Sitting of 23 April 1986

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ULLAPOOL HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Mr. Secretary Rifkind presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Ullapool Harbour; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday 29th April and to be printed. [Bill 139.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Caravan Sites Act 1968
    Mr. Colvinasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to report on possible amendments to the Caravan Sites Act 1968; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Richard Tracey): I announced a review of gipsy sites policy on 13 December and asked for comments and suggestions by the end of March. The 60 or so responses are now being examined and I will announce my conclusions as soon as possible.
    Mr. Colvin: When trying to solve the difficult problem of finding accommodation for gipsies, which should take priority, the statutory obligation upon councils to provide sites, or local planning policy, which can also be enshrined in a statutory structure document? If the latter takes priority, will my hon. Friend consider the introduction of a plan for private gipsy sites identified by a strengthened Gypsy Council and owned by the gipsies themselves?
    Mr. Tracey: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. Every individual case must be decided on its merits. It may be necessary, on occasions, to accept a gipsy site in an area where restrictive planning policies apply. However, the arguments in favour must be extremely convincing. Private sites can make an important contribution, and this will be considered further in the review that I have announced.
    Mr. Steen: Although my hon. Friend recognises the importance of gipsy sites, will he call for a review of tenting and camping sites? Is he aware that the new directions which have been given by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the
    282
    Environment put great pressure on land of historic nature and land of outstanding natural beauty, such as the heritage coastline? Will my hon. Friend initiate a review of 28-day licences, whereby camping is allowed without any planning consent?
    Mr. Tracey: The question was confined to gipsy sites, which are one of my responsibilities, but I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my colleagues at the Department will take his points to heart.

    Leasehold Reform
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his proposals regarding long leaseholders in blocks of flats.
    Dr. Twinnasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to extend the rights of private sector tenants in mansion-block flats.
    The Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction (Mr. John Patten): My right hon. Friend announced in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) on 8 April that the Government have accepted the main thrust of the recommendations of the Nugee committee on the management of privately owned blocks of flats. We propose to go further by giving a right to consultation on the appointment of managing agents and a right in long leasehold blocks to buy out the landlord's interest if he or she persistently fails in his or her duties. We shall introduce legislation as soon as possible.
    Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware that many leaseholders are desperate for early legislation? Does "as soon as possible" mean in the next Session? Is the Minister still seeking opinions on the structure of the legislation, or has that process finished?
    Mr. Patten: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comment. I cannot, of course, anticipate the contents of the Queen's Speech of the next Session. Obviously we are seeking the earliest possible legislative opportunity. I remember listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's speech on his excellent ten-minute Bill. I would welcome any further observations from the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Members on the contents of our future legislation. I believe that there is cross-party agreement about the need to do something.
    Dr. Twinn: I congratulate the Minister and my right hon. Friend on what they have done to extend choice to people who live in flats. Is the Minister aware of the initiative already taken by local Conservative councils which are acting to extend protection to private tenants? Is the Minister aware of the recent agreement made by the Westminster city council with private landlords?
    Mr. Patten: Yes. I have just become aware of the agreement between Westminster city council, under its excellent chairman of housing, Councillor Patricia Kirwan, and a good number of private landlords who, on a voluntary code of guidance, anticipate many, if not most, of the things that we hope to indroduce in legislation. I hope that Westminster's lead will be followed by other boroughs and landlords.
    Mr. Alan Roberts: Is the Minister aware that many people are at a loss to understand why he has not tabled

    283
    amendments or new clauses to the Housing and Planning Bill, to implement the recommendations of the Nugee report? If the Minister really wants to do something for leaseholders in blocks of flats, why does he not accept the Opposition amendment? does he not realise that giving leasehold reform legislation to householders in 1965 helped Labour to a landslide victory in 1966?
    Mr. Patten: I had completely forgotten that, if I ever knew it. The hon. Gentleman is aware, from his distinguished service on the Housing and Planning Bill in Committee, how many new clauses and amendments have been tabled. I am loth to table any more, especially on such a complex issue. I am unable to accept the Opposition's amendment because they would want us to change legislation by secondary legislation attached to the Housing and Planning Bill. The issue is far too complex for that. There are many legal ramifications. We must have separate legislation.
    Mr. John Fraser: May I remind the Minister that the Opposition have offered to give their full co-operation to any legislation which implements the Nugee committee report? May I also remind him that it has been Labour party policy for many years to introduce leasehold enfranchisement on flats along the lines of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The Labour party's view is now endorsed by the Building Societies Association, the National Consumer Protection Council, the Law Commission and many others. Why do the Government not announce that they are in principle in favour of leasehold enfranchisement for flats, as for houses?
    Mr. Patten: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's generous comments about the official Opposition's willingness to collaborate and co-operate with us to ensure that the Nugee recommendations are carried forward into law as soon as possible. We are trying to get after bad, delinquent landlords. We do not want to take rights away from good landlords and good managing agents. There are excellent private landlords and managing agents and we do not want the private rented sector to dry up further. That is doing much harm to housing.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Thurnhamasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the provision of an indemnity for council vendors by right to buy purchasers against potential defects in title; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the position of tenants in his constituency who are denied the right to buy their houses because their landlord does not have good title.
    I deplore the failure of Bolton borough council to take steps to perfect its title. The provision of an indemnity would not, however, be a solution in those cases where the landlord cannot sell because he does not have the necessary interest in the property.
    Mr. Thurnham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that, in many cases, the accepted private sector practice of providing indemnities would be appropriate and helpful?
    Sir George Young: Yes, and it would be helpful if Bolton council would offer indemnity when it considers
    284
    that it has sufficient interest in a property to be able to sell. It would then be for the purchaser to decide whether he was happy to go ahead and buy on the strength of that indemnity.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Can the problems of defects in title relating to the council's responsibility for defects in the property be covered, as many of my constituents are unable to sell houses which they purchased in good faith because they have discovered defects in property which the council formerly owned?
    Sir George Young: That is an ingenious diversion from defect in title to defect in property. The House passed the Housing Defects Act 1984, which was intended to tackle the serious problems experienced by many people who in good faith bought from a public body houses which turned out to have defects. The Government are making good progress with implementing that Act.
    Mr. Sackville: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents in Bolton are unable to buy their homes, although it is clearly the Government's intention that they should be able to do so? How long will councils such as Bolton be allowed to take advantage of the loophole in the right-to-buy legislation? When will the Government introduce legislation necessary to put that right?
    Sir George Young: Many of us heard yesterday the renewed apparent commitment of the Labour party to the right to buy. I wonder whether Opposition spokesmen could now have a word with their opposite numbers in Bolton to see whether that council, which is the only one that I know of which denies the right to buy on this rather flimsy pretext, might change its policy. Legislation is complex, but we have not ruled it out.

    Rates
    Mr. Hickmetasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his assessment of the effect of the imposition by local authorities of high rates to finance expenditure above statutory limits upon the local economy and employment; and what steps his Department has taken and is proposing to take to curb high rate rises.
    The Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government (Mr. William Waldegrave): I have no doubt that the excessive rates imposed by some councils can have serious consequences for the local economy and for employment opportunities. The rates of the very highest spenders are, and will continue to be, curbed by rate capping. In the longer term, we have published proposal to replace the present rating system in the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government".
    Mr. Hickmet: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Have not Left-wing authorities such as Liverpool and Lambeth deliberately pursued spending policies that are designed to sabotage local government? Has not that prompted feeble-minded authorities, such as Scunthorpe in my constituency, to overspend to the tune of 46 per cent. and to support Arthur Scargill in his attempt to close down the steelworks in my constituency, with the loss of 10,000 jobs? Does that not indicate the type of spending programmes that Left-wing authorities are prepared to pursue?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The first two councils that my hon. Friend mentioned sought conflict for the sake of conflict,

    285
    regardless of the damage to ratepayers, to local business, or to anybody else. It is noticeable that Scunthorpe is 60 per cent. over the average for shire district councils. For example, it is 162 per cent. over the average in its expenditure on sports and recreation, but I doubt whether its services are 162 per cent. better. There is, therefore, tremendous room for them to make savings and bring practical help to local business.
    Mr. O'Brien: Has the Minister made any assessment of the effect of the abolition of the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council on rates in West Yorkshire and of the effect of the reduction in rate support grant, which has led to a substantial increase in the rates that are paid by ratepayers in West Yorkshire? Has the Minister assessed the Government's actions that have caused such high rates in West Yorkshire?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I have made a detailed assessment of the fact that the outgoing West Yorkshire metropolitan county council fiddled the books last year and thereby made the rates this year seem much higher. If it had rated at a proper level last year, the rate increases in the successor district councils would have been perfectly reasonable.
    Mr. Nicholls: Is my hon. Friend aware of how far that process has gone in the alliance-controlled Devon county council? In the education department alone staffing has been increased by 10 per cent. That has resulted in a rates increase of about 400 per cent., plus loss of grant. That is the price that was demanded for the abolition of the remaining grammar schools. Is my hon. Friend able to imagine what effect that has had on the local economy?
    Mr. Waldegrave: One of the most marked effects of having hung councils or, even worse, Liberal-controlled councils—this may be an extraordinary and rather shaming fact for the high spenders on the alliance Benches to have to acknowledge—is that they manage to lose control of expenditure even more effectively than does the Labour party. The facts show that the rate increases in the hung councils and the Liberal councils in the shire counties are higher than the rate increases in both Labour and Conservative-controlled councils.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister accept that he has given a very misleading answer? Calderdale, which is a balanced council, has imposed this year a 41 per cent. rates increase, of which 2 per cent. was charged by Calderdale. The rest was charged by the joint boards and quangos that were set up by the Minister's Department. At the same time, boroughs such as Kensington and Chelsea, which hardly need a reduction, have had a 26 per cent. rates decrease, while people in Hove are paying no rates at all. How can that be a successful product of the Government's new rating policies as they affect the country?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I shall be canvassing next week in Kensington and Chelsea, and I shall make use of the hon. Gentleman's useful remark that the Liberal party's view is that the rates in Kensington and Chelsea should be increased. It was the creative accounting, to use the technical term, of the outgoing metropolitan counties that caused the problem in Calderdale. The figures show that hung councils and Liberal councils are higher raters than either Labour or Conservative councils. That must be very shaming for the Liberal party.
    Mr. Spencer: Is my hon. Friend aware that last year, in its publication "Ratewatch", the CBI said that some councillors were either, at best, ill-informed or, at worst, naive and absurd? In view of the efforts of the Labour-controlled city councils and the alliance and Liberal county councils, which have increased the rates by almost 40 per cent. this year, does he not think that the latter, description is more accurate and that it fully justifies the proposal to have non-domestic rates fixed at national level?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is true that the behaviour of some of these councils is every day making it easier for us to argue that we need the radical reforms that we have put forward.
    Mr. Tony Banks: When will the Minister stop using the big lie technique of saying that there is a direct link between rate levels and business failures? The Minister surely knows that the major reasons for business failures in Britain are the state of order books, which depends on the state of the economy, interest rates, and so on. They are all factors that are influenced entirely by Government policies. If the Minister really thinks that there is a direct correlation, why does he not analyse the 7,000 company bankruptcies and the 15,000 liquidations last year to see whether rates were a factor in those failures? If he will not do that, will he start analysing the failures that will continue to flow from Government policies, to see what the correlation is?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is not a very effective representative of the new grey Labour party. The truth is that as a result of Government policies interest rates are now falling and in many areas the unavoidable business cost that is increasing is the business rate. There is no question about that, and I shall be happy to analyse it. Indeed, a number of chambers of commerce and others have sent us good material on the critical effect that rates can have in marginal situations.
    Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend can take heart from the fact that my constituency, which enjoys the highest unemployment and the highest rates in Britain, is looking forward to the day when the Secretary of State rate caps it, or, better still, gets rid of Cleveland county council altogether. That has no friends in my constituency.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I have to disappoint my hon. Friend. At the moment we have no further proposals for local government reorganisation to put before the House, although there are some in Bristol who feel about the county seat of Avon as my hon. Friend does about Cleveland county council. My hon. Friend is right. In the short term the best thing to do is to get a Conservative council back to bring effective help to local businesses.
    Mr. Straw: Why does the Minister not have the guts to admit that rates have risen by three times the level of inflation this year and twice the level of inflation in the seven years of Conservative Government because of the £17ʷ5 billion cumulative cuts in rate support grant for which the Government are responsible? Does he not understand that it is an outrageous slur against the outgoing councillors of West Yorkshire to suggest now what he has never suggested in the past 12 months, that rates have gone up in West Yorkshire by 28·3 per cent. because of some kind of fiddling by them. Rates have gone up in West Yorkshire, the West Midlands, Tyne and Wear, South

    287
    Yorkshire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester, and in Conservative shire counties by 17·6 per cent., because of the Government's policies in cutting the rate support grant.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. In two of the ex-metropolitan county areas in particular—Merseyside and West Yorkshire—a critical factor in the high rates this year was creative accounting by outgoing councils. This is not the first time that I have said what I did today about West Yorkshire. I have repeated it on many occasions because it is true. The hon. Gentleman tries, as usual, to obfuscate the issue. The fact is that Labour authorities mean higher spending. I regret that we are seeing an increase in real terms in expenditure in many Labour authorities and, I fear, a few Conservative authorities. That is why the rates are increasing so much.

    Nuclear Waste
    Mr. Meadowcroftasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received concerning the disposal of nuclear waste.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I have had a wide range of representations, from hon. Members and others, mostly concerning the recent announcement of alternative possible sites for the disposal of low-level and short-lived intermediate level wastes.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Given the immense and proper concern about nuclear waste disposal, will the Minister give us two undertakings: first, that the Select Committee's report will be debated before the orders are laid; and, secondly, that the debate on the Select Committee's report will not be regarded as the debate on the orders themselves?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Those matters are obviously for consideration by my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I am sure that they will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said.
    Mr. Michael Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for visiting my constituency on Monday morning. In connection with the representations to which he referred in answer to the question from the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft), will he confirm that many of those representations come from South Killingholme and from my constituency? Will he urge his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to give serious consideration to the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds, West about the need for a debate on the Select Committee report? Does my hon. Friend stand by his parliamentary answer to me when he said that he would lay the special development order before the end of April, as that is nine days away?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I confirm that the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) was also made to me by my hon. Friend and by many of those whom I met during the enjoyable but anxious day that I spent on Humberside. As for my hon. Friend's latter point, I cannot yet give him the exact date on which the special development order will be laid, but I hope that there will be no undue delay about that.
    Mr. Frank Cook: I thank the Minister for the courtesy that he showed last week in forwarding to me on publication the report made on the contribution of nuclear establishments to acid deposition, which reported that the
    288
    degree of deposition was practically nil. Can he therefore understand the astonishment that I felt when I saw the minutes of the Dungeness local liaison committee meeting of 6 December 1985, which reported on the Central Electricity Generating Board's proposals to strip Magnox cladding from fuel rods, to dissolve that cladding in acid and to dispose of the sludge directly into the sea? Will the Minister explain how that process was licensed and why it was started? How can he square the open proposals to have dry storage at Trawsfynydd with the covert proposals to pollute the ocean?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's first point about the contribution by nuclear power stations to the acid rain problem. The research has shown that that is not a problem. The CEGB proposals to which the hon. Gentleman referred would proceed only if the sludge came within the existing authorisation which my Department laid down for that power station. If that technique is to be used, it would have to be used within the existing authorisation so there would be no significant addition to the amount of radioactivity in the sea.
    Mr. Hickmet: Will the Select Committee's report be debated before the special development order is laid? If not, why not?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I cannot yet give a clear answer to my hon. Friend on that point.
    Dr. Cunningham: Does the Minister accept that the Labour party would like a debate on the report of the Select Committee on the Environment on this matter? Is it not clear that the useful life of the Drigg disposal site in my constituency is quickly coming to an end and that it is a national requirement that an alternative site for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste should be found? Is it true that most people believe—and I hope that the Government accept—that the discharge of low-level waste to the marine environment should be abolished, not increased? Why will the Government not set a target date now for the abolition of discharges to the Irish sea and impose an annual reduction on those discharges until that target is met? In that connection, it must be foolish to agree that the CEGB should dispose of additional waste from Dungeness. No such authorisation should be granted.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I have had only a brief opportunity to study the hon. Gentleman's last point, but I believe that no new authorisation would be needed, as it would be within the existing authorisation. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first point. Some people see a great extension of Drigg as being the way to solve all the problems. I do not believe that that is so. If, as some people say, there were to be intense compaction of waste, which would then be deposited at Drigg, Drigg would have to take more radioactivity than should properly be posited there. The Government agree on that point.
    There is a steady diminution in the amount of radioactive material that is placed at sea. We are now putting to sea a tenth of what was being deposited 10 years ago, and in 10 years' time we shall be depositing only a tenth of that. That is steady progress. I think that there will always be some trivial outputs to the sea from Sellafield, but our objective is to reduce the level to the best in the world, which is at Cap la Hague.

    Rates
    Mr. Geraint Howellsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the loss of revenue incurred by local authorities due to the late setting of rates; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): All rating authorities in England had set a rate for 1986–87 by 1 April 1986. It is for the independent district auditor to decide whether losses arose and, if so, to what extent, in those authorities which delayed setting a rate for 1985–86.
    Mr. Howells: Does the Minister agree that five London boroughs have lost a total income of over £100 million this year because of the late setting of rates? What plans has she to inform the electorate before the May elections of this loss?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I cannot confirm or deny the figures that the hon. Gentleman has given, as it is a matter entirely for the local district auditors to determine and then to report.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Does my hon. Friend agree that the behaviour of Left-wing Labour councils in failing to set a rate until the last minute was a breach of statutory duty? Can she estimate the amount of lost revenue in interest and say when the district auditors will be brought in, which should act as a preventive measure for any other local authorities which fail to behave in a decent and civilised way?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I commend my hon. Friend for his continued attack upon the extravagance and nonsensical waste that has been a feature of the councils within his constituency. The district auditors, however, have to take these decisions for themselves, as the Secretary of State has no powers to direct them.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister aware of the chaos that will ensue, and the impact that it will have on London boroughs, if about 200 councillors find themsleves disqualified through the actions of the district auditor? Will the Minister make it quite clear to the district auditor, who I assume is always a Tory stooge and not independent, that such chaos should not be visited upon London local government structures?
    Mrs. Rumbold: It is disgraceful to say that the district auditor or any other person who is appointed independently is a Tory anything. It is especially disgraceful to allege that he will be a stooge. Councillors have been disqualified quite properly because of their squalid actions and disregard of a law that has been established for some considerable time, well before the arrival of the Government. The actions of these councillors means that they have brought disqualification upon themselves. It is for the electors of the district and borough councils to pass judgment on them on 8 May, which I hope they will do.

    Rural Environment
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he intends to take to protect the rural environment; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Baker): We have decided to support the Broads
    290
    Bill and to extend the landscape areas special development order to cover the design, appearance and siting of farm and forestry buildings and roads in all national parks. The House will be aware of my various statements about the importance of preserving the green belt.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I thank him also for what has been a perceived and noticeable change of attitude on the part of his Department towards the protection of the environment over the past few months. Will he accept from me that if the Government fail to recognise the rising tide of anger that is felt when many local authority planning decisions are overthrown by his Department, the Government will reap a whirlwind and will deserve everything that they get?
    Mr. Baker: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I assure him that I consider that the protection of the countryside is one of my major responsibilities. We have a uniquely beautiful inheritance in the English countryside which we must cherish and protect.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the increasing concern that is being expressed in rural areas about the insensitive planting of coniferious trees and the effect that it is having on fishing interests and on acid ground water levels, which are destroying spawning beds and the fish population and having a considerable impact on the environment and the rural economy?
    Mr. Baker: I am grateful to a Scottish Member for drawing this to my attention, but it is not an exclusively Scottish problem, because there have been quite large plantings of what are virtually conifer forests in the south of England and I and my colleagues are having a look at the effect of that.
    Mr. David Clark: As the Government now appear to have conceded that acid rain from British power stations is causing damage to our Scandinavian neighbours, will the right hon. Gentleman also accept that those same emissions are causing great damage to our own United Kingdom environment, with the result that we have dead lochs in Galloway, dying lakes in Cumbria and waterways in central Wales which can no longer support fish? Will he accept his responsibility and take some action to reduce the level of acidic emissions and thus try to protect a little more our precious British countryside?
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman, who follows these matters very closely, will know that there is a complicated causal link between the emissions from factories and the increase in acidity of lakes and damage to forests. I would only point out—and I think that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to recognise this—that in our country we have a very good record of reducing the sulphur dioxide and nitric oxide emissions from heavy plants. In fact, we have reduced them by over 40 per cent.
    Mr. Chapman: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to the protection of the green belts, which is surely the best way to protect 4·5 million acres of England's countryside. Will he accept the thanks of many environment organisations for accepting an amendment to the Housing and Planning Bill that will ensure that simplified planning zones cannot be set up in green belts, national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and, of course, green belt conservation areas?
    Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is correct to say that in the amendments to the Housing and Planning Bill we have

    291
    made it clear that simplified zones will not be applied in the areas that he has mentioned. I believe that there is widespread agreement in the House on the importance of preserving the green belt, which is one of the most successful planning inventions of this century. It was devised in Britain and green belts now extend to some 4·5 million acres. In fact, we have doubled the size of green belts since 1979.

    Water Authorities (Privatisation)
    Mrs. Clwydasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from Birmingham city council regarding the privatisation of water authorities.
    Mr. John Patten: None.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Is the Minister aware that Birmingham city council, which invested in reservoirs in Wales during the last century and was perfectly happy to see those assets managed by a public authority—in this case the Welsh water authority—is not happy to see those assets sold to line the pockets of the Government's friends and that it is demanding compensation—either £270 million in compensation or a portion of Wales, the Elan valley? Which will the Government give to it?
    Mr. Patten: I have already made it clear that I have received no representations from Birmingham. I think that the habit of answering hypothetical questions about hypothetical representations is rather a bad one.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Perhaps I might ask an unhypothetical question. Bearing in mind that the citizens of Birmingham spent millions of pounds on acquiring this water system and buying 43,000 acres of land, does my hon. Friend not think that there should be some system of compensation, since we gave to what we thought was a public authority? Is we are to sell and to privatise, which may be a good policy, why should Birmingham not get back some of the money of which it was deprived some years ago?
    Mr. Patten: I do not think that I should break the habit of not answering hypothetical questions, even from my hon. Friend, but perhaps I could answer another question which was implicit in what he said. In 1973 the Water Act vested the ownership of the assets and the debts of water authorities in the water authorities. They have, therefore, become public corporations answerable to the Government.
    Mr. Wigley: The Minister should be aware that Brimingham corporation has passed a resolution on this matter. Over the years Birmingham has shamelessly exploited Welsh water resources and is able to sell water to its own citizens at half the price at which the same water is available in Wales. It is totally unacceptable that Birmingham corporation should now go on a rampage, grabbing land in Wales, in total opposition to the wishes of the Welsh people.
    Mr. Patten: We are absolutely against shameless exploitation. Under water privatisation we shall ensure that the director general of whatever we end up calling it will have the power to make sure that bulk transfers from one water authority to another under a privatised regime are properly paid for and properly accounted for.
    Mr. Forth: May I tell my hon. Friend that I am a Birmingham ratepayer, and that as such I welcome the proposals to privatise the water industry? I hope that Birmingham's residents and water users will benefit from the Government's privatisation proposals and will be able to shop around for the best deal available for the supply of water.
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right. Privatisation will bring many advantages to the consumer.
    Mr. Boyes: Birmingham city council has passed a resolution deploring the privatisation of water authorities and if—I stress the word if—that anti-social policy is carried out, the ratepayers of Birmingham should be fully compensated. A number of other authorities are in a similar position. Water authorities are public assets, not state assets. The Government have no economic, political, legal or moral right to sell assets which they do not own, estimated to be worth £27 billion, to their friends in the City at knockdown prices.
    Mr. Patten: I have already explained the legal position. It is that the Water Act 1973 transferred the ownership of the previous assets and the liability of previous debts to the water authorities. Those water authorities became public corporations answerable to the Government. In the privatisation of the water authorities we shall follow the precedent set in the privatisation of British Telecom and British Gas and turn the water authorities into Crown companies. Ownership of assets and liability for debts will be taken on by those Crown companies prior to the successful eventual flotation that will do so much for the consumer.
    Mr. Gow: What steps were taken by the Labour party when it was in government, as it is apparently so dissatisfied with the Water Act 1973, to amend that Act so as to frustrate the excellent purpose that is in the mind of my hon. Friend?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend did a great deal for the water industry when he was a Minister in the Department of the Environment, and he has put his finger exactly and precisely on the point. The Labour Government did nothing at all.

    Rates
    Mr. Litherlandasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average weekly domestic rate bill in April 1979 and in April 1986.
    Mrs. Rumbold: It was £3 in April 1979 and £7·70 in April 1986.
    Mr. Litherland: Does the Minister agree that those figures show the effect of the Government's vicious cuts on local authorities? Those cuts are estimated at £1 million a week in Manchester, and that means that the ratepayer has to pay more for fewer services. Perhaps Government Ministers would like to come and canvass in Manchester. There would not be a hung council there, but there would probably be a few hanged Ministers because of what the Government are doing to that area.
    Mrs. Rumbold: I am interested to learn from the hon. Gentleman that services in Manchester have been reduced, because the real term increase has been in the region of 9 per cent. If local authorities had looked at and obeyed the

    293
    guidelines set out by the Government year after year for rate increases, they would have been able not only to help their ratepayers but to provide perfectly adequate services.
    Mr. Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that the rate increase over the last seven years, whatever its cause, is a substantial burden on the domestic ratepayer? Will she take every opportunity to make it clear to the electorate that ours is the only party that is prepared to lift this burden?
    Mrs. Rumbold: What my hon. Friend says is true. In all instances of carefully managed and well-run Conservative authorities the ratepayers have been the beneficiaries. Sadly, that has not been the case in authorities controlled by Labour or by the Liberal/SDP alliance. Ratepayers can feel safe only under the Conservatives.
    Mr. Clelland: Notwithstanding what the Minister said about the Government's policy towards rate increases, does she accept that local authorities have been able to maintain their services over the years only by using creative accountancy methods? Those methods are now running out, as evidenced by the horrendous rate rises that have had to be imposed in Gateshead to maintain services at a high level. Does she accept that only creative accountancy and not the Government's policies have enabled us to maintain a high level of services?
    Mrs. Rumbold: No, I do not accept that. Sadly, creative accountancy will not protect ratepayers from the extravagances of authorities which use such procedures. It will not be long before those authorities—and they are mostly Labour-controlled—which have used creative accountancy will find that their ratepayers will, sadly, have to pay the bill.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Is my hon. Friend aware that her figure for this year will include the 26 per cent. rate increase put through by the Lib-Lab pact running Somerset county council? That increase is mostly due to increased expenditure. Does she agree that it makes life very difficult for ratepayers and businesses, and blows sky-high the pretence that the Opposition parties are seriously interested in solving unemployment?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I agree with my hon. Friend. Those who are anxious to create businesses find it devastating to have to contend with such rate increases.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Is it not relevant to ask how much of the weekly domestic rate bill is attributable to the late setting of rates last year? That figure can now be worked out. A private letter has been sent by the district auditor to the chief executives of the offending London boroughs. The information should be made public. The figures show that one borough suffered a £50 million loss. My borough of Southwark lost £25 million [Interruption.] Other boroughs have figures that are not much lower. Will the Minister make the figures known so that the ratepayers can judge?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman is sightly confused. I say only "slightly confused", which is a great tribute to him. He knows perfectly well that the facts that he wants will be examined by the district auditor, and will be made known as and when those councils which receive such figures have studied them and made them known to their electorates.

    Local Authority Capital Receipts
    Mr. Lathamasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the proposed level of capital receipts which local authorities will be permitted to use on building work in the financial year 1986–87.
    Mrs. Rumbold: I announced in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyniham) on 20 November, at column 246, that there will be no changes for 1986–87 in the prescribed proportion of capital receipts which local authorities may use for additional capital expenditure.
    Mr. Latham: Following the chink of hope in the speech yesterday of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction, will my hon. Friend consider whether she can loosen the purse strings to some extent in the forthcoming year to help a new improvement grant programme? Even raising the figure to 25 per cent. would be agreat help.
    Mrs. Rumbold: I understand why my hon. Friend has asked that question, but he will be aware that it is not possible for me to pre-empt the decisions for next year to be taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. However, we are considering new proposals for capital expenditure generally. It may well be that my hon. Friend's representations will be taken into account.
    Mr. Loyden: Given the needs of many of our major cities, what justification do the Government have for imposing constraints on local authorities and for not allowing them to use their resources to solve the many problems that exist?
    Mrs. Rumbold: Given the way in which Liverpool city council has generally managed its affairs, it is hard to imagine that it would manage greater receipts any better than it has administered any money that has come into its hands. I feel very sorry and sad for the people of Liverpool.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that most local authorities have played the game by selling council houses in accordance with this Government's policy and wish? The Labour party has now taken that policy on board—[Interruption.] Well, the Labour party might take it on board. Should not local authorities gain some reward in the form of a relaxation in the amount of money that they can spend on the improvement grant system?
    Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend knows that the Labour party is simply saying that it will adopt our very successful policy of council house sales. Whether or not that is to be believed is a matter for speculation. As for capital receipts, half a billion pounds extra in capital receipts came into play during the course of this financial year, and authorities are able to spend a proportion of that towards their allocation.
    Mr. John Fraser: Can the Minister deny the rumours that are beginning to circulate to the effect that the Government are about to impose either a moratorium or a restriction on capital expenditure by local authorities later this year? Will the Government give a clear instruction to the London Residuary Body that the £39 million of capital receipts, which are legally—and certainly morally—due to London authorities which

    295
    have ex-GLC estates, will be disbursed to those boroughs and not given to some Tory boroughs, which make no contribution to London's housing problems?
    Mrs. Rumbold: It seems that the Labour party is consumed with the local elections on 8 May. I must say on both counts that the hon. Gentleman is indulging in scaremongering.

    Housing Investment Programme
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will identify separate housing investment allocations for works to new town dwellings; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir George Young: No; separate allocations of this kind would deny the councils in question the freedom to decide their own priorities in the use of the total amounts of housing investment resources which can be made available to them.
    Mr. Dormand: Is the Minister aware of the serious situation facing some towns, not least Peterlee, in my own constituency? In view of the answers that he has given, may I assure him that Peterlee would be prepared to sacrifice some of the freedom to which he referred if it could get a few more million pounds? How can the Government honour their commitment to new towns without having separate identifiable allocations within the housing investment programme? Will he say how Easington district council can meet the £40 million repairs needed in Peterlee with the allocation of £7·5 million that is being granted by the Government?
    Sir George Young: I well remember the issues, because I negotiated the memorandum with the local authorities concerned. The memorandum said that local authorities should draw the attention of my Department to the bid for the expenditure on remedial work which had been accepted for grants, so that in its turn the Department could ensure that those needs were reflected in the allocations. For the year 1986–87 we took account of the expenditure implications facing the hon. Gentleman's local authority regarding the stock that it inherited from new towns. I cannot see how separate identification could make the problem any easier. The local authority has flexibility already, if it wishes to supplement its resources, to spend more on the new town dwellings. I have sympathy with the problem, and I will see whether I can help in the forthcoming negotiations for next year's allocations.

    Rate Support Grant
    Mr. Maddenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes announcing the rate support grant settlement for 1987–88.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to announce the rate support grant settlement for 1987–88 in about the middle of November 1986, about a month earlier than in recent years.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister acknowledge that the massive reductions in rate support grant have led to large rate increases in places such as Bradford, where the Conservative-Liberal alliance has increased rates by 30 per cent.? Will he also take this opportunity to apologise for the slur on the West Yorkshire county council that he made
    296
    just now, suggesting that it fiddled the books last year? Will he also give a clear assurance that when the grant is announced there will be no further stealing of resources by central Government from hard-pressed local authorities, which are desperately trying to meet the urgent social needs in their areas?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I think that I would probably be insulting those outgoing Labour councillors if I apologised. I am sure that they regarded their manoeuvres as being thoroughly successful. Their objective was to put up the rates for successor authorities, and they did it. Then, Parliament did not allow us to prevent such things happening, as we did not have the powers to control the councils in the outgoing year. Such manoeuvres were, I am afraid, inevitable. They have been disastrously brought home in the West Yorkshire area.
    Mr. Watts: In setting the rate support grant settlement for next year, no doubt my right hon. Friend will have in mind the problems of the shire counties. May I ask whether he shares my dismay that so many of the shire counties, which bleated so loudly about loss of grant this year, have chosen not to pass on the benefits of guaranteed recycling of grant to ratepayers, thereby inflicting on ratepayers much higher levels of rate increase than were otherwise necessary?
    Mr. Waldegrave: If they did not pass it on this year, they have it in the balance for next year. I am sure that many councils will take account of that in due course. More important, my right hon. Friend has heard what my hon. Friend said about the shire counties. The whole process of consultation will begin soon in the normal way.
    Dr. Cunningham: Is it not clear to anyone who examines the position that the biggest single reason why rates have increased for all authorities has been the seven successive reductions in rate support grant, enforced as a deliberate policy by the Government, resulting in a cumulative loss to local authorities in excess of £17·5 billion? Will the Minister accept that his right hon. Friend's claim—it is noticeable that the Secretary of State has ducked all these issues today—in the newspapers yesterday that average rateable values are what count to those who have to pay rates is a charade? It is rate bills that count to people faced with these problems, and average weekly rate bills have risen under this Government from £2·98 per week to £7·70 per week. Is that not why the chairman of the Conservative party is running scared about the local elections on 8 May, when the Tory party will get a pasting? Is tnat not why he is blaming poor people for the coming defeat and suggesting that it is because poorer people do not support the Government that they will lose? They will certainly lose, but on the basis of the electorate as a whole.
    Mr. Waldegrave: If I may interrupt the hon. Member's not very brilliant hustings speech for a moment, would he like to tell the House straightforwardly on which tax—income tax or VAT—the £4 billion or more additional grant that he is pledging to give back to local authorities will fall? Will it go on to the basic rate, or is it, along with the other £25 billion additional expenditure, to go on all taxes and interest rates? In due course the good friend of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), the good doctor in the International Monetary Fund, will return to give them the bill once again.
    Mr. Greenway: Would my hon. Friend like to come, and invite the Opposition spokesman to come with him, into the real world at Witton avenue east in Conservative-controlled Ealing, where he will find that the rates are half what they are on the opposite side of the road, which has been in Labour-controlled Brent for umpteen years? Will my hon. Friend remind the Opposition spokesman, and every voter, that the Labour party, when it took over the GLC in 1981, doubled the rates at the same time as it doubled fares for Londoners?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. Indeed, Ealing must be defined as the centre of the real world. There can be no doubt at all—it seems disingenuous of the Labour party even to try to deny it—that Labour is the party of high spending, and therefore of high taxing and high rating. It would be more honourable of the Labour party to fight openly on that platform—an honourable and ancient platform of that party, on which it normally loses—rather than to try to obfuscate the issue.

    Publicly Owned Land (Northern Region)
    Mr. Fallonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many areas of publicly owned land in the northern region are currently unused or underdeveloped.
    Mr. John Patten: On 1 April 1986 the registers of unused and underused publicly owned land in the northern region held 935 sites totalling 12,613 acres, which is far too much.
    Mr. Fallon: Is that not an appalling waste of development potential in the north? Will my hon. Friend confirm that he will not hesitate to use his powers to compel local councils to release land that is urgently needed for better housing, jobs and commercial development?
    Mr. Patten: Yes, Sir, we shall use those powers. We are doing so increasingly in places such as Darlington and Sunderland. It distresses me very much when local councillors come on delegations to the Department of the Environment to ask for more money, when they are doing so little with the land that councils own and occupy. I do not know what the Labour party's attitude is to derelict and unused land. It is probably as ambivalent as its attitude to the right to buy, so brilliantly summed up yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, when he said that the Labour party's attitude to buying was, "Yes, if you
    298
    want to buy your council home you may, but if the council wants to stop you buying its council home, it can do that as well."
    Mr. Eastham: In Manchester, a 23-acre prime site was sold off to private developers, changing hands three times and stood derelict for 15 years until finally the local authority had to buy it and develop it for the G-MEX exhibition hall. Is that the kind of thing the Minister would really applaud?
    Mr. Patten: The G-MEX exhibition hall was funded with Government and European money, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Manchester is sitting on far too much land. It should be getting rid of it in the interests of its ratepayers.

    Local Government Reform
    Mr. Parkasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes meeting representatives of voluntary organisations to discuss future funding arrangements following the abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan county councils.
    Sir George Young: My right hon. Friend met representatives of voluntary organisations on 24 March to discuss this. The London Voluntary Service Council telephoned my Department yesterday to seek a further meeting, and it will be meeting my officials tomorrow.
    Mr. Park: Is the Minister aware that voluntary bodies engaged in worthwhile projects are being wound up because district councils cannot fund them? Will he consider, in advance of the Widdicombe report, increasing the section 137 money from 2p to 4p so that the new responsibilities can be met?
    Sir George Young: My Department is awaiting the report of the Widdicombe inquiry with bated breath. We understand that it is not far away. When we have the report, we will be able to decide on the 2p rate under section 137.
    Mr. O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Arising out of questions?
    Mr. O'Brien: Yes. Will you, Mr. Speaker, uphold the dignity and decorum of the Chamber by asking the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government either to substantiate what he said about the outgoing West Yorkshire county councilors—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that answers to supplementary questions from the Front Bench are not a matter for me.

