand how the whole thing works.
The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, and my noble friend Lord Ennals have described the various groups in the population who need this help and the increasing number of modern methods of giving it. We have now built up, with the help of the GLC, a valuable part of the welfare state. Thanks to the Green Papers that the Government have recently produced, before long the whole nation will be engaged in a discussion on how the welfare state should be organised.
However, a discussion of that kind is greatly vitiated if there is a serious discrepancy between the benefits to which on paper people are entitled and the benefits which they actually receive. It is very difficult to assess the value of any scheme of benefits if we are far from certain that it is working out in practice as it is meant to on paper. I believe, therefore, that it cannot be disputed that the Greater London Council has been doing a very valuable piece of work and that it ought to be continued. In this amendment, arrangements are made to help that without placing any straitjacket on the boroughs and without interfering with what the Government regard as the main purposes of the Bill. I therefore hope that they will feel able to accept the amendment.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will not agree to put this amendment into the Bill, basically for two reasons. First of all, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has admitted, it is quite illogical to apply it in the case of London and not apply it in the case of the metropolitan counties. I would suggest, on the contrary, that the need for seeing that this information is available is probably greater in the metropolitan counties than it is in the rather more sophisticated atmosphere of the metropolis. I agree entirely with the noble Lord—and, indeed, I draw on my own experience when I was Minister of Pensions and National Insurance some years ago—that there is real need to see that those most in need are informed of the benefits to which they have a right. That is enormously important. But an amendment of this sort, first of all, excluding the provinces and confined
124
to London, and, secondly, imposing a duty on the Secretary of State to consult without imposing any actual duty on anybody to do anything, seems to be a very ineffective thing to put into a statute.
Moreover, I think it is a little offensive, perhaps, to the London boroughs to suggest that they are not at least as equally aware as is the GLC of the need to inform people living in their boroughs of their rights under the social security scheme. I cannot see why it is thought that the GLC's activities are such that the Secretary of State must seek to persuade the boroughs to follow them. I would suggest that the London boroughs are at least as capable of knowing what their duties are in this respect as the GLC.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, on a preliminary reading of this amendment it would be quite easy to use it as a vehicle to attack the Government. I resist that temptation because, on a further reading of the amendment, one can see that it is a very practical and sensible suggestion to put to the Government to adopt within this Bill so as, I would think, to do two specific things. The first is to ensure that there is a discussion between Government, the GLC and the boroughs in London about how activities can be carried on to ensure the best take-up of the welfare benefits. I would hope (and I am sure that the Government would accept) that it is the wish of the Government that all the welfare benefits that are available should be fully taken up for the benefit of the people of this country.
I would suggest that there is a second reason for the Government adopting this amendment. It is that in the process of having that consultation with the London boroughs and the GLC, they will obtain valuable advice and information about the various problems that are associated with particular welfare benefits and the mechanisms by which those benefits can be helped to be taken up by the people, and also what changes may be necessary to ensure that the benefits that this House and the other place have seen fit to place upon the statute book with a view to assisting the people of this country can be better deployed.
I return to my original statement that on this side of the House this occasion is not being used (as it could quite honestly be used) to attack the Government, but to commend this particular amendment to the House in the belief that not only will it help the people of the country at large but also the Government to fulfil their duties to the people.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that I am glad to recognise the worthwhile work being carried on by the GLC in its effort to boost the take up of welfare benefits. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that the Government want all those who are entitled to receive those benefits; and the Department of Health and Social Security have been co-operating fully with the GLC's officers in their efforts. I see from the nodding of the heads opposite that I do not need to recount the rather lengthy list of ways in which they have done so. As I have often said in discussions on this Bill, it does not follow that because something is done well by the GLC it cannot be done equally well or better by the boroughs. The boroughs have the same general

125
spending powers under the 1972 Act as the GLC and can mount their own campaigns. The advice and the help of the Department of Health and Social Security will be just as available to the boroughs as it is now to the GLC. They provide expertise and continuity, which is vital.
It is open to the boroughs to co-operate with each other in running these campaigns, if they wish to; but in fact I understand that the GLC itself is currently organising its own campaign on a borough-by-borough basis; so it may be that that would not be appropriate. I ought to say that central Government's efforts will continue in this field. At the moment the DHSS has a national Freefone advice service which has recently been extended to the GLC area. They distribute leaflets and claim forms widely and are redesigning them to make them simpler. They already have had one "Plain English" award for this work. Information officers appear on radio and TV programmes on benefits and give talks in local communities; and they write articles in the local papers. The department have translated information leaflets into six Asian languages. They give leaflets inviting a claim to supplementary benefit to all retirement pensioners, widows, sickness benefit and unemployment claimants. They advertise family income supplement in every child benefit order book. They help local authorities to identify housing benefit claimants who might be entitled to other benefits. A lot is being done. I accept that more needs to be done and look forward to continuing co-operation between central Government and the boroughs in the future.
Abolition offers not one single obstacle to that. It does not need the formal provisions for consultation which the amendment suggests—suspended in the air without an application, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out. The initiative for local action must rest with the boroughs. As I say, the advice, help, experience and skill of the department will be readily given. Formal consultation of the sort suggested in the amendment would merely absorb departmental resources unnecessarily which should be deployed to more creative purposes.
I assure your Lordships that I am not being boneheaded about this. It is not simply that we will not accept any change that is suggested to the Bill; and we have demonstrated that already. But I honestly believe that the movement of this from the upper to the lower tier of Government with the continuity provided by the department will ensure that that continues.
Viscount Buckmaster: I thank the noble Lord the Minister for those remarks, which have gone some way towards allaying my misgivings. This is obviously quite an important subject, in view of the number of noble Lords who have supported the amendment. I must say that I am not entirely satisfied with the answer of the noble Lord the Minister. Perhaps I may mention one aspect. He said that the information which the Government would put out would be translated into six Asian languages. Perhaps I may remind him that the GLC welfare project is now putting out no fewer than 10 different language translations. But that is a minor point. In view of the assurances the Minister has given me, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think we have probably reached as far as we can reasonably go this evening. If noble Lords opposite are agreeable. I will beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at four minutes before eleven o'clock.

  VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS: TRANSITIONAL FUNDING
  VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS: TRANSITIONAL FUNDING
  THE LONDON TRUST: ADMINISTRATION
  THE LONDON TRUST: ADMINISTRATION
  THE LONDON TRUST: FUNDING
  THE LONDON TRUST: FUNDING
  LOSS OF THE "MARQUES": PUBLIC INQUIRY
  LOSS OF THE "MARQUES": PUBLIC INQUIRY