Foreign Affairs Council
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the meeting of Foreign Ministers of the Twelve that took place in Luxembourg on 21 April, and the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council which followed on 21 and 22 April. My hon. Friend the Minister of State—the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker)—and I attended.
The meeting of Foreign Ministers concentrated on the urgent problem of Libya. We had already agreed in the emergency meetings on 14 and 17 April on the importance of taking effective collective action to prevent further acts of Libyan state-directed terrorism and to defend ourselves against the threat. We agreed on 21 April to the following series of measures to this end: a severe cut in the size of people's bureaux throughout the Community; confining members of those bureaux to the city where they are officially assigned; restricting the size of other official Libyan bodies to the minimum necessary for their stated business; applying a much stricter visa regime to Libyans; and ensuring that any Libyan expelled from one member state will be expelled from the Community as a whole.
The Twelve also reaffirmed their ban on arms sales to Libya, and will be pressing other countries to join it. They agreed to look urgently at further action on the abuse of diplomatic immunity. Interior Ministers of the Twelve will be meeting today in the TREVI group to concert the closest possible co-operation between Interior Ministers, the police and security services of the Twelve. Transport Ministers have been asked to step up their co-operation urgently on aviation security. We shall follow up all these decisions urgently with our partners.
To have achieved an effective package of measures against Libya, in force throughout the Community, is a considerable step forward. We shall continue to press for further action and for vigorous implementation of the programme of action now agreed.
The Foreign Affairs Council briefly reviewed the issues likely to be discussed at the Tokyo economic summit. Ministers discussed improvements to the Community's mandate for the negotiations with Mediterranean third countries on the adaptation of their co-operation and association agreements to take account of the accession of Spain and Portugal.
There was a brief discussion of the new Community/Thailand manioc agreement; this is expected to be formally agreed at another Council in the near future. The Council also reviewed and confirmed the position to be adopted by the Community at the ACP-EC Council of Ministers which begins in Barbados on 26 April.
The Council discussed the complaint of the United States about trade loss as a result of the enlargement of the Community. It reconfirmed the Community's readiness to settle the issue in early GATT negotiations and agreed a mandate for the Commission to conduct those negotiations. Ministers regretted the United States' intention to take unilateral retaliatory action and noted that the Community would be bound to take equivalent measures to defend its interests
The Council reviewed progress on implementation of the report of the People's Europe Committee and agreed
300
to adopt the Council of Europe flag for use on appropriate occasions. No requirements are placed on member states by this agreement.
There was an exchange of views on the budgetary situation. It will now be for the Council of Finance Ministers, meeting on 28 April, to consider in detail the 1986 budgetary situation and the 1987 reference framework for expenditure.
That, too, will clearly be an important meeting.
Mr. Denis Healey: I notice that the Foreign Secretary has described the decision of the European Council as a step forward. The last position from which we were said to be stepping forward was described by the right hon. and learned Gentleman as "vigorous and appropriate" and by the Prime Minister as "passive and supine". Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us how far these decisions represent a step forward, and from what base?
Secondly, why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman not press on his colleagues some economic or financial sanctions such as the withdrawal of export credit—[Interruption.] In answer to the supine intervention of some anonymous hon. Member on the Government Benches I would point out that the financial sanctions against Iran that followed the taking of the American hostages proved to play a major role in securing their release. The Libyan situation is not dissimilar in many respects.
Thirdly, I understand, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention the point, that the Council agreed to send missions to the United States, the non-aligned countries, the Arab world and Libya to explain its position. When will those missions leave? How will they be composed? Precisely what position will they be explaining?
Fourthly, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us anything about the effect on British trade with the Arab world of the decision taken by Her Majesty's Government? Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have already cancelled visits to Britain to discuss the increase of trade, and I understand that the American company AT and T has decided not to participate in an electronics fair in Britain for fear of terrorist action against it, following the British decision.
Finally, why is the right hon. and learned Gentleman so supine in responding to the American position on all those issues? We know now that 21¼ tonnes of C4 plastic explosive were exported from the United States to Libya by an ex-CIA agent. Only a few ounces of that explosive were required to blow up the TWA aircraft recently. We have heard this morning that the United States has discovered an arms ring operating in America which was planning to export over $2 billion of fighter aircraft, tanks and missiles to Iran and terrorist organisations via Israel. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman discuss with his colleagues the part played in that operation by citizens of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy and Greece?
As President Reagan is still threatening further action of the same nature as last week's against states that he regards as fostering terrorism, could the right hon. and learned Gentleman make it clear to his Common Market colleagues that Her Majesty's Government will not again act as a Trojan horse of the United States by authorising the use of RAF bases without bothering to find out what specific targets are to be attacked, and with what

301
weapons? If not, did he propose to his Common Market colleagues that the European Community flag should be the stars and stripes?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: So far as flags are concerned, I was content to endorse the sensible proposition that on European occasions the Council of Europe flag should be worn—should be displayed. [Laughter.] I contrast that with the reported attitude of the Opposition, who although the red flag has been their banner for as long as man can remember, are now attempting to conceal that banner in an attempt to mislead the people.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a range of fanciful questions. He must try to restrain his enthusiasm for new epithets when he finds them. The word "supine" has been over-used in his vocabulary.
The substance of the information disclosed today, stopping short of the right hon. Gentleman's fanciful ramblings, is that action is being taken by the authorities in the United States against a conspiracy for the export of arms to illegal destinations. That is something we should applaud and endorse. That is all there is to be said about the matter.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I made plain in the House last week, any question of further action by the United States would be a matter for separate consideration in quite separate circumstances when and if it did arise.
I shall now deal with the substance of what the right hon. Gentleman asked. The reaction of many countries in the Arab world has been a great deal more understanding than many people at first thought of the horror with which the Western democracies react against sustained Libyan state-directed terrorism. The Saudi business mission to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is in the country at present.
The issue of economic sanctions has been dealt with frequently. Experience of the cases in which they have been used previously shows that they have not proved to be an effective weapon. They cannot even be regarded as decisive in the case of Iran.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a step forward. As a result of the meeting this week, there was agreement throughout the Community on the wide range of measures I told the House about in my original statement. That represents a significant advance, as can be evidenced by the reaction of Libya to what has already been done.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us will feel that he has been excessively charitable in his statement today towards our EEC partners? It is quite clear from the bland communiqué that came out of Luxembourg that very little has been achieved. Furthermore, it is not likely that there will be any EEC unity in taking action against state-sponsored terrorism.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that my hon. Friend needs to keep a balance in assessing these matters. Plainly, we would have wished for a firmer and more united response from our European partners at an earlier stage. Having said that, the range of measures on which agreement was reached at the meeting on Monday represents a significant advance. It represents a commitment by 12 member states of the European community to take action across the Community, which is manifestly producing a reaction in Libya itself.
Mr. David Steel: Do not the Americans have a legitimate complaint that we have been very slow in Europe in taking concerted action against Libyan-inspired terrorism? Does not the Foreign Secretary find it disturbing that even the sadly limited measures agreed yesterday had to follow in the wake of the American bombing raid? Will the Foreign Secretary remind the House of the terms of the Government's 1985 defence White Paper, which called for a more cohesive Europe operating on equal terms with the United States of America? If that is to be achieved, will he remind his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that that must mean a greater unity of purpose in both economic and political issues with our European partners than has been generally shown by the Government so far?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Although I am not prepared to accept the rebuke with which the right hon. Gentleman closed his question, I plainly endorse the need for more effective European co-operation. That is why this country promoted the political co-operation treaty which we are discussing later today. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We have been in the van in pressing our European partners for collective effective action for some time. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) must stop his supine interjections.
Mr. Healey rose—
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman must remember that I am answering a question from another right hon. Gentleman, and even he does not have the right to intervene on that.
Two years ago, we had our experience with the Libyan people's bureau. Since that time, at international gatherings of the Seven, the Ten, or the Twelve of the Council of Europe we have been pressing for effective action. We got a plain agreement in January this year on, for example, a ban on arms sales and an urgent study of further steps—not enough. On Monday 14 April we pressed again for further action and got a commitment to three steps—not enough, but we were in the van the whole time. This Monday we got a commitment to the steps I have described in the House today. That is still not enough, but it is substantial progress; let us be thankful for it.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon and learned Friend accept that we are very pleased that, with his usual determination, he is making steady progress? Does he take comfort from the speech by Chancellor Kohl in the Bundestag stressing that Europe must act against terrorism? Does he believe that he is a substantial ally in this fight?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I acknowledge with gratitude the tribute paid to me by my hon. Friend. It is reminiscent of one of my more fortunate school reports. I endorse what my hon. Friend has said. The Chancellor of the Federal Republic is giving substantial support for effective action. We must continue to press for it ourselves.
Mr. Roland Boyes: Did the Foreign Secretary emphasise to our friends in Europe yesterday, as strongly as the Prime Minister did to the House, that the Americans had a free right to choose which weapon systems were used in the attack on Libya? Did he

303
mention to our European colleagues that the Prime Minister did not deny that those aeroplanes could have carried nuclear weapons?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is a fanciful proposition. It is perfectly plain that the exchanges between the British Government and the United States Government laid down the nature of the targets that were permissible and laid down that the attacks should be undertaken in a fashion that limited collateral damage and civilian casualties on the ground. There was no question of any use of nuclear weapons. To introduce it into this context is fanciful and ridiculous.
Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that exports of cheap food from the European Community to Libya have been banned? Will he admit that, in view of the way things have gone—he said that the measures did not go far enough—it is no surprise that the Americans took the action they did? Does he consider that the measures which he has just announced are too little and and too late?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have made it perfectly plain that the perception of this matter on both sides of the Atlantic was bound to be influenced by what was happening on the other side. Obviously, there was a connection between the slow reaction of the European Community to Libyan terrorism and the view taken by the United States. For that reason, I have pressed for a more effective response by Europe. As a result, we have been able to get a more effective answer than previously.
As to food surpluses, last week I raised with the Commission our concern about any action to authorise subsidies for dairy exports to Libya and other countries. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed that to the House yesterday. The latest information I have from the Commission is that no further subsidised dairy sales are in prospect. There is no question of any special benefits or concessions for Libya alone.
Mr. George Robertson: What about beef?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The beef may be from Scotland, and that would be of interest to the hon. Gentleman. He has a special insight into the problem. The choice of export destinations for produce such as beef and cereals is a matter for individual traders. Community export refunds are available for a wide range of destinations. The refunds are designed to bridge the gap between the local price and the world price. Libya has not benefited from any special treatment. The Commission is clear about our concern that that should not happen.
Dr. David Owen: In view of the German police investigations into the bombing of the disco in Berlin and the British police investigations into the E1 A1 incident, will the Foreign Secretary tell us, at the earliest possible opportunity, whether there is a link between Libya and the E1 A1 incident? If such a link is established, will action be taken by the European Community and other countries to stop flights into Libya as one of the least possible sanctions that must be taken if the European Community and others are to be taken seriously?
Will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity to reply to a queston that was raised in debate, because the
304
Secretary of State for Defence said elsewhere that Britain did not agree to each specific target? The fact is that the Government did not appear to know or to question the Americans about the targets in Tripoli.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the last point, I can simply repeat what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House at the time. The clearest possible response was given to the United States about the nature of targets that could be involved—targets demonstrably connected with the promotion or control of terrorism. The attacks should be undertaken with the highest possible regard to the avoidance of casualties—civilian or otherwise—and collateral damage.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I am not in a position, at this stage, to say anything about the evidence that may or may not be given in connection with cases in Britain—that is sub judice. All I can say is that the police are pursuing their inquiries.
I recognise the important point that the right hon. Gentleman has made, but it would not be right for me to say anything further at this stage. I can appreciate that the plain identification of responsibility for an attack on airlines and airline safety would legitimately raise consideration of the question that the right hon. Gentleman has put.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Despite all this macho talk about vigorous action and an effective step forward, will my right hon. and learned Friend admit that all that the European Foreign Ministers have done is make a rather feeble attempt to half-shut the stable door after the F-111s have bolted?
As European policy now appears to be confined, in vigorous terms, to waving the Euroflag, will my right hon. and learned Friend admit that only a nation state and not the European Community can mount an effective and vigorous foreign and defence policy?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: No, I should have thought that the lesson to be drawn from these events is precisely the opposite. If each of the 12 nation states of Europe sought, independently, to take vigorous effective action, entirely of their own design, that would be far less effective than the 12 nation states taking effective collective action.
I have made plain the extent to which we would have preferred stronger action at an earlier stage. If we have effective implementation of these measures they will certainly have an impact on the threats against which they are directed.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Did any of the European Foreign Ministers tell the Secretary of State exactly why none of them supported Britain's involvement in the Libyan bombings?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That question was not raised, because it was quite clear that there was a widespread understanding of the ways in which different countries have reacted to what took place. Their concern was far more constructive and sensible—namely, what further action could and should be taken by the member states to diminish and eliminate the threat of terrorism.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the Foreign Secretary continue to press the EEC not to spend a great deal of money on offering the same subsidies for food dumping to Libya as it does, for example, to India and Pakistan? Did the Secretary of State thank the

305
representative of the Spanish Government for the fact that, although we are not able to buy Australian or South African sherry because of Spanish opposition, they have given us permission to continue to sell British sherry in Britain for another 10 years?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not recollect any recent discussions with my Spanish colleague or anybody else about the outstanding qualities of British sherry. The disposal of Community food surpluses takes place on world markets with the benefit of export subsidies. We are concerned to secure reform of the common agricultural policy because so much of the money is directed to either storage or disposal of food surpluses.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Did his European colleagues try to establish from the Foreign Secretary whether his version or the Prime Minister's version is the correct one as to when he first knew of the decision to attack Libya from British bases?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is and has been no mystery. My European colleagues have expressed no curiosity. The Prime Minister told the House in her first statement last week that we heard of a tentative decision, in principle, from the President before the weekend. There were discussion between the President's representatives, the Prime Minister, and the heads or Foreign Ministers of a number of European countries during the weekend, of which I was fully informed on my return from Germany.
On the Monday, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, no Foreign Minister present at the meeting of the European Foreign Ministers had any knowledge that a final decision had been taken or of its nature and timing.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm the report in yesterday's Irish Times that Mr. Barry and the Irish Government intend to ensure that cheap EEC food should continue to go to Libya? Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain today how it is possible that the EEC can have some form of foreign policy when it is based on so many different and divergent traditions and interests?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The answer to that is to be found in my statement. The 12 European Community states have agreed on substantial common action. One cannot expect, even if one wanted it, an entire foreign policy to spring into existence overnight. It is a far more effective to have 12 member states acting together—
Mr. Budgen: But they do not.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: —instead of acting separately. I am afraid that I do not study The Irish Times with the same assiduity as my hon. Friend, but I heard nothing from the Irish Foreign Minister on Monday to suggest that Ireland is other than as deeply concerned as we are at the link between state-sponsored terrorism and the IRA. There was no suggestion whatever of their wanting to give any comfort to Libyan state-directed terrorism.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall do my best to call those hon. Members who have been rising, but I ask for brief questions.
Mr. David Winnick: Did the other EEC Foreign Ministers know of the widespread opposition
306
in Britain to the bombing raids and the use of bases here? Why should the innocent be slaughtered because of the crimes of the guilty? Is the Foreign Secretary aware that he would have served his country far better if he had stood up to the Prime Minister last week and made it clear that it was folly to carry out the bombing raids and for bases here to be used for such purposes?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is characteristically, ranging over a wide area that the House has already covered. The Prime Minister, I and the other colleagues concerned were all committed to our decision. There was no question of anybody standing up to anyone else. Nor was there any question of my colleagues in the Community pressing me with criticism of what had been said and done. Of course they knew that opinions such as those expressed by the hon. Gentleman had been expressed in the House. They also knew that the Government had a substantial majority in the following debate. Nobody who has been connected with this matter can be unaware of the death and injury to innocent people. We have all made plain that we deeply regret that factor. It is not possible, however, in today's world to take effective action in defence of the innocent citizens of this and other communities who are killed by terrorist action and to guarantee that they will not be killed or injured, by such action.
Mr. Robert Adley: Could we look a little more closely at the use of my right hon. and learned Friend's phrase "state terrorism"? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the phrase is most appropriately applied to countries that have invaded and occupied neighbouring countries in defiance of United Nations resolutions, such as the Soviet Union of Afghanistan, Vietnam of Kampuchea and Israel of Jordan, the Lebanon, Syria and Egypt? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that American foreign policy—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting wide of the EEC meeting.
Mr. Adley: I was going to ask whether my right hon. and learned Friend agrees that the Venice declaration produced by the European Community was the most constructive proposal that has yet emerged to solve the Palestinian problem, which lies at the root of middle eastern terrorism? What is being done to regenerate it?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree with the central point on which my hon. Friend closed his wide-ranging question and I agree with him about the importance of trying to inject new life into that approach.
Mr. Eric Deakins: Is not the best way in which to eradicate terrorism to remove its cause? Does that not mean tackling the problem of the Palestinians and Jerusalem? What measures does the right hon. and learned Gentleman propose to take with his American colleagues—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are again running wide of the statement.
Mr. Deakins: I should just like to ask what further steps with the United States are being proposed to resolve these problems in the middle east.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am anxious not to get drawn into a wide-ranging discussion of this question. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the central

307
question. However, it must be acknowledged that one of the problems we face, which was made clear in the discussions last week with His Majesty King Hussein, is that of securing sufficiently effective representative Arab unity to enable the dialogue to be advanced as we all wish. However, I shall not be drawn further than that.
Mr. John Watts: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, despite the measures that were agreed upon earlier this week, many hon. Members and many people outside Parliament consider that the response of our European partners has been woefully inadequate? I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's determination to continue to try to put some backbone into our European partners, but can he assure the House that the failure to reach agreement in Europe will not be a constraint upon further effective measures by this country, and that such measures could and should include the severing of all transport links with Libya and the exclusion of all Libyan nationals from our territory save those who qualify for political asylum?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The points raised by my hon. Friend go rather further than anything that has yet been suggested. We must bear in mind that our argument is not with the entire Libyan people but with the regime that is responsible for the direction of Libyan state-supported terrorism. In that context, we are prepared to take whatever action is necessary to ensure the security of this country, as evidenced by the action that was announced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. As for the Community, our actions and our own willingness to take far-reaching action two years ago, and again in the last fortnight, shows that of course we are prepared to take such action nationally as we think right, but equally I shall use the arguments of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members in supporting the case for more effective and widespread action in the Community.
Mr. Ron Brown: The House has yet to see the evidence that justified the murder of innocent Libyan people. Today I was informed by Salaheddin Msallm, the official who represents the Libyan Government, that he had been banned by the British Government from making any public comment about all these issues. Could it be that this Government, who allegedly proclaim their belief in free speech, are frightened of the truth coming out about this sad, sordid affair? There have been no reprisals against the British community in Libya. They have been well protected and well cared for. They are part of a counry that recognises their worth. Whether this Government recognise their worth is another matter, bearing in mind the danger from bombing that threatens not only the lives of Libyans but also the lives of British citizens.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is difficult to approach such a long question that has been posed from such a different perspective from that of most of the rest of the House. However, the hon. Gentleman must understand that the House is concerned about whether or not effective action can be taken against a deliberate and sustained series of attacks on innocent people by terrorist means. In that context, I do not believe that our record on freedom of speech can sensibly be compared with that of the Libyan
308
regime, which today has proposed the expulsion of 250 Community and European journalists, either in retaliation or for some other reason. The hon. Gentleman ought to be pointing his gun in the opposite direction.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Did my right hon. and learned Friend have the chance to stress to our European friends, particularly the weak-kneed French, that the Western Alliance and NATO would not last a week without the backing of the United States and the force that it can bring to bear? If we are to be isolated, is it not best to be isolated with our friends rather than with our enemies? If the allies continue to deny to America the right to defend its people throughout the world, we shall end up with America becoming isolationist again. That would damage the interests of the free world, possibly for years to come.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I entirely understand the importance of my hon. Friend's point. I have tried to point out, both within Europe and across the Atlantic, the importance of both pillars of the Alliance taking full account of each other's opinions and sensitivities. It is of the utmost importance that we should not allow Colonel Gaddafi to achieve within the Alliance what Moscow has been unable to achieve.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Albeit there was no knowledge of a final decision, will the Foreign Secretary spell out what he meant in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) when he referred to "separate considerations and separate circumstances"? If we are a Community, there is surely a certain candour between Foreign Ministers. The French, having been asked for the use of air space, must have known what the proposition was. Why was there no discussion among the partners—albeit the circumstances were not, apparently, appropriate, according to the Foreign Secretary—on this vital, urgent issue? Why was it that the Secretary of State for Defence was left in ignorance until Monday 14 April? Will the Foreign Secretary answer the question that was eloquently put by Field Marshal Lord Carver in another place: who was consulted, and who agreed?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been trying to answer questions eloquently put in this place rather than those put in another place. The story has been plainly outlined. I have explained that the Prime Minister, myself, the Secretary of State for Defence and other colleagues were consulted in the first week. The Overseas and Defence Committee was convened on the—
Mr. Dalyell: Did the Foreign Secretary say that the Secretary of State for Defence was consulted?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That has been public knowledge for a long time. The knowledge of the Secretary of State for Defence, the Prime Minister and myself on the Monday was precisely the same until we heard—
Mr. Dalyell: But on Scottish radio he was for stopping attacks.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Our knowledge was the same, on the basis of the consultations that took place during the weekend. The knowledge of a number of other European countries was on the basis of similar consultations, but not all of them. But none of us received news of any final decision that had been taken about what and when, until late on the Monday.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it comes ill from the Opposition to be critical of United States weapons, equipment and other factors that were used in the raid on Libya, because when they were in office their idea of deterrence in the middle east—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is asking a question that goes wide of the statement.
Mr. Walker: It refers to questions that were asked by the Opposition Front Bench.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should be asking a question of the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Walker: The European action was helped, but when the Opposition were in office it was not helped. Their idea of deterrence in the middle east was to order the Royal Force into action in battle zones unarmed. Their idea of—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman could get his question in if he were a little more sophisticated about it.
Mr. Walker: The Opposition's idea of effective deterrence was the ineffective Beira patrol.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not think that I sufficiently follow the inwardness of that question to be able to answer it.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the British people will have noticed in the measures that he has announced today that there is no reference to the possibility of banks and other commercial institutions being affected in any way whatsoever? Is that not best exemplified by the fact that this Government refuse to take part in any exercises that result in a loss of profit for their friends in the City, although the Prime Minister is prepared, on a nod and a wink, to say to President Reagan, "Go ahead, you can cause loss of life?"
Sir Geoffrey Howe: No, the hon. Gentleman has it absolutely wrong.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Is my right hon. and learned Friend able to evaluate the number of Libyan nationals to be expelled throughout the EEC? Does he share the concern of many people in this country that not a lot, and not enough, have been expelled so far? Will he confirm that security at Rome and Athens airports was looked at, bearing in mind that terrorist activity has taken place at both of them?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The specific incidents at Rome and Athens airports take us back some way in time. However, I know that at that time, and subsequently, much closer consideration was given to security at those airports. The intensification of airport security is one of the matters upon which agreement was reached last Monday. It was agreed that airport security should be the subject of urgent study by the Community's transport ministers. The best point to make about expulsions is that, as a result of the intensely strict visa regime that has been applied by this Government in the last two years to Libyans, the number of Libyans being admitted to this country including students has been reduced to about 10 per cent. of what it was previously.
Mr. John Evans: Did any EEC country with American bases say that it was willing to allow them to be used in the event of a further American attack upon Libya? Was there not a very curious contradiction in the latter part of the Foreign Secretary's statement? He announced that we are on the brink of a trade war between the EEC and the United States of America, but there was no announcement of a trade war between the EEC and Libya. On the contrary, we are continuing to supply cheap foodstuffs to Libya, to which the Americans, quite rightly, object.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The first question did not arise. The second question is a completely false parallel In the course of the action and counter-action being taken in relation to trade by the Community countries and the United States, both sides contemplate the imposition of retaliatory sanctions if, but only if, negotiations under article xxiv.6 are not successful.
Mr. Tony Marlow: What institutional initiatives are Her Majesty's Government taking so that in future cheap European food is not used to strengthen those regimes that we would wish to weaken? Will my right hon. Friend take it from the Conservative Benches that there is nothing quite as supine as the IMF doormat on the Opposition Front Bench?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am always glad to endorse, even from my hon. Friend a valid judgment of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). The broader question must in essence be looked at in the context of the case for and against economic sanctions and in the context of the sustained action that is necessary to reduce the volume of subsidised exports for disposal.
Mr. Tony Banks: In the discussions between representatives of the American Government and the Prime Minister about targets to be bombed in Libya, did the Americans at any stage say that one of their objectives was the killing of Colonel Gaddafi?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my right hon. Friend told the House, we set strict criteria for the use of those aircraft based in the United Kingdom. They were to be directed against
"clearly defined targets related to terrorism"—[Official Report, 15 April 1986; Vol. 95, c. 729.]
and every effort would be made to minimise collateral damage. The operation arrangements were within those criteria.
Mr. Richard Hickmet: Did my right hon. and learned Friend remind his opposite numbers of the growing disenchantment in the United States at the European attitude, and in particular of the importance of the NATO Alliance? did he draw to their attention the damage that would have been done to the Alliance had not the United Kingdom supported the American action last week? In those circumstances, did he call upon his opposite numbers to take more effective and constructive action to deal with state-sponsored terrorism?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is precisely the point that I have already made in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont Dark). I have made plain to the United States and our European partners our concern for effective united action

311
within the Alliance. If either side is heedless of the interests or concerns of the other side, that poses a risk to the Alliance.
Mr. Healey: Can the Foreign Secretary confirm the statement of the Secretary of State for Defence on the "Today" programme this morning that Her Majesty's Government have the right to refuse permission for the use of the RAF bases on which American aircraft are based in Britain for the delivery of nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union, but has only the right of consultation on the use of those bases against countries with which NATO is not in dispute? That is exactly the opposite of what a former Conservative Prime Minister told the House in the debate last week. Secondly, will he inform the Secretary of State for Defence that those bases are RAF bases, not American bases?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Plainly, they are RAF bases. Equally plainly, the whole basis of agreement rests on the Churchill-Truman understanding—
Mr. Healey: Answer the question.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am coming to that, if the right hon. Gentleman could contain his supine self for a second.
That 1952 agreement reaffirmed that the use of those bases in an emergency would be a matter for a joint decision by Her Majesty's Government, and under that arrangement either party can withhold agreement until it is satisfied on any point.
Mr. Healey rose—
Mr. Speaker: No, I think—
Mr. Healey: May I intervene for a moment as Pithecanthropus Erectus?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has had two bites.

References to Members
4.13 pm
Mr. Harry Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance and information on the courtesies of the House? The Opposition spokesman on transport, the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), made an erroneous and ineffective attack upon me in the House at the beginning of the debate on transport yesterday without informing me in advance that he would refer to remarks that I had made. I have today told him that I shall be referring to him in the House and I invited him to be in his place to hear me do so.
If an hon. Member intends to refer to another hon. Member, is it not customary to give notice of that so that that hon. Member has the right to reply, should he wish to exercise it? Therefore, was the hon. Gentleman not yesterday grossly discourteous to the House and to me?
Mr. Speaker: I have looked at this matter because the hon. Gentleman raised it with me beforehand. It was not a serious attack, but I confirm that if a right hon. or hon. Member is to be mentioned in a debate, it is our courtesy that he is informed in advance.

Company Political Donations (Government Contractors)
4.14 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit companies which contract with the Government, or any department or agency thereof or any local government authority, from making donations, gifts or contributions either directly or in conjunction with any other company, association, or body or otherwise indirectly to any political party or to any candidate for Parliament.
The Bill deals with the murky, obscure and rather difficult subject of party finances and political contributions. It is part of a consistent plea by Labour Members and something that we shall implement when we return to power. It is a plea, first, for light, more light and still more light. Let us know what is happening in this area and let us know who is giving what to whom and why. Secondly, it is a plea for more democracy in political donations so that people do not find that companies are giving money on their behalf without their consent, with no power for them to opt out and without any real consultation on their views.
Ideally, political parties—this is a widely-held view—should be financed by the state, but until that happy day comes the very least that we can do is establish these two basic principles to dissipate the air of sleaze and scandal and the possibility of undue and unreasonable influence and of wrong deals which is all too prevalent today.
My Bill is part of that process and it is much the simplest part of the process because it provides, simply and straightforwardly, that public contractors—those working on or bidding for contracts with central Government, local government or public bodies—shall not make political donations to any party and shall not be considered for contracts if they make political donations to any party. That is a simple principle and it is one that is firmly established by law already in that great bastion of free enterprise, the United States, where federal legislation provides accordingly. My Bill is intended to follow that federal legislation in the United States.
I shall not unveil any great scandals, which is perhaps why the Press Gallery has emptied already, but it is wrong that, for example, Sir Horace Cutler, as Conservative leader of the GLC, set up in 1977 and again in 1981 his own political fund—Sir Horace was trying to be a mini-Lloyd George for beginners—which raised £22,000 in 1977 and £20,000 in 1981, and which was apparently mainly financed by builders with contracts with the GLC. Indeed, Wates gave £3,000 to the first of those funds, which was not reported in its accounts through the normal procedures. Some of the firms giving money to that fund—McAlpine, for instance—asked that restrictions be placed on the GLC's direct labour department as a price for those contributions. That is wrong.
It is also wrong that firms such as Trust House Forte, which has cleaning interests and donates £37,500 to the Tory election fund, and Pritchard, which gave £10,000 in 1982, £5,000 in 1983 and £12,000 in 1984, should be giving money to encourage Government to privatise cleaning contracts, particularly for the DHSS, but also for local councils. Indeed, that has often been done with disastrous results.
314
The National Union of Public Employees privatisation fact sheet, which appears regularly, devotes nine pages of the latest issue to faults, failures, inadequacies and lawsuits arising from hospital and local government cleaning contracts undertaken by firms, many of them donors to the Conservative party, as a result of privatisation, which their donations were presumably meant to encourage.
That principle is completely wrong. It is also wrong that defence contractors should make donations, especially because the area for competition in defence contracts is very limited. Even so, Plessey has donated £55,000 and Racal has donated £75,000. Even poor Westland donated £2,000 to the Conservative party. That may be a small donation in view of the company's financial position. Indeed, in view of the way that the company was treated by the Government, I would have expected the Government to give money to Westland rather than the company giving money to the Government.
It is also wrong that the principle of donations should apply in the new area of privatisation as we do not know what rules will govern contracts in that area. It is significant that half of the financial advisers and lead underwriters to the Government's privatisation programme are donors to the Conservative party or to its backing group, the Economic League. Kleinwort, Benson donated £30,000 to those organisations. It will not escape the attention of hon. Members that Kleinwort, Benson did very well out of the flotation of British Telecom, and many of the advisers did well out of that and other flotations.
As long as there are donations of this nature, there will always be the imputation that influence is being used, that favours are being sought and given or that contracts are being influenced. It is significant that construction is the fourth largest donor to the Conservative party. We do not know whether there are scandals in that area. However, there have been major scandals overseas, especially in Canada, over Government contracts for construction firms. It is important that we know what is happening and that justice is not only done but seen to be done. The Bill, plus the publication of company donations, will ensure that that is done.
The bulk of the contributions that we are discussing today will go to the Conservative party. That party has seen the justice of legislating to ensure publication of donations and to ensure full consent for donations made to the Labour party by trade unions. The Conservatives must therefore see the justice of establishing the same principle in the case of the even larger donations made to the Conservative party. There cannot be one law for the poor and one for the rich in this instance.
I do not know why people contribute to the Conservative party. They certainly cannot do that to get the benefits of the Government's economic policies which have brought disaster for so many firms, record rates of bankruptcies and closures and such record under-running in capacity. They cannot be contributing to secure honours because the Government assure us that that is not the case. The Government are honourable and I am sure that they would not lie, especially when they can use a carefully lawyered and cunningly phrased half-truth instead.
The donations must be made in the hope of gain. Donations are being made in the hope of gaining tax cuts for the substantially wealthy, the gain of Government contracts for City firms, cleaning firms and others. It is therefore vital that we establish the principle that these

315
donations should not be made by firms which are bidding for Government contracts as there is a possibility of corruption. We have a responsibility to act against that possibility, and my Bill provides the way to achieve that.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Terry Davis, Mr. Frank Dobson, Mr. Mark Fisher, Mr. Michael Meadowcroft, Mr. Nick Raynsford, and Mr. David Winnick.

Company Political Donations (Government Contractors)
  COMPANY POLITICAL DONATIONS (GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit companies which contract with the Government, or any department or agency thereof or any local government authority, from making donations, gifts or contributions either directly or in conjunction with any other company, association, or body or otherwise indirectly to any political party or to any candidate for Parliament: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 141.]
Orders of the Day

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.24 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time, and that this House take note of the White Paper "Developments in the European Community July-December 1985" (Cmnd. 9761).
  Mr. Speaker: Before we proceed with this important debate, I must announce to the House that I have not selected either of the amendments on the Order Paper. It will, of course, be in order to advance the arguments set out in those amendments in the course of the debate. I must also tell the House that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. If necessary, I will introduce the 10 minute limit on speeches between 7 pm and 8.50 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have thought it right to include within the scope of the debate the latest White Paper "Developments in the Community."
  The six months in question was, of course, dominated by the conference, whose outcome is the subject of the Bill now before the House. However, during that six months we also received the first of the abatements due to us under the Fontainebleau agreement. The Commission published its proposals for reform of the common agricultural policy, which emphasise the need for policies that we have long advocated, including sustained action on prices to bring about a better balance between supply and demand. [Interruption.] In a situation of serious overproduction worldwide—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I sense that the House is slightly confused by the Foreign Secretary's opening comments. He is moving the Second Reading of the Bill and not asking the House to take note of the White Paper.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is correct. I was simply stressing that it will be essential in this context to persist with the reforms initiated over the past few years, and for similar action to be undertaken in a number of other countries outside the Community.
  The Bill will give effect in United Kingdom law to the changes to the treaties establishing the European Communities, which were agreed by the Prime Minister and other European Community Heads of Government in Luxembourg last December. That agreement is contained in the Single European Act, which was signed on behalf of the United Kingdom by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), the Minister of State, on 17 February. That Act embodies not only those agreed changes but also the new, specific treaty provisions on political co-operation that were introduced at the initiative of the United Kingdom.
  I would like first of all to describe the Bill and then the Single European Act and its implications for the United Kingdom. The Single European Act involves changes in Community law. The main purpose of the European

  317
  Communities (Amendment) Bill is to give effect to those changes as part of Community law applicable in the United Kingdom. The principal vehicle for that is clause 1, under which the relevant part of the Single European Act becomes a Community treaty within the meaning of the European Communities Act 1972.
  Clause 2 covers the agreement by Heads of Government to attach a new court of first instance to the European Court of Justice. There is no question of extending the powers of the court to new areas. The court of first instance will simply provide for the more efficient disposal of the court's growing workload. This is a much needed improvement. The Bill will ensure that decisions of the new court of first instance will be given effect in United Kingdom law.
  Clause 3 provides for the change in title of the European Assembly, which will formally be known as the European Parliament once the Single European Act enters into force. In this country it has already for some time been the practice of successive Governments to use the term European Parliament in all but formal legal documents. It is the term that was used by all the major parties in their manifestos for the direct elections to the Parliament in 1984 and indeed in all their manifestos in the 1983 general election as well. So clause 3 brings the law into line with well-established practice.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: I may be wrong, but am I not right to believe that a Parliament is a legislature that can make laws and that the Assembly at present cannot make laws and is therefore not a legislature? Would it not be more appropriate to call it an Assembly unless we wish to give it powers to make laws? If we do that, will we reduce the powers of this House?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not think that we can confine the definition of a Parliament to a specific function. The fact is that nearly all hon. Members and in the country have talked about the European Parliament for many years.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Not all of us.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: Of course there are one or two dissenters but the reality is that all the major parties, as I have said, spoke about the European Parliament at the last elections. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) retains a long-standing affection for the alternative phrase and he is likely to continue to use that phrase. However, we are now bringing official practice and official designation into line with well-established practice and that should be the end of that question.
  Clause 3 also includes provision for the approval of a Single European Act for the purposes of section 6(1) of the European Assembly Elections Act 1978. I shall explain the purpose of these provisions when I come to describe the changes in the role of the Parliament that were agreed at Luxembourg.
  Clause 4 contains the short title and consequent repeals.
  So much for the Bill. I shall now tell the House something about the impact of the Single European Act. First, I shall deal with EC treaties and, secondly, with cooperation in foreign policy among the Twelve.
  The main changes to the EC treaty fall into three groups. The first group updates it to include specific reference to, and an agreed basis for, long-established
  318
  areas of Community activity which have been conducted so far as a piecemeal basis: notably research and technological development and environment. The second group introduces a carefully considered co-operation procedure involving the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Most important of all is the introduction of a commitment and timetable for completion of the common or internal market as one of the principal goals of the treaty and a long-standing aim of successive British Governments.
  The Community has, of course, made real progress towards the completion of a common market in goods and services. The first part of that—abolishing tariff barriers to trade—was relatively easy. The second part—breaking down non-tariff barriers—has proved more difficult. As the House knows well, these barriers take many forms. They include technical standards for industrial products, which mean that in practice only the domestic product can be sold in its own market. They include barriers to services, including rules such as those which currently apply in some member states prohibiting their citizens buying insurance from anywhere outside their domestic markets.
  There are barriers to the exercise of the professions, some of which we have already succeeded in dismantling—for example, the agreements that we reached on architects and pharmacists last year. They include numerous impediments to a liberal transport policy. Among these are the provisions for quota restrictions on lorry movements between one Community country and another which inhibit free competition. Another example is the cartel arrangements which still apply to air travel.
  The implications of the completion of the internal market for Britain can be put in three ways. First, we must think about the implications of not achieving a common market.
  Sir Russell Johnston: The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs did not mention that the agreement that was reached on architects took 17 years to complete. He did not mention either whether the Single Act will have any effect on health regulations, for example, which are used as a form of non-tariff barrier.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall deal with health regulations in a moment. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that progress on non-tariff barrier restrictions on the single market has been lamentably slow. That is one of the reasons for the changes which are now being proposed for moving in the areas which I shall define, from unanimity to majority voting. I was merely pointing out that we have made some progress, and I have given two examples. Of course, we want to make more progress. As I have said, the implications of not having a common market would remain serious.
  We are a nation that already sends 48 per cent. of its exports to members of the European Community and Britain needs to have completely free access to those markets. We need to ensure that that free access is mutual so that benefits enjoyed by trade and services coming to this country can be enjoyed by our exporters elsewhere. That applies especially to the services sector and to certain areas of transport such as maritime shipping. That is why the views of British industry are so plainly in support of the commitment to the early establishment of the common

  319
  market. All the major organisations such as the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the British Institute of Management and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce have long campaigned for the completion of the internal market.
  Thirdly, there are benefits for our citizens. By deregulating coach services in Britain six years ago, for example, we have achieved a 50 per cent. increase in passengers, a 20 per cent. increase in services and a decrease in fares in real terms of up to 40 per cent. The benefits are obvious to service operators and consumers and to manufacturers as well. This is because an expansion of economic activity is taking place. How much more obvious the benefits would be if that could be achieved on a European scale.
  My second example is air transport. Thanks to our persistent efforts we have succeeded in reaching bilateral agreements with the Netherlands and Germany. We are currently negotiating an agreement with Denmark. The agreement and arrangements between the United Kingdom and the Netherlands have led already to a drop in the cheapest air fare from £82 to £49 and an increase of 16 per cent. in air traffic between the two countries—70,000 extra passengers and 10 new services in the first year. Once again, how much more effective it would be if we could make similar progress throughout the Community.
  Thus far the remaining obstacles to the completion of the internal market have been largely political. That underlines the importance of the success that we have achieved in getting completion of the internal market at the top of the Community's agenda.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is it not the case that air fares for travel from the United Kingdom to the United States have reduced substantially and rather more dramatically than air fares from the United Kingdom to Europe? Is it not possible to achieve what my right hon. and learned Friend is talking about without having a common market, without having the Treaty of Rome, without having a Single European Act and without having all the excessive bureaucracy that is involved in maintaining that structure?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is possible to achieve deregulation between two countries. I have explained that that has been achieved between ourselves and the Netherlands. The effect of a Community framework would be to apply a general policy of liberalisation, and that has been considered by the Community for some time. It is the habit and practice of working together on a Community basis that is more likely to promote the achievement of agreements than working under a series of bilateral arrangments. I see no argument against what we are trying to do. Indeed, the contrary is the case.
  It is important that we have succeeded in putting completion of the internal market at the top of the Community's agenda but institutional problems have been tackled as well, such as the requirement—this takes up the issue raised by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston)—that measures to complete the internal market can be taken only by unanimity under article 100 of the treaty. That is one of the institutional problems that we have been addressing.
  When we came to discuss the possibility of a treaty change a general agreement developed that, where
  320
  political determination could be reinforced and facilitated, that should be done by making carefully balanced changes in the Community treaty. In the Single European Act these changes take two main forms. First, there is a definition of the internal market and a commitment to its completion by 1992. Secondly, there is the provision that in most of the internal market areas that have so far been subject to unanimity majority voting should apply.
  Once the changes have been ratified in all member states, with some exceptions that I shall describe, qualified majority will replace unanimity for the measures which are major components of the construction of the common market. These are policies for sea and air transport, for the right to provide services freely in another member state and for the agreement of common standards that are the key to export growth.
  These are potentially important changes but at the same time their scope is not indefinite. It was recognised that some subjects were of such importance to the national policies of individual member states that they should remain subject to unanimity voting. The three principal topics for which unanimity is retained are tax measures, measures relating to the free movement of individuals and measures affecting the rights and interests of employed persons.
  For Britain and Ireland, among others, perhaps, there was an additional need reflecting our position as island countries with special requirements in terms of human, animal and plant health. Our position is protected in that respect by an additional safeguard that will permit us to retain or take national measures on the ground of significant need, notably where health, safety, environment and consumer protection are involved. That is not intended to extend to the preservation of measures of the sort for which there can be no justification on that ground.
  I know that there are some who will be anxious that in promoting the achievement of an internal market in this way we may diminish the essential protection of our national interest that is inherent in the requirement for unanimity. I would not accept that: first, because we have got the safeguards that I have described, which protect us on the key issues; secondly, because it will be open to us to combine with other member states to form a blocking minority; and, thirdly, because, as a last resort, the Luxembourg compromise remains in place untouched and unaffected. When I say the last resort, I mean it, because I strongly believe that it will benefit this country more for progress to be made towards completion of the internal market through the introduction of qualified majority voting than for progress to remain blocked, as it often has been in the past, by one member state alone.
  Mr. John Browne: With regard to the Luxembourg compromise, could my right hon. and learned Friend explain to the House why it was that on the one occasion that I know of that this country tried to use its rights under that compromise we were not allowed to do so?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: It was because, as the House well knows, the Luxembourg compromise is not a provision of the treaty; it is a component of political reality in the Community. We were outvoted on the occasion in 1982 because other member states argued that our invocation of that proposition was unrelated to the matter in hand; in other words, we were seeking to invoke it in a wider area

  321
  unconnected with the point on which the discussion was taking place. That was the position in 1982. That argument would remain available in today's circumstances. The one thing that is clear is that the Luxembourg compromise as I have described it is in no way affected one way or the other by the Single European Act.
  Mr. Marlow: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that there is a short sentence in the Single European Act referring to these measures which says:
  "The Commission, in its proposals … concerning health, safety, environmental protection and consumer protection, will take as a base a high level of protection."
  Is this not likely to have two effects which we can do very little about? One is that if there is a socialistic majority on the other side of the Channel we shall have all sorts of socialism rammed down our throats. The second is that, if a lot of European industries gang up together to set conditions which are to their advantage and to the disadvantage of British industries, there will be nothing that we can do about it.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: The provisions will still be governed by decisions taken under the qualified majority proposals described in the changes being made and will be subject in the same way to the Luxembourg compromise unchanged by anything in these provisions. I really do believe that it will benefit this country more for us to be making progress towards completion of the internal market through the use of qualified majority voting than for that progress to remain blocked, as it has often been in the past, as the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber pointed out, by one member state alone.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: On the desperately important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne), is the Foreign Secretary saying that the only time that we tried to use the Luxembourg compromise in recent years, in 1982, it did not work and that the only safeguard we have, the Luxembourg compromise, can be used only if the majority of other member states agree with us that it is of supreme national interest for our country? Does not that mean that the Luxembourg compromise is no real protection at all?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Luxembourg compromise is not set out in the treaty and is not, therefore, provided for with the precision that would appeal to my hon. Friend, but the nature of it is unchanged by the proceedings which we are now considering.
  The Luxembourg compromise, as many hon. Members have said, has cast its shadow over many considerations and has deferred the reaching of decisions in many circumstances; it has upheld our national interest and that of many other countries, so that people have recognised that it was the weapon that could be exercised in the last resort. That reality remains. I will give just one example. We had a very important package last year of 15 industrial standards directives which had been agreed in 1984 and had been held up by one member state and then another in isolation for over 12 months.
  The other major changes in the treaty incorporated in the Single European Act are those which involve longstanding areas of co-operation which so far have not been formally reflected in the treaty itself. The first is cooperation in research and technological development. That activity has been taking place in the context of meetings of Research Ministers since 1975.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the question of the European initiative on cancer research, would it be fair to say that this has been rather disappointing so far? What are the various countries of the Community going to do to fulfil the hopes of co-operation in cancer research that the right hon. and learned Gentleman put forward six months ago?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not able instantly to tell the hon. Gentleman the position on that, but it is being considered by ministerial colleagues. My hon. Friend will no doubt have an opportunity of dealing with it in her reply.
  The other area of change, apart from that of research and development, is in the treaty amendments governing the environment. Again, the Community has had environmental action programmes since July 1973 and there are already a number of directives in the environment field. That activity is now being codified.
  I come next to the role of the European Parliament, because this is a topic to which a great deal of attention has been given.
  A lot of attention was given to the role of the Parliament in the debate on 5 March and in particular to the so-called co-operation procedure, which was very fully and expertly described in the report prepared for that debate by the Select Committee on European Legislation. As hon. Members will know, the European Parliament already has the right to be consulted under some 17 articles of the treaty. The Single European Act provides that for 10 articles, including some new ones, that procedure will be changed.
  The new co-operation procedure is designed to enable the Parliament to make its views known, and for the Council to take account of them, before positions have become set in concrete. Under the 10 articles to which I referred—mainly measures affecting the internal market—when a proposal goes to the Council, the Council will have a discussion on it and adopt a common position. Thereafter, if the Parliament, by an absolute majority of all its members, votes for amendments to that proposal, both Council and Commission will have to take account of those amendments.
  Where the Commission agrees to change its proposal to accommodate the Parliament's amendments, the Council, as now, can further change the Commission proposal only by unanimity. Where the Council accepts the revised proposal, it will, as now, vote according to the relevant article of the treaty. If the Parliament rejects altogether the common position of the Council, the Council can still vote through a proposal in the form in which it wants it to be enacted, but in those circumstances it must do so by unanimity.
  In short, therefore, the Parliament can in certain circumstances change the Council's voting provisions back from qualified majority to unanimity. In no circumstances can it change them the other way.
  The new co-operation procedure will produce a greater awareness in Council and Parliament of each other's views, but it will make no decisive change in the institutional balance because the last word remains with the Council. If judiciously used, the new procedure could enable the Parliament to play a more active and positive role in Community decision-taking. The Parliament is one of the Community's institutions. It was elected in 1984 by 114 million people and serves a total population of 320

  323
  million. Its negative powers are considerable—the House has always acknowledged that—but its positive opportunities have until now been relatively few. If it works co-operatively with the Council and the Commission, that can only be in the interests of faster decision-taking, for the benefit of the Community as a whole.
  The Single European Act involves two further changes.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that these proposals enhance the role of the Parliament? If so, is that not to the disadvantage of other institutions in the Community?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: Let there be no misunderstanding about this. The Council can reject European Parliament amendments by a qualified majority where the Commission does not adopt them as its own. Where the Commission does adopt them as its own, the Council can reject them by unanimity. That represents no change from the present position, but of course the pattern of exchanges that I have described will enhance the potential influence of the Parliament and that will, I believe, be in the interests of faster decision-taking, to the benefit of the Community as a whole.
  I should like to deal with two further changes in the role of the European Parliament. At present, the Parliament's opinion is required on requests by non-member states to join the Community. Henceforth, the Parliament will have to give its agreement before such accessions can take place. This change does not diminish the role of national Parliaments. No new accession can take place without the consent of this Parliament and of every other national Parliament. Similarly, the European Parliament will henceforth be entitled to approve new association agreements between the Community and non-member states. These agreements take various forms. Where the consent of national Parliaments is currently required, that will remain the case for the future.
  It is these two new provisions which give rise to the requirement under section 6 of the European Assembly Elections Act 1978 for the Single European Act 1986 as a whole to be approved by the House. That requirement is covered in clause 3 of the Bill.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the most important features of the Act is the extension of majority voting? In cases where the Council takes a majority vote, the only way in which the views of elected people can be directly brought to bear is through the European Parliament.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is not the only way. I take the point made by my hon. Friend. That is an additional channel through which those views can be brought to bear, but they can also be brought to bear by the impact on members of the Council by national Parliaments.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend not find it extraordinary that those hon. Members who were claiming that the unanimity rule had been breached are now complaining because the Parliament, apparently, has powers to enforce the unanimity rule?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have explained the position. These changes will enable the Parliament to secure a change from majority voting to unanimity. As my hon. Friend points out, on the whole that should be a change in the direction in which my other hon. Friend said would be welcome.
  I should now like to turn to the other part of the Single European Act 1986 which is not part of the Bill but which is in the document, the treaty provisions dealing with foreign policy. They do not form part of the Bill, because they do not and will not form part of Community law. However, the House will wish to take this opportunity to consider these provisions which relate to foreign policy.
  The new treaty provisions do not in themselves break new ground, but for the first time they enshrine in an international agreement the agreements and practices that have been built up over the last 15 years. The treaty also strengthens the existing commitment to consult on the economic and political aspects of security questions. As hon. Members said, in the last couple of weeks that objective has faced a severe practical test. Events have dramatically demonstrated the need for Europe to speak with one voice. To the extent that I have described, Europe has demonstrated a growing capacity to do so. [Interruption. The House may be dismissive about this, but it represents a substantial change. It would not have been possible to mobilise agreement between 12 independent nations to the extent that we have done so were it not for the habit of working together in the European Community.
  On Monday, we took a significant step towards denying Libya the capacity to mount terrorist actions in Europe. Of course, that outcome was not reached quickly or easily. As people pointed out, we could have gone further on our own. But vigorous action by one member state could not be as effective as concerted action by 12 member states. If the terrorist threat in Europe is to be reduced, the tentacles put out by Gaddafi or by anybody else have got to be severed in Greece as well as in Great Britain, in Lisbon as well as in London. That is the significance of the step we took this week and that step was an important achievement. We need to build on this beginning. It must inevitably be harder to agree common action than simple consultation. That task will be helped by the treaty provisions that we have agreed.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Secretary of State has told the House that the provisions for political co-operation are not embodied in our law by the Bill. That is what I understood him to say. Could he explain how the embodiment of title I does not do that, because article 3.2 of title I appears specifically to bring into force the contents of title III?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: It brings into force title III because that title is a component of the international agreement which is here set out. It brings it into force as an agreement binding in international law between the member states, but it does not require incorporation in the law of member states. Of course, it requires to be brought into force as an agreement between member states. That is why I am describing it now, because it is translating into a binding international agreement the habits and practices that have grown up on political co-operation in recent years.
  An important aim of these treaty provisions—and they are treaty provisions—is to achieve greater

  325
  consistency between external policies that are decided within the Community framework on matters such as trade and aid, and the foreign policy objectives identified by member states on political co-operation. Clearly, we need to make sure that policies decided in the Community march alongside and reinforce actions and assessments agreed in political co-operation.
  The treaty will also provide for the creation of a small secretariat based in Brussels that will help the presidency of the day. That will provide greater continuity between presidencies, help to ensure consistency in Community policies, and take on the burden of arranging meetings, most of which will take place in Brussels. This task now falls on the presidency of the day. The secretariat officials will be seconded on a rotating basis from their national Administrations.
  Mr. William Cash: Would my right hon. and learned Friend care to comment on the fact that on Second Reading of a Bill of this importance that deals with the future of Britain and the European Community, the most important measure in this field since 1972, there are six Labour Members present, one Scottish Nationalist, one Unionist, one Liberal and not a single member of the Social Democratic party?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is an interesting observation because it shows that the matter is no longer something about which there is great controversy. I am not in the least surprised that there remains a small, valiant and observant watch on the Government side of the House. That is also the case when we are debating other topics. The generality of the propositions I am commending are well supported on both sides of the House. I know that the small and enthusiastic group of my hon. Friends who are in the House are anxious about references to European union in the preamble to the Single European Act 1986. Such declarations are not new in the Community. They have been made at European Councils under successive Governments, Labour as well as Conservative, since at least 1972.
  The reference in the Single European Act specifically relates to the Stuttgart Declaration agreed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the other Heads of Government in June 1983. That declaration referred to the growing unity among the member states in the following terms:
  "European Union is being achieved by deepening and broadening the scope of European activities so that they coherently cover, albeit on a variety of legal bases, a growing proportion of member states mutual relations and of their external relations".
  We are not talking about the declaration or proclamation of a United States of Europe or about vague political or legal goals. We are talking about practical steps towards the unity that is essential if Europe is to maintain and enhance its economic and political position in a harshly competitive world.
  These are steps to which all the member Governments are ready to agree. No doubt the House will hear a good deal from some of my hon. Friends and from some Opposition Members about the fearful constitutional fantasies that preoccupy them. Those are terrors for children; not for me. I hope that the House will put them aside.
  In a world where no European power can any longer stand on its own, our national goals can be achieved only
  326
  in co-operation with our Community partners. The most fundamental of those goals has always been the preservation of peace and the enhancement of democracy. The Single European Act serves that fundamental objective. It enhances co-operation in foreign policy, and it enhances our ability to take the steps that we need to take as a Community to make ourselves competitive internationally and to create prosperity and jobs. It is on that basis that I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.59 pm
  Mr. George Robertson: In many ways the importance of this debate can be measured by the fact that a Scot is making the opening Opposition speech and that another Scot will make the closing one in an evening when, at Wembley, an even older union than that with Europe will be put under even greater strain than the European Community is under now because of the unhappiness of some Conservative Members.
  About nine weeks from now the Foreign Secretary will take over the presidency of the European Council of Ministers. He will then find himself in the driving seat of a European Community with massive and seemingly insuperable problems. He will find another gigantic crisis, with the cash already running out and all the promises of budget discipline that were paraded before us last year lying in a heap. The CAP is again out of control, its costs swallowing up bigger and bigger chunks of the entire Community budget, and with no sign of reform on the horizon.
  A new and frightening split has developed between the traditional allies in western Europe and the United States of America, with the Community incapable of persuading President Reagan of the consequences and dangers of his recklessness. A trade war with the United States is not far away either. The 12 nations in the Community for which the Foreign Secretary will take responsibility on 1 July have over 15 million people out of work. Two in every five are under the age of 25. Little or nothing is being done to mobilise the political will to get them back to work. On top of all that, the competitive edge of our collective industrial capacity is continually under challenge from the far east, from Japan and from the Americans.
  That is the European Community which the Foreign Secretary will inherit in only nine weeks' time. It is a formidable prospect, and it is easy to see why the Minister, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), the Mary Poppins of the Tory party, has been drafted in to put an acceptable face on the solutions which the Foreign Secretary might have to dredge out during his presidency.
  In the face of all those mind-blowing problems, we are today considering a wholly irrelevant Bill that will give effect to what is remarkably and, indeed, mysteriously called the Single European Act. The 11 other national Parliaments will later do the same thing. However, so remarkable and mysterious is the Act's name that during the last debate the Minister of State, who is responsible for European Community affairs, did not know why it was called the Single European Act. Moreover, at the Königswinter conference a couple of weeks ago at Cambridge, her opposite number in the German Government confessed that he did not have a clue why it was called that.
  Today, the Foreign Secretary seemed to say that the Single European Act was the greatest thing since imperial preference, but it is, in reality, a child whom he and the

  327
  Prime Minister wanted to strangle at birth. When the Prime Minister came back last July from her humiliation at the Milan summit, she was absolutely explicit to the House when she said:
  "positive improvements in the Community's decision-making could have been decided in Milan and did not require any treaty amendment … I saw nothing before us that would require an amendment to the treaty."—[Official Report, 2 July 1985; Vol. 82, c. 185–89.]
  Even before Milan, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), who has now been parachuted into the Cabinet, but who served on the Dooge committee, whose ideas formed the basis of the Single European Act, rubbished, with characteristic vigour and in his own inimitable style, the idea of amending the treaty. He said:
  "Her Majesty's Government believe that major progress can be made at the present time without amending the treaty".
  The right hon. and learned Member for Pentlands also made another point that should not escape us. He said:
  "Once one embarks on the road of treaty amendment, one must bear in mind that, in whatever area it is amended, it will require not only the unanimous agreement of all 12 member Governments but the unanimous ratification of all 12 national Parliaments. Even if any proposals were considered to be acceptable, at the least we would be contemplating a delay of one, two or possibly even three years before such a process would be complete."—[Official Report, 20 June 1985; Vol. 81, c. 473.]
  Those are the words, not of some fly-by-night forecaster, or of some marginal figure who, like so many Conservative Members, has held high office and then gone into well-deserved obscurity, but of a man who has been promoted as a result of his record as a Minister with responsibility for the Common Market. He is now a full member of the Cabinet. We should therefore accept the authority of his words, his prophecy and his pessimism. We look forward to hearing from his successor later in the debate and to finding out whether the hon. Lady can say when this new vision that has been paraded before us will become a reality.
  We have a measure which the Government did not want, thought unnecessary and believed would divert us for years away from the real areas that need attention, yet it is now placed before us as the answer to all our problems. The Government and the then Minister of State were right then, just as the Foreign Secretary is wrong today. This measure is of profound irrelevance to the deep-seated concerns of Europe's peoples, and it diverts us from the remedies and solutions for which we should be reaching.
  The Labour party believes that Europe's nations should be looking together for a strategy for growth and the creation of jobs. We believe that with political will and courage such a strategy is both possible and necessary, and could be successful. Indeed, the annual economic report of the European Commission, which was published in November 1985, and which is dismissed in a couple of lines in the White Paper tacked on to this debate, is entitled, "A Co-operative Growth Strategy for More Employment", but we have heard not a word about the report from the Government. Of course, that is not surprising when this country has the highest unemployment rate known in modern times.
  We believe that radical reform of the CAP is urgently needed and should be a precondition of any possible future action by the Community in any area because its financial
  328
  excesses endanger all programmes, but we have heard nothing on that subject today, although it is necessarily part of the debate. We believe in the importance of the regional and social funds, and in their being properly funded to redistribute the Community's resources in a better and more organised way. The Single European Act places obligations on the regional and social funds in order to avoid the worst problems that might arise in a wider and more effective internal market, but the Government have voted to cut those valuable instruments of economic action and to sit immobile as the CAP's excesses threaten a drying-up of the funds, with all that that means for our own regions.
  Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues should be congratulated on their efforts to bring the Labour party into modern Europe. In his consultations with representatives of the Social Democratic and Socialist parties observers in the Community, does he find the same lack of enthusiasm for institutional developments as he has just expressed?
  Mr. Robertson: I know that the hon. Gentleman finds himself on the margins of this debate, and he will probably remain there for most of it. In discussions with Social Democratic and Socialist colleagues it became clear that their priority is that of the Labour party, which is to use the engine of European economic growth to get our people back to work. Institutional reform is still well down the ladder of their priorities, just as it is for ours.
  We believe in joint collaboration on research and technology, and in using public funds in Europe to stimulate the Eureka project—and ESPRIT—to counter the competition from the ill-directed public largesse of the American SDI programme and the economic locomotive in the far east.
  We believe that in all these ways Europe could mean something to its beleaguered citizens, but the Single European Act and the Bill offer them little or nothing. Institutional reform is the bread and circuses of European politics. It erects monuments—usually in paper—when people instead want action and results.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): This is a most interesting deployment of the hon. Gentleman's case. I wonder whether he can square his statement of Labour party policy with the comment of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on trade, who was not only part of the research group of the Labour Common Market Safeguards Committee, but edited a report in September 1985, which seems to be at variance with what the hon. Gentleman has been saying for the last five minutes?
  Mr. Robertson: No, it is not. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) is entitled to his opinions. He holds a Front-Bench position and will undoubtedly express his own point of view, but I assure the hon. Lady that his views and mine on most of the practical issues of European policy do not diverge as much as she would like them to do.
  I wish to concentrate on a couple of areas of the Single European Act which I believe show how meaningless even this Government see this treaty change. The first is an area in which we broadly agree with the Government as being desirable. In Common Market gobbledegook they call it

  329
  European political co-operation, but they mean foreign policy co-operation. The Act calls on the European Community to
  "endeavour jointly to formulate and implement a European foreign policy"
  and to
  "undertake to inform and consult each other on any foreign policy matters of general interest"
  and
  "avoid any action or position which impairs their effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations or within organisations."
  It is small wonder that we have heard so little of this matter from the Foreign Secretary this afternoon. This pie in the sky is a considerable embarrassment to the Government in a week when they have found themselves seriously out of line with their Community partners. Perhaps I might remind the hon. Lady of her words in the debate on 5 March, although they ring somewhat hollow in the light of today's and this week's events. She said:
  "It is helpful to be in firm political combination with our partners in Europe, as we have shown in the past two months in the statement on terrorism".—[Official Report, 5 March 1986; Vol. 93, c. 403.]
  A week after the bombing of Libya from bases in Britain, which were used in the face of united and concerted Europen opinion, and two weeks after consultation and discussion in the Community on Libya, we get some limp decision to stop the export of subsidised butter to that evil regime, but no statement on other subsidised products which flow from these shores to that regime, which we are told is to be isolated in every way possible. Are the Government still muddling around trying to be Communautaire on the one hand, and halfheartedly endorsing this idea of "informing and consulting" our partners, while at the same time trying to square it with our obsequious toadying to the Americans and their anti-Europeanism?
  We have been told that the Foreign Secretary is the architect of the draft treaty on foreign policy co-operation—or so all the British papers told us before the Milan summit fiasco—but as the architect surveys the shambles for which he has personally been responsible, should he not reflect on the other areas where the rhetoric that he peddles with such conviction in his speeches founders so often on the reality of his actions?
  It is not just on Libya that Her Majesty's Government depart from the European line. They vetoed the common line on South Africa and the minimal sanctions proposed until President Reagan had done his U-turn. They ignored the united voice expressed among our partners about the Falkland Islands, where we stand alone. They ignored the unanimous advice offered on our supine withdrawal from UNESCO, and they show none of the genuine feeling of concern for American action in central America that is shared by our European partners.
  What do the Government mean by "formulating and implementing a European foreign policy?" Is it to be the Prime Minister's policy just foisted on our European partners, or will she and other Ministers start to listen to the other members of the Community when they speak—and speak sense too?
  Mr. Marlow: Would the hon. Gentleman like to take this opportunity to tell the House and the country whether the Labour party is now totally and utterly anti-American?
  Mr. Robertson: It is always likely that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who
  330
  usually spends his time harassing Ministers, will try to attack the Opposition, but if that is the level of his criticism I think that he had better stay in his seat for the rest of the evening. The Labour party is not anti-American, it never has been, and it is unlikely to be in the future.
  The central issue of this Act, we are now told, is not better decision making within the Community. as the Dooge committee told us, but the vision of the internal market. The dream of Lord Cockfield is to be the target of the British presidency and all the eggs are to be precariously placed in this basket. The Dooge committee was eloquent on the objectives of the internal market. It said that it
  "would mean more jobs, more prosperity and faster growth, and would thus make the Community a reality for its citizens."
  Nowhere are we told when or how this is all to take place, or how, in a recession-battered continent, fewer barriers will not just mean shared misery and not increased prosperity.
  To get to Lord Cockfield's dream, this Act introduces qualified majority voting, and single majority voting, across a host of areas in EEC decision making, stretching from Common Market banking and insurance to directives on radio and television broadcasting.
  The Labour party is not opposed to moves towards a more genuine internal market. It is not opposed to reducing some of the bureaucratic and protectionist barriers to trade inside the European Community. However, there are fundamental issues at stake for this country, and all the heady vision of Lord Cockfield and the Foreign Secretary himself do not answer the points.
  First, do the Government have any idea of the effects that these changes will have on British industry—for for employment, for our balance of payments, for the degree of import penetration, for our balance of trade in manufacturing, which has now sunk so low, and for our invisible earnings from services? Nothing that they have said in the last two years suggests that they have the slightest clue about the effect, but if they have, they have a duty to tell us in detail in a White Paper which the House can consider. We have asked for that repeatedly. It is one of the minimal requests that this House can make, but the Government have failed to provide such information. Conversely, they may not know the effects—that is the most likely scenario—and we are embarking on another experiment, a gamble with what is left of Britain's future for the sake of the free market ideology of the Government.
  The second point on the internal market concerns the desire by Lord Cockfield and by the European Commission and others to get to fiscal harmonisation, especially of VAT rates. The Government have rightly stressed their opposition to that feature. We welcome that commitment and the fact that such changes will be subject to unanimity, but Lord Cockfield, who is a key member of the Thatcher establishment, is fully wedded to fiscal harmonisation, and he is not alone.
  Sir Henry Plumb, the leader of the Tory Members of the European Parliament, said in the debate on 11 December in the European Parliament:
  "It was hard to see how there could be an internal market without a measure of harmonisation in fiscal matters."
  What confidence can the House have that the Prime Minister's resolution will stand up to such powerful

  331
  influences within the Community when she so enthusiastically accepts the basic philosophy of Lord Cockfield and the other free traders?
  The third point of principle on the interal market concerns the British Government's view of the internal market and how it diverges from that of the other member states. The Government's ideology sees a free trade area—a Europe-wide enterprise zone—with deregulation triumphant and all social protections dismantled, but for our partners in the European Community, even those on the Right wing, it is about much more than that.
  The President of the European Commission, Jacques Delors, said in January:
  "The creation of a vast economic area based on the market and business co-operation is inconceivable, I would say, unattainable, without some harmonisation of social legislation."
  Yet the Single European Act which we are asked to approve today treats the people of Europe as inferior to the goods which they produce.
  Because unanimity is to be required for provisions relating to the
  "rights and interests of employed persons",
  our Government will go on denying the people of Britain—and indeed the rest of the European Community—the benefits of directives on employee consultation and information, parental leave and worker participation. Instead, Lord Young has presented a programme for deregulation Community-wide which will strip workers of many of the rights which they already enjoy.
  The Government say that this is because they believe, first, that the directive would impose costs on small and medium-sized businesses and would destroy jobs; and, secondly, that such arrangements are a matter between employers and employees. Neither of those foot-dragging excuses stands up. To take one example, the House of Lords Select Committee could find no reason for believing that the directive on parental leave, which the Government still insist on vetoing, would impose burdens on industry which would result in job losses, since it would affect only 1 per cent. of the people.
  The Government find it convenient to accept European legislation on health and safety and, with some reluctance, legislation on equal pay, but they happily meddle in their own industrial law jungle. Why, therefore, should they veto the beneficial standards set by the Community if they truly believe in a genuine internal market?
  Where we really distrust the Government in their belief in the idea of an internal market which will work for the interests of Europe's people is on the impact on the regions. The Single European Act recognises explicitly, even if the Government will not admit it, that if the internal European market is to succeed, it can only be through the achievement of economies of scale in production. If that is not to mean another magnet for industry, drawing it to the golden triangle in the centre of northern Europe, the Community needs the clout of the regional and social funds.
  The Act calls on the Community to
  "in particular aim at reducing disparities between the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions"
  and says that
  "the implementation of the common policies and of the internal market shall take into account the objectives."
  The Act demands that there be new rules for the management of the structural funds and that they should
  332
  be subject to unanimity. The Government must tell the House whether they will allow the regional and social funds to do what they are designed to do and what the Single European Act says they must do. Will the cash crisis which threatens these valuable—and now legally designated valuable—funds be solved in their favour, or in favour of a capitulation to the German farm lobby?
  If the words in the Single European Act mean what they say, and if the Government mean what they subscribe to, we might have some faith in these changes in the Treaty of Rome. However, we agreed with Ministers and with the Prime Minister before the Milan summit when they said that treaty amendments were unnecessary, undesirable and a time-wasting diversion. The Labour party has not done any somersaults and still believes that that is the case.
  Even when it struggles through the 12 Parliaments, this measure will not help even one of Europe's unemployed, and it will not add 1 per cent. to Europe's pitiful and lamentable growth rate. Nor will it galvanise the political will which alone can transform European words into action which our peoples will understand. Instead, it will provide another bureaucratic alibi for inaction on the key areas of the Community's crisis—inaction on the food mountains and on the price regime which builds them, and inaction on real technology co-operation to ensure our future.
  The Single European Act will mean more majority voting, nominal and purely cosmetic references to monetary union, a gesture to increased influence in the European Parliament, foreign policy co-operation, and more paper commitments to technological development. That is the summation of the Single European Act. To pretend that it is a substitute for political courage and economic hard progress is to delude cynically all the people of the Community. It is a diversion from the real task before us. That is why we shall vote against it tonight.
  5.26 pm
  Sir Edward du Cann: This is a short Bill but its appearance entirely belies its significance. As the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said in his thoughtful speech, it is probably, in terms of Britain's membership of the European Community, the largest constitutional measure that the House has had to discuss since our discussions on the European Communities Act 1972. It is right that we in this House should be concerned about and interested in the constitutional proposals which are put in front of us. We have very good reasons in practical terms to be most proud of our own constitution and the experience which we have evolved over the centuries.
  We have learnt in our democracy how to provide Governments with authority, yet at the same time to provide opportunities for those of us who are privileged to be in the House as the people's representatives to exercise some control over that authority—a process which, in the context of the increased growth of the power of the Executive, we have substantially enhanced by the introduction of departmental Select Committees in recent years. All of us who are privileged to be Members of Parliament have every reason to defend what we have improved over the centuries; indeed, have been ready to defend at any time that it came into peril.
  Mr. John Butterfill: My right hon. Friend has welcomed the evolution of the British

  333
  constitution. Does he agree that this Bill represents evolution within the European Community and should be welcomed equally?
  Sir Edward du Cann: I think that the Bill represents a very substantial step forward in the process of constitutional change on which this country deliberately embarked some years ago. The question I have to ask is whether the pace is correct.
  I listened with great interest to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said. He used a phrase that I found offensive. It is wholly wrong to describe those of us who have shown a genuine interest in constitutional matters over a long time. We have arrived at our view after most careful thought, and hold it sincerely. I do not care for being called, in his phrase, one who is concerned about terrors for children. It is the duty of all of us, whoever we are and whatever our political faiths may be, to defend our constitution and all it stands for with all the strength we can possibly command. I therefore make no apology for attempting to do exactly that today.
  My personal position on these matters is well known in this House. I was opposed to Britain's signature to the treaty of Rome. I believed it was not in the best interests of this nation, nor in accordance with our historic tradition. Policy alternatives were open to us. I see no reason to change my mind about my decision. In signing the treaty of Rome we abandoned some flexibility in dealing with our own affairs and in negotiating our position in the world in matters of foreign policy and trade, and that I am sure was a mistake. Instead, we have now taken on board a new rigidity of discipline in foreign policy and trade matters which in the end I believe will serve this country less well than a more flexible position would have done.
  There it is; the matter has been decided by an overwhelming vote in the House and in this country. The task of all of us now is to endeavour to make the European Community a more effective instrument, if we can. That is exactly what we should be talking about now and that is why I believe the Bill is so wrong.
  Why the devil are we talking about constitutional matters at this stage? There is immense impatience in this country with the European Community and the way in which it conducts its practical affairs. If we want to get the country behind the European Community, all our energies should be devoted to making it much more effective, by reforming, for example, the common agricultural policy, by bringing some sense into the way in which the Community deals with its cash, and by achieving greater co-ordination, as my right hon. and learned Friend has argued, in matters of trade and foreign policy. I believe that our priorities now are entirely wrong. We should not be wasting time on constitutional matters when there is so much to do practically.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hope that when my right hon. Friend addresses these matters he will focus on the point that the central features of the Bill are designed to make the institutional changes so that faster progress can be made so that there can be more effective co-operation. He may not agree with the method, but those are our objectives.
  Sir Edward du Cann: It is a most extraordinary thing that that is exactly what has not been happening. If there
  334
  were an attractive record of progress and co-operation, I should have more faith in my right hon. and learned Friend's protestations.
  My point is really very simple. I believe that we are giving our discussions the wrong emphasis and that we are going for the wrong priorities. In that way, we are being tactless, because the country generally will regard us as impractical, to say the least. There may well be a case for improving procedures, as my right hon. and learned Friend argues, but I do not believe the country is ready yet to make the substantial constitutional changes that are now proposed. For instance, this is not the time to agree to any derogation of our national sovereignty. I was very surprised at the exchanges my right hon. and learned Friend had with some of my hon. Friends on the subject of the Luxembourg agreement. I do not know whether hon. Members have had the opportunity to refer to the admirable reference sheet on the Bill, produced by the Library, but I draw attention to a paragraph on page 7 which makes a striking point. This is not produced by any partisan group; it is a factual report. The paragraph states:
  "The legal fragility of the Luxembourg agreement was demonstrated in April 1982."
  That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) was making. It continues:
  "The Council then adopted EEC agricultural prices for the coming year by majority vote, despite the demand of Britain that adoption should be delayed until a settlement was reached on the budgetary situation."
  That matter was of vital national interest to us, yet it was ruled that, since the majority vote was in accordance with treaty provisions, the Council regulation stood and took legal effect. Many of us felt that we might just as well not have had the Luxembourg agreement at all. Derogation of national sovereignty while the affairs of the European Community are in such a mess practically has gone far enough and should go no further.
  Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the problem lies not necessarily in the workings of the Luxembourg compromise but more in the scrutiny arrangements that take place in the House? It is a matter of great importance that we manage to organise our affairs here to ensure that we have proper control over things done in our names in the working groups in the Council of Parliamentary Representatives and thereby through the Ministers themselves.
  Sir Edward du Cann: I would not disagree at all with my hon. Friend if he says that we should strengthen our scrutiny arrangements in this House. Indeed, I have pressed hard for that to be done, as he will recall.
  I also noted what my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said about the commitment to European union. He said that this sort of thing is always said. I believe that it is said too often, and that people should stop saying it. If we go on saying it, the country will believe that that is what we really seek. However, it is not the view of the majority of hon. Members that that is a correct objective. The less said about it in future the better. Right hon. and hon. Members and members of the Government shold make that clear at every possible opportunity.
  Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will be aware that union means something north of the border, and certainly in Northern Ireland; it is something we care deeply about. This afternoon an explanation was given why it was right to call the

  335
  European Assembly a Parliament. Would it not be correct to assume that, if we continue to use the word "union" in the way it has been used and is being used, we Scots will be justified in thinking that the word means union as we understand it?
  Sir Edward du Cann: I think that that is a wise observation. I believe that my hon. Friend does well to remind us all, wheresoever the word is applied in the United Kingdom, of our Unionist tradition.
  We should not now be giving substantial new powers to what is still called the Assembly. I do not believe that it was ever suggested that that was what would be achieved so soon, nor do I believe that the Assembly is properly equipped to exercise those new powers at present. If it is ultimately intended in this Parliament to give these powers, let us come clean with the electorate and say that that is the position. These important steps in that direction at this time are hopelessly premature.
  I find it extraordinary that the European Court receives as much attention as it does. If it has some useful function to perform for private citizens in this country, there must be some lack in our judicial system, and I should like to see that rectified. I dislike very much the idea of a supranational court and I would do nothing to see that cause advanced at this stage.
  Mr. Jackson: Like all other hon. Members, I accept my right hon. Friend's sincerity. He argues that it is a matter of choosing the right moment. Can he tell us what are the circumstances in which he thinks it would be appropriate in future to take the steps that he suggests we now defer?
  Sir Edward du Cann: If the European Community were to show itself effective in running its own affairs and adopt practical policies for instance in agriculture, in which the population generally has some faith and belief, and if there were a genuine spirit of working together in foreign affairs, perhaps one could say that we should move on to other things. However, as the world knows, that is not the situation. The population of this country is extremely impatient with the way in which the European Community conducts its affairs. In endeavouring to press on too early with such important constitutional changes, we risk ridicule.
  I believe that commitments to monetary union would be hopelessly premature. What we should be aiming to do, surely, is to popularise the EEC by making it effective. That is what my right hon. and hon. Friends should be devoting their attention to.
  Since the treaty of Rome was adopted by its original signatories, much has changed. The United Kingdom has joined the European Community. More recently, there has been the accession of Greece, Spain and Portugal. No doubt the House is very pleased to see how the Community is developing in numbers.
  However, the original considerations that led to the establishment of the Community have changed entirely. One could see every reason why France and Germany should come together in the years immediately after the war. No doubt there was a sigh of relief throughout Europe, and perhaps throughout the civilised world, when that happened. However, the worldwide interests of our friends in Greece are very different from those of the
  336
  United Kingdom. Again, the interests of Spain and Portugal are very different from the interests of Germany, Italy and Greece.
  Instead of endeavouring to drive the Community forward along old-fashioned tram lines adopted to serve an earlier situation, is it not perhaps time that we took a fresh look at the scene in order to decide whether important provisions should be added to the treaty?
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: Sabotage.
  Sir Edward du Cann: That would not be sabotage at all. We are talking about evolution and development. Let us evolve in tune with the times. Let us not automatically assume that an old pattern is appropriate for today. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend and the Government will take that suggestion seriously.
  I am not sure, either, that it is appropriate that the Committee stage of the House should be taken in the usual way. I suggest that the Bill is an admirable case for submission to one of the Special Standing Committees, the procedure for which was adopted during the last Parliament. Many detailed matters require consideration in connection with the Bill, and it would be appropriate for evidence to be taken from outside.
  A large section in the centre of my right hon. and learned Friend's speech was taken up with technical and trade matters. I am sure that we are unanimous in our agreement that we need to make the European Community more effective. That being so, it would be no bad thing to call in outside experts to advise us about the constitutional and other developments contained in the Bill. I hope that that suggestion will commend itself to my right hon. and learned Friend.
  For the reasons that I have endeavoured to advance, it is essential that the House should dedicate itself to making the European Community arrangements more effective. I do not believe, therefore, that it is timely that we should be discussing, let alone deciding, a measure such as this. I wish with all my heart that the Government would withdraw it.
  5.45 pm
  Sir Russell Johnston: I greatly respect the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann), but I deeply disagree with him. As a citizen of the United Kingdom—and indeed one of Scottish origin, as may be visually perceived—I am entitled to take a critical view of the constitution of the country in which I live, just as much as the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to suggest that he wishes that constitution to evolve extremely slowly or perhaps not to change much at all. I want to move faster; the right hon. Gentleman wants to move more slowly. That is a fair difference. However, the right hon. Gentleman should give me and others like me the right to our views.
  I take a very critical view of our country and its constitution, of the degree to which we are properly democratic and of our failure to take advantage of the opportunities presented by the European Community. I should like to begin with two relevant quotations. The first is from the solemn declaration on European union, to which the Foreign Secretary referred. It was signed at Stuttgart in 1983 by the Prime Minister, among others. The preamble states:
  "The Heads of State or Governments of Members States of the European Communities meeting within the European Council

  337
  resolved to continue the work begun on the basis of the Treaties of Paris and Rome and to create a united Europe, which is more than ever necessary in order to meet the dangers of the world situation, capable of assuming the responsibilities incumbent on it by virtue of its political role, its economic potential and its manifold links with other peoples."
  Paragraph 4(3) of the declaration also stated that the heads of state or Government would subject the declaration to a general review as soon as progress achieved towards European unification justified such action, but not later than five years from the signature of the declaration—in other words, by June 1988.
  I am not sure whether the present measure is regarded as a step in that direction or whether—as the Foreign Secretary seemed to suggest—although declarations about union take place from time to time, behind the rhetoric, we must move in a practical manner. I want us to move in a timed manner. It is now generally accepted that the Single Act does not do much to further the aim of European union. That is the view of the European movement in the United Kingdom, as the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) will confirm. It is also the view of the international European movement, which has passed a resolution to that effect.
  What is the Liberal position? From 10 to 11 April—
  Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Sir Russell Johnston: Patience. If the hon. Gentlemen will wait a moment, I will tell them.
  On 10 and 11 April the 10th congress of European Liberal Democrats was held in Catania. I moved a resolution on the European Single Act on behalf not only of the British Liberal party but of the German Free Democratic party, the Dutch National Democratic Freedom party or VVD, the Italian Liberals and the Italian Republicans. The motion was passed unanimously with no dissent from any of the Liberal parties in the European Community. It therefore represents the position of Liberals in the Community.
  The resolution stated that the congress
  "endorses the European Parliament's critical assessment of the Single Act and confirms the opinion that the amendments to the EEC Treaty proposed therein are insufficient to achieve the development of the political Union so necessary to the European peoples, leaving, for example, foreign, security and monetary policy solely to intergovernmental cooperation, nor are they sufficient to confer on the European Parliament the legislative and budgetary powers appropriate to an Assembly elected by universal suffrage"
  even if that suffrage is, at least in our country, flawed—
  "or to transform the EEC Commission into an effective European executive;
  Reaffirms its support for a European Union with adequate competences in the fields of foreign, security and monetary policies, and in which the Parliament has joint legislative powers with the Council. Restates its commitment to a uniform electoral system for the EP based on the principle of proportional representation and invites the Committee preparing the 1989 elections to maintain these goals as top priorities in their work.
  Welcomes the programme of Action for the completion of the internal market by 1992 put forward by the Commission and endorsed by the Single Act, but emphasises the fact that unless the Council of Ministers returns to the practice of taking its decisions by majority vote, even this more limited goal is also doomed to remain merely a pious wish".
  I see that the Foreign Secretary is about to leave. I would very much like to ask him to comment on one paragraph.
  The resolution went on:
  "Welcomes the Dutch Presidency's proposal to amend the Council statutes so that the European Commission or a minimum
  338
  of 3 member states would suffice to oblige the Council to proceed directly to a vote in all those cases where the Treaty provides for majority approval".
  I understand—the Foreign Secretary can correct me but he did not mention it in his speech—that the Dutch Presidency, which is in control until the end of June, has proposed at the Council that this could be done through the standing orders of the Council which can be changed by majority vote. That would be a considerable step forward. I do not expect the Foreign Secretary to say anything about that now but I wonder if there is a possibility of the Minister mentioning it when she replies.
  The resolution concluded by saying:
  "Invites the Member States Governments to approve this proposal without delay, overcoming any opposition which may be raised"
  they used a rather gentle phrase—
  "by some more reticent members."
  On the face of it, one could say that the approach by the Council of Ministers in Stuttgart in 1983 was very much the same as that of the Liberals in Catania in 1986. In reality there is a deep difference. The Single European Act is not a step backwards. That is good. However, it is a great disappointment. It seems almost like a sidestep.
  For the Council of Ministers the Single European Act proposes majority voting on a limited number of topics largely connected with measures, as the Foreign Secretary said, to establish an internal market but not, as he confirmed, mobility of labour or health regulations. Both, especially the latter, have been used to hold up imports between European countries. I found the Secretary of State unpersuasive in his remarks on that. One cannot just say, "We will have majority voting where it suits us, but not where it might not suit us." One would not get anywhere that way. The Dutch proposal to which I have referred is at least a practical one.
  Mr. Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as an island, we have a rather special position to protect with regard to certain health matters? Therefore, we need to have the right to veto certain specific proposals which reflect that character of our nation.
  Sir Russell Johnston: That is utter nonsense. The idea that because one is on an island one has a different view on health is nonsense. My goodness, the Cheviot hills are a border between England and Scotland. We have strong views on health.
  Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is right that we reserve our position on animal health regulations in order to prevent such things as rabies? That is, of course, protected under the measures which the Government are proposing.
  Sir Russell Johnston: That is right. Surely it is also right to seek positively to reach harmonisation on health regulations—although, naturally, on a basis not of reducing standards but of maintaining them at the best level. I accept that.
  Mr. Jim Craigen: One could never guarantee that.
  Sir Russell Johnston: That will be guaranteed, because that is what one negotiates with one's partners. There is no doubt that health regulations have, at times, been used as an excuse.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Chickens.
  Sir Russell Johnston: Indeed, and I think that the French were up to some tricks. We have all been at it and it does not help the cohesion of the Community at all.
  The Single European Act proposes that the Parliament should be allowed a second opportunity to voice an opinion on a range of subjects related to the internal market. That looks as if the Parliament's powers are being increased. However, that extension is deceptive. Once the Council of Ministers has discussed a measure and reached a view, it is now required to give the Parliament a chance to express a view. If the Parliament does not give an opinion within three months, the Council of Ministers can go ahead anyway.
  If the Parliament does not agree with the Council and proposes amendments, those amendments can be accepted by the Council of Ministers only by unanimous voting, which weakens the position of Parliament. That contrasts with the fact that Commission recommendations, in certain circumstances are passed by majority voting within the Council of Ministers.
  The Dutch have been very good in respect of the European Community. They are currently suggesting that each member state should agree that they will never support the unanimous vote on a decision in the Council of Ministers unless it has the support of the Parliament. That is a very moderate proposition. I hope that that is the sort of proposition that the Government would be prepared to agree to.
  I should now like to refer to the two amendments. There is a damp amendment and a dry amendment.
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman referred earlier to his position as spokesman for the Liberal party. Are we to understand, from the reply that he gave to an earlier intervention, that he is to explain the position of the alliance in respect of this Bill? No representative from the Social Democratic party is present and it would be a matter of real interest to have some idea where the alliance stands in relation to a Bill which is so important to the United Kingdom.
  Sir Russell Johnston: Firstly, the absence of members of the Social Democratic party shows their confidence in my good self. Secondly, it is clear that the attention span of the hon. Gentleman is somewhat short. If the hon. Gentleman searches his memory, he will recall that he has asked me the same question many times before and I have given the same answer time after time. I have told him that, if he goes to the Library and finds a copy of the alliance manifesto for the European election of 1984, he will find all the answers that he wishes. I will not say any more than that.
  I disagree with the first amendment, but I am disappointed with the second amendment. It contains the words
  "whilst accepting the need for a Bill which enacts the Single European Act, without eroding national prerogatives or changing the substantive balance of powers between the Community institutions".
  One cannot have that. That means no change. Unfortunately, I am speaking before anyone has had the opportunity to speak to the amendment. I shall be very interested in what they say because I cannot understand what the amendment adds to or substracts from the Government's proposal.
  The outright nationalistic amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Taunton seeks to do two things. It states that the Bill
  340
  "undermines the national right of veto."
  We have been over that old story repeatedly. We cannot expect to achieve an internal market if we sustain that position. What is the national interest? Unless Europe becomes a political Europe rather than a nationalist compromise, it will never achieve coherent political positions. I suggest to the right hon. Member for Taunton that to say that one's attitude to agriculture, fishing or industry is determined primarily by whether one is British, Italian or French, rather than by whether one is a Liberal, a Conservative or a Socialist, is to talk political nonsense.
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman has been consistent and, at times, courageous. He will remember that one of the major platforms during the referendum campaign in Scotland concerned the veto—what it would achieve and how it could be retained. There was no question of it being qualified or watered down. The hon. Gentleman remembers the campaign as clearly and as well as I do. He remembers how a majority of people were persuaded.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I never thought that that made any sense. The people who suggested at that time that it made sense have changed their minds. Times change, and there is no getting around that. The concept of a national right of veto presumes that somehow the British view of a political matter is coherent. The Prime Minister says now what our right of veto is, but the alliance might, if the heavens were gentle and understanding, or the Leader of the Oppostion might be in a position to do the same. None of those three would necessarily define a proper national stance. They would simply define a transitory political position in the United Kingdom. If we want the advantages of size and co-operation gained by being a member of the European Community, it is right and proper that we should take political decisions on a Community-wide basis.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman, who is a fair person, think that there was a great deal of merit and logic in the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir Edward du Cann)? He said that this was not a constitutional revolution, but that it was wrong to give additional majority powers to the Community before it had solved some of the problems by using its existing powers. Is it not reasonable to say to the Community, "Use the powers to solve some of the problems you have before you come back and ask for more."
  Mr. Marlow: That makes sense.
  Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Member for Northampton, North suggests that it makes sense, but that severely devalues its impact upon me. I say to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that the reason that this limited proposal has been made and all the arguments have taken place in Milan, Luxembourg, and so on is that the decision-making processes of the European Community have not been working. More and more decisions are being delayed. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs confirmed that it takes 17 years for the Community to decide on common qualifications for architects.
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Sir Russell Johnston: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I must point out that time is passing.
  Mr. Marlow: How will that make it easier for us to reach sensible conclusions on the common agricultural policy? What will the Bill do to bring about changes in the nonsensical common agricultural policy?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House that interventions are made only at the expense of speeches by other hon. Members. A number of hon. Members are waiting to speak. I am making a note of the number of interventions made by hon. Members.
  Sir Russell Johnston: The second aspect of the amendment concerns the power of the European Assembly. Those who support the amendment do not wish its power to be extended. They say that the Bill
  "increases the power of the European Assembly".
  If one believes in democracy, one must have an elected body to take care of Community legislation.
  I listened with great interest to the speech by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). I notice that he has left the Chamber temporarily, but he is represented by his Scottish colleague the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). Although the hon. Member for Hamilton told us what he would do, he failed to tell us the Labour party's view on Britain's place in the European Community. For a long time, the Labour party bitterly opposed Britain's entry into the Community. It seems to be moving from that position, but is not clear where it is moving to. I say to the hon. Member for Northampton, North, who is an expert on these matters, that it is simplistic to argue that the CAP must be reformed forthwith, but, as the hon. Member for Hamilton stated, institutional reform must be low on our order of priorities. As the old song said, you cannot have one without the other. If CAP expenditure were decreased, an effective regional policy would be required to take care of the problems that would be created. If there is to be a harnessing of economic forces for the creation of jobs, as the hon. Member for Hamilton suggested, fiscal and social harmonisation and common political answers would be required. That issue must be faced. At the moment it is not being faced. It is being fudged by the Labour party.
  I agreed with the hon. Member for Hamilton when he castigated the Foreign Secretary for his bland references to political co-operation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested, in the way that he is very good at doing, that Britain has been the country which has taken the initiative to achieve political co-operation in the European Community. That is not true. The hon. Gentleman pointed out, rightly, that it was remarkable that the Foreign Secretary should say that. Admittedly, as a consequence of yesterday's ministerial meeting, the Foreign Secretary was able to announce some progress regarding Libya. The events leading up to that were not indicative of a proper degree of co-operation. South Africa's position was quoted. UNESCO was a classic case in which all our European colleagues were saying "No". In my view, there was no proper form of consultation. That seemed to be incredible. We must work these things out in a more satisfactory way.
  The Single European Act contains no timetabling procedure. The Council tries to agree on a position but if it is unable to do so, it puts it off. Very often, there is no need to use a veto. It is the prospect of its use that creates the delay. I believe that the European Parliament was
  342
  right, in the Spinelli draft Act, to argue for a firm timetable on decision making. A timetable is essential if these matters are to be speeded up.
  The right hon. Member for Taunton said that we are moving too fast. I think that we are moving too slowly. Although my colleagues and I will support the Bill in the Lobby if there is a Division, we make it clear that we would have liked much more and we shall continue to press for much more.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Michael Knowles: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), the Opposition's Front-Bench spokesman, spoke about splits between the United States and Europe. That is hardly surprising. At one time, there was talk about the twin pillars of the Atlantic Alliance, but the reality is that there is one pillar, the United States, and a pile of building blocks on this side of the Atlantic. That does not resemble a pillar at all. The countries of western Europe do not stand equal with the United States. Until they are united more coherently there will be no need for the United States to treat them as equals.
  It is only in unity that Europe has achieved some economic strength. It has been said that Europe has become an economic giant but a political pigmy. There is some truth in that. We have not produced a political institution. However, when the Community has stumbled, all too unwittingly, into various forms of trade wars—even with the United States—it has not always come off second-best. We are strong economically, but we are not strong enough in other spheres. It is only through unification that the Community will be strong enough to have a voice on the world stage and be able to meet the economic challenges from the United States and Japan and the obvious political and military challenges of the Soviet bloc.
  Some hon. Members have put before us a will o' the wisp which has long gone—the idea of an independent Britain. We heard faint echoes of the 19th century in, their speeches but that concept has gone. They cannot offer a future independent Britain. Britain and the other European nations will, perforce, be colonies, albeit economic colonies, of the United States and Japan. If the worst comes to the worst, European nations might be political colonies of the Soviet bloc. If we wish to survive, there is no choice but unification.
  When my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary takes over the presidency of the Council of Ministers he should bear in mind that, to implement the Cockfield report, we should join the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. The time has long passed when we should have entered. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will announce that decision when he takes over the presidency, as that would seem a suitable moment to do so. I am prepared to wait another nine weeks for that announcement but it should have been made years ago.
  The completion of the single market is important for Britain, especially with regard to services. Implementing Cockfield by 1992 will mean vast changes in Britain and in other Community countries.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: It will not happen.
  Mr. Knowles: If my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) had his way, it would not

  343
  happen. It is possible, but it depends on political will power. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that the Bill is primarily concerned with those necessary changes.
  I wish to comment on the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) who has, unfortunately, left the Chamber. My right hon. Friend exposed some of the underlying attitudes which have led to our difficulties in the Community. He said that he opposed our entry into the Community. My right hon. Friend said that he was not against evolution but against the pace. If the pace was slower we would be at a standstill. The Community's movements are so slow that they are glacier-like.
  My right hon. Friend also claimed that Britain is impatient with the Community. That is an argument I have heard before. It is argued that Britain is a practical nation, that we want to get down to the nuts and bolts of things, yet we are linked up with all of these airy-fairy European intellectuals who exchange words. The continental airy-fairy intellectuals have increased their gross national products at a remarkably faster rate than this practical nation has managed to do in the past 40 years. As politicians, we ought to believe that words are important. They are our business.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Can my hon. Friend tell me of any other area of the world which, in the past three years, has had a poorer rate of job growth—with the possible exceptions of El Salvador and Tibet—than the European Economic Community?
  Mr. Knowles: That is because the Community is splintered into 12 separate markets. If one separated the United States into 50 separate markets they would not have had a growth in jobs. If we wish to emulate the job growth in the United States we must emulate their economic structure.
  It has been said that Britain should say less about European union to our European partners. That is not true. Its exact import may vary in different countries but it is an aim that is shared by all European partners. We signed the treaty of European union, the object of which, as outlined in the preamble, was to produce an ever closer union among the people of Europe. Britain also signed the Strasbourg declaration. The concept is important and our European partners expect us to deliver on the treaties.
  There has been endless mention of the common agricultural policy. The truth about the agricultural policy—this is sure to produce a laugh—is that the agricultural policy has been too successful. Thirty years ago the idea that Europe could feed itself seemed a pipe dream. That is the only area in which we have practised a single market and it is the one area where food costs have fallen and where we have massive food surpluses and problems.
  Thirty years ago over 25 per cent. of the people worked on the land. They have been shifted off the land but there has been increased productivity. The success of the common agricultural policy was based on the single market and if we had a single market for our industries we could produce similar results. We must press forward.
  Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend have the same idea about stockpiling motor cars? Can he give us his further
  344
  thoughts about state aids and subsidies, of which he plainly approves on a European scale, which would resuscitate Britain? I am sure his views will be much appreciated by Opposition Members.
  Mr. Knowles: I cannot recall any period in postwar Britain when there has not been some form of state subsidy. Even in that haven of free enterprise, the United States, the biggest single subsidy is given to agriculture. Some of those employed on the land have to be shifted off and that has social consequences. We must pursue an agricultural policy which has social as well as economic aims. That is inevitable.
  Mr. Budgen: Is my hon. Friend saying that we do not have a dreadful lesson to learn from the common agricultural policy and that the same principles should be extended to industry? Would he favour doubling the price of motor cars and excluding all imported ones? That would be the result of applying that principle.
  Mr. Knowles: One would apply those principles to protect agriculture but not to industry. One uses different horses for different courses. Certain hon. Members claim they oppose the principle of subsidies, but when the industry concerned is in their constituency it is a different matter. I have not seen many hon. Members who will argue that in principle and then face their electorate and tell them that they are in favour of closing their factory down. State intervention can be used, from time to time, to give an industry breathing time to sort itself out.
  Successive Governments have used subsidies. Surely nobody is pretending that the United States Government have not used their vast purchasing power to bolster American industry. The Boeing 707 swept the board because the development costs of the B52 bomber were written off. Nobody could compete with that. Those who want to compete at the top end of technology must do what others do, but better. It is nonsense to imagine that we can live in a cocoon. Reality must break in.
  I do not accept the idea that any increase in power or influence for the European Parliament necessarily affects Westminster adversely. The power does not reside at Westminster or at Strasbourg. It has disappeared to the Executive in the middle-national Governments, the Commission and a supra-national Council, which is the only legislature that I can think of which meets in secret. It is not a democratic system. I favour the democratic system and would like Strasbourg and Westminster to exercise more control.
  Parliament does not influence European matters practically because we do not give the Select Committee the power to do so. I have argued this case before. There are members of that Committee in the Chamber. We have argued time and again that we must reconsider how we scrutinise European legislation. That is especially true in view of the proposed changes. At the moment, the Select Committee considers matters when they are so far down the road that we can do nothing about them. We do not have close relations with British Members of the European Parliament; we do not have the close liaison such as the French and Germans have. The House loses as a result. We fail to influence European affairs to the country's benefit because we are bound up with petty jealousies.
  In France, for example, a Deputy from the French National Assembly may become a Member of the European Parliament, return to Paris as a Minister and then

  345
  go to Brussels as a Commissioner. The two institutions are closely knit. A line is drawn between the two in British politics. What happens in France might be called patronage but it protects French interests. I am in favour of protecting British interests. We must be realistic. We should not lock ourselves in a cupboard, put our hands over our eyes and say, "The bogy man will go away." The world is not like that.
  Can my hon. Friend the Minister assure us that the Government are willing to reconsider the powers and status of the Select Committee? That has become an urgent matter. We must grapple with realities. All too often, we trample over the ground that we have trampled over ever since we entered the Community. Other countries have moved on. Their political perspectives are shifting. If we are not careful, we shall be left behind wondering what everyone is talking about and why they are impatient with us.
  Mr. Dykes: As this applies to economic and political issues—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Member must address the House. I cannot hear what he is saying.
  Mr. Dykes: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to decide which way to face.
  Mr. Marlow: You always are!
  Mr. Dykes: I now realise that I should not have said that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles) is speaking persuasively about political and economic co-operation. I am sure that many hon. Members agree with everything that he has said. Does he agree that it is ominous and nerve-racking for Britain that, because of the failure to get stuck in and to work to create a strong Community, Italy has, for the first time, overtaken the United Kingdom, whereas it was always the weakest of the big four? Is that not a good example of a country seizing its opportunities and doing well economically and politically because of political will?
  Mr. Knowles: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That has happened before and it will continue to happen. Britain must accept that it made a decision about its future when it entered the Community. We should stop haggling in the corner over private quarrels and ensure that the Community works and that we get benefits out of it.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. Eric Deakins: I listened to the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles) with increasing incredulity. His was the first openly federalist speech of the day, although we have had a few others in previous debates. I hope that, when the hon. Gentleman loses his seat at the next election—he has a marginal—he may have done himself some good with the British European movement.
  The Government admitted last year that the Bill would not have been necessary if they had not been defeated by the increasingly federalist sentiment which guides some of our colleagues in the EEC. I am not sure whether it was inadvertent or deliberate, but the Government seem to have been blind to the growing trend towards federalism and integration in the EEC.
  I tabled a written question to the Minister's predecessor on 8 May 1985 asking about the phrase "European
  346
  integration" which had been used in a Government document supplied to a summit meeting in June 1984. The Minister replied that the phrase denoted co-operation of EEC states. A Minister who cannot distinguish between integration and co-operation is either stupid or trying deliberately to mislead. In view of that Minister's reputation, I shall leave the House to decide.
  The Government are accepting a further loss of sovereignty by the extension of majority voting. We no longer have faith even in the Luxembourg compromise—the so-called veto—which might have existed before last year's events. We had one defeat on the use of the Luxembourg compromise in April or May 1982 concerning CAP prices and the link with our budget contribution. We were outvoted and refused use of the Luxembourg compromise. That was a defeat for Britain at the hand of other members of the Council.
  There was a more serious breach in the Luxembourg compromise concerning the CAP price negotiations last year. The Germans vetoed a cereal price reduction whereas, under the rules, cereal prices for the previous year should have been continued. The veto was overruled not by other Council members but by the Commission. The Commission arrogated to itself the right to overrule a veto in the Council. That is even more disturbing than what happened in 1982.
  The Bill also accepts a great extension of competence to the EEC. I am surprised that nobody but the Foreign Secretary has mentioned that. If the Bill is passed, the Community will have competence in environmental matters, in research and development and in other areas which until now have been outside its area of competence, as laid down in the basic Community treaties. The extension of Community competence has a rachet effect. Its competence must be at the expense of the legislative and economic competence of individual member states. When powers have been given up they can never be regained—at least, not so long as one remains a member of the Community. The rachet effect is one of the great disadvantages of the Single European Act and of this Bill which gives legislative effect to it.
  The Bill also gives more power and, what is even more important, more status to the European Assembly. The treaty of Rome referred in many instances to the Commission and the Council consulting the Assembly, but the words that are now used are "in co-operation with." Those words must mean something. There has been a change in the wording, which will enhance the status and the powers of the Assembly.
  Last, but by no means least, in this Bill the Government accept the idea that indirect taxation should be harmonised under article 17. There is a qualification: that that harmonisation must be essential for the workings of the internal market. But what form of indirect taxation is not essential to the workings of the internal market? Every form of indirect taxation is essential. Therefore, the qualification is no safeguard. The Bill accepts, as does the Single European Act, that ultimately there shall be harmonisation between member states over indirect taxation. I am surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed to it.
  As for the change of name of the Assembly, Conservative Members ask, on behalf of the federalists both inside and outside Parliament, "What's in a name?" Right hon. and hon. Members have forgotten that the name of the Assembly was changed by the European Parliament

  347
  in a resolution of 31 March 1962. Because of their federalist leanings, that change was recognised gradually by the other institutions. However, what would be the reaction if the European Council of Ministers took it upon itself to change its name to the European Cabinet? Would right hon. and hon. Members adopt a sanguine attitude towards that change of name? Of course they would not.
  Names have a meaning. They are also symbolic. The symbolism involved in changing the name is probably more important than the immediate practical effect. The Assembly, which is now to be called officially the Parliament, will try to arrogate to itself the powers of a real Parliament as distinct from the Assembly's present advisory and supervisory role under the relevant section of the treaty. I shall continue to take the advice of the former Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on how to use these terms. In reply to my written question about the terminology on 15 March 1984, he said:
  "Whatever terminology is used, the nature of the institution is not affected. We shall continue"—
  that is, the Government—
  "to use the term 'Assembly' in legal texts or"—
  I put emphasis on this—
  "where it is necessary to distinguish that institution from the Westminster Parliament."—[Official Report, 19 March 1984; Vol. 56, c. 340].
  When this institution has changed its name officially to "Parliament", it will be even more necessary to use the term "Assembly" in our debates to distinguish it from the proceedings in this House of the Westminster Parliament.
  The Assembly has been granted a large number of new powers. However, it is not a responsible Parliament, such as the national Parliaments of the member states. According to its record, it is a most irresponsible body. Last year it passed a motion that rejected the idea of budget discipline in the EC. This year it could not agree upon any form of reform of the common agricultural policy. It produced a document that was eventually voted down, but that document was shot through with contradictions. During the agricultural price review debate last year in the Strasbourg institution, the Assembly argued for a 3·5 per cent. average increase in agricultural prices. That was at a time when even the federalists in this Chamber accepted the need to rein in the financial effects of the expansion of the CAP.
  The Assembly is looking for a high profile role. It is increasingly bloated with its own pretensions. I refer to its attitude to the Single European Act which was grudgingly accepted as the minimum. It was probably very much in tune with the comments of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) who, quoting from the proceedings of the Liberal assembly on the European basis, said that this is a very small step indeed.
  Much more significant about the Assembly's pretensions is its attitude to the 1986 Community budget. It rejected the Council's budget and tried to arrogate to itself the power to increase expenditure. That is outside its powers under the treaty of Rome. It is also outside its power under the Single European Act. Furthermore—this was an even more heinous crime on its part—it tried to arrogate to itself the power to increase the rate of VAT from own resources within the 1·4 per cent. ceiling and the power to determine the taxation of individual citizens in member countries. The House debated this matter a few months ago, and I shall not go into the details.
  348
  However, it shows the nature of the institution. It wants there to be more expenditure and to get its hands on taxation, but it does not yet have those powers.
  My last word on the Assembly, at least in this debate, is that we are seeing the beginning of a struggle between the Assembly and the Council, with the Commission openly backing the Assembly in its desire to get more power away from the Council and, therefore, away from national Parliaments, particularly over financial control. The same kind of struggle took place in England during the later middle ages. There was a struggle between the English Parliament and the Crown over the one vital issue that involved power in the community and its society, the power of taxation. That struggle was eventually won by the English Parliament. We must hope that there will be a different outcome to the struggle that is now beginning in the European Community.
  The Bill gives great encouragement to the federalists in our midst and outside. The federalists are not just the people on the fringe. When Mr. Gaston Thorn was President of the European Commission he made a speech to the European Assembly in February 1984 in which he said:
  "Parliament's role in decision-making is not commensurate with the legitimacy the direct elections gave it. Parliament is an expression of the deep-rooted aspirations of the people of Europe. As such, it should have a much larger say in policy-making. I would like to see it sharing legislative and budgetary powers with the Council."
  The federalists in this Chamber will applaud those sentiments. However, those right hon. and hon. Members who do not wish the EEC to follow a federal direction but who believe that this is inevitable unless it is strongly resisted in this country and in other countries will take careful note of that warning.
  There is also a passage in the Dooge report that was opposed by the Minister of State at the time. It says:
  "A Parliament elected by universal suffrage cannot, if the principles of democracy are logically applied, continue to be restricted to a consultative role or to having cognizance of only a minor part of Community expenditure. That dooms it to oblivion or over-statement, and more often than not to both."
  The Minister entered a reservation, but it was only a technical reservation. In the light of the Bill and the Single European Act, I believe that a majority of the Cabinet and the Government are convinced that gradually we should go down the federalist path, but that we should not speak too loudly about it for fear, to quote the Foreign Secretary's rather offensive words, "of putting terror into the children".
  Mr. Cash: Recently, in reply to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
  "I do not believe in the concept of a united states of Europe, nor do I believe that it would ever be attainable."—[Official Report, 5 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 432.]
  Mr. Deakins: I accept that. I too have that quotation. The Prime Minister may have said that, but I am afraid that she has said many things about her attitude to the EEC and in the course of time we have seen that she has changed her views. The Milan summit was a classic example of that.
  My third point of caution about giving encouragement to federalists in the Bill relates to the draft treaty of union which was considered by the Assembly not so long ago. I shall not weary the House by reading out some of the appalling—
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: The distinction that my hon. Friend makes between an assembly and a parliament might be seen as a confusion between the two by other hon. Members. Would that confusion be worsened when we obtain an elected Scottish legislature if it is called an assembly or a parliament?
  Mr. Deakins: The Referendum Act 1975 referred to an "assembly". That would not have led—I see Scottish Members assenting to that proposition—to any confusion at all. If there are parliaments in different parts of the same institution, there is bound to be confusion between them regardless of their legislative and financial roles.
  Let me mention briefly the draft treaty of union, which is horrifying. It has been rejected, but nevertheless it is, so to speak, in the wings waiting for a favourable moment to come forward. I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) who finds the pace of change too fast. I look at the destination and say that I do not want to get to that destination. I suspect that the majority of the British people, given the opportunity, would say the same.
  There is nothing in the Bill to improve parliamentary control and scrutiny of Council decisions and treaty-making. I refer the House to the 16th report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities in Session 1984–85, where that point was hammered home. I cannot believe that hon. Members would regard the other place as being a radical institution. Nevertheless, it said some excellent things about the inadequate nature of our scrutiny in the House. We also have the report of our Select Committee on European Legislation.
  The Single European Act talks about harmonisation of external policies. It would be a serious mistake—I shall not necessarily carry even my hon. Friends with me on this—for us to co-ordinate our external policies with a club of rich nations, which they certainly are. That will not resolve the world's north-south problems. It would be much better to give greater prominence to using the Commonwealth in tackling those problems. Unfortunately, the Commonwealth is sadly neglected by all parties in the House and that is a pity.
  What matters is not the military, economic or political power, as the Foreign Secretary and those who support him would have us believe, which lie behind particular policies, but whether a policy is right or wrong. If it is right it must be put forward irrespective of the power that one has to put behind it. The worst of all possible worlds would be to have policies that are decided by consensus in the Community. As we know, all convoys proceed at the pace of the slowest ship. I am afraid that those policies are just as likely to be highly inadequate or wrong as they are to be right.
  This political co-operation is the politics of declaration. There have been about 30 declarations in recent years and they have had no perceptible impact on the course of world events. It is the politics of gesture by countries unwilling to accept their declining influence in the world. Incidentally, I accept that concept because Europe cannot go on dominating the world for the next few hundred years in the way that it has in the past 500 years.
  My last comment is to my party. Our continued membership of the EEC, the Bill and what is involved in it, threaten the economic programme of the next Labour
  350
  Government. There can be no restriction on capital movements. I refer hon. Members to the amendment to article 70 in the Single European Act. There will have to be a reduction of state aids. There can be no import control policy and there certainly can be no managed trade policy which would involve negotiations between this country and others in Europe or elsewhere. Our economic and financial policies will be subject to much greater interference, and indeed some of them will be set completely at nought by our continued membership and by the Bill. That is why we should all oppose it tonight.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have decided not to enforce the 10-minute limit, but if speeches are as long as they have been a good number of hon. Members will not be able to speak. Therefore, I ask for voluntary restraint.
  6.44 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: I welcome the Bill and the way in which it was introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. I must confess that I have heard some of the speeches which have been made this afternoon before. I am not surprised that my right hon. and learned Friend was right when he said that anxieties would no doubt be expressed about the concept of European union.
  European union means different things to different people, and it is hard to define. Reference has already been made to the preamble to the treaty which states simply, and commits us to,
  "an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe."
  That is something that I have always believed can only be achieved step by step with realism. There is no question in our minds of European union, or movement towards European union, meaning, ipso facto, the creation of a federalist state. Last year's report on European union presented by the House of Lords European Communities Committee rightly emphasised that that union, in the sense in which we talk about it and commit ourselves in the various documents, is not about some Utopian plan for a European federation. It is about how best we can, step by step, realistically bring about the aims of the Community so that its future success is assured.
  I should have thought that all hon. Members could accept what my right hon. and learned Friend had to say in introducing the Bill and stating its purpose. It is simply to deepen and broaden the scope of European activities, to our mutual advantage. We do that in every sphere in which it is to the advantage of all the members of the Community to co-operate, because what they do together they can do more effectively than what they attempt to achieve on their own.
  Of course, in that context it is right to review from time to time the provisions of the treaty of Rome. As General De Gaulle once said, treaties are like roses; they fade, they fade. The negotiation of an entirely new treaty of European union, which some have advocated, would have been doomed to disaster. That, as I understand it, is what our Ministers were saying at the time people were talking about a comprehensive new treaty. That is quite a different thing from the arrangements which were agreed at Luxembourg and which are to be embodied in the Bill.
  The practical steps which were envisaged at the Luxembourg summit and are embodied in the Bill are both possible and useful. I warmly endorse what my right hon.

  351
  and learned Friend had to say, that the provisions in the Bill are admirably drafted to serve British interests no less than those of our European partners. There is nothing in the arrangements in Luxembourg, nothing in the Bill, which can do other than benefit the British interests that our Government have been seeking to protect within the Community.
  Three areas of action will particularly benefit the United Kingdom, increase trade and so create jobs. First, I cannot understand how anybody could not welcome a timetable for the establishment of a genuine internal market in services as well as goods. It is perfectly obvious that we in the United Kingdom would benefit enormously from access to the Community markets for our various financial services, house mortgages, insurance and such matters. That access is bound to help us in every possible way.
  Secondly, we must welcome the prospect of speedier and more effective decision-making. Finally—I attach special importance to this—we must welcome action to make Europe competitive in the new technologies. If, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) implied, that is widening the competence of the Community, so be it. The Community should be directly concerned with increasing European and therefore British competitiveness in new technologies and with the protection of the environment. The Opposition have made much of the importance of the environment and I recall my hon. Friend the Minister saying in March that pollution knows no frontiers. I should have thought that we would welcome European co-operation in those matters.
  These are matters of common sense. Another matter of common sense from the British point of view is that, if we are to complete the internal market by 1992, it is essential that we increase the use of qualified majority voting.
  As my right hon. and hon. Friends have explained, unanimity is still required for tax measures or such matters as movement of people or animals. It is important to emphasise that there are the safeguards that we need; for example, to protect an island against the introduction of rabies. Above all, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said, the so-called Luxembourg compromise—or the Luxembourg disagreement as some people have called it—for what it is worth, will remain as it is.
  There may be arguments about the circumstances under which that agreement may be used. Some people may say that it has a legal frailty or that it did not cover—and I believe that it should not have covered—cases in which the veto was used for a purpose other than one which was under consideration. In other words, the veto should not be used to stop one policy simply to promote another. That is probably a misuse of the veto. However, that facility is present and it is there to protect a very important national interest. That must be a matter for argument from time to time.
  The Bill and the agreement in Luxembourg are important steps to avoid unreasonable blocking of measures to liberalise trade or to introduce what many of us want—reforms in the operation of the CAP.
  I was especially disappointed in the points made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow about increasing the competence of the Community in areas such as technology and the environment. If the Opposition believe in the
  352
  speeches that they have made outside the House on these matters, they should be welcoming the provisions which increase the possibility of increased trade and create jobs and also increase the quality of life of the citizens of Europe.
  Since when has the Labour party become so obstinately isolationist that it cannot even support measures to improve the quality of life and the environment? The tragedy of the last generation is that Europe has been slow to recognise the importance of scientific and information technology for economic development, growth and the creation of jobs. More than 20 years ago, I remember expressing my anxiety that, if we did not press at the very frontiers of science and technology, we would end up flogging hand-knitted Union Jacks to tourists.
  I also remember as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation sending to the then Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Macmillan, a United States report on space research which began: "This is no astronautic boon doggie." That was a curious phrase but it was the one that was used. The report stressed that there was a spin-off in advanced technology—for example, in computers. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who intervenes in these matters, suggested that Concorde was a waste of money. However, if we had not produced a Concorde we would be even further behind in advanced technology.
  The first minicomputer was produced 23 years ago. The United States and Japan immediately recognised the importance of that new technology. We have followed on, but we have all, especially the Opposition, tended to regard technological change as a threat to job creation instead of an opportunity for industrial and economic growth.
  I was very encouraged when the European Council at Milan last year gave the go-ahead for the creation of a European technological community. The Council favoured
  "A close link between technological development and the effort to unify the internal market."
  The Luxembourg package and the Bill take that idea a step further. There is now a better understanding that priority must be given to improving conditions for cross-frontier co-operation between companies in research and development.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Before my right hon. and learned Friend progresses too far on his points about technology, would he clarify his comment about the Bill helping to solve the problems of the CAP because of majority decisions? I understand that the Bill makes no change to CAP decisions and that on many of the issues, for example price-fixing, there is already majority voting.
  Mr. Rippon: If the Bill makes no change, there will be no need for my hon. Friend to oppose it. I said that there is no change in the Luxembourg compromise but I hope that the arrangements that were agreed in Luxembourg, for which the Bill provides the foundations, will avoid the use of blocking precedents of the kind employed by the German Government last year.
  The Bill puts down a marker that there should be a general understanding between Community members that the veto should be used only when there is a very important national interest involved.
  I also welcome another matter to which the Government have given priority. That is the way in which

  353
  the Commission and the Council have emphasised the importance of social and regional progress. Some reference has already been made to this and I believe that the development of the regional and social funds has been very important to the United Kingdom and especially to the north-east. Those who suggest that the Government have neglected those aspects of our interests are quite mistaken.
  Measures are also needed to protect the environment, and fundamental freedoms and rights and to advance social and educational policies. Within that broad context, I welcome the proposals to give the European Parliament an increasing role in the European partnership.
  The change of name is not of immense significance. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said, it recognises what has been happening, in that it is already called the European Parliament, although it does not have legislative powers. Earlier this month, at the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference, a proposal was put forward for a central American parliament. A legislative assembly was not contemplated. Instead, they wanted somewhere that Members of Parliament could discuss matters of mutual interest.
  Whether we have an Assembly, a Parliament or a European Congress, its influence and powers will evolve in time according to whether it behaves sensibly. This House might have more influence and therefore more power if it occasionally conducted its affairs more sensibly. A parliamentary influence depends on the quality of debates. That is why the other place nowadays has a higher reputation in many quarters than we have.
  The Bill simply changes the name, having regard to reality. It does not give greater powers. We can argue again about whether there should be co-operation or consulation but there will be better co-operation between the Council, the Commission and the Parliament if there is earlier consultation. One of the Parliament's troubles so far has been that matters come to the Parliament so late that its reactions tend to be negative rather than positive. If it could be consulted earlier, and brought into matters at an earlier stage, it would have a more useful role to play and would be more effective.
  It is not disputed, as the Scrutiny Committee's report states, that
  "at the end of the day the European Parliament still has no power to insist and the last word remains with the Council."
  The European Parliament will be listened to by national Parliaments only in so far as it uses its new influence successfully. In that sense, influence can lead to power.
  In the course of a splendid and comprehensive speech on 5 March, my hon. Friend the Minister of State said:
  "The third major area covered by the new treaty amendments is the environment … Pollution knows no boundaries."—[Official Report, 5 March 1986; Vol. 93, c. 340.]
  In that context I emphasise that there are many other matters where we should recognise that our horizon cannot and should not be limited by the boundaries of the European Community. I have never regarded Europe as the Europe of the Nine, the Ten or the Twelve. I regard the Council of Europe and its parliamentary assembly as the parent body.
  It is important in our debates on Europe that we do not continue going over the old and stale ground of definition of terms. We must show that we as a country are concerned about the development of the European Community and of the other members of the European family. For
  354
  example, we should not forget our partners in EFTA, bearing in mind that one of our reasons for joining the Community was to protect EFTA's interests.
  Damage will be done and a danger will be posed in future if members of the European Community become so obsessed with their own economic problems and progress towards union or integration, however it is defined, that they neglect the wider Europe. We should not allow Europe to be split in two with a widening gap between states that are members of the Community and those that are not.
  The Council of Europe, starved though it is of adequate financial resources, has a vital contribution to make in legal, social, education and cultural matters. I hope that we shall spend more time talking about the ways in which the Council of Europe and the European Community co-operate.
  The parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe now provides the widest, indeed the only, European institutional framework, where elected Members of national Parliaments can meet and have discussions. The views of some Opposition Members might be changed if occasionally they talked to other European MPs and understood what they were trying to do in the European context.
  I welcome the Luxembourg package and the Bill. I only hope that we never forget that what we are doing, to use Jean Monet's words, is to unite not states but people.
  7.4 pm
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: As a former Member of the European Parliament, I cannot feel the same passions as some hon. Members on both sides of the House about the name of the institution. I find it extraordinary that so long after joining the European Community we are still arguing about whether the institution should be called an assembly or a parliament. The French have their Assembly, the Americans have their Congress and, as the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) said, there are other names which define various organisations throughout the world. I find it incredible that some in this House spend so much time arguing about what we should call the European Parliament.
  As a former Member of the European Parliament, I should like to see it have more powers. I do not understand why we continue to argue in this place about the European Parliament's role. We should remember that its Members are elected as we are. If we believe in democracy, we must believe in giving powers to politicians who are democratically elected. It is inconceivable that anyone who has been elected to this place should argue about whether someone in another place should be given certain powers.
  The European Parliament is criticised; it is said that it does not act in the right way, that it is too slow to react and that it does not make the right decisions. I find these criticisms strange. We cannot urge a horse to gallop while hobbling it at the same time. However, that is precisley what some hon. Members would like to happen. They wish to continue to criticise the European Parliament while constraining its powers.
  I remind hon. Members on both sides of the House that there is a clause in the treaty of Rome which supports the

  355
  redistribution of wealth between rich and poor. That was never contained in the EFTA treaty, of which we used to be so proud.
  There are those who continue to talk about what we should do when we leave the European Community. I know that they do, but I should like to know what the options are. I should not like Britain to rejoin EFTA. We may be a long way from the goal of redistributing resources between rich and poor in the European Community, but there is a deal for that among many Members of that Parliament. If the European Parliament were given more powers and some of the Council's powers were taken from it, progress would be made.
  Members of this place who were formerly Members of the European Parliament will remember working with parliamentarians of other nationalities from day to day. I can assure the House that that is a sobering experience. Initially I was opposed to the European Community, but I found after a period as a Member of the European Parliament that there were advantages in working with people of other nationalities from day to day. I wish that more Members of this place had had that experience; I shall be eternally grateful that I had it. It had a profound effect on me and it changed my attitudes towards the European Community.
  As a member of the Socialist group, I had an advantage over members of some other groups. That is because the members of the Socialist group worked with parliamentarians from 10 countries. I shall be responsive, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to your appeal for short speeches and the constraint on time, because I remember that it was necessary to fight for the opportunity to speak for only three minutes in the European Parliament. The representatives of the other nations wanted to speak in almost every debate, and to come to this place and to be able to speak at length was a great luxury.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: I am listening with immense interest to the hon. Lady's remarks. Does she agree with me that one of the sad features about the Labour party, which I criticise in many respects, is that it is no longer dedicated to the internationalist ideals which used to command universal respect? Nothing is sadder than to find that the hon. Lady is a relatively isolated voice among those on the Labour Benches.
  Mrs. Clwyd: People in glasshouses should not throw stones. The speeches that I have heard this evening from Conservative Members do not give me cause for any enthusiasm. Some of the opinions that they have expressed have not coincided with mine. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should do some missionary work among his right hon. and hon. Friends before starting on mine.
  I do not know why Members of this place are still so sensitive. Is it because we are conscious of the fact that we are criticised by many for comprising one of the most ineffective legislatures in western Europe? Is it thought that the European Parliament might become more effective than the Westminster Parliament? I believe that in 20 years the European Parliament will be more important than the House of Commons.
  I agree with the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that our national goals can be achieved only in co-operation with others. I believe strongly that we must co-operate with people from other
  356
  countries. We talk about controlling multinational companies, but how can one country on its own control the strength of the multinationals? It is only by co-operating with other countries that we can exercise that control. The Council of Ministers missed a good opportunity to exercise that control when it voted down the proposals that were advanced by the Parliament and the Committee of which I was a member for five years. Had that legislation been voted through it would have meant that workers in multinational companies could have had much more information about the way their companies operated.
  So it is conceivable that some of the aims which we support can be achieved. In many areas of foreign policy, for example, I found that the European Community was much more sensible in its approach than I have found the House of Commons to be in the two years that I have been here.
  Earlier this year, the states of the Community raised the level of their subscriptions to the club. What I have said already does not mean that I am uncritical of the European Community. Indeed, I am extremely critical. It has been a goal of the European Community for some time to control agricultural spending, but somehow, because of the actions of the Council of Ministers, I believe, that goal has not been achieved. As regards the budget compromise, which has been much praised by Government Members, some four weeks after the subscriptions were raised we got an inkling that there was not enough to pay for the rapidly rising costs of the organisation.
  If the bleak picture drawn by the budget Commissioner in Brussels recently is correct, spending cuts are obviously on the way. These will have to come from the social and regional funds, youth training, job creation or industrial research programmes. We benefit greatly from the social and regional funds of the European Community and it is a great pity that those funds are such a small percentage of the total budget spending of the Community. If we could control agricultural spending, obviously this country in particular would benefit.
  The figures also show that the much-hailed system of budgetary discipline agreed by EEC Finance Ministers in 1984 to control the growth of agricultural spending and keep it below the overall growth in EEC revenue is all too easy to breach. The idea is constantly bandied about that the EEC and its institutions are hopelessly spendthrift, restrained only by the valiant efforts of the Secretary of State and his colleagues. But the Community is made up of 12 member states and its budget is directly the result of their decisions. The Commission is only the bureaucracy which tries to put the policies into effect, and occasionally suggests policies.
  The European Parliament as it is at present is only a sop to democratic control. It can add only a small amount of extra spending at the margins. It cannot do anything about the vast bulk of the budget, and above all agricultural spending. The budget crisis which is likely to land on us yet again is, I suggest, the result of years of fudged compromises in the Council of Ministers and of a failure to co-ordinate the policies of the different national Departments involved.
  The Financial Times, in a very good article on "The crisis that never went away" a few weeks ago, said:
  "The Council perpetuates the legal myth that it is somehow united and indivisible. In reality, it is a machine of ill-fitting cogs often working in competition rather than co-ordination. The unhappy consequence is the annual budget, invariably negotiated

  357
  through the night by junior treasury Ministers who have been known to make wild and foolish compromises in the early hours in the faint hope of getting to bed."
  Mr. Rippon: As they do here.
  Mrs. Clwyd: I would suggest that that is not true of the European Parliament, the Members of which work together on a day-to-day basis over a long period. I believe that the objective of compromise and of reaching some sort of sensible control of agricultural spending is much more likely to be achieved in the European Parliament than in the Council of Ministers.
  In other ways too, Britain is being proved a nation of idiots, and male chauvinist idiots at that, with humiliating regularity in the European Court of Justice. The latest instance, of course, was the judgment of the court in favour of plain common sense—more evident there, apparently, than in the corridors of power here. The judges agreed that forcing a woman to retire at 60 or 62, against her will, from a job in which a man would be allowed to stay until he was 65 is discriminatory and against EEC rules.
  That was only one of a string of judgments which show that, however liberal and far-sighted the equal pay legislation and the Sex Discrimination Act were when they were introduced more than a decade ago, it is now time to look at the legislation again. The legislation at present going through the House of Lords is not going to achieve this aim. The alternative is to face continuing ridicule in the European Court of Justice, because Britain has appeared before it on sex discrimination issues more times than any other EEC country.
  Last year the EEC initiated a programme to promote equal opportunities for women, noting that, despite past efforts at Community and national levels, inequalities in employment still existed in practice and might well be exacerbated in the present crisis conditions.
  I want to take up briefly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) about the EEC directive on parental and family leave. For me one of the worst times in the two years that I have been in the House was the evening when we discussed that directive on the Floor of the House, and the way in which the spokesperson on this matter was ridiculed by some Government Members. The subject of equal rights was discussed many times in the European Parliament and I never heard the kind of remarks that came from the Government Benches on what is a very serious subject on which progressive legislation was being proposed. That says something for the European Parliament as compared with the House of Commons—but then, of course, there were more women in the European Parliament and it would have been more difficult to ridicule women there than it is, apparently, to ridicule women in this House who make sensible contributions to debates.
  I therefore urge the Minister to look again at this matter; I am sure that she will be sympathetic. I have had many letters asking the Government to look again at the proposals for parental and family leave. Parental leave is time off work for either parent following the end of maternity leave to care for a child under the age of two. That leave is becoming increasingly available in other EEC countries. From January 1986, nine EEC countries will have some form of parental leave. In two member states, West Germany and Belgium, parental leave and sabbaticals have been established not only to strengthen
  358
  family life but as a way of reducing unemployment—something which I thought might be rather attractive to this Government—parents on leave being replaced by unemployed workers. It is estimated that in West Germany, when parental leave comes into effect fully during this year, one-year contracts may be given to 200,000 people currently unemployed.
  I urge the Government to look again, so that we do not again look ridiculous among our EEC partners, at the subject of parental leave. This is a progressive reform, as have been many of the reforms in the European Parliament over the years—on equal rights, on environmental issues and on other social and employment issues—which have helped workers throughout the EEC.
  I support the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles) who was on the Select Committee on European Legislation. I had hoped that that Committee would properly scrutinise EEC legislation, but it does nothing of the sort. It simply rubber-stamps a succession of documents without any proper discussion on the merits of the proposals. It is left to the other place properly to scrutinise EEC legislation. When I was a Member of the European Parliament I was grateful for the excellent reports produced by noble Lords in the other place. I hope that our own Select Committee can become more relevant. If we believe in the proper scrutiny of EEC legislation and want to influence that legislation, we should have proper discussions about it in our Select Committees. We are abdicating our responsibilities if we do not take up that challenge.
  7.21 pm
  Mr. George Gardiner: I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) with great interest. I disagree with many of the things that she said, and I certainly disagree with her eager anticipation of the future powers of the European Parliament. I also differ from her in her assessment of the relative importance of the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. However, her ready understanding of the need for much closer co-operation in Europe and her recognition that this must involve some compromise on all sides came as a breath of fresh air from the Opposition Benches and certainly sets the hon. Lady apart from the contributions made by some of her hon. Friends.
  I shall not follow the hon. Lady further than that, because I should like to speak about one aspect of the Bill—the proposed limited extension of qualified majority voting that will enable the Community to meet the 1992 target date for completion of the internal market.
  In our discussions on Community matters we speak on several levels. We sometimes speak of ideals, and we also discuss practicalities. I have great respect for those who regularly expound the ideals, but it is perhaps more useful for us to concentrate on the practicalities. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) tries hon. Members with his humour about their being Euro-fanatics. I join in the fun, but I hope that I am not counted among them. It is our duty not to indulge in great flights of oratory in favour of pie in some European sky. We should approach matters in a pragmatic British way.
  We all acknowledge that in some spheres our membership of the Community works against us. It is commonplace for us to attack the size, importance and operation of the common agricultural policy, the foundations for which were laid long before we became

  359
  Community members. By and large, the CAP has not worked in our favour, although one notes the efforts now being made by our Government and others to bring its spending and its budget under control. It is still a colossus built on principles and priorities that were established in the Community before we joined.
  If we are to take a pragmatic approach, surely we should be throwing all our energy and our arguments into developing those aspects of the European Community that will work significantly to our advantage—if they are allowed to develop. In that respect we come once again to what is often commonplace in our discussions, the desirability of creating a genuine common market of the kind that so many of our people thought we were joining, a full internal market. That is why we have the programme upon which members have embarked to scrap all non-tariff barriers before 1992. The achievement of that target is essential for our industrial and commercial survival, and it is just as essential for the other members of the Community.
  It is interesting to note when comparing the home markets in the world how the home market that we have created in the Community is vastly greater than that enjoyed by Japan. It is larger even than that of the United States of America, yet in a great many of our economic activities we persist in behaving as if the Community consisted of 12 related but separate markets. As I have said before, the result of this is that the industry and commerce of western Europe cannot achieve the economies of scale that a large home market can offer and so have to sell overseas and at home against American and Japanese competitors whose own home markets confer upon them precisely that advantage. The United States and Japan exploit to the full their smaller home markets. If it wants to, Europe could do the same, but we are still fragmented and until we put this great disadvantage behind us we will never achieve anything like our potential.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) spoke about high technology industry in Europe. Surely that industry offers the most classic case of that which I am describing. Each Government lean over backwards to place orders in a way that will boost or protect their own national, favourite industries. That applies especially to telephone and telecommunications equipment. Every Government in Europe do that and it has been estimated that the total cost to our European Governments is £24 million or more each year. When we do that, we deny our high technology industries the opportunities that would be offered in much greater cross-frontier co-operation, and as we shrink from that we lose the battle in competition abroad. It is noteworthy that in information technology the European industries supply only 10 per cent. of the world market and only 40 per cent. of our own home market. What an example of lost opportunity.
  It has also become commonplace for us to argue in favour of the full internal market to create the opportunities which our insurance and other commercial institutions seek in Europe, and which I am sure they could exploit to our advantage. They cannot do so until a full and effective internal market has been developed. We have heard about the exasperation caused by frontier delays, that personal form of non-tariff barrier that operates every
  360
  day of every week of every month of the year. It has been calculated that the delays in crossing frontiers cost trade and industry in Europe about £7 billion each year.
  I should like to cite a rather human example, which moved me, of the experience of a British engineer who was bound for his company's annual conference. The company had sales representatives throughout Europe, and the conference had been booked at Vittel in France—which is, I am told, a rather sleepy spa town. About 90 engineers were due to converge on Vittel from all over western Europe. As is usual at such conferences, there was a theme which was repeated on folders, pens, stationery generally and on tee-shirts. I shall call our friend Henry; he certainly exists, but not under that name. He loaded his car with a selection of all those goods and boarded the hovercraft for Calais.
  Once in Calais, Henry joined the queue of cars at the customs barrier. He was waved down and asked a few questions. All was going quite swimmingly until the customs officer spotted the box of tee-shirts in the rear of his car. Then the problems started.
  Mr. George Foulkes: A box of what?
  Mr. Gardiner: Tee-shirts. I thought that I was speaking clearly. The hon. Gentleman either was not listening or needs some attention to his hearing.
  All was going well for our friend Henry until the customs officer in Calais spotted that box. Then the trouble started. Henry was told that it was quite illegal for him to import those tee-shirts into France without some documentation. He was told that he would have to return to England to get the proper papers. Henry expostulated: could he not dump the tee-shirts there, as the conference could get on without them? He was told that he was not allowed to do that either, and that he must go back to get the proper documentation.
  So Henry boarded the hovercraft again for Dover leaving his car in Calais. On the hovercraft he was informed that he needed T2 forms to validate that importation. Of course, as soon as he arrived at Dover a customs officer said, "Excuse me, Sir, but you realise that you must pay if you want to import those goods into Britain." However, our Henry took that as a joke, and he was told how to obtain his T2 forms.
  Henry then had to appoint a shipping agent. Ten minutes later an agent was produced who did the necessary paperwork for the quite modest fee of £18. Henry then proceeded again to customs. But he was stopped and told, "Sorry mate. You're freight. You must join the queue over there." The queue over there was a queue of juggernauts. So Henry lifted up his box of tee-shirts and went to join the queue of juggernauts. There another customs officer looked at him and shook his head again; "I am afraid your papers are not in order. You're freight but you're travelling on a passenger ticket. Your ticket does not declare you on the ship's manifest." The ship's manifest is the list of all the freight on the ship or hovercraft. Henry was told that he would have to go back and change his ticket.
  So Henry went back and coughed up another £26 to get the necessary ticket. He then cleared customs, but while he had been waiting in the juggernaut queue it had been announced that his hovercraft was leaving early, so he had missed it. Being rather philosophical by this time, he said, "All right, I'll have to catch the next one." But someone

  361
  else said, "Sorry sir. All your papers are for the last crossing. They're all wrong for the next one." As one might expect, Henry exploded and a good British compromise was reached. He was allowed to board the hovercraft again for Calais even though he was apparently travelling with his goods illegally.
  Henry arrived there brandishing all his forms in triplicate or quadruplicate, but found that there was no customs officer to present them to. However, having gone through all that, he was going to make sure that his papers were duly stamped. So someone was woken up and his papers were stamped. He was told that he would have to pay duty the following Monday at Epinal, which was the nearest tax point to Vittel, where the conference was being held. Henry then handed the whole exercise over to a secretary engaged in organising the conference. Come Monday, she contacted the tax point at Epinal to be told that she could not undertake the transaction herself but would have to appoint a French shipping agent. A French shipping agent was duly found who did the necessary work. It cost £180 including tax and the fee.
  That is the situation that one admittedly ignorant citizen encountered after we have been in the Common Market for 10 years, just because he tried to perform the quite innocent task of taking 100 tee-shirts to a conference held in a French spa town. The tee-shirts, which were worth £300, ended up costing £526 and involving an unbelievable hassle. That is a microcosm of what traders and exporters experience every day at frontiers. It may be objected that the regulars know the ropes. Of course they do, but hon. Members should contemplate the cost in time and money to them of meeting the required rules.
  Thus, most of us agree about the end, but the question is how do we achieve it. The barrier is the ease with which an agreement to scrap internal barriers can be blocked, usually in response to some entrenched and often fairly narrow national interest. I differ from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley because I believe that, if the situation is to be rectified, the driving force for reform must come from within the Council of Ministers. It cannot come from the European Parliament. We need a qualified majority voting system to get round that blockage.
  If we want a genuine common market and a full internal market, we must will the means to that end. If we deny the means by denying the mechanism for achieving that end, we have no moral or political right to castigate the Community for its preoccupation with agriculture or for failing its citizens in those areas in which it could achieve so much for us. We know what we want; let us give ourselves the tools to get it.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I welcome a small announcement that seemed to be spatchcocked into the Foreign Secretary's speech. It concerned the secretariat that is to be set up to promote continuity between Community presidencies. Those of us who have had the good fortune to have been members of the indirectly elected European Parliament must be worried about the peripatetic nature of European institutions. Consequently, anything that operates to ease the transition between one presidency and another is to be welcomed.
  The announcement may have been small but it was significant. By its very nature, this group of people will be extremely powerful. Of course, incoming Ministers and their officials will be dependent on those who have the
  362
  power that is derived from continuity. The permanent people in the permanent secretariat will be at a great advantage compared with those who come for six months in the expectation of leaving. But how will the secretariat be accountable? I should welcome an answer to that point at the end of the debate.
  Secondly, I interrupted the Foreign Secretary earlier on the question of research, and European cancer research. On 18 December 1985, the Foreign Secretary said:
  "Following discussion at the European Council it was agreed to set up a committee of scientific experts to recommend co-ordinated action to combat cancer."—[Official Report, 18 December 1985; Vol. 89, c. 299.]
  I asked him on that occasion whether he would reflect on the concentration of work in centres of excellence, not only in Britain, but the universities of Edinburgh and Cambridge, in the Max Planck institute, the university of Leyden and elsewhere. I refer specifically to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, since she gave me an answer on 15 January 1986 on the question of progress of cancer research that said:
  "Yes. The Committee of EC cancer experts set up following the December Foreign Affairs Council will meet for the first time on 24 January in Brussels. Its task is to make recommendations for a co-ordinated plan of action to combat cancer in EC member states. The United Kingdom's representative will be Professor Norman Bleehen, honorary director, Medical Research Council unit of clinical oncology and radiotherapeutics."
  I see that we have the Minister for Health answering this debate. It is particularly apt that I should then quote that reputable correspondent, Thomson Prentice, the science correspondent for The Times, who wrote in his paper of 18 February:
  "Professor Derek Crowther, the cancer research campaign's professor of medical oncology at the Christie Hospital, Manchester University, and a member of the organisation's board, said yesterday 'I am concerned that the funding that we need will not be forthcoming from the EEC."'
  So, hopes having been raised of meaningful inter-European research on cancer, what is now happening? Or is this just one of those good ideas that gathers dust in the pigeonholes?
  Few research projects could be of more concern to Europe than the proposals on the strategic defence initiative. This is neither the time nor the occasion to go into the case of Mr. Clarence Robinson, of which more anon, but today I asked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions his Department has had with the authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany about the terms of the agreement entered into by both countries with the United States of America for strategic defence initiative work. The reply was:
  "There have been some exchanges but none of detail with officials of the FRG about the respective agreements between the Government of that country and HMG with the United States Government for SDI research."
  This is deeply unsatisfactory. In this of all projects there really should be some kind of co-ordinated European reaction. In the light of the leaked memorandum of understanding from Bonn, would it not have been sensible that we should have had an understanding in this country with our European partners on some kind of coherent reaction to the American SDI proposition?
  I would have thought that there were more Foreign Office Ministers. Why the Minister for Health has to be dragged in to answer a foreign affairs debate I do not know, but I do not complain about these things as he is a senior Minister. I refer to the Foreign Secretary's speech. He talked in terms of treaty provisions relating to foreign

  363
  policy, how the agreements and practices of 15 years had worked well, of severe practical tests and the need for Europe to speak with one voice. The House, he said, should not be dismissive of such things.
  If ever there was an occasion when Europe should have been speaking with one voice it was surely in the present Libyan crisis. The Foreign Secretary said that it was not possible to mobilise opinion on Libya unless we were in the habit of working together. They do not seem to work very well together, and I ask specifically did we, or our European partners, do anything to discourage the United States from taking the action against Libya? If not, why not? Surely it was the duty of the Europeans at least to warn the United States if they felt like this. Did they do so?
  Earlier this afternoon the Foreign Secretary, when replying to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), talked about separate considerations and separate circumstances which had made it difficult on 14 April to discuss the possible American attack on Libya. If these people were in the habit of working together, as he claims, why did they not discuss it? After all, it is not as if the French and others were ignorant of the problem, because their Governments had had requests for the use of airspace. Surely the very fact that they were asked about the use of airspace reveals that they were in the know about the intentions.
  Why was it not discussed? Was any inkling given of the British state of knowledge to our European partners? I ask this because, as my hon. Friend from Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) will know, his constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), the Secretary of State for Defence, made a speech on Scottish radio giving all the reasons why we should not launch an attack on Libya. Was there a difference in the state of knowledge between the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary? How could the Defence Secretary make that kind of speech if in the previous week he had been brought into the know about, at any rate the possibility, more likely, probability, or certainty, of an American attack?
  There is something to be settled here between the Defence Secretary and the Foreign Secretary. The act of refusal of the airspace reveals that the Foreign Secretary—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can discuss the principle of working together, but he knows he is straying from the Second Reading.
  Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As well as discussing the Second Reading, we are also discussing developments in the European Community, July to December, 1985, and I would submit that my hon. Friend's remarks are within the context of that.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am listening very carefully. We are discussing the principle of working together and developments within the Community. Fair enough. But we must not go over again some of the incidents that the hon. Gentleman is referring to.
  Mr. Dalyell: I ask how it is that Italian sources have now made it clear that the F111s which rendezvoused over
  364
  the sixth fleet peeled off not only to Tripoli but to Benghazi. One source of information is the chief defence correspondent of the Corriere Della Sera. If European co-operation at Foreign Secretary level says that this is wrong, I would like an outright denial tonight in the wind-up. Last night, hurriedly, 10 Downing street issued a denial that there were F111s over Benghazi. The truth is that from their transponders the Italians did track—
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Mr. Dalyell: It is always said that it is disgraceful when Downing street is caught again concealing the truth or misleading the House.
  Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that there are those engaged in this debate who would like to talk about the Bill before the House, and would he accept that this is nothing more or less than a publicity exercise, a "super-Belgrano", on his part?
  Mr. Dalyell: I will not be too long.
  I admit that cluster bombs found in Benghazi had navy markings, but I ask the very direct question of the Minister who is to reply: were there F111s over Benghazi? Are the Italian sources wrong? I do not think they are, and if they are not wrong, why was Downing street going to such pains to issue that statement last night? Is it that they simply do not know what is happening?
  I ask for clarification of the Official Report of 16 April, column 950. The Foreign Secretary said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East:
  "There was scarcely any mention of the United States intention."
  Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that you have just ruled on the hon. Gentleman's speech? It is getting very tedious for those of us who have to listen to it to hear these revelations about something that has nothing to do with the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Whether hon. Members are in order is a matter for the Chair. I am listening carefully. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) must relate his remarks to the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Dalyell: As my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley pointed out, we are discussing also page 29 of the White Paper on Developments in the European Community where there is a heading, "EC/United States". I think I am in order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have been listening carefully and the hon. Gentleman's last remark did not seem to relate even to that.
  Mr. Dalyell: The Foreign Secretary continued:
  "No evidence emerged during the discussion that any Foreign Minister was aware during the meeting of a final American decision to attack. For my part, I had no confirmation of any decision by the President, still less of any decision to authorise raids that night, until I came back to London and met the Prime Minister."—[Official Report, 16 April 1986; Vol. 95, c. 950.]
  What exactly is meant by confirmation? Does that mean that the Foreign Secretary had no inkling?
  If we are to have the European co-operation which the Foreign Secretary thinks is so important, there must be at least some candour between partners. I believe it to be both hypocritical and unwise to try to justify the action on the ground of article 51 of the United Nations charter; it is hypocritical because the article was never intended to

  365
  cover anything like that, and it was unwise because it opens the door to its abuse. To extend it to justify armed action—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has quoted page 29 of the White Paper. There is nothing there about armed action. He must relate what he is saying to the Bill.
  Mr. Dalyell: We are discussing also the relations between the EC and the United States, but I shall be brief. Beyond one's own frontiers it could have very undesirable repercussions. For example, it could be used by Libya to justify a reprisal—
  Mr. Cash: Boring old twat.
  Mr. Dalyell—for something that happened to a Libyan in this country.
  Did I hear the hon. Gentleman aright, saying that that was rubbish?
  Mr. Cash: I was saying that it was extremely boring.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  An hon. Member: He said "Twat."
  Mr. Dalyell: The twat in this case is the Field Marshal Lord Carver. I was quoting exactly—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) must withdraw those remarks. They are unparliamentary.
  Mr. Cash: I withdraw the remark, but it was said under provocation of an extreme kind.
  Mr. Dalyell: We want to know who was consulted and at what stage—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is talking about particular actions and who was consulted. That is not related to the debate. He must come to the subject of the debate or I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
  Mr. Dalyell: One of the troubles about the House of Commons is that generalities are all right, even if they are waffle, but when one asks specific questions of fact, things are more difficult. I am interested in fact because it is fact that illuminates the dreadful things that have happened.
  There is one other matter that the Community should consider—an agreement on the vexed question of end user certificates. To have the countries of Europe competing in exporting sophisticated armaments without asking questions about where those armaments end up is highly dangerous. More and more of us are concerned about terrorism. We know that arms are exported from the countries of the Community to other countries and that a blind eye is turned to those arms finding their way into terrorists' hands. Is there not something to be said for countries getting together to consider the whole question of how sophisticated armaments can easily end up in terrorists' hands? Could not the European countries get together to produce meaningful legislation about end user certificates? It is such European co-operation that some of us believe in.
  7.54 pm
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: I think that most of us agree that in many respects this is an unsatisfactory
  366
  debate. The Government are gaining a day by taking the six-monthly Community report with the Bill, although the six-monthly report makes only a tiny reference to the Bill.
  We have heard again a pile of generalisations that if only we pass the Bill things will be better, although there is no indication of why or how. Rather than having the Bill and the treaty, how much better it would be for all of us and the country if we were simply to concentrate on trying to persuade the Common Market to solve, with the powers that it already has, some of the problems which have existed for years and years and which have been getting worse.
  Hon. Members will know that when we joined the EEC we were advised that it would bring us more jobs, more prosperity and better trade. I am not saying that it is necessarily cause and effect, but since we joined trade has been disastrous, so that instead of the constant surplus which we always had previously we now have a deficit of £9 billion in manufactures. With regard to employment, there is hardly an area of the world, apart from the Common Market, and possibly Tibet and El Salvador, which do not publish figures, with a worse record in job creation.
  Apart from that, Common Market spending has got out of control. Of every penny that it spends, 54 per cent. goes not on agriculture but on the dumping of food in outside countries, mainly Russia, east Europe and Libya. Plenty of things are wrong. They need to be solved, and they could be solved with existing powers. That is the view, not just of a Back-Bench militant, but of the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the whole Government until a few months ago.
  That view was repeated time after time by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary when we asked them about it. We had the Milan summit. Immediately after it the Prime Minister said:
  "I saw nothing before us which would require an amendment to the treaty."—[Official Report, 2 July 1985; Vol. 82, c. 189.]
  Later my right hon. Friend made it abundantly clear, as did the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, that far from being necessary a new treaty would hold Europe back from solving its problems, would divert it, would take up its time and would not solve anything at all. Therefore, the Bill is unnecessary and irrelevant, and will simply divert Europe from tackling its problems. That is not the only point. We should be trying to persuade Europe to apply properly the powers that it has.
  The Foreign Secretary made a rather ungracious speech. I think that that was because his heart was not in it. He is such a nice person that we can usually tell when his heart is not in a subject. He was giving us assurances. On a previous occasion when he wanted us to pass something else which he did not like, namely, the agreement of 4 December 1984 which led to increased contributions to the Community and all the rest of it, we were given specific assurances. We were told, "You need not worry. We will have regular reports month by month to make sure that there is not any spending."
  That was not just a decision of the Government, but a provision in the agreement. Under paragraph 6(b) the Commission had to submit a monthly report to the Council of Ministers about trends in agricultural spending. On 11 March I asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many such reports had been made. The answer

  367
  sadly was, none. Yet it was a provision of the agreement that a monthly report be made. The answer to my question was:
  "The Commission has not recently produced a formal monthly report to the Council".
  The EC Commission was also obliged, under paragraph 6(b), to give a report on early warning procedures of possible budget overruns. I asked the Minister whether the Commission had done so. The answer was:
  "The Commission has not specifically reported under this procedure".—[Official Report, 11 March 1986; Vol. 93, c. 436.]
  If the Government are saying that we must pass the Bill because assurances have been given, I ask them to start trying to ensure that the Common Market actually applies some of the legislative provisions that exist now.
  There is also the rather astonishing decision of the Commission—this makes me think that the Government should be chasing the existing powers—to take power unto itself to sell dairy products to anyone at any price and not to publish the figures. Despite our disagreements with them from time to time, Agriculture Ministers are very good in telling us the whole truth. When I asked whether the Commission had the power to which I have referred, the answer was:
  "The Commission considers that it already has the authority to act in this way, so no proposal was put to the Council."—[Official Report, 8 April 1986; Vol. 95, c. 37.]
  Many things need to be done, and the Bill will not do any of them, but will simply be a diversion. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardner), in his fascinating speech, talked about the problem of people taking tee-shirts to Paris. He did not say that every problem could be solved within the existing rules if there was the will or if the European Court worked. The only problem that could not be solved was the difference in VAT, which led to the tax liability.
  We also have the problem, which we constantly put to the Government, of the abuse of some of the trade laws, a good example of which is the abuse of the inner German trade agreement. Hon. Members on both sides have been pestering the Government with complaints about the abuse of the inner German trade agreement. There is the strange situation that 40 per cent. of all Britain's imports of powdered eggs come from Germany, although Germany is not self-sufficient in the manufacture of eggs. This is simply because piles of materials come from eastern Europe and get into the Common Market through the abuse of the inner German trade agreement. This problem must be solved, but nothing is being done about it; no one is taking any action. Yet what the Government want are more legislative provisions.
  There is a decided lack of will by any Government to do anything about the absurd problem of the CAP. They all say that something should be done, but no meaningful or sensible policy is put forward by anyone. This problem could be solved, yet in this case the Bill makes not the slightest difference. What we need, instead of more power for the Common Market, the European Assembly and the Commission, is to get them to try to solve some of the problems which exist now and which are certainly not being solved.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate also referred to the problem of telecommunications. He said how much better it would be if we in Europe could stop
  368
  discriminating on a national basis and buy home goods to establish the basic market that we need to export abroad. He knows that it is unlawful to discriminate in public purchasing against the products of Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg or any part of the Community. That is the law now; we do not need new provisions. The law that exists needs to be implemented if we think it is sensible.
  We can look back to when we were told that if only we joined the EEC lots of good things would happen. It is rather like a doctor giving one pills to make one's tummy better. If one's tummy gets worse, the answer is not to take more pills. However, in this case we are being asked to give more powers to the European Assembly—which is now to called the Parliament—and to the Common Market to do things. As well as the disappearance from some areas of the unanimity rule, the Common Market is taking on new activities, ideas, spending and bureaucracy. How will it help this nation, or help the Common Market to solve its problems, if we simply give more power and responsibility and, I believe, create more complexity in the way that it operates?
  The Bill gives more confidence to the Common Market to take action and to spend money. Do we really think that by putting more public funds into the activity of the Common Market it will solve the problems? The Bill will give a new name to the European Assembly—a marginal provision. Some people would regard that as a point of principle, but I think that it is rather silly. The Bill provides for a new European Court because the existing court has become overloaded. I understand that the number of cases considered by the court has tripled over the past few years.
  The Bill provides for a new commitment to European union. As I have said, the Foreign Secretary was a little nasty in his speech today because, I believe, his heart was not in the task, so perhaps it would not be unkind to remind him that when he was asked, at the time of the announcement of this treaty, whether it referred to a commitment to European union he said that I was misleading the House as there was no question of European union being mentioned. However, in the Bill there is a clear commitment to European union and, most important, a commitment for the first time to provide the means to achieve the union.
  In addition, the European Assembly is being given the power to stop certain action. The powers are complicated, but the provisions simply mean that, if the European Assembly, by a clear majority, does not like what the Council is doing, the Council can overturn the rejection only by a unanimous vote. In those circumstances, obtaining a unanimous vote will be difficult, particularly in view of the attitude that Italy has to the views of the European Parliament. So in this case a major new blocking power is provided.
  Then there is the removal of the provision for unanimity or veto on a number of issues. This is not a new principle, because of the provision in several areas already for majority voting. The Bill extends this provision into other areas, particularly harmonisation measures. It has been suggested that this will make completion of the market easier, but I doubt whether it will do anything in that direction.
  The Minister should give an assurance to those who are worried about this extension. For example, will the new television directive limit on the number of non-EEC programmes shown in this country and in others fall under

  369
  the majority voting procedure? My understanding from those who know about it is that it will do so, but it would help to know for certain whether that is the case. Will the provision mean that the Government will be committed to support the harmonisation of taxes? We know that such a provision will need unanimity, but if this is what is intended, are we willing politically to face the desirability of introducing VAT on gas, electricity and so on?
  I suggest that the Bill will not improve the working of the Common Market. It will add a little more confusion by giving more power to the European Assembly, and we do not need that. What we need to do is to persuade the Government to use all their resources to try to persuade the Common Market to solve the problems that it has, without giving it new responsibilities.
  I hope that hon. Members considering the Bill will bear in mind that £75 million is a lot of money. With that sum we could build many schools, hospitals and roads. Yet £75 million is what the Common Market spends every week simply on export rebates for dumping food. It is an outrage that we are spending so much on dumping cheap food in the Soviet Union and Libya. Those who care about the Third world should think about what this dumping is doing to the poorest countries in the world. It is depriving them of a decent price for their produce and spreading devastation, destruction, distress and debt.
  I hope the House will reject all the silly nonsense in the Bill. I hope that it will get rid of it, as the Government wanted to do before they were persuaded by the views of the other partners to adopt it. We know that the Government think that this is a wretched piece of legislation and that they never wanted it. The Government should stand by that position, throw out this silly Bill, and make it abundantly clear that as from now we expect the Common Market to try to solve some of the many problems which remain unsolved and which in some cases are getting worse.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I will for the most part direct my remarks to the document,"Developments in the European Community". If there is time, on international matters, I would like to refer specifically to pages 32, 29 and 9. I am encouraged to do so by paragraph 2.11 on page 9 which states:
  "The new treaty on European Co-operation in the sphere of Foreign Policy, based on the British text tabled earlier in 1985, formalises and strengthens the commitment to consult and concert. It applies to the existing pattern of consultation on the economical and political—but not the defence—aspects of security".
  I hope that what I have to say will be considered relevant to the debate.
  I welcome the presence of the Minister on the Front Bench. However, I would not have complained if the Minister for Health were still present, because I had intended to refer to the section of the document which refers to the anti-poverty programme. I had hoped that the Department of Health and Social Security would pay due regard not just to the views of many people on the document—important though it is—but to the response to some of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) who seemed to pour cold water on the influence of the European courts and the role that they play.
  I could not disagree more strongly with the right hon. Gentleman. The European courts offer, if perhaps not
  370
  more experience, certainly fresh attitudes to many matters. They are not bogged down by commitments to the establishment, and they can bear in mind the demands of the modern world. It is perhaps unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman said what he did after the expression of opinion by the Lord Advocate to the European Court of Justice in the case of Mrs. Drake. I wish that the Minister for Health had been here at that point in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I believe not only that the views expressed in that case on the invalidity care allowance are profoundly progressive and humane, but that it would be outrageous if the Government did not accept those findings. I am sure that many hon. Members will join me in deploring the rumours circulating today not only that the Government will set the opinion aside but that they might discontinue the allowance in all its aspects. I do not believe that the House would be prepared to accept that.
  The document made at least three references to the steel industry. If I understood the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles) correctly, he described the EEC as an economic giant. His speech was in many ways a courageous one and I hope that I am not taking that remark out of context. However, it would be difficult to persuade those in the west central belt of Scotland that the Community represented an economic giant in terms of the real world, especially in view of the heavy and growing burden of unemployment—especially long-term unemployment—that we bear in that part of the United Kingdom.
  The report refers to the problems of protectionism. I shall not want to sound anti-American, especially when I discuss international matters, but the report shows that in 33 categories the Americans are applying protectionism. I am not sure that that is consistent with the policies that the Community, in co-operation with the United States, would wish to see pursued.
  There are practical effects for my own constituents in the steel industry. We have had more than our fair share of job reductions in that industry. For every three Jobs in the United Kingdom in 1979, there is only one today. I am sure that the same applies to many other industries—for instance, shipbuilding. Last week I was in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). I was reminded that my hon. Friend's constituency has lost 4,000 jobs in shipbuilding alone since 1982. Such a situation does not seem to show the influence of the policies of an economic giant.
  Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend's natural courtesy ensured that I knew of his proposed visit to my constituency far in advance.
  The decline continues. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that I was unable to be in the Chamber to hear the opening speeches in this debate because I was seeking meetings with Ministers in both the Scottish Office and the Ministry of Defence for the trade union representatives of another shipyard in my constituency which has no orders whatsoever and faces closure.
  Mr. Clarke: I know that my hon. Friend's constituents are fully aware of the excellent job that he does in stating their case and are very appreciative of his work.
  I deplore the decline in our manufacturing base and the de-industrialisation which, alas, is taking place throughout the Community and especially in my part of the world. I am also concerned about the environmental issues raised

  371
  by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). On Monday, I drew to the attention of the Minister for Overseas Development the document "Mandate for Change" published by the World Commission on Environment and Development. The Minister said that he regarded the document as an interim one. He gave the impression that he was not responding wholeheartedly to the concern expressed in that document for the environment not only in the United Kingdom and the developed countries but also in the Third world, where the environment is just as important to those who live there as our environment is to us.
  The document "Mandate for Change" made it clear that there is evidence that has led 20 other countries to act in the interests of the environment. We should bear that in mind when we are dealing with funding for overseas aid and overseas investment and development. I have no wish at all to encourage a reduction in our contribution, but I believe we should try to improve the quality of that contribution, and I believe that bearing the environment in mind will help us to achieve that objective.
  I wish briefly to mention the international aspect. The document suggests that the Community is now more concerned with the problems of the developing world than was the case until perhaps a year or two ago. That is very laudable. I believe that the Lomé convention meeting held in Inverness not long ago made an important contribution to the consideration of such matters and also to the acceptance of the role of women in the underdeveloped world. In passing, I believe that the House was delighted with the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). Her experience in those matters was self-evident, and helpful to both the House and the Community.
  We must be concerned about the future of our planet, the future of the Third world and the growing problems of armaments at a time of great international poverty and friction. We should therefore give some thought to the paragraph in the document that deals with our relationship with the United States and with East-West relations.
  I think that it is fair to say that the Community, on the evidence of this document and on many other actions in which it has been involved, now has a more progressive view on such matters as the Iran-Iraq war, South Africa and East-West relations in addition to the growing problem of central America.
  Some hon. Members suggested earlier that anti-Americanism is evident on the Opposition Benches. That represents a considerable misunderstanding of the genuine problems which we feel are being faced in terms of our relationship with the United States. It is not anti-American to take the view that I take. It certainly is not true today that America has the leadership it deserves. That is not always the case, despite the fact that it might be stated often.
  I do not think that America deserves its present leadership. I believe that circumstances have changed very dramatically since President Reagan took office, not just for the standing of the American presidency but for the American role in the world. I do not think that any of us should assume for one second that the kind of policies and philosophy that he endorses represent anything more than
  372
  a temporary aberration from which I am sure both the United States and our relationship with it will in time recover.
  Perhaps the saddest aspect of the present American President's attitude is that, because of the philosophy he pursues and because of his carefully considered and carefully projected rhetoric, he has no solutions to the present problems. The President last night addressed the Heritage Foundation. He presented serious problems, not only in simplistic but in unhelpful terms when trying to find a solution to the problems. Did he think when he talked about the relationship between Daniel Ortega and Colonel Gaddafi that his policies in recent years—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said. These are important matters, but the hon. Gentleman must relate his comments to the Bill before the House.
  Mr. Clarke: I was attempting to do that, and also to bear in mind the Order Paper, which refers to the document I have been discussing. You will be happy to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am about to conclude.
  The document refers to the problems of relationships between ourselves and other countries, including the United States. The time which was given to this debate, important though it is, was limited in scope and was bound to limit hon. Members on the amount that we feel it is appropriate to contribute. That said, I think that it has been a welcome debate. If it means that the House can address itself to the problems of Europe—Europe itself and Europe in a changing world—in the knowledge, which seems to be universally accepted, that we have a great deal more progress to make in the House and in Europe, I believe that that will be in the interests of our people and very much in the interests of a wider world.
  8.23 pm
  Mr. John Butterfill: When my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) addressed the House, he stressed the importance that we attach to having an unwritten constitution and the great contribution that that has made to the development of this country. It has enabled us to adapt over the years to changing circumstances. The degree to which the European Community has been able to adapt over the past few years to changing circumstances without needing to change the treaties is remarkable. The original treaties have been stretched in all sorts of directions. Many things have been done that were not originally envisaged. Indeed, the Parliament has been exercising more powers, in many ways, than it was originally granted.
  When it is said that the Bill and the Single European Act are not necessary for Britain, we can probably agree with that. We are used to living with an unwritten constitution which is continually evolving out of custom and precedent, but we have to remember that the vast majority of states in the world, certainly the majority in the European Community, are not used to living with an unwritten constitution. They are used to having written constitutions which, if they wish to change, they have to change in writing. I hope that we will agree to pass this legislation and adopt the Single European Act, because of the need to conform to the practices of our partners. That is an entirely honourable thing to do.
  In view of the changes that have taken place, the subtle changes that are envisaged in the Single European Act and

  373
  the proposal to change the name of the Assembly to Parliament are right. When the treaties were established the Assembly was an appointed body. It is now an elected Assembly and it does a good deal more than it originally did. It certainly scrutinises legislation and, although strictly speaking it is not entitled to do so, it has, of late, subtly been proposing legislation.
  It is extraordinary that those who hold democracy dear should consider that it is reasonable that under the treaties as they stand only the Commission can propose legislation. It seems to be far more reasonable that an elected European Parliament should be able to propose legislation. The modest change envisaged suggests that the European Parliament will be able to propose amendments to legislation. I cannot see how anybody who holds democracy dear to his heart can object to a proposal of this nature.
  I can find only one thing objectionable in the entire Single European Act. This is contained in the preamble to the Act, where it refers to something that is not part of the treaty setting up the European Community. It refers to the
  "Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms".
  This convention has caused us much trouble. It is the convention which the European Court of Human Rights upholds, and it is the convention which tells us, for example, that we cannot have corporal punishment in our schools. I do not believe that a court consisting of a few judges in Europe should be able to dictate to a sovereign Parliament what it can or cannot do in its own country about social matters or sentencing policy. Therefore, I object only to that one element contained in the recital of the Act.
  Mr. Foulkes: I think that the hon. Gentleman is getting mixed up. I think that he is talking about the European Court of Human Rights, which is under the jurisdiction of the Council of Europe and is not part of the European Community at all.
  Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman is right. Perhaps he was not listening to what I was saying. I referred to the
  "Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
  This is contained in the fourth paragraph of the preamble to the Single European Act, if the hon. Gentleman would care to refer to it. It says:
  "Determined to work together to promote democracy on the basis of the fundamental rights recognised in the constitutions and laws of the Member States, in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the European Social Charter, notably freedom, equality and social justice."
  That is the only element in the Act to which I have any objections.
  With regard to the importance of the development of the internal market, I cannot improve on the demonstration of the difficulty involved which was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner). It is important to my constituency that the changes are achieved by 1992. Bournemouth has become a major centre for insurance and financial services. The European headquarters of the Chase Manhattan bank are being constructed in my constituency. To exploit the considerable advantages and expertise that Britain has built up in insurance and in financial services, it is vital that we succeed in completing the internal market.
  We must remember that, although Britain is an island and is less affected by what others around us do, our
  374
  partners in the European Community have direct and abutting land frontiers and are much more directly affected by what goes on in neighbouring states. Although we feel that environmental co-operation is important to us, it is much more important to our continental neighbours.
  I support the proposals for the regional fund. The United Kingdom has benefited greatly from the operation of that fund. It is extremely important to develop other aspects such as the regional and social funds, which take away some of the enormous preponderance that has tended to attach to agricultural policy in the European Community. If the Community develops in other directions, this will greatly benefit the citizens of the Community, particularly those in the United Kingdom.
  It is vital that Britain co-operates with her European partners in research and development. There is only one way in which we can meet the competition which we are now facing from Japan and the United States of America. That is by co-operating and exploiting the advantages of what is potentially the largest single domestic market in the world. We have begun to do that through the ESPRIT and BRITE programmes. It is vital that we expand those operations.
  The events of the past week illustrate more clearly than anything else the need for us to co-operate on foreign policy, the need for us in Europe to be able to speak with one voice, and the enormous influence that we can have on events in other parts of the world if only we are prepared to get together and co-operate. I very much hope that we will increase co-operation. My final hope is that we can join the European monetary system and demonstrate even more clearly our commitment to membership of the Community.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. Ron Leighton: The EEC spends most of its money on the common agricultural policy. The best description of the inanities of this money-eating monster is in last year's July report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I urge all hon. Members to read it. Since then the position has deteriorated. In 1985–86, public spending in Britain on national grants and subsidies under the CAP increased by £500 million to £2·215 billion, yet, in 1985, farm incomes dropped by £879 million to £1·154 billion. The astonishing fact is that support spending on agriculture exceeds farm income. It would be cheaper to pay farmers to produce nothing.
  Public spending averages more than £9,000 for each of the 240,300 farm holdings in the United Kingdom. Each holding receives an average subsidy of £9,000 per annum. Most goes on buying up and storing surplus farm produce for which there is no market. Public spending plans allow for further increases. Is not all that wicked and insane? These costs, together with a high level of guaranteed prices, represent a significant transfer of resources from the consumer and taxpayer to the producer. This has stimulated agriculture at the expense of other sectors of the economy. A uniform price for all producers means that large producers are oversupported and encouraged to maximise production, but that does not help small farmers and poorer farming communities.
  Let us consider the remarkable feat that present policy has achieved. The CAP was invented in 1957. The policy has boosted public spending to massive levels. The people who are supposed to benefit from this spending have suffered a severe income drop, and their numbers continue

  375
  to fall. Huge food mountains continue to grow, and the price of food is much higher than it needs to be. By doing this, we damage the interests of our friends around the world, such as those in New Zealand. Only a madman could have achieved that.
  Let the House answer the lunacy of one of the chief activities of the CAP. Expensive energy is used to dry into powder skimmed milk left over from making surplus butter. We subsidise the sale of the skimmed milk powder to other EEC farmers who feed it back to the livestock, after adding the water removed in the earlier costly process. We are financing that. Britain has been paying a disproportionate amount to finance this tomfoolery. We were told that all this would be put right by the Fontainebleau agreement. The agreement was to guarantee Britain its rebate and impose financial discipline on the CAP. Spending on agriculture was to grow more slowly than the growth of budget own resources. The Fontainebleau agreement immediately increased by 40 per cent. the VAT contribution to own resources. The Commission has pointed out that agricultural financial discipline could be breached in "exceptional circumstances" or "aberrant circumstances". We know that the whole of the EEC is an aberration and is exceptional.
  This much-lauded financial discipline was breached last year. It will be breached spectacularly this year and will be breached again next year. The Fontainebleau agreement is proving worthless in practice and is breaking down.
  The breach of financial discipline has been caused by the fall in prices on the world market, which makes it more expensive to subsidise the dumping of EEC surpluses, and by the change in the value of the dollar. As a result, the EEC keeps coming back for a supplementary budget—for even more money to throw down this black hole. Some of us predicted that that would happen. In previous debates, we said that the only thing to do was to turn off the tap of the money supply that finances this madness. The same is true now. As long as we keep voting to give the Common Market more money, this obscene rake's progress will continue.
  In the past four years, EEC intervention stocks have increased 500 per cent. At great expense, they are being added to faster than they are being emptied. The 1·4 per cent. VAT ceiling will soon be breached. We should remember that the EEC budget mechanism is fixed only while the current 1·4 per cent. VAT ceiling is operational. It could be withdrawn as Fontainebleau collapses.
  The Commission now looks upon co-responsibility levies as additional taxes to fund agricultural surpluses rather than alleviating them. They are likely to be passed on to the consumer in even higher prices. At the moment the concept of value for money is wholly alien to the Common Market.
  I always thought that the Conservatives regarded the function of prices as being to bring supply and demand into balance. The common agricultural policy needs a several-year programme of reducing prices, announced in advance and consistently maintained. Hardship among farmers should be alleviated by direct income support. That would enable us to have freer trade in food and to open our ports once more to the produce of the world, providing cheaper food for our people. To achieve such a sensible policy we
  376
  shall need to repatriate agricultural policy once more to the jurisdiction of this House rather than leaving it with the EEC bureaucracy.
  This dangerous Bill does the opposite. It takes further powers away from this House and gives them to Continental institutions not elected by us or anybody else, and not removable by us. That is a further unacceptable loss of democratic self-government, yet self-government is our most precious possession.
  What would be the good of discussing policies with people at general elections if, when we got back to the House, the powers to implement those policies had been surrendered and given away? When voters complain to us about this we shall have to tell them that we have no powers over these matters and that it is no good coming to us but that they should go to Brussels where such issues are decided.
  This wretched Bill lists a whole range of matters that are now to be dealt with by majority voting. Let me give the House a good example of what that will mean. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) asked the Prime Minister about the EEC budget. In her written reply on 26 March this year she said:
  "The proposed increase in non-obligatory expenditure represented a threat to budget discipline".
  That is a bad thing. We cannot have a threat to budget discipline. She goes on to say:
  "The United Kingdom accordingly opposed the revised draft Budget, which was adopted by qualified majority."—[Official Report, 26 March 1986; Vol. 94, c.493.]
  So it does not matter what we say, however dangerous it is, if we have qualified majorities.
  As the Scrutiny Committee has said, the Bill provides for the treaties to be amended so that a whole list of matters may be dealt with in a similar way, a whole list of matters over which this House will surrender control, not only derogating from and damaging this House, but damaging the electorate and damaging democracy. It breaks all the pledges made to the electorate at the time of the referendum. It abrogates the basis of that referendum and of our membership.
  I have here the document that was issued by the Government at the time of the referendum. It was printed in red, white and blue. It says at the top of the page:
  "Will Parliament lose its power?"
  and goes on:
  "Fact No. 2. No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament."
  It could not be clearer or more specific, but this Bill flies in the face of that clear pledge to the people. Every issue on which this Bill specifies majority voting is an affront to that pledge and that commitment so solemnly given in the referendum. Such a proposition of majority voting has never been put to the British people, and there is absolutely no popular consent to this unprincipled Bill which double-crosses the electorate.
  To pledge in the referendum that a British Minister answerable to this House will always have a veto and then to come along with this Bill to provide for majority voting is a cheat and a swindle and it deceives the voters. This continuous undermining of Parliament, of our democratic self-government and of the rights of the electorate is something to which I shall never be reconciled and will work to rectify.

  377
  Symbolic of this whole issue is the proposed change in the name of the European Assembly. "Assembly" is a good name for this unloved institution. It assembles. Apart from doing that and talking, it does little else. It is a talking shop, not a proper Parliament that legislates. However, those who want to turn the Common Market into some sort of monster unitary state want, as a symbolic gesture, to call it a Parliament and to give it extra powers. The key question is, if the EEC Assembly is to get extra powers, where will they come from? Any extra powers for the Assembly will inevitably mean fewer powers for this House and the people who elect us, and we should resist that.
  My final point is on employment. When we entered the EEC simple souls suggested that the so-called bigger market would be better for our industries, exports, balance of payments and employment, what they lyrically called jobs for the boys. The harsh truth is that, from whatever angle we look at it, EEC membership has cost us over a million jobs. Two out of every three jobs lost in recent years have been in manufacturing. The figures which are given in the table on page 58 of Cmnd. 9761, the White Paper before us, tells us that in our trade in manufactures with EEC countries in 1970 the export-import ratio was 137 per cent. In other words, for every £100 they exported to us, we exported £137 to them, a very healthy state of affairs for us. What has happened since? Did we benefit from market membership, as we were told we would? The very opposite has happened. The export-import ratio has declined continuously until last year it was only 71 per cent. For every £100 that they sent us we sent them only £71. From a trade balance of about £1 billion in our favour, we now have a horrendous deficit of some £10 billion. This enormous turnaround is one of the main causes of unemployment in this country.
  At the last election the CBI, which now increasingly represents importers and firms that have transferred substantial parts of their manufacturing capacity abroad, said that 2,500,000 jobs depended on our exports to the EEC—
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Mr. Leighton: I will not give way.
  From the same arithmetic it would follow that 3,750,000 jobs have been destroyed by the imports we take from the EEC, which are now 50 per cent. higher than our exports to it.
  If we consume the products of Continental factories rather than British factories, it must mean unemployment here. Thus British jobs have been lost not because of the microchip but because other people are supplying our market. There is no solution to our unemployment without turning back the tide of imports which has closed down British factories and destroyed the jobs in them. The imports that are doing the damage are primarily from the EEC, in cars, textiles, chemicals, furniture and engineering. EEC imports have displaced British production. The treaty of Rome commits us to accepting levels of imports however high, whatever the cost and however fast they rise.
  Ironically, we have handed over responsibility for our trade to the Brussels Commission, the equivalent of rewarding the burglar with the only set of keys. Any future British Government which is serious about strengthening British industry will come up against Common Market
  378
  rules. If we want an effective industrial or regional policy, if we want to plan and regulate trade, if we want to say that British firms should have national objectives, if we want to deal with multinationals, if we want selective public sector purchasing or a form of exchange control, we shall come up against the restrictions of the treaty of Rome.
  So we have to make up our minds. Are we committed primarily to the treaty of Rome, whatever the cost, or shall we give priority to the conquest of unemployment and the revival of manufacturing industry in this country? In the choice between jobs and the treaty of Rome, I have no difficulty or hesitation in choosing jobs.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. William Cash: I have for many years been a supporter of the European Community in the broadest possible terms, but I have some reservations about how we might move to majority voting.
  We have to live in the real world and to be practical about the Bill. I am a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation and endorse everything that its report says. It says that British industrial and commercial interests must get in on the act early.
  I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). He voices the anxieties of many people, but many of those anxieties need not arise if we can be brought into the process earlier. There should be a change in our standing orders and our terms of reference so that the Select Committee can evaluate what is going on early enough. Community jargon has the phrase "avant projet".
  Having practised as a lawyer in commercial law concerning the Community, I am aware that many directives reach maturity and get through the Select Committee without sufficient consideration en route. European agricultural organisations tend to get in on the act early, but the same is not true for many others.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary emphasised the wider implications for Britain, which I endorse, and said that the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the British Institute of Management and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce all want completion of the internal market. I envisage many advantages in that, but it would help the Select Committee if organisations made their representations to us earlier when they found matters of concern to them.
  Many members of the Committee have examined the European Parliament's powers and we made it clear in our report that we consider the Luxembourg compromise still to be valid. We tend to exaggerate the dangers of majority voting. We live in a global economy but have to keep our interests ahead of other people's. We must have regard to our own interests while working in the EC. I was interested to read what my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade said on 13 February in regard to the multi-fibre arrangement. He said:
  "I suggest that the House approaches the matter from this angle: first—I mention it first and rate it first—are the interests of the people of the United Kingdom".—[Official Report, 13 February 1986; Vol. 91 c. 1109.]
  That is an extremely fair way in which to approach such matters. We must respond to a range of issues such as the big bang, which is coming in October.
  I have recently served on the Financial Services Bill Standing Committee and have learnt the extent to which

  379
  we shall be exposed to international pressures in investments, capital movements, competition, biotechnology, intellectual property—in respect of which we have a new White Paper—banking, financial services and telecommunications. In such matters, our commercial and industrial prosperity for the next 20 years is intimately bound up with the EC and I have no intention of turning the clock back. It is essential, however, to keep an eye on what that clock is doing and what its mechanism is achieving to ensure that scrutiny in Parliament is retrieved.
  I listened with interest to my colleague on the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), and had much sympathy for what she said. I have received an interesting letter from my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office in which she was good enough to reply to my letter concerning scrutiny. She said that the Government were looking into the Scrutiny Committee's proposals. I hope that she will have some interesting things to say later. I do not think that she will mind my quoting that part of her letter in which she said:
  "I accept that this"—
  majority voting—
  "will not be risk-free for us."
  It is by no means risk-free, but if we get into the negotiations seriously enough and early enough we shall be able to retrieve a great deal of the initiative which has been allowed to go through apathy and inertia.
  We must learn to live in the modern world of Japan, of the United States, of protectionist pressures and of the need to maintain market share, to compete effectively and to maintain a high profile of high quality goods which win markets against international competition. If we do not remain alert to the dangers inherent in the Community's mechanisms, we shall reap the whirlwind. If, however, we use the mechanisms effectively, we shall be able to use the opportunities that the EC offers.
  It is over to us. We must bear in mind the consequences of giving legal effect to the proposals in the Single Act. The European Court of Justice will be involved. We must be sure that we know what we are doing. Who will control it all? The Government? Parliament? The Commission? Will we have sufficient input from our trading companies and the professions? Will we ensure that we maintain our people's livelihoods? That is what the Community is ultimately about, but we will not achieve that end unless we monitor closely the legislation that could have the most far-reaching effect on our economy during the next 20 years.
  8.58 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I wish to raise two issues with the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker). They arise from the White Paper and the legislation. First, paragraph 7.7 of the White Paper says that the Transport Council was
  "unable to reach any agreement on the package of draft shipping legislation put forward in the Commission's memorandum on sea transport."
  I believe I am right in saying that cabotage is to be discussed next month at a meeting of the Transport Council. I hope that, as soon as possible after that meeting,
  380
  the Minister will make a statement about cabotage and about the way in which our EEC partners ignore legitimate British interests relating to coastal transport.
  Secondly, will the legislation that we are debating tonight enable the Commission both to protect and to promote the interests of the African, Caribbean and Pacific cane sugar producing countries that export part of their produce to EEC member states? An EEC policy is urgently needed to help to deal with the current imbalances in the world sugar market. Such a policy must aim at solving these problems in the interests, and for the benefit, of the developing countries. The ACP countries have little or no choice but to continue to grow cane sugar, regardless of the price that it fetches on the international market.
  I am concerned not only about the producers of cane sugar in the Third world but also about those who are employed in the cane sugar refining industry in Great Britain where there are only two cane sugar refineries. One of them is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). The other is in Greenock.
  On 2 December 1985, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food moved a House of Commons motion on this issue. It said:
  "That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8687/85, 9178/85 and 8781/85 relating to the sugar sector and 11172/84 and 8688/85, relating to the reform of the starch regime, and supports the Government's objectives to secure satisfactory agreements on them which take account of the interests of both producers and users of the products concerned."
  On that occasion I was fortunate enough to move an amendment that was accepted by the House. It said:
  "That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/1900/73, but declines to approve Commission Document R/ 1957/74 as it makes no provision either for continuing imports, at fair and stable prices, of at least 1·4 million tons of cane sugar from Commonwealth countries, or for the continued existence of and employment in the port sugar refining industry in the United Kingdom, or for securing longer term supplies of domestically refined cane sugar at a fair price to consumer and producer."—[Official Report, 2 December. 1985; Vol. 88, cc. 107 and 114.]
  If I may be so immodest, I think that this is an example of principled pragmatism.
  I am deeply concerned about the crop that is produced by the ACP countries. At the same time, I have a direct consitituency interest in EEC decisions about imports of raw cane sugar and the refining of that sugar in London and Greenock. The Tate and Lyle cane sugar refinery is the only refinery in Scotland. There were many more at one time, particularly on the lower Clyde. That refinery is an integral element of the Scottish food and drinks industry. Its future has to be assured in the interests of my constituents who work in the refinery. It must also be assured in the interests of all those who are employed in the Scottish food and drinks industry.
  Paragraph 4.26 to 4.29 of the White Paper deal with the internal and external fisheries regime. Here again, we are dealing with a traditional industry, but in this case it is largely managed—I go further: it is very much controlled—by decisions made in Brussels.
  One of the recommendations of the report on fisheries protection of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, of which I am happy to say that I am a member, was:
  "All third-country boats fishing in Scottish waters should be required to report to DAFS in addition to, or instead of Brussels".

  381
  I would say that they should report to Edinburgh rather than to Brussels and that that reporting system should be as efficient and systematic as the one established years ago in Norway, where it works effectively.
  Another recommendation was that the 10 per cent. by-catch limit in the pout fisheries should not be raised. I compliment the Ministers who were successful in resisting the stong pressure by the Danish Government when they sought to raise or maintain the derogation of an 18 per cent. by-catch limit. That is a disgracefully high level. It destroys many young fish which are prevented from breeding and Danish fishermen in particular need to be protected from themselves. I should like to see a permanent ruling on the by-catch limit which does not even go as high as 10 per cent.
  On the issue of cane sugar and in the interests of the ACP countries and the port cane sugar refining industry employees, and in the interests of the indigenous fishing industry, much more needs to be done by the Government within the Brussels arena.
  9.7 pm
  Sir Anthony Meyer: There is a theatre in Paris called the Theatre de la Huchette. The play has a cast of eight and the theatre holds an audience of 12 and they have been giving the same play for 45 years. The name of the play is "The Bald Prima Donna". That is no reflection on the state of the hair of any hon. Member who has intervened recently, but it fairly well reflects the value of the debates that we have in the House on this subject.
  First, the Bill and the quaintly named Single European Act to which it gives effect are the bare inadequate minimum needed to prevent the 12-nation Community from collapsing into inertia and chaos. Secondly, the Government's policies in the EC inadequate, grudging and laggardly though they are—I except from any strictures that I make my hon. Friend the Minister of State whose attachment to this cause has been exemplary throughout, like her predecessor my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)—have at least been better in the sense of keeping the Community afloat—just—and keeping the British public opinion reconciled to the idea of Community membership—just—and better than those on offer from any of the other Opposition parties.
  Thirdly, the EC, cruelly though it has disappointed even the most modest hopes placed in it, is none the less better than any alternative organisation which could conceivably be brought into existence to replace it, given the much diminished quality of European statesmanship today compared with 30 years ago, and incomparably better than a reversion to the kind of crude nationalist power horse trading, with no binding rules at all, which is what the enemies of the Community in the House and outside apparently want. The key phrase is "binding rules" and that is what the Bill is about.
  Those who talk about the vital importance of maintaining our untrammelled right of veto on all decisions undoubtedly strike a responsive chord in the hearts of the British public, although they somewhat overlook the fact that other nations—usually Greece—can use their veto to block decisions which are absolutely vital to this country's interests.
  I support the Bill, modest though it is. In the words of Audrey in "As You Like It", it is
  "An ill-favoured thing, sir, but mine own;"
  382
  It is the best that we have and we will have to put up with it.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: This long debate has been enlivened by the learned and lively, if short, contribution from the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer). We know that the hon. Gentleman when referring to "The Bald Prima Donna" was not in any way referring to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for whom we know he has a deep and abiding affection.
  Throughout this wide-ranging debate we have heard a variety of views expressed and I admit that a range of views has been expressed from both sides of the House. We have ranged from the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), who gave us the long but no doubt extremely relevant saga of Henry and the tee-shirts through the somewhat detailed semantics of the nomenclature about the Assembly, which is now to be called a Parliament. I do not expect that our French partners believe that their legislative chamber is any the less important because it is called an assembly rather than a Parliament. We heard earlier about the drama of the European flag. Apparently it is not to be the stars and stripes—as we might have expected—but merely to be the stars. It is to have 12 yellow stars on, no doubt with some appropriateness a blue background.
  Some very important and serious points have been raised during the debate. [Interruption.] I understand that more encouraging news has come from Wembley about the England versus Scotland football match. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Mr. Hamilton) is the bearer of that news. As usual in European debates, many Scottish Members are present, and we were not sure whether we were being deprived of our places at Wembley through our duty to the House. Earlier this evening we thought we were fortunate to be closeted in the Chamber as Scotland were losing, but it now appears as if things are improving as Scotland are back in contention.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) raised a serious point in relation to scrutiny and the adequacy of scrutiny in this Parliament, and other hon. Members also raised that point. The Opposition have frequently said that we are only touching on the margin of proper scrutiny of the legislation coming from the European Community. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) also stressed that point.
  Today, as has been evident, as well as discussing the Second Reading of the Bill, we are considering the sixth-monthly report of the Community. Some of my hon. Friends who have raised issues on that have found difficulty in making their points adequately.
  On 5 March a number of suggestions were made to the Government and, somewhat surprisingly, the Government accepted the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends. That amendment called for a report and improvements in scrutiny arrangements. I asked the Minister a number of questions on that occasion but did not receive many answers in the correspondence that followed. Perhaps she will answer some of my points now.
  When will we get the response to the suggestions that were made for improving scrutiny? When will we get a report? When will our proposals be considered, and when

  383
  will we get a response to them? We are concerned that scrutiny should be improved within the House and Parliament as a whole.
  We are dealing with a modest and, perhaps, reluctant Bill. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) will understand that I am not referring to him.
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I have been in my place from the moment that the debate began and that I have not been called to participate in it. He will be aware also that, being a unionist, union means something to me. But if talk about union within Europe is in the same context as union in Scotland, even the hon. Gentleman will understand that that is not quite what we in Scotland believe should happen.
  Mr. Foulkes: I allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene because I realised that he was anxious to speak and had been in his place throughout the debate. I listened carefully to his intervention but I am not sure exactly what he meant or why I gave way to him.
  The modest Bill that we are discussing—this may have been forgotten by some of us, and perhaps conveniently by some Conservative Members—is the result of the Milan debacle. The Prime Minister had a tantrum, became intemperate and threatened not to attend the intergovernmental conference. At one stage she would have nothing to do with it. Yet less than a year later we are discussing changes which the Government thought at the time of Milan were unnecessary, unwanted and diversionary.
  Let us consider some of these doubtful changes. The new formula of consultative arrangements for the European Parliament is described as new co-operation with the European Parliament. Some Conservative Members may have doubts about the Opposition's views on a number of European Community issues, but if the increased powers that are proposed are at the expense of the non-elected Commission within the Community, we shall consider them sympathetically. That will be our response if the balance of powers within the Community and the delegation of powers are to be changed. If the proposals are to be implemented at the expense of sovereign Governments and sovereign Parliaments, however, we shall examine them more sceptically and be more concerned about them.
  The proposals before us do not involve too drastic changes, although we have some concerns. There is to be an extended procedure of Second Readings and the European Parliament will be able to re-examine as well as examine the proposals that come before it. The arrangements for scrutiny in this Parliament will be even more extended and even more difficult. The Foreign Secretary has claimed that the Community's decision—making procedure will be streamlined, but the proposals in the Bill will have the opposite effect and the procedure will become far more cumbersome.
  We find it somewhat strange that unanimity will be required for the Council to amend a proposal that has been re-examined by the Commission after being sent back by the Parliament when unanimity is to be abandoned in areas that are of great concern to us.
  That brings me to the extension of qualified majority voting in areas which reflect the capitalist views that are so prevalent on the Conservative Benches. Qualified
  384
  majority voting will be required on issues relating to goods or action to maximise profits, for example, but not on workers' rights, on the interests generally of those in employment or on enlightened labour legislation, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley referred when talking about parental leave, for example.
  Mr. Cash: If the hon. Gentleman reads the list of requirements, he will find that there is a minimum requirement covering the health and safety of workers. If I may say so, he is not quite correct.
  Mr. Foulkes: I have read the requirements, and there are many of them. On balance, I believe that I am correct. The unanimity requirement still exists for issues which the Secretary of State for Employment and others in his team hold so dear. There is this worshipping of the internal market above everything else. Everything, it seems, however important it may be, is being sacrificed to getting some development in the internal market.
  Even here there are some contradictions between what is said on one side of the Channel and what is said on the other side. A sort of switch happens somehow in the air between the continent of Europe and the United Kingdom.
  For example, in the 1986 Commission programme we are told that a
  "large, frontier-free Europe can only succeed if it is accompanied by greater economic and social cohesion."
  Yet the Prime Minister, when she came back from Milan, said:
  "It is important that the internal market be completed, but I think it can be completed keeping the unanimity rule."
  So even in that area there is a contradiction.
  In the important area of technology co-operation we also see contradictions. On page 14 of the Single European Act we see that
  "The community's aim shall be to strengthen the scientific and technological basis of European industry."
  But we saw during the Westland saga and the debate over British Leyland that, although the importance of European co-operation was being underlined, it was being sacrificed and sabotaged by some Conservative right hon. and hon. Members because of their commitment to co-operation with the United States of America.
  The Commission urges the Community to be united on questions of high technology transfers, intellectual property rights and other things, so why, in the 1986 budget, was the budget allocation for research and innovation cut by 16 per cent.? Why are we not supporting increased funds for EUREKA and the ESPRIT programme? Why are we not supporting this kind of technological co-operation at the European level, the importance of which was described so eloquently by the former Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who resigned, we understand, on this issue? Why are the Government not supporting that instead of collaborating in the unwanted, unpopular and potentially very dangerous star wars programme with the United States? How can Europe strengthen its scientific and technological basis when its scientists and their work will flow across the Atlantic?
  Another important issue which is included in the Single European Act but not in this Bill is the question of foreign policy co-operation, political co-operation, within the European Community. It is on the issue of foreign policy co-operation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and other hon. Members have pointed out, that we see the double standards and the

  385
  duplicity of the Government in highest relief. The Single European Act, to which our Government are a signatory, calls on all Governments to
  "endeavour jointly to formulate and implement a European foreign policy."
  It says that Governments will undertake
  "to inform and consult each other on any foreign policy matters of general interest".
  It says also that Governments will
  "avoid any action … which impairs their effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations or within international organizations".
  Where were these expressions of intent, these agreements to which the Government were a signatory, in the decision to withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation? Where were they when the Prime Minister gave consent for British bases to be used for the American bombing of Libya?
  The Prime Minister herself said in a paper which she presented to the Fontainebleau summit, entitled "Europe: The Future"—because she was not anticipating then the demand that would be made on her by President Reagan—
  "By common action of the Community and the Ten, Europe must impress on the United States that unilateral American action … will put the success of Alliance consultation and co-ordination at risk."
  The Prime Minister said that. Where did we hear an expression of that when she agreed to the illegal bombing of Libya from United Kingdom bases? [Interruption.] As international lawyers who know about it have clearly said, it was illegal under international law. In the same document the Prime Minister said:
  "Member states must take more seriously their solemn commitments to take account of partners' views and work for common positions."
  How did the Government take account of partners' views and of common positions when they took the unilateral decision to co-operate with the United States of America in that illegal air strike? From UNESCO it is clear that we did not take the European position. Britain was a fig leaf for the Americans who did not want to be the only country withdrawing from UNESCO. It is clear that in the bombing of Libya the Government did not take the European position but were a political fig leaf for the United States. Let us hope that in a third and vital area of foreign policy, in relation to central America, about which President Reagan is currently putting forward a distorted and twisted view of the political reality, the Government will take the European view and not act as Reagan's poodle as they have done in other areas.
  Some hon. Members on the Government side describe the Opposition view and the view of some European countries as anti-American. [Interruption.] We hear it again in barracking from a sedentary position. That is a simplistic and distorted view and I suggest that it is also a mischievous view. We are against some aspects of the foreign policy of President Reagan and the present US Administration, but that does not mean that we are anti-American, against the people of the United States of America.
  It may come as a surprise to some hon. Members on the Government side when I say that I and my colleagues disagreed with some aspects of British foreign policy and British domestic policy, but that that does not mean that we are anti-British. The same logic applies to the United States. I endorse the argument of many of my hon. Friends that it is the Conservative party that is unpatriotic and not
  386
  the Opposition. We saw that in the saga of British Leyland and Westland and we see it in the way in which Conservative Members encourage the investment of British capital overseas.
  Mrs. Chalker: Nonsense.
  Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Lady will have an opportunity to refute my arguments more eloquently than by saying nonsense from a sedentary position.
  One of the other issues untouched by this Bill is the imbalance of the Community budget. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) spoke about that, the runaway expenditure on the common agricultural policy. As my hon. Friend said, the money is not going to the farmer; it is going to the owners of the cold stores and the grain silos. Those are the people who make money because a large amount is spent on storing and destroying the surpluses, and that is not always done in support of the farmer. The scandal we heard recently about butter and beef being exported to Libya at preferential prices caused great indignation.
  The budget crisis in the Community is much worse than the Government will admit. It is much worse than most hon. Members realise. The structure of the funds of that budget are in deep trouble. Some regional and social expenditure is already frozen. I hope that the hon. Lady will tell us the effect of the freezing of regional and social funds for projects in the Community. We are told by placards and other means when money from these funds is being spent in the United Kingdom. I hope that the hon. Lady will tell us the effect of freezing those funds. We see from today's newspapers that the farm Commissioner admits that agricultural expenditure will push the expenditure of the Community through the 1·4 per cent. VAT ceiling. As Conservative Members will know, Spanish and Portuguese farmers are no fools. That rise is before taking account of the fact that they will get advisers over to tell them how to make the most out of the intervention support that they can get from the CAP and about all the extra help that can be obtained by increasing production. Even the current predictions for budget overspend will, in reality, prove modest.
  But, of course, there will be the usual juggling, fiddling and holding over of expenditure in order to try to balance the budget. There will no doubt be requests for supplementary budgets, and requests following intergovernmental agreements. Despite our questions, we have never yet been told by any Minister what guarantee there is that there will be no further demands for additional spending during the current financial year. If a local authority in the United Kingdom asked for more money, it would be in difficulties. If, for example, that authority was Liverpool or Lambeth, it would be dragged through the courts. But that does not happen to the Community. It has an open-ended agreement to spend, and seems to have a blank cheque from the Government.
  Given the growing commitments, the demands on the regional and social funds, and the fact that agriculture expenditure is out of control, it is not surprising that one area of expenditure is being pushed further and further down the list of priorities. I refer to the United Kingdom rebate. The Minister shakes her head, but perhaps she will confirm later that not one penny of the 1985 refund has been paid. When will it be paid? Can she confirm whether

  387
  the much-vaunted automaticity will apply? My information is that, given the way that the Community budget is going, it will not apply. But I am prepared to be corrected by the Minister and to accept her assurances if she can give any.
  As the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West pointed out, in such debates the same performers often make similar speeches. There are sometimes different stories, anecdotes or nuances. But those speeches reflect the fact that during the past two years the Government have wasted their opportunities in the Community. At the end of those two years we are no nearer to solving the fundamental problem to which hon. Members constantly seek a solution. We are no nearer to controlling agriculture expenditure. Despite repeated assurances that there will be strict budgetary control, we keep hearing that that expenditure is out of control. We have seen no real action to tackle unemployment, let alone to reverse the growing tide of unemployment which Jacques Delors described at the beginning of his period of office.
  We ask the House to oppose the Bill. A year ago the Government themselves said that such a Bill was unnecessary, irrelevant and would divert us from the real problems facing the country and the Community. I hope that the House will oppose the Bill tonight.
  9.33 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): As usual, and as might have been expected, we have had a lively and wide-ranging debate. The views of some hon. Members would be very depressing if we did not take account of economic facts, the common sense of industry and of speeches like those of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) and for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and of many of my other hon. Friends. How right my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham was when he said that we should seek to deepen and broaden co-operation where it is to our mutual advantage. That is exactly what we are aiming for, and exactly what the Bill will assist us to do.
  After all the efforts that we have made to achieve a stronger Europe, it is saddening to find how closed some minds still are to opportunities in the wider Common Market of Europe. I refer to the collaboration in research and technology and co-operation to get better use of regional development funds. We need to look forward to the needs of Europe in a changing world.
  Many misconceptions have been voiced by opponents of the Bill tonight, but we should be reminded of what the Bill is about. It gives effect, in United Kingdom law, to the changes in the treaties establishing the European Community. These were agreed by the Prime Minister and other European Community Heads of Government in Luxembourg in December 1985. These are the first such changes since the Community institutions were first formed in 1957, and, as many would say, it is high time that we moved the European Community into line with the great changes that have occurred in this country. The Bill not only gives effect—
  Mr. Budgen: Tell us what that means.
  Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend, who has been absent for a large part of this debate, is well aware of the technological and many other changes that have taken place in nearly 30 years. If he has not, I wonder what he is doing in the House now, because he must have been deaf to what was going on.
  The Single European Act, which will become a Community treaty, makes provision for a number of important areas. First, there is the limited extension of qualified majority voting to meet the important 1992 target for the completion of the internal market. I shall come back to this in a minute. Secondly, there is the updating of the treaty to take account of the policies on technology and environment to which a number of hon. Members and right hon. Members referred. Thirdly, there is the reference in the treaty to the European regional development fund and better co-ordination of the structural funds. Those are all matters which we believe to be important.
  Fourthly, there is a procedure for co-operation between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, where the linkages have not been good enough in the past and must be improved. Fifthly, there is the establishment of a court of first instance to relieve the overload on the European Court of Justice, where over 50 per cent. of its cases concern internal staff matters. Sixthly, there is co-operation on foreign policy. Those are all issues which, from time to time, hon. Members have said are necessary. They are being combined together in a useful piece of legislation.
  What the Single European Act will not do—and I think it is worth emphasising this—is that it will not lead to a federal union, which is so much feared by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins). The emphasis will be on political and practical co-operation. It will not enable the European Parliament to force its views on the Council, and it will not affect the Luxembourg compromise. It will not give the Commission a say in running foreign policy. All these fears have been expressed during the debate. What it will do is to enable members of the European Community to work more easily together for the mutual benefit of each of the 12 member nations in the years ahead.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) made some play, as did the hon. Member for Carrick, Curnnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), of the whole question of why the Bill was being introduced and asked why we had to amend the treaty, bearing in mind that my predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) and others, said both before and at the time of the Milan compromise that there would be no need to amend the treaty.
  Let me take hon. Members back to the situation at the time when my right hon. and learned Friend made his comment. We always believed that we should be able to make progress by political agreement, but at that time there were certain wide-ranging and ill-considered amendments. We did not believe that those would be to the advantage of the Community or this country. At that time we thought that they might not go away, but we were able to focus the discussion on the limited treaty changes in which we believed. We managed to focus the discussion on practical objectives. Those are the practical objectives with which the Bill deals—the completion of the

  389
  Common Market and improved efforts in research and development. Those are both in themselves very important for the creation of employment.
  I am sorry to find that yet again certain Opposition Members have turned opportunity into failure. What we did at Milan and through the inter-governmental conference following Milan was to turn what had started as unfavourable to our advantage. That is a worthwhile result. If the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley had any experience of this, which he has not so far had, he would know that it is worth while to change from an unfavourable position, with which we would not have joined, to one which will benefit this country.
  Mr. George Robertson: We are all intrigued to hear the explanation of how humiliation was turned into triumph. May I remind the Minister of one more sentence of her predecessor, who is now Secretary of State for Scotland? In the debate last June he said:
  "Those who wish to see an intergovernmental conference of the kind recommended by the majority in the Dooge committee, with a view to amending the treaty, are misguided about the best way of making progress in the Community."—[Official Report, 20 June 1985; Vol. 81, c. 473.]
  Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman knows exactly why that was. It was because some of the Spinelli proposals and other ideas that were put forward in that committee were not in line with the way in which the Community needed to develop. They have since been dropped.
  I must return to some questions that were posed by hon. Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) asked about a special Committee to consider the Bill. The Bill will be fully considered by a Committee of the whole House. That reflects the importance of the measure. I believe that that is the answer that most right hon. and hon. Members want to hear. Therefore, it would not be appropriate at this stage to establish a special Committee procedure.
  Several hon. Members were, not for the first time, excited because they believe that the Bill will remove the United Kingdom's power of veto, give greater powers to the European Parliament and reduce the role of other institutions. I am afraid that those opponents of the Bill are allowing themselves to be drawn into an unreal world.
  I shall deal first with the Luxembourg compromise. What was it? It was a political agreement that, where majority voting applies, a member state should be able to ask for a vote to be postponed where it considered its important interests to be at stake: to delay and postpone, possibly indefinitely. It was never enshrined in the treaty. What is enshrined in the treaty are the rules on unanimous or majority voting according to the different topics which the treaty covers. No doubt we shall come to that in Committee.
  We did not lightly agree to move from the veto inherent in unanimity to the lack of an absolute treaty-based veto inherent in qualified majority voting. That was why the treaty changes are limited to those areas where majority voting will serve our long-standing objective—the completion of the internal market. That is why we have retained essential safeguards for small and medium-sized businesses and in health matters. In these circumstances, the Luxembourg compromise is an additional, but not our principal, safeguard. It is not affected by the Bill.
  We successfully and explicitly invoked the compromise on the fisheries question under the last Labour
  390
  Government in July 1978. Others have done so more recently. Therefore, the compromise is not dead. It is still there, and will remain there. More usually, it is used implicitly. Discussion continues until a compromise is reached that is acceptable to all delegations. The Luxembourg compromise is a weapon of last resort, but we need it in the last resort, and I sincerely hope that none of this will come to the House at some time in the future.
  Mr. Leighton: To give an example of when the Luxembourg compromise worked the Minister has had to go back to 1978, which is a long time ago. She knows that the Germans stopped us using the veto on agricultural prices. Who decides when the Luxembourg compromise can be used?
  Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman poses a question dating back to 1982. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said at the beginning of the debate, the reason why our attempted use of the Luxembourg compromise did not succeed in 1982 was that the grounds were not relevant to the case that we were putting. However, since 1978 the Luxembourg compromise has been successfully used by the Danes on fish, the Irish on milk, and Italy on steel. If we need to use it in future, we will do so.
  I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that when a member state's important interest is at stake it is right that discussion should continue until agreement is reached. We propose that this should be done through special procedures to ensure that the Luxembourg compromise is used only when it is really necessary and that, in general, discussion should continue to reach a reasonable answer.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhatnpton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said by way of intervention that an enhanced role for the European Parliament would mean a reduced role for other institutions. That is a dangerous fallacy. That is not the position; life is not a zero sum game. By enabling the European Parliament to play a more effective and constructive role in European affairs we can increase the potential of the institutions. The point of decision remains with the Council, but in future it will be able to take decisions with more knowledge of the views of the Parliament and more time to take account of them. That should improve the role for the European Parliament that we agreed, on our accession to the Community, should be part of the future development of this country.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—
  Mrs. Chalker: I am coming to my hon. Friend now. He said that the Bill should be opposed because we should be using existing powers to solve existing problems. I see the point he seeks to make. Of course, we must ensure that the Community tackles the existing problems, such as the problems of agricultural surpluses, which must be reduced. We have been seeking to do that, but that is no reason why we should refrain from making changes aimed at solving other problems of equal importance, such as the continuing lack of a real internal market. There is no reason to pass up opportunities for the future just because we have to attend to problems that already exist.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Can the Minister answer the simple question we have been asking through the whole debate: what has changed since July last year? The Minister has said that we need majority voting to complete

  391
  the internal market. Does she recall that the Prime Minister said, to the acclaim of hon. Members on both sides of the House, when asked about completing the internal market:
  "It is important that the internal market be completed, but I think it can be completed keeping the unanimity rule."—[Official Report, 2 July 1985; Vol. 82, c. 189.]
  Most of us would wish to keep the unanimity rule on directives which could be quite vital to many of our industries. That was the Government policy in July, which was supported. What has changed?
  Mrs. Chalker: When the intergovernmental conference sat down to discuss all the matters involved, it was not just other Ministers but the Prime Minister as well who accepted at the Luxembourg meeting that there was a better way of achieving a speedier and more thorough completion of the internal market. Thus we are not immovable; we are prepared to do what is right for the future of the Community and not to be blinkered, as my hon. Friend would have us blinkered.
  I will write to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) on his question about voting procedures, as time is short. Above all, we have sought only to work with majority voting where it could be in our interest. We have selected areas on that basis. Some have implied that there is majority voting against United Kingdom interests. There is no question of that. There is no reason why we should continue to insist on a consensus where no member state has an important interest at stake. We cannot criticise the Community for its inability to take decisions, while, on the other hand, we refuse to allow practical improvements that could well assist us in achieving what we stand for.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked specifically about the European cancer initiative. That is an area in which we wish to see effective action. A group of distinguished experts, on which the United Kingdom is represented, is meeting to consider the details. I will write to the hon. Gentleman about the matter.
  Hon. Members have commented on a wide variety of issues, including cabotage and sugar. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development is en route to the EEC-ACP conference in Barbados, where we hope to secure a real answer to the problems that we discussed over a month ago. There has certainly been movement in that area.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton made a number of comments about political co-operation. He said that there had been nothing more than statements. We have certainly had a great deal more than statements. There are plenty of examples. Some of them may never hit the press because they are successful and quiet. They occur because of positive action taken between Foreign Ministers meeting, not only in formal sessions on European co-operation, but in the margins of those meetings. It was with some difficulty that, in January, we eventually found a solution and made some moves on terrorism. They were not what we all wanted. We knew that we would have to do more. We therefore set up a working group to consider further ways of coming together to prevent terrorism.
  We have worked together on the issue of South Africa. I recall the complete ban on Argentine exports to the EEC that was imposed within days of the invasion. We have also co-operated in less visible ways on practical matters such as consular help and evacuation plans. In the case of
  392
  the evacuation of Aden, the EEC members played their part. There was also the case of the evacuees, leaving via Zaire, who had been captured by UNITA. Such consultations are all part of the business of political co-operation. People are wrong to reject statements by the Twelve as unimportant. When the Twelve speak together with one clear voice they can do far more than they can do individually. That was certainly the case in the meeting that I attended with my right hon. and learned Friend last Monday, when we made an important step forward that has not been mentioned today. The 12 countries agreed not only that they would expel unwanted people from their own countries but they would co-operate so as not to allow those people into any other part of the Community. That was the first time that such a degree of political co-operation had been attained.
  Mr. Foulkes: Why is the hon. Lady looking at me?
  Mrs. Chalker: If the cap fits, wear it.
  I believe that it was the hon. Member for Walthamstow who said that political co-operation did nothing for the North-South question. He said that we should use the Commonwealth instead. In reality, our partners in Europe are well aware of the importance of the Commonwealth. Many of them wish that they too had the connections that we have maintained through the Commonwealth. They are also well aware that they have a role in assisting the developing countries—not only the Commonwealth ones—and that role is much discussed in a number of different ways.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked how the European political co-operation secretariat could be made accountable. The secretariat is there only to help the presidency. It works under the authority of the presidency on tasks which are delegated at the presidency's discretion. It does not carry on in its own sweet way, which is what the hon. Gentleman implied by his remarks. It is there to take on the administrative burden of political co-operation which is currently shouldered entirely by the presidency. There will be only six officials on secondment from their national Administrations. They will have a small support staff, and each presidency will retain full responsibility and control for all that goes on politically. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
  From the many comments that have been made it is clear that not all hon. Members realise how important a Community policy against inflation and unemployment is. Tackling unemployment is a major priority of the Community. All the member Governments of the Community, be they Left or Right, agree that that can be done through a consistent economic policy framework to improve supply and demand. In 1984 the Council agreed that sustained growth could be achieved only in the context of moderation in the evolution of real wages and a pause in the growth of current public expenditure.
  Mr. George Robertson: Spending on infrastructure?
  Mrs. Chalker: Yes, and spending on infrastructure. I shall come to that shortly if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.
  The Community also agreed that the key to the creation of jobs was to open up the internal market, not just for goods, but for services and professions. We have already heard how long it has taken to achieve success and agreement over the professions.

  393
  We shall also have the establishment of European standards for products and an improvement in the Community's performance in advanced technology. Those have all been long-standing goals of this country. I remind my hon. Friends that they are all also major aspects of the Single European Act. It is due to an initiative of this Government that the Community is now committed to lifting the burdens on business and enterprise by rigorously examining the regulatory burden of existing and new Community legislation. The Community has a very important role to play there and in promoting labour market flexibility. That is a key issue in the creation of employment opportunities.
  It was President Kennedy who said that the rising tide lifts all ships. That is true. If we sustain a soundly based growth this will be the key to the very thing that hon. Members are asking about in tackling the problems of unemployment.
  Growth in the United Kingdom was higher between 1983 and 1985 than in any other member state, despite the miners' strike. We shall continue, as we have done in the past year and longer, to create more jobs in this country. We need those greater markets and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) said, we need to use the mechanism effectively.
  Opposition Members do not seem to realise the factual position. There is no proposal to freeze the social or regional funds. In fact, the 1986 budget shows an increase of 20 per cent. for the regional and social funds. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley obviously wants me to deal with budgetary matters. In the time available I must say that whereas there has been disagreement about how we proceed, we are determined to contain the spending of the agricultural budget. The European Parliament has also given its name to that in the past week.
  I was asked about the scrutiny procedures. We hope to take up the idea for further information to be contained in explanatory memoranda—we are willing to accept that recommendation. We are also willing to accept the second idea, that Departments should be on the alert to pick up anything that occurs after a submission of an original explanatory memorandum. I will write to the hon. Member for Stafford about the third recommendation. It is not as easy to address.
  We are in our 14th year of membership, the 29th year of the Community. We have to look forward far more actively and take up opportunities. We need to build for the future. We need better research and development, better technology and better industry. Vision and practicality are needed to get the best opportunities for Britain and Europe. To achieve that, we need to update the treaties in unison with 11 other member countries. The Bill helps us to do that, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 160.

  Division No. 154]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Arnold, Tom

  Alexander, Richard

  Ashby, David

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Alton, David

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Amess, David

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Ancram, Michael

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  394

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

  Franks, Cecil

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Baldry, Tony

  Freeman, Roger

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Gale, Roger

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Beith, A. J.

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Benyon, William

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Best, Keith

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gorst, John

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Gow, Ian

  Blackburn, John

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Greenway, Harry

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gregory, Conal

  Bottomley, Peter

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

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

  Grist, Ian

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Ground, Patrick

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Grylls, Michael

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bright, Graham

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Brinton, Tim

  Hannam, John

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Harris, David

  Browne, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Hayes, J.

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Hayward, Robert

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Meddle, John

  Burt, Alistair

  Henderson, Barry

  Butcher, John

  Hickmet, Richard

  Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

  Hicks, Robert

  Butterfill, John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

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

  Holt, Richard

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Cash, William

  Howard, Michael

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

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

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Chope, Christopher

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Howells, Geraint

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

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hunter, Andrew

  Colvin, Michael

  Irving, Charles

  Coombs, Simon

  Jackson, Robert

  Cope, John

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Corrie, John

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Couchman, James

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Crouch, David

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Key, Robert

  Dunn, Robert

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Durant, Tony

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Evennett, David

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Knowles, Michael

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Knox, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Lamont, Norman

  Farr, Sir John

  Lang, Ian

  Favell, Anthony

  Latham, Michael

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Forman, Nigel

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lilley, Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Livsey, Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Fox, Marcus

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  395

  Lord, Michael

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  McCrindle, Robert

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Rost, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Rowe, Andrew

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

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Ryder, Richard

  Madel, David

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Major, John

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Malins, Humfrey

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Malone, Gerald

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Maples, John

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Mates, Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Shersby, Michael

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Silvester, Fred

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Sims, Roger

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Mellor, David

  Speed, Keith

  Merchant, Piers

  Spencer, Derek

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Squire, Robin

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Steen, Anthony

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mudd, David

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Neale, Gerrard

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Needham, Richard

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Neubert, Michael

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Newton, Tony

  Thurnham, Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Normanton, Tom

  Tracey, Richard

  Norris, Steven

  Trippier, David

  Onslow, Cranley

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Osborn, Sir John

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Ottaway, Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Waddington, David

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Wainwright, R.

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

  Walden, George

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Waller, Gary

  Pawsey, James

  Walters, Dennis

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Warren, Kenneth

  Pollock, Alexander

  Watson, John

  Porter, Barry

  Watts, John

  Portillo, Michael

  Wheeler, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Whitfield, John

  Powley, John

  Whitney, Raymond

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Wolfson, Mark

  Price, Sir David

  Wood, Timothy

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Woodcock, Michael

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Yeo, Tim

  Raffan, Keith

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Renton, Tim

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Mr. Carol Mather and

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Mr. Robert Boscawen.

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  396

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  John, Brynmor

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Barnett, Guy

  Leighton, Ronald

  Barron, Kevin

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Litherland, Robert

  Bell, Stuart

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

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

  Loyden, Edward

  Bermingham, Gerald

  McCartney, Hugh

  Bidwell, Sydney

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Blair, Anthony

  McKelvey, William

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Boyes, Roland

  McNamara, Kevin

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  McTaggart, Robert

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  McWilliam, John

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Madden, Max

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Marek, Dr John

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

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Budgen, Nick

  Martin, Michael

  Caborn, Richard

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Maxton, John

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Meacher, Michael

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Michie, William

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Clarke, Thomas

  Moate, Roger

  Clay, Robert

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Nellist, David

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Conlan, Bernard

  O'Brien, William

  Conway, Derek

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Park, George

  Corbett, Robin

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Pendry, Tom

  Craigen, J. M.

  Pike, Peter

  Crowther, Stan

  Powell, Rt Hon J. E.

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Radice, Giles

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Randall, Stuart

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

  Raynsford, Nick

  Deakins, Eric

  Redmond, Martin

  Dixon, Donald

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Dobson, Frank

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Dormand, Jack

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Douglas, Dick

  Robertson, George

  Dubs, Alfred

  Rowlands, Ted

  du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Ryman, John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Sheerman, Barry

  Eastham, Ken

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Faulds, Andrew

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Fisher, Mark

  Skinner, Dennis

  Flannery, Martin

  Soley, Clive

  Forrester, John

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Foster, Derek

  Stott, Roger

  Foulkes, George

  Straw, Jack

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  George, Bruce

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Gould, Bryan

  Tinn, James

  Gourlay, Harry

  Torney, Tom

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Wareing, Robert

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  White, James

  Haynes, Frank

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Winnick, David

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Home Robertson, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Mr. Chris Smith and

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Mr. Allen McKay

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Maude.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  British Pensioners (Canada)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maude.]
  10.14 pm
  Sir John Farr (Harborough): I want to raise the plight of British old-age pensioners who are living in Canada. At the moment there are about 41,000—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait just for a moment. He will not lose time. Sir John Farr.
  Sir John Farr: I wish to raise the plight of British old-age pensioners who are living in Canada. At the moment there are about 41,000 British old-age pensioners in Canada. The fact that they are there does not mean in any sense that they have turned their backs on Britain. Many of them are proud to retain their links with Britain. They went to Canada for family reasons, possibly because their last living relatives are there and they decided to join them.
  Most of these people paid full national insurance contributions during their working lives in Britain. However, the moment they left our shores, the pensions for which they worked all their lives were frozen. Many of them spent a full working life in Britain and did not leave this country until late in life.
  I submit that this is manifestly unfair and unjust and that no civilised country should tolerate it. I am glad to say that this Government and previous Governments have worked out with no fewer than 27 other countries throughout the world a social security agreement or convention, whereby British pensioners living in those countries are entitled to receive regular uprating increases in their pensions. But that list does not include Canada.
  Why is this? Why has Canada been excluded from a reciprocal agreement with many other countries in the world? As I have already said, there are about 41,000 British pensioners in Canada. Due to the absence of a social security agreement, no fewer than 20,000 of them receive a pension of less than £10 a week. In Canadian terms, that is about $15. I know from correspondence with the pensioners or their representatives that the hardship involved is very real. One may say that for one reason or another they chose to live in Canada and that the Canadian Government should assist them in their time of need. However, the Canadian Government will not provide financial help for people unless they qualify for financial aid by having been resident in Canada for at least 10 years.
  Both Westminster and Whitehall are not unaware of the paradox that faces British pensioners in Canada. As long ago as the 1970s our Government expressed interest in a social security agreement with Canada. In 1983, United Kingdom officials said that the Government might be prepared to allocate the necessary funds. Indeed, later that year the need for an urgent agreement was discussed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Mr. Trudeau at a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers.
  However, in November 1983 the Canadian Government were informed that the British Government could not proceed with the social security agreement, and there the situation remains. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary told me only last Friday in reply to questions that I tabled on this, officials from his Department and the Canadian Department of Health and Welfare have work in hand on the agreement but the finance "is not available".

  399
  What finance is needed? In another reply last Friday my hon. Friend was kind enough to say that annually to uprate would cost about £4·8 million in the first year. I can possibly add a little more information because of my understanding of the discussions that have been taking place. As I understand it—I am speaking with fairly good authority—the tentative agreement that was reached between Canadian and British officials but not implemented at the end of 1983 would have cost the British Government £4 million in uprating pensions for the first year and the Canadian Government $21·5 million.
  I was a little disappointed that in his reply to me last Friday my hon. Friend mentioned a figure of £35 million as a possible cost to the United Kingdom Government. I was disappointed because, for a start, I did not ask him what the cost would be of bringing up the level of the pensions of all pensioners in Canada to that of pensions in Britain today. My question was what would be the cost of annual uprating, which is about £4 million or £4·8 million per annum. The cost of £35 million which my hon. Friend included in his reply is the cost of a full uprating. All I am asking for at this time is, as happens in every other country with which the British Government have a social security agreement, not the full uprating but simply the payment of increases as and when they become due in Britain.
  Another point which my hon. Friend mentioned in his reply to one of my questions last Friday was that the cost of uprating in the first year would be £4·8 million, "rising progressively". But I question whether that figure is likely to rise markedly at all, simply because, if my hon. Friend looks at the available statistics for 1966 and 1967, which were important years for British emigration to Canada, no fewer than 74,000 Britons went to live in Canada. Such has been the change since then that in the past two years for which figures are available, 1983 and 1984, the figure of 74,000 has been reduced to only 7,000.
  There has been a change in the pattern of emigration from Britain to Canada. I accept that if one did not take into account the fact that by natural attrition many of the existing British pensioners in Canada will have died, perhaps by the year 2000 the cost could be £35 million a year. But the statistics that I have relating to subsequent emigration from Britain show that the cost is unlikely ever to be one of which the British Government should not be able to shoulder with ease and great pleasure.
  Finally, I would like to stress that there is no other country in the world in which Britons live in some numbers, apart from South Africa, where we do not have a social security agreement. In every country where, for one reason or another there are sizeable pockets of British people living—except South Africa for obvious reasons—there is a social security agreement that entitles those Britons to have the right to pension upratings.
  I hope that we can provide for British pensioners in Canada in the same way as we have provided for them in EEC countries and in Australia, the United States of America and all other civilised countries where such pensioners live in some numbers. We should do for those pensioners in Canada what we do for others elsewhere.
  I am very proud to be associated with some of the achievements of the Government. I only hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to assure me that we can
  400
  show a little generousity and so recognise what is an obvious case of manifest unfairness in relation to British pensioners in Canada.
  10.27 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Major): My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) presented his case, as ever, with force and clarity, and I will endeavour to reply to the important points that he made.
  I would first like to congratulate my hon. Friend on his constancy and his commitment upon this issue which he has pursued, as the House will know, for many years. If I may say so, I think that British pensioners in Canada are fortunate to have my hon. Friend as their advocate in this House.
  The present position for expatriate United Kingdom pensioners in Canada, as my hon. Friend is well aware, is that their pensions are paid at the rate in force when the pensioner left this country or, alternatively, when he first qualified for a pension if he was in Canada at the time he reached the appropriate age. At present, pensions are not subsequently uprated; that is the substantive cause of my hon. Friend's concern.
  The background to that position is fairly clear. Until July 1955, British pensions were payable outside this country only within the Commonwealth or for short periods of absence. In July 1955 the National Insurance (Residence and Persons Abroad) Amendment Regulations 1955 came into force. Those regulations made provision, for the first time, for United Kingdom pensions to be paid anywhere in the world. There was no provision for the pensions which were to be paid abroad to be uprated.
  The reason for that decision was that it was considered at the time that the social security system was primarily designed for people living in the United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend will know, the national insurance fund, then as now, is run on a "pay-as-you-go" basis rather than on a strict funding basis. That means that each year we estimate expenditure and set the rate of national insurance contributions so as to produce an income which will roughly match expenditure. The estimates of expenditure allow for the fact that pensions paid overseas are in general not uprated and would clearly have to be amended were that circumstance changed.
  The purpose of the review and uprating of pensions was to ensure that they retained their value in relation to the cost of living in the United Kingdom. Also, as the cost of increasing benefits falls mainly on contributors and employers in the United Kingdom, it was at that time considered unreasonable to ask them to bear the cost of increases paid to people who have voluntarily left the country, in the absence of a social security convention. My hon. Friend mentioned the convention and I will return to that point later. Successive Governments have endorsed that general policy.
  At this point I should explain, for it is entirely relevant, that the United Kingdom has agreements on social security with a number of other countries and these are properly called bilateral conventions on social security. At present there are 31 such agreements. They vary quite widely in scope but broadly their main aims are to ensure that a person working abroad does not have to pay contributions for two social security schemes at the same time and that the benefits that should accrue from any contributions paid are not lost.

  401
  Some agreements allow for pensions to be uprated but about 60 per cent. of United Kingdom pensioners living abroad do not receive pension increases on an annual uprating basis. There already exists an agreement on social security between the United Kingdom and Canada which has been in force since 1959, but that is limited in scope and does not cover pension uprating. Unfortunately, in 1972, when the United Kingdom Government proposed a comprehensive agreement with Canada which would have included pension upratings, the Canadian authorities were unable to enter into negotiations. Since 1972, a situation has developed where financial constraints have prevented the United Kingdom from concluding an appropriate agreement.
  In Canada, the number of people receiving United Kingdom pensions at the end of 1985 was over 56,000, rather more than my hon. Friend mentioned. The number has matured and grown a little in recent years. To bring their pensions up to the level of pensions paid in the United Kingdom would cost about £35 million a year. I shall return to that sum in a moment because my hon. Friend referred to it specifically.
  To pay the future cost-of-living increases alone, ignoring past increases, would cost £4·8 million in the first year, and that cost would rise progressively. I return to the sum of £35 million, for our calculations are that the figure would rise progressively to precisely that sum of £35 million over a period of years. My hon. Friend queried whether that cost was accurate, and in the light of what he has said and his long knowledge of these matters, I shall ask to have it re-examined and re-checked to determine whether it is.
  My hon. Friend will be aware—he could scarcely fail to be so—that Government spending is subject to strict constraints and that the cost of entering into a comprehensive social security convention with Canada would need to be assessed alongside the Government's priorities for improvements to our domestic social security system. The resources are not available currently to make all the desirable improvements in social security that the House would wish.
  Among the points raised by the British Pensioners Association of Canada—a formidable body—is the suggestion that, because pensioners living in Canada do not use the National Health Service or the United Kingdom social services, it should be possible to offset any savings against the cost of uprating their United Kingdom pensions. I fear that it is not possible to trade that off quite so simply, even if it were possible to quantify the savings. The NHS and social services are part of the social structure that is available to residents here and they are financed on that basis. To draw an analogy, we do not give a cash benefit to those who opt for making private arrangements; nor could we do so for those who decide to live overseas.
  What is the position of a British resident in Canada in relation to the Canadian social security system? Persons emigrating from the United Kingdom to Canada can receive a Canadian residence-based pension when they have completed a minimum of 10 years' residence in that country, while 40 years' residence is needed for a full Canadian pension. Those who satisfy the 10-year residence requirement may also be eligible for the means-tested guaranteed income supplement.
  I am aware of the concern of the British Pensioners Association of Canada about the effect that the exchange rate can have on United Kingdom pensioners living in
  402
  Canada. The law allows for the payment of United Kingdom pensioners in sterling rates only, as it would not be fair, or practicable either, probably, to adjust the amounts of pension to take account of the innumerable fluctuations which occur in the exchange rates between sterling and other currencies. That has clearly been a circumstance over recent years and that problem will be well understood.
  Pensions will continue to be paid in sterling, but am pleased to mention to my hon. Friend that we have managed to arrange improvements in the way in which pensions and other social security benefits are paid to beneficiaries living overseas. My Department has awarded a contract to the Bank of Scotland to make these payments by credit transfer. The new system of payment, when it comes into operation—I hope that it will be later this year—will be much quicker and more efficient, in our judgment, than the present method. What is more, in addition to receiving their payments earlier, pensioners will get better exchange rates and a reduction in bank charges. The new arrangements will be available to pensioners in Canada and I hope that that will be thought to be a small but worthwhile initiative.
  My hon. Friend touched particularly upon the fact that officials of the DHSS and their Canadian counterparts have been working on the preparatory technical matters for a comprehensive social security convention between the two countries. I should like to assure my hon. Friend that that work is proceeding. In the light of all that I have said, that is clearly the way forward on the problem that concerns my hon. Friend.
  Unfortunately, I must reassert that, until the necessary finance is available, it will not be possible to make any substantial progress on this matter. However, we judge that it is possible to continue discussions so that we can proceed as quickly as possible once we are in a position to make the money available. Although my hon. Friend will, I know, appreciate that this evening I can give no positive undertaking to provide for the uprating of United Kingdom pensions payable in Canada in the near future, I assure him that we propose to continue work on these preparatory matters and shall certainly keep the matter firmly in front of us. I know that my hon. Friend would ensure that we did so were there to be any backsliding.
  I will study with care my hon. Friend's remarks this evening and will draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this important matter once again before the House.
  Mr. Hugh Brown: The Minister has not made a very convincing case. Can he tell me how many of the pensioners in Canada are in receipt of means-tested benefits? Why is Canada the only country with which it seems to be difficult to negotiate an agreement?
  Mr. Major: I do not know precisely how many pensioners in Canada receive what the hon. Gentleman refers to as means-tested benefits. I can tell him that there are 56,000 pensioners in Canada. That was the figure that was mentioned some time ago.
  It is not a question of there being any unique difficulties in the negotiation of a convention with Canada. There are a number of countries with which we do not have conventions that permit the uprating of pensions. Speaking from memory, I believe that this also applies to Australia

  403
  and New Zealand, in that pensions are payable there but there is no annual uprating following the conclusion of a convention. The problem exists with a number of countries.
  Although we have what might be called comprehensive conventions with a large number of countries—I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough mentioned the precise number—the system is not universal. In a number of countries—moreover, countries with which we have a long, historic and close relationship—that benign circumstance does not apply.
  404
  We take no pleasure from the fact that this problem exists. That is why we are keen to continue the technical preparatory discussions that are going on at the moment, so that, when we have the financial resources, we shall be able to proceed with the minimum of delay. But I fear that, unpalatable though the position clearly is to my hon. Friend, the financial constraints are genuine and have to be borne in mind. I am not in a position to go further this evening.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRANSPORT
  Singapore Airlines
  Singapore Airlines
  Tolls (Abolition)
  Tolls (Abolition)
  Motorways (Repairs)
  Motorways (Repairs)
  M1 (Lane Closures)
  M1 (Lane Closures)
  North Devon Link Road (Inquiry)
  North Devon Link Road (Inquiry)
  MARPOL Convention
  MARPOL Convention
  Hazardous Materials (Transportation)
  Hazardous Materials (Transportation)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Local Elections
  Local Elections
  Prison Officers
  Prison Officers
  Brixton Prison (Strip Searches)
  Brixton Prison (Strip Searches)
  Foreign Visa Holders (Passports)
  Foreign Visa Holders (Passports)
  Criminal Injuries
  Criminal Injuries
  Inner City Policing
  Inner City Policing
  Adult Education
  Adult Education
  Libyan Nationals
  Libyan Nationals
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Mature Students
  Mature Students
  Youth Service
  Youth Service
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Exports (US Controls)
  Exports (US Controls)
  Staffordshire
  Staffordshire
  Member's Correspondence
  Member's Correspondence
PRIME MINISTER
  Libya (United States Raid)
  Libya (United States Raid)
EMPLOYMENT
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Offices
  Departmental Offices
  Young Workers' Scheme
  Young Workers' Scheme
  EC Economic and Social Committee
  EC Economic and Social Committee
  Self-employed Persons (Incomes)
  Self-employed Persons (Incomes)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Famine Relief
  Famine Relief
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Surgical Dressings
  Surgical Dressings
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Social Security Payments
  Social Security Payments
WALES
  NHS (Consultants)
  NHS (Consultants)
  ADAS (Welsh Language)
  ADAS (Welsh Language)
  Outgoers Scheme
  Outgoers Scheme
  Dairy Industry
  Dairy Industry
  Private Sewers
  Private Sewers
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Closures
  Hospital Closures
  NHS Beds
  NHS Beds
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Budgetary Procedure
  Budgetary Procedure
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Twinning
  Twinning
  Cyprus (Stolen Car Sales)
  Cyprus (Stolen Car Sales)
  Overseas Court Cases (British Witnesses)
  Overseas Court Cases (British Witnesses)
  EC (Third World Food Aid)
  EC (Third World Food Aid)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Foreign Visitors (Social Benefits)
  Foreign Visitors (Social Benefits)
  Alcoholism
  Alcoholism
  Conductive Education
  Conductive Education
  McColl Committee
  McColl Committee
  Nurses
  Nurses
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Council of Agriculture Ministers
  Council of Agriculture Ministers
  Food Sales
  Food Sales
  Export Refunds
  Export Refunds
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Rates
  Rates
  District Auditors
  District Auditors
  Multiple Occupation
  Multiple Occupation
  Rented Accommodation
  Rented Accommodation
  Listed Buildings (Demolition)
  Listed Buildings (Demolition)
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Local Government
  Local Government
  Football Crowds
  Football Crowds
  Car Rallies (Spectator Safety)
  Car Rallies (Spectator Safety)
  Marine Nature Reserve
  Marine Nature Reserve
  Voluntary Organisations (Funding)
  Voluntary Organisations (Funding)
  Local Government Services (Privatisation)
  Local Government Services (Privatisation)
  Tobacco Companies (Sports Sponsorship)
  Tobacco Companies (Sports Sponsorship)
  Regional Government
  Regional Government
  Water Authorities (Privatisation)
  Water Authorities (Privatisation)
  Single-tier Local Government
  Single-tier Local Government
  Reema PRC Homes
  Reema PRC Homes
  Housing Defects
  Housing Defects
  Local Authority Capital Receipts
  Local Authority Capital Receipts
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  National Parks (Planning Restrictions)
  National Parks (Planning Restrictions)
  Superstore Developments
  Superstore Developments
  Central Council for Physical Recreation and Sports Council
  Central Council for Physical Recreation and Sports Council
  Audit Commission
  Audit Commission
  Merseyside Residuary Body
  Merseyside Residuary Body
  SSSIs and Ancient Monuments
  SSSIs and Ancient Monuments
  Housing (London and South-East)
  Housing (London and South-East)
  Local Authority Capital Expenditure
  Local Authority Capital Expenditure
  Arts and Voluntary Sector (Merseyside)
  Arts and Voluntary Sector (Merseyside)
  Waste Disposal
  Waste Disposal
  Baguley Hall, Manchester
  Baguley Hall, Manchester
  Housing (Exchequer Payments)
  Housing (Exchequer Payments)
  Voluntary Bodies (London)
  Voluntary Bodies (London)
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Chair of State
  Chair of State
SCOTLAND
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Health Boards (Staff)
  Health Boards (Staff)
DEFENCE
  Exports (United States Controls)
  Exports (United States Controls)
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Small Arms Ammunition
  Small Arms Ammunition
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Taxation (Gains)
  Personal Taxation (Gains)
  Benefits (Taxation)
  Benefits (Taxation)
  Acceptances in Lieu of Tax
  Acceptances in Lieu of Tax
ENERGY
  Oil and Gas
  Oil and Gas
  Petrol and Dery
  Petrol and Dery

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

Home Improvement and Maintenance
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what, if any, action they propose to take regarding the recent NEDO report, which calls for a state fund to be started to encourage house owners to maintain their homes in better repair.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government welcome the NEDO report as a useful contribution to the continuing debate on home improvement. I note that the report does not recommend a state fund as such, but that:
"Government must fund expenditure required by houses owned by householders with inadequate financial resources".
This is of course a welcome confirmation of existing Government policy, which seeks to direct help to those who most need it.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply. He must be aware that now that owner-occupied houses have reached 62 per cent. of our total housing stock they are one of our greatest assets. There are reports indicating that varying sums of money are required to put houses into good repair. The sums vary from £2,500 to £7,000 per house. As most of those houses are occupied by people who are growing older and do not have the finances to put them in order, will the Government consider some form of assistance—perhaps loans at a cheaper rate of interest than in the market—to stop the deterioration gathering pace?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government have been considering that consistently since 1979. During that period a record sum of nearly £3 billion has been spent on home improvement grants. Spending last year was £450 million and was considerably higher than in the best year of the Labour Government—£130 million in 1974–75.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, if it is not too far from the Question, will the Government look again at the old Schedule A income tax? Apart from questions of fiscal equity, was it not a potent incentive to home improvements?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am afraid that I am too young to have the memory of the operation of Schedule A that the noble and learned Lord obviously has. I shall, however, consider his request, though I think that it is wide of this Question.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is there not a difference between home improvement grants and the maintenance grants to which the Question refers?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I would say that it is a grey area and that the one slides into the other. I think that both questions are relevant to the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, if we are to be asked to discuss the NEDO report, would it not be convenient to provide a glossary which would tell us what it means?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, NEDO means National Economic Development Council. I am not sure whether the report is in the Library, but if it is not, I shall make certain that a copy is placed there.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord speaks of those most in need. Will he tell the House what the Government estimate to be the number of those most in need? Have they not increased substantially since 1979? When he gives figures for Government expenditure is he giving them in gross or real terms? Is it not the case that that need has increased greatly over the past seven years? Should the Government therefore not be increasing their funding of improvement grants?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the figures that I gave were in cash terms. I have already made it clear that we are in fact increasing gross provision for improvement grants. I am afraid that I do not have the figures on those in greatest need, but we are to have a debate on that subject on Wednesday week and I shall be delighted to provide them then.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister see whether the Government would be prepared to advise local authorities to draw up a list of competent, skilled and reliable builders and repairers in the locality so that when elderly people need things done they can be sure that they will be done properly?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I shall certainly consider that point, but of course local councils provide a short list under the right-to-repair scheme.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, did I hear the noble Lord aright when in answer to me he said that he was giving the figures in cash terms? If so, is that not an attempt to mislead the House? Why does he not give us the figures in real terms?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, because my mathematics are not quick enough.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister will be gracious enough to allow a question which might be on the edge of the original Question? There is a serious problem affecting about 1 million people throughout the country. They have rented houses from private owners and in desperation to get homes have signed to accept full responsibility for maintaining that rented property, and then they find that they cannot afford to do so. Can that matter be taken on board for consideration?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I shall certainly look at that, but at the moment I have no evidence to suggest that it is a major problem.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, in his answer the noble Lord the Minister referred to improvement grants. I admit that over the years with Government aid—not just from this Government but also from previous Governments—local authorities have assisted in that way, but many people slip through the net because they are not in one of the areas involved. It is most difficult for such people to receive any help.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Question is essentially about private house owners, and it is not only centrally funded money which comes into that; it is equally a matter for the local authorities, financial institutions and, of course, the Federation of Housebuilders and Repairers.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, may I assure the Minister that in my first supplementary question I was not trying to place the blame on the present Government? This is a difficult problem which has been accelerating and growing over a number of years under successive governments. The point I am making is that according to figures produced in various reports the problem is accelerating quite quickly. So would it not be prudent for the Government—whether this one or the next—to do something soon to halt this decline?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we are about to have a modern version of the report on the state of the housing stock, the figures for which will be available in mid-1987. Based on that we will then make our policy absolutely clear.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, has the noble Lord studied the very detailed report of the Audit Commission on this subject? There is surely no need for any extra research in order to get at the extent of this problem.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, by definition the Audit Commission's report was concerned more with money than with the actual state of houses. What we need to know is the actual state of houses.
Baroness David: My Lords, is it not absolutely clear that the state of houses is very bad indeed? Also, I must say that I consider the Minister's replies today to show an extreme complacency.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the most recent report on housing was the AMA one on the state of London housing. I note with interest, though I have been able to glance at it only fairly cursorily so far—it was received at the department only last Monday—that while there has been little change in the level of disrepair since 1979, there has been considerable progress in reducing the number of properties that are either unfit or lack basic amenities.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, has the noble Lord noticed that I am old enough to remember Schedule A? Also, is he aware that the return of Schedule A would not fulfil his purpose, since it is by definition a
1152
tax and is therefore of use only to those who have money which is taxable? Is it not the policy of the Government to confine scarce resources to those who really most need them, and therefore is not something much more specific than that required in this case?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount. Of course, as I said in my original Answer, our policy is to direct help to those who most need it. Equally, by definition—that seems to be a favourite phrase of mine in answering these questions—they are very unlikely to be paying tax.

Falkland Islands: Fish Conservation
2.45 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of the reported views of the Falkland islanders, as expressed in a petition to the Baroness Young, on the continued depletion of fish stocks around the islands by foreign fishing vessels and the growing threat to bird life, they will now declare a 200-mile economic and fisheries zone around the Falkland Islands.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, as I made clear when I was in the Falklands last February, our policy is to work for a multilateral conservation and management regime under FAO auspices. We have been pursuing that goal actively both with the FAO and in contacts with all the nations involved. A technical study by the FAO, which is an essential preliminary to the imposition of a multilateral regime, is now under way.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Does she not think it somewhat odd and illogical that, having conducted a very spendid operation at a distance of 8,000 miles in order to liberate the Falkland Islands, and in order to meet the expressed wishes of the islanders that they should remain British, we should subsequently do nothing effective to protect the principal resource of the Falkland Islands—that is, the fish stocks—from the depredations of foreign fishermen, despite the strongly expressed wishes of the islanders that we should take effective steps to establish a 200-mile fishery zone?
Baroness Young: My Lords, our claim to sovereignty is not in doubt, but our first priority is to secure a fishing regime which is both workable and effective. I hope the noble Lord will appreciate that we are working actively with the FAO to establish a multilateral regime, and the first stage of that, which is to undertake a technical study, is now under way.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that penguins are now dying in their thousands around the Falklands area? The reason is that foreign fishing boats are over-fishing squid, which is the penguins' main diet. Is my noble

1153
friend also aware that I was pleased to hear her Answer to the noble Lord's Question, that the Government are taking the conservation of the fisheries around the Falklands seriously?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's last remark. I hope I can assure him that, although it seems that the number of dead penguins is greater than usual, there is as yet no definite knowledge about the total numbers involved or, indeed, the cause of the deaths, and there is no evidence to link the deaths of the birds with squid fishing in the Falklands.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Baroness telling the House that the talks on the proposed multilateral regime are now in suspension pending the FAO survey? Can she say when the FAO survey is likely to be published, to what extent Her Majesty's Government are tied to the recommendations of the survey, and whether the Argentine is tied to the survey as well?
Baroness Young: My Lords, what is happening at the present time is that under the FAO a technical survey is being conducted to establish the state of the fish stocks. I am glad to confirm to the noble Lord that the study is well under way, technical experts from the FAO have been visiting capitals of the fishing nations, and Argentina is participating in the study. Talks to implement any possible scheme will, of course, follow the publication of this study, but we have not yet reached that stage.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has said, will my noble friend not agree that there can be no long-term solution to the very vexed fisheries problem in this area unless Argentina agrees? Will she therefore not consider that this is a very worthwhile opportunity for the resumption of a more direct dialogue with Argentina on a subject on which we probably all agree?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I can confirm, and gladly do so to my noble friend, that co-operation with Argentina on a multilateral fishing scheme would be the best basis for a successful regime. I confirm that Argentina is currently taking part in that. I can also confirm that such a regime would be without prejudice to sovereignty on either side.

Housing Corporation Development Programme
2.51 p.m.
Lord Crawshaw of Aintree: 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 percentage of the Housing Corporation development programme for 1985–86 is represented by the programme for 1986–87 in areas other than those designated as inner city stress areas.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I hope that it will be helpful to the House if I answer this Question in terms of new projects. Outside the 80 designated housing stress areas where the Housing Corporation has been asked to concentrate its new approvals in 1986–87, the total scheme costs of new fair rent and home ownerships approvals in 1986–87 will be £88 million. This is just under 50 per cent. of the £180 million lotal scheme costs for new projects in these areas in 1985–86.
Lord Crawshaw of Aintree: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that those of us who have been trying to get extra funds for the inner cities feel a sense of shame when we realise that any success that we may have achieved has been gained at the expense of other areas of the country? As the Government have been profuse in their praise of the housing associations' work, is it not strange that many of these associations will now be in a position where it will be necessary to get rid of in-house management which has been built up laboriously over many years? Is this the most efficient way to run a housing programme?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, housing associations are only part of a housing programme, but I point out that the Government have provided for a programme by the Housing Corporation of £685 million in England in 1986–87. Together with the funding of housing associations by local authorities, which was about £250 million in 1985–86, that will enable the housing associations to make a substantial contribution towards meeting housing need. With regard to the noble Lord's general point, I think that this total provision for housing, both with the housing association movement and outside it, is a sensible way of running a housing programme.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, said, is my noble friend aware that the allocation for the west region of the National Federation of Housing Associations is 30 per cent. less this year compared with last year, and that the Isle of Wight, in which I have particular interest, is 33 per cent. less? I do not mean down by 30 per cent. but 30 per cent. of last year's total. Is that not too dramatic a decrease? I take my noble friend's point about the overall housing programme, but with what are to a large extent voluntary organisations, although some are more organised than others, is it not reasonable for them to have a much greater amount than they have been promised this year and something nearer to last year rather than the sum being down to under one-third?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that my noble friend's figures concentrate entirely on Housing Corporation grant in the areas that he mentioned. On one matter I agree with the Official Opposition: housing is about people, and where there are particular needs in an area, that is where we shall concentrate our resources.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in the county of Somerset, where the noble Lord the Minister and I both live, is not the position similar to that of the Isle of Wight

1155
although not quite as bad? Is he aware that in Somerset the housing associations are receiving in the current year only just over 50 per cent. of the money that they received last year? Are we not robbing the poor to pay the poor? Should not new money be put up front to deal with the inner-city areas rather than money being taken from other poorer areas of the country in order to relieve inner-city stress?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is awfully easy to think that the answer to all our problems lies in more and more and newer and newer money. But where on earth is it to come from?
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, is the distribution of money the decision of the Housing Corporation or is it directed by the Government?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it was a decision by the Housing Corporation on a request for reconsideration of its policy by the Government.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is no use trying to bamboozle the House about what money is spent on housing when expenditure on housing between 1979 and 1984–85 has gone down in real terms by 54.6 per cent.?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the figures that I have are, as usual, in cash terms. I note that in that period expenditure went down by 19 per cent. In the period of the last Labour Government, on exactly the same basis, expenditure went down by 45 per cent.

Rural Sub-Post Offices
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether in view of the concern expressed in many isolated rural areas, they will obtain assurances from the Post Office that no programme exists to close rural sub-post offices.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, I am assured by the Post Office that there is no programme to close rural sub-post offices.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I am delighted to have that reassurance from the Minister. May I urge him to ensure that that never happens, because the use of sub-post offices in rural areas is absolutely vital to the community? I hope that the Government will continue with that principle.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, it is not a principle with which the Government can continue, as it is a matter entirely for the Post Office to deal with in
1156
terms of operational requirement. But I am assured that there is no programme as such to close rural post offices.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the noble Lord says that there is no programme to close rural sub-post offices. Is it right that there is a policy to close them? Does he not realise that that causes great hardship in areas where public transport is virtually non-existent?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, there is no policy to close rural post offices. Rural post offices do close, usually when a sub-postmaster retires or resigns and the Post Office cannot find a suitable replacement to take on the office. Of the 1,100 rural post offices there have therefore been some closures and some openings. In the past six years the result is a net figure in closures.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the closure of rural post offices, especially in the remoter areas of the country, is a severe deprivation to those who live in the villages concerned and in the surrounding countryside? I refer, for example, to pensioners and other such groups. Is there not a policy? Do not noble Lords and Members of another place receive representations, as I have done from Lleyn in North Wales, from areas where it is proposed to close post offices? Is the fact that the postmaster has died a sufficient reason for declaring that post office closed? Would it not be a good thing for the Government to have a clear policy which makes it plain that rural post offices will be kept open where there is a strong case for it?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition raises a number of points. The House will know that the Post Office is under a statutory duty to provide its services economically and efficiently while having regard to the social needs of the United Kingdom. That, I am quite sure, the board of the Post Office has in mind. We, as well as the Post Office, are aware of the impact that the loss of a village sub-post office has on a rural community. Nevertheless, there are some 1,100 post offices in rural areas. With regard to the death or retirement of a postmaster, while the Post Office may very well wish to maintain the service in that area, it depends upon a suitable postmaster or postmistress coming forward to take up the vacancy.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that where it is not possible to find a new sub-postmaster for a sub-post office in a rural area, perhaps because the work does not justify a full-time job, it ought to be possible for a bigger central post office to send out for one or two days a week a member of its staff?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the Post Office has on a number of occasions reviewed the opportunities that there may be, first, for opening on a part-time or limited basis, and, secondly, for operating a mobile post office. Such matters are given consideration on appropriate occasions.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, in spite of the carefully worded replies that the Minister has given today and the assurances that were given in another place a few months ago, is he not aware that throughout the country there is widespread disquiet and uncertainty among sub-postmasters about their future? In view of the unique services that sub-postmasters give to their communities—and they are extremely valuable services—will the Minister say something to give rather more reassurance to sub-postmasters?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Not on this occasion, my Lords, as the matter is wide of the original Question on the Order Paper. In an earlier answer I may have said that there are 1,100 rural post offices in operation; I should have said 11,000.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in some areas there is a strong feeling that insufficient care has been taken to discover whether there is a social need or a strong local demand for the maintenance of a post office before it is closed? Will the Minister use his influence to make sure that steps of that kind are adequately publicised locally so that the local population may make its view well known to those in charge?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am not able, with my knowledge of the board of the Post Office, to agree with the noble Lord's suggestion. Nevertheless, I give an assurance that I shall draw his comments to the attention of the chairman of the board.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I make an appeal to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House before Question Time finishes? Will he use his influence to see that when Ministers come to answer Questions they are fully briefed? Is it not misleading the House to give comparative figures in cash terms when they ought to be given at least in cash and in real terms?
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, the noble Lord invites me to suggest that my Ministers are not fully briefed when they come to answer Questions. I totally repudiate that. The noble Lord would expect me to do just that. I shall discuss with Ministers the various points made, but equally I must point out to the noble Lord and others—and I hope that I am not being unreasonable in doing so—that the Procedure Committee has laid down that supplementary questions should be material to the original Question. If they are outside the original Question or are wide of it, it is inevitable that sometimes Ministers will have to say that it is a matter that they will answer if a direct Question is put down. I hope that the House will remember that.
The noble Lord frowns, and he is entitled to frown if he wants to. However, I am making a point, and I know that the House feels that we must try to stick to the Questions that are asked. Ministers will be briefed. They may not give answers that are satisfactory to noble Lords, but they certainly will be briefed. But they cannot be expected to answer questions that are totally wide of the original Question that has been put down.

Business
3.3 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon my noble friend Lady Young will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Foreign Affairs Council on 21st and 22nd April.

Harrogate Bogs Field etc. Bill [H.L.]
Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Violent Crime: Protection of Public
3.5 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull rose to call attention to the serious increase in violent crime and the need for measures to protect innocent persons; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Throughout many parts of the world there is an escalation of violent crime, bringing unhappiness to both victims and their families. Today, however, I shall confine my speech to the domestic scene in our country. It is hoped that by debating this Motion today we will on all sides of your Lordships' House, in some measure, influence the climate of opinion that acknowledges that crime, and particularly violent crime, is a way of life that is unacceptable in this country.
Furthermore, I hope that innocent persons who suffer as a result of violent crime will be encouraged to know that in your Lordships' House sympathy is shown for their plight. My noble friend the Minister will, I know, be dealing with measures to protect innocent persons.
It needs to be said—and it seems an extraordinary thing to have to say—that crime is wrong. There may be extenuating circumstances such as unemployment, poverty or poor housing; and it is acknowledged that we should work towards the eradication of those social problems. However, we diminish the dignity of our people if we excuse crime for whatever reason, except perhaps that of a mental state of illness. Excuse is one thing: forgiveness and compassion is quite another.
Crime, and particularly violent crime, contravenes the beliefs of the Christian religion and, indeed, of other religions. It is encouraging that two books have just been published on the subject. One of them, Breaking Out, is a Christian critique of criminal justice. The second, entitled Social Work—A Christian Perspective, was written by 13 social workers.
The principles underlying this speech are the qualities of responsibility, involvement and partnership. I propose to give a kaleidoscopic picture of practical suggestions that encompass the different

1159
aspects of this debate, which will be taken up in detail by other Members of your Lordships' House.
I will touch on the responsibility of the community overall. We congratulate Her Majesty's Government that, at a national level, a ministerial group has been set up consisting of Ministers and officials from 12 departments to deal with crime prevention. That group is based on the Home Office. I suggest that the remit of that group should be widened to form a joint framework for social policies, of which crime prevention should be one. That would provide for an effective mechanism for determining coherent and consistent policies in the whole field of social policy, including crime prevention. That view is based on a paper that was first brought out in July 1973, but never implemented.
Ministries tend to work in isolation. However, it is often the case that where there is a joint policy between ministries money spent in one department can save money on social matters in another department. At a local level, a corresponding structure ought to be set up in each district. I know that a statutory duty has been imposed on all police forces to set up proper consultative arrangements with local communities, but it is well known that there are some local authorities who have not implemented such schemes. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he does not agree that a more comprehensive method would lie at local level, with a council for order and justice allowing for the responsibility and involvement of the whole community. Serving on such a council would be, I suggest, representatives of the many excellent schemes already in existence throughout the country but which are unevenly developed; such schemes as the neighbourhood crime prevention projects and victim support schemes. I suggest also that on such a council there should serve representatives of the churches, voluntary agencies, the local authority—particularly the education department—the health authority, police, magistrates and, indeed, members of the public who are willing and who are chosen to serve. Moreover, the council would be non-political. The remit of such a council would be to monitor and promote schemes to prevent crime.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, will speak on one such innovative scheme and my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes will speak on preventive measures. These councils would link with the ministerial group. I believe that such local councils could work. Perhaps there could be some local experiments in the first instance. Such a council for order and justice could spread the responsibility for local consultation and action—and again I say that it would be non-political.
One cannot consider violent crime without considering drugs. The Drug Trafficking Offences Bill which is passing through your Lordships' House deals with those who are responsible for the trafficking of drugs. Should we not think of the drug takers, the glue sniffers and particularly young people? As a social worker I have dealt with drug addicts. They can become violent when wanting money to purchase drugs. Only a proportion of them seek help at the splendid centres where treatment is given. The most that one can hope for is that they will commit an
1160
offence of the type which will warrant a custodial sentence, thus distancing them from the supply of drugs.
Drug abuse among young people is increasing rapidly. Has the time not come for positive help to be given to young drug addicts and glue sniffers who will not voluntarily seek treatment? Would it not be possible for a court to issue a care and treatment order, whereby they are treated in accommodation which temporarily contains them, where they are treated with care and skill and released only when they no longer wish to have drugs?
Other noble Lords will be speaking on police recruitment and training. Her Majesty's Government have increased the manpower of the police by 14,000 since 1979. The present shortfall is 2,000. But with a £50 million grant from the Government—£28 million from the Home Office and £22 million from the Department of the Environment—the police authorities will have the resources to recruit the 2,000 personnel required, which will include trainees from the ethnic groups. The police belong to the people and it is surely the responsibility of every individual in this country to develop a sense of partnership with them and to seek to help them in their task as we look to them to help us.
I now turn to prisons. Successive governments have neglected expenditure on prisons. Since 1979–80 there has been an increase of 30 per cent. in the prison service. There has been an increase of 18 per cent. in prison staff. It is recognised that the prison population has risen by 10 per cent. Other noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lord Mersey, will be speaking on prisons. I therefore confine myself to three unusual questions.
May I ask my noble friend the Minister why more use is not made of volunteers? I know that unions are suspicious of volunteers, but they can enrich an establishment and, dare I say it, prove invaluable in, for example, the workshops, in the field of art and in games both inside and outside the prison. I am sure that the volunteer centre under the chairmanship of Lady Wagner would co-operate with the Prison Officers' Association. I am not suggesting that volunteers should in any way take on the role of prison officers, but they should be an adjunct to the service, thus enriching it.
Secondly, perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Minister whether the time has not come for a time and motion study to be done on the waste of prison officers' time in relation to the courts. Is he assured that the management of the courts is run as efficiently as is practicable? I am told that this is open to question in some areas, particularly where there are local prisons.
Thirdly, the rise in crime is a trend common to the rest of the Western world. Why do we in the United Kingdom hold more men and women and young people in custody than does any other country in the EC? Many of your Lordships will take up this point recommending, I am sure, greater use of community service orders, day care and help in the community, such as is given by the diversionary scheme in Northamptonshire and the minders scheme for young offenders in Leeds.
Non-custodial care is cost effective. The building of many new prisons is expensive, both in capital and revenue consequences. If it were ever decided to set up local councils for order and justice, I am sure that it would be part of their remit to help discharged prisoners or those who are not sent to prison but given a community service order.
It is perhaps inevitable that my final and perhaps most significant point should concern children and young persons, their families, their education and the personal responsibility of their neighbours. In a remarkable lecture to the local authorities and chiefs of police associations the late Dr. Kellmer Pringle spoke of the "roots of violence and vandalism" in children. She maintained that violence and vandalism were symptoms. I believe that in our children and young persons they are the consequence of a failure to meet the spiritual, emotional and physical needs basic to the mature development of a child or young person. By the time a young person is apprehended the damage is done. The answer to crime by young people must be sought at a much earlier age.
It may seem strange to your Lordships that I start with the young baby and children under five. It is during these formative years that a child learns to establish relationships. It has been said that the seeds of violence and vandalism are linked, not wholly but to some extent, to the most basic emotional needs and the extent to which they are met or remain unfulfilled. We face a dilemma in that more women are going out to work and there are more single-parent families. Many women do not have the energy to be aware of the emotional needs of their child; nor do they have the time to respond sensitively and in a way that is satisfying to the child.
Her Majesty's Government are to be congratulated on financing a unit to be set up in the National Children's Bureau to look into and advise on the needs of children under five and their families and to consider how, in modern times and under modern conditions, a scheme can be worked out which will give equal opportunities to women, men and children.
As I said earlier, this country had more children and young persons in custodial care than had any other country in the European community. It is good to know that the figure has dropped this year. Throughout the country in different ways efforts are being made to prevent children from appearing before the courts; and either before or after a court appearance the Government, local authorities and voluntary organisations are financing intermediate treatment projects to help young persons in the community. Both the party opposite and the present Government—as is well known to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—have supported these community projects which are run by local authorities and voluntary organisations. We recognise that for a proportion of children and young offenders there must be custodial care, but we maintain that it is a last resort.
Both research and experience indicate that family discord and separation are often crucial factors in vandalism and delinquency among children and young persons. For this reason I support the work of the conciliation service, which gives help to both
1162
parents and children at the time of a marriage breakdown. I also support family courts. It may be asked: what does supporting family courts have to do with crimes of violence? I would say in reply that "the child is father to the man".
Family law issues are now dealt with in the juvenile court, the magistrates' domestic court, the county court and the Family Division of the High Court. The result is that many cases are inappropriately brought up in a jurisdiction which may be inadequate to deal with the particular matter in dispute and require to be transferred between jurisdictions. The result of this is confusion for children and their families at what is bound to be a time of great emotional stress; it creates a difficult situation in their lives.
The variety of jurisdictions can be a procedural nightmare. For instance, in family proceedings there are no less than 20 ways in which a child can be made the subject of a care order under a local authority, with different considerations and a different legal effect in each, and it may be mere chance that determines the route along which a child is directed.
Society has had to come to terms with rapid increases in the divorce rate and in family breakdown. It may be unrealistic to suppose that a unified jurisdiction could alter these trends, but we believe that a more rational and easily understood system would make family disputes less traumatic and the effect of family breakdown less severe for the children. A new system such as we propose would be part of society's investment in the overall stability of family life.
We have heard of distressing cases of child abuse, battering and sexual abuse. Case histories show that in a proportion of cases those found guilty have themselves experienced emotional and physical deprivation and often cruelty in their childhood. I believe that family courts and a change in the juvenile justice system, such as to that which is practised in Scotland, would lead to greater parental involvement and responsibility and provide a more effective mechanism for help.
Turning to education—and this is not my subject; my noble friend Lady Cox regrets that she is unable to be present today—suffice it to say that research has shown that delinquency, vandalism, and indeed acts of violence are considerably lower in schools where the interest of the children has been captured by good teaching, where there is enjoyment in learning, where each child experiences a sense of personal achievement and where a sense of responsibility is developed.
Children pattern themselves on their families, on their parents and on the staff of their schools. I believe that a better relationship needs to be developed between education, health and social services, in particular where delinquent children are concerned.
This "grasshopper" speech has touched somewhat inadequately on a wide number of aspects of crime and violence. It was stated in an article in The Times of 21st April that Mr. Gerald Kaufman the Shadow Home Secretary in another place,
"was making a dramatic bid to wrest the law and order initiative from the Conservatives and promote Labour as the party to beat crime".
We all know Mr. Kaufman to be a man of considerable ability. In the article in The Times allusion is made to

1163
the probable policies of Mr. Kaufman. On the 10th April I was present at a lecture arranged by the Prison Reform Trust given by the Home Secretary, Mr. Douglas Hurd. He gave a penetrating, impressive and thoughtful paper which indicated his quiet and purposeful resolve to deal constructively and effectively with the law and order issue. What is interesting and perhaps encouraging is that the apparent policies of both our parties do not differ widely. The difference is perhaps one of emphasis.
I believe that the basic problem is a moral one and that it must be dealt with by the influence, attitude of mind and sense of responsibility and service of every individual in this land. I believe, too, that on all sides of the House we must pursue the means of dealing with crime both humanely and effectively—I repeat effectively—remembering that "no man is an island unto himself. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.28 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, my noble friend has just made a wide-ranging, constructive and very interesting speech, to which I think my noble friend Lord Glenarthur will be replying at the end of the debate. I am speaking with a slightly different purpose, which is to analyse and expose some of the more direct matters concerned with crimes of violence. It is nearly two years since this House had an opportunity for a full debate on the subject. Perhaps I may say at once that the Government welcome this Motion and the opportunity for an examination of the issues.
No doubt during the course of the debate others will explore many aspects of the subject. Partly because I expressed myself rather fully on the previous occasion, to which I have referred, and partly because on this occasion I am opening, I believe that the best service that I can render to the House is to analyse the size and nature of the problems that we shall be examining and expose the questions involved in violent criminality so that we are reminded of the characteristics of this social evil and the main ways in which the Government's policy is striving to combat it.
The Motion refers to the serious rise in violent crime. In the fairly near future I intend to make a speech of my own elsewhere on the subject of terrorism. In the meantime, I should like to make plain at the outset that I do not intend on this occasion to explore that subject at all and that I shall be speaking about crimes of violence other than terrorism.
When we speak of a serious rise in crimes of violence of this sort we should not lose sight of the fact that the recent rises above the level in the year 1984–85, the latest for which statistics are available, of 7 per cent. in offences of violence against the person and 6 per cent. in sexual offences are not out of step with recent trends in criminal behaviour generally. For many years all crime has increased steadily and remorselessly. That is a fact to which my noble friend has already referred. Crimes of violence have increased in proportion with the general rise in criminality. All are distressing and, apart from terrorism, crimes of violence are among the most distressing of all.
1164
Nevertheless, while it is important to consider crimes of violence as part of the wider trend, it is also essential to appreciate the characteristics peculiar to crimes of this nature that justify the claim to make them a special category. Despite the impression that we have all received from dramatic events, violently and legitimately reported, violent crime as such remains statistically relatively rare against the background of general criminality.
In 1985, nearly 165,000 offences of personal violence, including sexual assaults and robberies, were recorded by the police. That is a shocking fact. But it represents under 5 per cent. of all notifiable offences. The most serious of these offences of personal violence, namely, rape and crimes endangering life, amounted to 9,800. That is about one-third of 1 per cent. of recorded offences.
These figures compare with 800,000 burglaries and over 1,800,000 offences of theft and handling stolen goods. It is also, I believe, important to stress that one should not talk about violent crime as a single and homogenous category in any sense except one—the effect that such offences have on their victims, on the families, friends and neighbours of victims and on society at large.
Far from being a single, separate category, crimes of violence cover a wide range of different offences. Not all have the same motivation. Not all are committed by the same type of offender. Not all injure the same type of victim. We must be careful, therefore, in our search for generalisations not to overlook the specific aspects of each type or to propose simple solutions that fail to take account of the complexity of the facts involved. There is, however, one fact to which I should allude. Sometimes violence seems to be used wantonly and for its own sake. But in others it is used as an aid to some other offence: theft, sexual assault, riot, political demonstration, drug-peddling.
In the light of my noble friend's close and longstanding interest, I do not think that I should ignore some special facts relating to the young offender. Most offenders against criminal law are young, and most of them are male. The peak age for all these offences is 15 for males and 14 for females. In 1984, over 419,000 offenders under the age of 21 were cautioned or found guilty of an offence of some sort. Of males born in the year 1953, no less than one-third had one or more criminal convictions before they were 28 years of age. This is fact. But there is a widespread belief that young people are predominantly responsible for unacceptable acts of violence, in particular vicious attacks on the frail and elderly. That such offences by the young take place is true, but the generalisation is not true.
Violence is not a predominant feature of crime by young people, and violent crimes are not predominantly committed by young people. Crimes of violence form about 7 per cent. of all their offences, and there is one important difference that critics of the younger generation should remember. While adult crime has been going steadily up since 1980—that is, during the last six years—the number of young people guilty of indictable offences has remained broadly unchanged.

1165
It is also fair to say that we cannot fairly lay at the door of the young our legitimate sense of outrage at attacks made on the most helpless victims; the old, for instance. Over half of the offenders in street attacks on the elderly were aged over 25. Characteristically, the victims of such violent attacks as are committed by young people are others of the same age group as themselves. I would not seek in any way in what I say to minimise the scale or seriousness of the problem that we are discussing. The official statistics do not tell the whole story, not by any means.
The British crime survey commissioned by the Home Secretary completed its second sweep in 1984. It has done much to fill in the gaps in our knowledge and to add a little more subtle shading to the black and white picture of the statistics. It is clear that a large number of crimes, and, in particular, a large number of crimes of violence, are never reported at all, and so they do not appear in the statistics. Recorded cases are, therefore, to use a cliché, the tip of an iceberg.
The survey estimates that less than half the serious crimes of violence and about one-third of the less serious crimes of violence are reported. It also shows that sexual offences generally and crimes of violence within the family may be reported proportionately less than others. The iceberg at this point is therefore rather more deeply under water than the rest.
No analysis of the scale and nature of this problem can be a substitute for concern and a determination to combat it. We must not blunt our personal sense of outrage and shock at violent crime. We cannot ignore the deep sense of frustration, almost rage, among the public, who feel, rightly and with passion, that every single violent attack or sexual attack is wholly unacceptable and that, to the utmost of our ability, we have to rid ourselves of this growing scourge of violence before we have lost our capacity to react to it.
My noble friend referred to the article in The Times stating that the shadow Home Secretary, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, intended, and I quote the words, to "take over" the issue of law and order from the Conservative Party. The subject is too important to become a party political football. We should all be glad to put our constructive thoughts into the pool. The problem is one that affects us all and we can all benefit from the wisdom of others.
The Motion calls for measures to protect innocent persons. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur will be speaking at greater length about this. I take it that the phrase does not primarily refer to the availability of compensation orders made by the court at the time of disposal, although it has been my constant endeavour from the time when the subject was only a gleam in the then Home Secretary's eye, about 40 years ago, to the present to urge the use of compensation orders where funds are available in the perpetrator to take advantage of them. I take it of course that we are not referring to the compensation scheme brought in some years ago under the criminal injuries board.
In the seven years of our term of office we have pursued a balanced strategy to combat crime on all fronts, giving encouragement, resources and legislation as each was found to be necessary, and where appropriate a combination of all three. There
1166
are and must remain legitimate limits on the Government's power to control criminal justice, still more on our ability directly to influence the figures. Within the powers available, we have taken measures which aim to prevent crime taking place, to enhance investigation and detection, to deal effectively and justly with those convicted and to give support and assistance to the victims. My noble friend will wish to say more on this aspect in summing up.
One of the principal responsibilities of any Home Secretary must be to provide an appropriate legislative framework for dealing with offences. This is a field in which there are many views and many conflicting needs. Justice requires that sentencing should be fitted to the circumstances alike of the individual offence and of the individual offender. It should be sufficiently severe to mark the condemnation by society of the crime which has been committed.
Particularly where juveniles are concerned, sentencing should also take into account the future of the offender. It must have some different effect without confirming an incipient criminal career. It must also have regard to the needs of the victims. From all this one essential is clear. This is that we must provide the courts with a wide range of powers so that they can make appropriate disposals against the relevant criteria and the facts of each individual case. The Government have worked steadily to develop this range of disposals, and we will continue to do this. At one end of the spectrum it is essential that maximum penalties are adequate. Therefore, we have increased the maximum sentences for attempted rape, indecent assault on a woman and trafficking in class A drugs, a subject to which my noble friend made particular reference.
The White Paper on criminal justice contains proposals for increasing the maxima for carrying fire-arms in the course of crime and for certain offences of corruption. In addition, we have continued to apply restrictions on the release of certain life sentence prisoners and the restrictions on parole for some violent offenders. These changes were announced in 1983 by my right honourable friend Mr. Leon Brittan. This severity for the worst offenders is just. Law, we must remember, is normative of conduct, and a severe face against deliberate offending is socially salutary. Moreover, it is essential if we are to have public support, as we need public support, for approaching less serious crimes in a rather different way. Either excessive lenience or excessive severity can easily undermine public confidence in the system as a whole.
My noble friend referred to custodial cases. I have never taken the view that to deprive a man or woman of liberty is necessary to improve his or her character. Prison is the right place for the worst offenders, and as my noble friend has said, prisons must be provided. But, as she had also said, it is a last resort. No one should be deprived of liberty unless it is necessary, nor for a longer period than is necessary.
From the outset the development of non-custodial sentences has been a fundamental part of Government strategy. To win the confidence of the public, and perhaps more importantly of the courts, we have also had to strengthen considerably the non-custodial

1167
disposals available. Although one must provide for reformative practices within the custodial system, this provision of non-custodial sentences is an essential part of penal policy.
On the probation service expenditure has doubled since 1979. In 1979 fewer than 24,000 convicted offenders received probation. Since then the probation order has been strengthened by giving the courts power to attach specific requirements and thus making the order more demanding for offenders. Both these factors may have contributed to the greater use of probation. By 1984 probation was used in 36,000 cases—that is, in 8.5 per cent. of all disposals.
The most successful development in this field, and one to which my noble friend referred, has been the growth of the community service order. In 1979 13,500 orders were made, representing 3 per cent. of disposals. Since that time the nature of the order, which makes serious demands on the offender yet provides him with a positive task and brings him back to offer some service to society, has won the interest and confidence of the courts, employers and public. In 1984 33,000 orders were made—that is, 7·5 per cent. of all disposals. The order is available throughout England and Wales.
The Government continue to fund ways of enhancing the effectiveness of existing non-custodial sentences—for instance, fines which have declined in use—and to develop new ideas. One idea which may deserve mention because it hinges on the bringing together of the offender and the victim in the local community is that of reparation. A number of reparation schemes are now in operation. These are administered by the probation services. All have one thing in common, the voluntary agreement between the victim and the offender to a meeting at which the offender can apologise for his offence and both parties can talk it through. The experience is intended to reassure the victims and to teach the offender consideration for others.
Four of these schemes are funded by the Home Office on a two-year experimental basis to see whether they are likely to provide the basis of a new statutory order, and we recently published a discussion document which sought wider views. It is too early to say whether a statutory reparation order would be a valuable addition to the framework of penal treatment. But we shall continue to look for new alternatives to custody which are creditable and credible and satisfy the various requirements which I have said must apply to sentencing policy.
The provision of alternatives to custody is of course particularly important for juveniles. I have already mentioned community service. The Criminal Justice Act 1982 created a new structure for young offenders and placed emphasis upon avoiding custody wherever possible. This, for the first time, made the community service order available for 16 year-olds. The new power has been well received by the courts. About 2,000 community service orders a year are being made for this age group. The 1982 Act also strengthened the supervision order by giving the courts power to intervene more directly in the lives of the offenders concerned, but without the need for the extreme
1168
sanction of removing them from home. This was accompanied by the provision by central Government of £15 million of additional money to encourage the development of community-based facilities for young people under supervision orders. These changes too have been well received; but since the 1982 Act came into force experience has shown that some modification is required. Proposals for further strenghening the supervision orders are set out in the White Paper on criminal justice published earlier this year.
I turn back specifically to the subject of the Motion by my noble friend which is confined to crimes of violence. There are some offences that even when committed by young people can only be dealt with custodially. Where that is the case the 1982 Act provides a flexible range of orders enabling the punishment to be matched to the circumstances of the offence. It has been represented that the present arrangements for custodial sentencing of juveniles are not adequate and that there is a range of offences, some of which involve violence, for which stronger penalties are needed. The Government are of course concerned that those views should have been expressed, and for that reason with the White Paper we issued a discussion paper on custodial sentences with particular reference to juvenile offenders.
There is much which the Government can and should do. They should certainly be seen—and all governments should be seen—to be in the lead in this matter. There is much that we have already done, some of which has shown some good results. But as yet we have not seen the improvement in the crime figures for which we had hoped. No government can legislate for a total end to crimes of violence, and government action alone will never be sufficient to destroy it. The criminal justice system, for all its virtues and vices, is not by itself a solution but it is a necessary response. My noble friend Lady Faithfull has made a moving reference in the course of her speech to the need for involvement at grass roots level and I would endorse what she said.
I look forward to a well-informed debate. The public is deeply concerned about this, and not unnaturally feels a deep sense of outrage at the lurid, dramatic and horrific details quite properly reported in the press. But this has led to levels of fear which are not justified by the actual risks. Nevertheless, the British crime survey has shown clearly that many members of the public take a realistic view of criminal justice and a balanced and fair attitude towards punishment. It is essential that we develop ways of harnessing this degree of public concern with common sense. If we succeed, many juveniles can begin to give useful service. Much of the progress we have made has focused on this important area: the development of neighbourhood watch schemes; the provision of more and better deployed police, better policing so that officers may be brought nearer the community, education to enhance the role of the schools—another topic which my noble friend handled—in the development of young people into good citizens. However, as I hardly need say, and as my noble friend said, that is a task for all of us.
I end with a word of my own. This has a direct relevance to the way in which my noble friend closed

1169
her speech. Criminal justice is a necessary evil. It is necessary because crime exists and evil because crime is evil and punishment in itself is not good. The moral climate of a society at large is the ultimate determinant of social and anti-social behaviour. The moral climate of society depends upon the behaviour of good neighbours to one another. Criminal justice is therefore not our front line. Writing long before the birth of the Redeemer, and uninfluenced so far as we know even by Jewish scriptures, the orator, statesman and philosopher, Cicero, wrote these words with which I close. He said:
"We have a natural propensity to love our fellow man and that is the foundation of all law".

Foreign Affairs Council, April 1986
3.55 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on the Foreign Affairs Council which is being made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Sir Geoffrey Howe. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the meeting of Foreign Ministers of the Twelve that took place in Luxembourg on 21st April, and the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council which followed on 21st and 22nd April. My honourable friend the Minister of State, the Member for Wallasey, and I attended.
"The Meeting of Foreign Ministers concentrated on the urgent problem of Libya. We had already agreed in the emergency meetings on 14th and 17th April on the importance of taking effective collective action to prevent further acts of Libyan state-directed terrorism and to defend ourselves against that threat. On 21st April we agreed to a series of measures to this end: a severe cut in the size of People's Bureaux throughout the Community; confining members of those Bureaux to the city where they are officially assigned; restricting the size of other official Libyan bodies to the minimum necessary for their stated business; applying a much stricter visa regime to Libyans; ensuring that any Libyan expelled from one member state will be expelled from the Community as a whole.
"The Twelve also reaffirmed their ban on arms sales to Libya, and will be pressing other countries to join it. They agreed to look urgently at further action on the abuse of diplomatic immunity. Interior Ministers of the Twelve will be meeting today in the TREVI group to concert the closest possible cooperation between Interior Ministers, the police and security services of the Twelve. Transport Ministers have been asked to step up their co-operation urgently on aviation security. We shall follow up all these decisions urgently with our partners.
"To have achieved an effective package of measures against Libya, in force throughout the Community, is a considerable step forward. We shall continue to press for further action and for vigorous implementation of the programme of action now agreed.
1170
"The Foreign Affairs council briefly reviewed the issues likely to be discussed at the Tokyo Economic Summit. Ministers discussed improvements to the Community's mandate for the negotiations with Mediterranean third countries on the adaptation of their Co-operation and Association Agreements to take account of the accession of Spain and Portugal.
"There was a brief discussion of the new EC/Thailand Manioc Agreement; this is expected to be formally agreed at another council in the near future. The Council also reviewed and confirmed the position to be adopted by the EC at the ACP/EC Council of Ministers which begins in Barbados on 26th April.
"The Council discussed the United States' complaint about alleged trade loss as a result of the enlargement of the Community. It reconfirmed the EC's readiness to settle the issue in early GATT negotiations and agreed a mandate for the Commission to conduct those negotiations. Ministers regretted the United States intention to take unilateral retaliatory action and noted that the European Community would be bound to take equivalent measures to defend its interests.
"The Council reviewed progress on implementation of the report of the People's Europe Committee and agreed to adopt the Council of Europe flag for use on appropriate occasions. No requirements are placed on member states by this agreement.
"There was an exchange of views on the budgetary situation. It will now be for the Council of Finance Ministers, meeting on 28th April, to consider in detail the 1986 budgetary situation and the 1987 reference framework for expenditure.
"That too will clearly be an important meeting".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating that Statement. We support the further measures now agreed by the Community, although we wish that more specific multilateral economic sanctions could have been agreed upon because we believe that these would have been more effective than anything that has hitherto been tried. Does the noble Baroness not now agree that effectively applied economic sanctions are preferable to attacks from the air?
The Foreign Secretary said (and I quote) that the measures would,
"go a long way to persuading the United States that we are serious".
I assume that that means that the Foreign Ministers in the Economic Community are serious. Can we be told precisely what the Foreign Secretary meant by that, how much further would he like the Community to go, and whether economic sanctions were in his mind when he made that statement? Furthermore, can the noble Baroness tell us the present level of EC sales of agricultural surpluses to Libya, and the element of EC subsidy in this? Can the noble Baroness say whether these sales of subsidised agricultural produce to Libya are now to cease?
I understand that an announcement has been made during the last hour or so that the Libyan Government

1171
have today expelled 300 EC and US journalists. Can the noble Baroness confirm this news and clarify the position, especially with regard to the security of the British subjects?
On the other important matters raised in the Statement, can the noble Baroness say what will be the precise nature of the United States unilateral retaliatory action and the equivalent measures proposed by the European Community? Can she say how this may affect United Kingdom trade with the United States? Could not these steps of retaliatory action by the United States and the response by this country be postponed pending the new GATT negotiations, to which the Statement refers?
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, we, too, should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for repeating this Statement. The measures taken against Libya by the Council of Ministers and announced in this Statement are obviously good as far as they go. But why should not members of the Community be prepared, like us, to sever all diplomatic relations with the Libyan Government so long as that government maintain their insane policy of terrorism? After all, in our case, even in the absence of any diplomatic relations, our 5,000 nationals in Libya do not seem to have suffered in any particular way, and our trade with Libya seems to continue quite happily. Therefore, why should members of the EC not follow our example and confide their interests, as we have confided ours, to some neutral state, such as Switzerland? If they did so, they would not be worse off, and the pressure on Colonel Gaddafi would, I should have thought, be very great.
As regards expelling Libyans—and, incidentally, there is no mention in the Statement of students, and I do not know whether or not that is significant—would it be possible for our security services to distinguish on their records between known Gaddafi opponents—because there are quite a lot among the students—and those who may be presumed to be potential terrorists? Would that not be a sensible step to take?
As I think the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said, there is no mention in the Statement of any economic measures at all. Is it really a fact that we are continuing to export agricultural surpluses to this revolutionary regime? I cannot believe it and I should like some assurance from the noble Baroness to the effect that we shall stop these exports as soon as possible. After all, if we are considering serious economic pressure as members of the Community, why should we not indulge in an oil embargo? Would it really be intolerably expensive and counter-productive if we did so? No doubt it would have some ill effects on the economies of some members of the EC, but if it were done the effect on Gaddafi would be tremendous and might very well result in toppling him—something which continued bombardment is quite unlikely to do.
Finally, even more important than Libya from the point of view of its potential effect on the whole North Atlantic Alliance, is the announcement in the Statement, which I did not in fact know, that even now the United States is taking unilateral retaliatory action
1172
against our trade. Does this mean that we are now in the middle of a trade war? Perhaps the noble Baroness will comment on that and say what is the position. However, is it still possible, in the near future, to arrive at some compromise in GATT which would put an end to a trade war which, unless I am wrong, is in operation at the moment?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for his support for the measures which have been agreed in the European Community. The noble Lord said that he welcomed them, though he regretted that nothing had been said about economic sanctions—a point which was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who also referred to an oil embargo. I think that both noble Lords will be aware of the Government's view on sanctions against Libya. The possibility of a trade embargo has been considered on a number of occasions, but the Government have always concluded that it would not be an effective response. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister told another place on 22nd April, sanctions will only work provided everybody operates them. With regard to an oil embargo, we believe that this would be most unlikely to be effective, and no such sanction would have an impact comparable to a reduction in the price of oil.
Both noble Lords raised the vexed question of the sale of European Community food surpluses to Libya. I can confirm that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary raised with his Community colleagues and the Commission the need to examine what uncovenanted benefits Libya receives from the Community's agricultural policies. Our latest information from the Commission is that no further subsidised dairy sales are in prospect.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked about the expulsions of Western journalists. I can confirm to the noble Lord that we understand that all European Community and United States journalists—about 250 in total—have been asked to leave Libya as soon as possible. We have seen reports that the reasons given range from retaliation for the measures agreed by Foreign Ministers of the Twelve on 21st April to administrative problems. I can only say that we deplore this unjustified and vindictive action.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, also raised with me a point about Libyan students in Britain. There are in fact about 1,800 students, and this number should fall as their studies are completed. The number admitted has been reduced from 2,350 in 1983 to about 264 in 1985, and we have circulated to our European Community partners the names of Libyans who have been expelled from Britain.
Finally, both noble Lords raised with me the vexed question, which arose in the Statement, of the United States complaint about an alleged trade loss as a result of the enlargement of the Community. These accusations, that the accessation of Spain and Portugal will lose the United States trade, are, we believe, completely ill-founded. On the contrary, we believe that enlargement will bring them trade benefits. The United States threats of aggressive unilateral action are most regrettable and would indeed be contrary to the GATT rules. We hope that this matter can be settled

1173
in the new GATT round, and the Community is ready to begin negotiations in the GATT to settle this issue as soon as possible. It agreed a mandate for negotiations at the April Foreign Affairs Council, and we are urging the United States to do likewise.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Baroness not agree that there is an element within the Statement which is totally disappointing and completely perplexing? Certainly many of our European partners, together with Members on these Benches, have expressed grave apprehension at what the Americans did in their belief that they could stop terrorism. Yet our European partners seem to be totally reluctant to apply sanctions against Libya. I do not think that they can have it both ways, and it is up to the Government to press very hard on this. Nor can we say in future that all state terrorism inflicted on people with black skins in South Africa ought to be answered with sanctions. It does not lie within the mouths of our European partners to condemn the United States, on the one hand, and then not to have the courage, on the other, to apply strong economic sanctions against Libya.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I fully appreciate the strength of feeling of the noble Lord and on the part of his noble friends on the question of sanctions against Libya. I have explained again our view about sanctions. We do not believe that they would be effective, and they are certainly not effective unless everybody applies them. We have, after all, had some experience in applying sanctions. As the noble Lord will be aware, we took steps against Libya two years ago following upon the assassination of Woman Police Contable Yvonne Fletcher. We are glad that our Community partners agreed the steps they did at the last meeting held on Monday.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, did the meeting not discuss the root causes of Middle East terrorism? Will the noble Baroness confirm reports that the Prime Minister is proposing to take an initiative for a settlement at the forthcoming meeting in Tokyo?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the topics discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council were the ones on which I have reported in this particular Statement. I cannot of course say what topics might be discussed at the Tokyo summit, and I do not believe that the noble Lord would expect me to do so on this occasion.
Lord Alport: My Lords, although it is obvious that Libya is implicated in the terrorism of the present time, the fact that this is happening relates to the general problems of the Middle East in the sense of the relations between Israel and the Palestinians, the position of Syria, and the fundamentalist movement. Is there really any chance of our being able to deal with terrorism simply by dealing with Libya without at the same time trying to take some steps in order to find some tolerable solution to the major problem? Was this problem discussed at any length at the Council of Foreign Ministers?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have already confirmed to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and I
1174
shall confirm to my noble friend, that the topics that were discussed to the Foreign Affairs Council are the ones on which I have reported. I take entirely my noble friend's point about the importance of a discussion and a search for a solution to the problems of the Middle East, but that was not one of the topics discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, would the Minister make it clear that the view of the Government on this matter is, irrespective of what are called the underlying problems in the Middle East, that no political situation of any kind justifies the indiscriminate murder and maiming of innocent men, women and children m the pursuit of political aims?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am glad to confirm what the noble Lord has said. We do not believe that the use of terrorism is justified on behalf of a political cause.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, can the Minister give us any more comfort about this question of the GATT negotiations? They have traditionally been terribly slow to get going. If the United States are already contemplating, or even taking, action which damages trade with Europe. which, I should have thought could be terribly damaging to all of us and to the Americans themselves, could the Government do anything more to hasten the GATT negotiations and to get them going more quickly than would usually be the case?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I take the point of the noble Lord. Preparations for the new GATT round are under way in Geneva. I would share his view that what could develop is serious, because if the United States takes unilateral action in the way that has been suggested, as the Statement makes clear we would not hesitate to retaliate to defend Community interests. This cannot be in the best interests of either the United States or the Community. That is why we hope that this problem can be resolved in the GATT negotiations.

Violent Crime: Protection of Public
4.15 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in introducing this interesting and topical Motion, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, delivered what she called a grass-hopping speech. Indeed, she hopped with her usual graciousness from point to point, as sometimes, if I may be allowed to say so, was the case with the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, in areas not strictly covered by the Motion before the House. I want to restrict myself in the remarks I have to make on this topical subject to the increase in violent crime; what is the size of it; what are we to do about it; and what, if anything, can we do in order to assist the victims of violent crime.
But previous speakers saw fit to quote the shadow Home Secretary, Mr. Kaufman, and The Times, which reported him. The noble Baroness limited

1175
herself to the quotation that Labour was to take over from the Conservatives the issue of law and order. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, with all the authority that his voice conveys, sounded a note, and a highly moral one, to the House that this was a matter of national importance which should come out of the political arena.
I plead for one thing: just a little bit of sincerity in the political life of this country if observations of this kind are made. Who started putting this subject in the political arena? It was the cry of the 1979 election by the Tory Party: "Law and order. We are the party of law and order". The Conservatives would not let it go, and this was very irresponsible, even in the 1983 Tory manifesto, when the boast was made politically:
"Already street crime is being reduced, and public confidence improved, in some of the worst inner city areas".
The facts are that since then, and since that boast, notifiable offences have increased by 62 per cent. in the police force areas that contain most of the inner cities. Having said that, I propose to take this out of the political arena, but let those who put it there accept courageously the burden that they take upon themselves and have the courage to admit that it was politically irresponsible, if not morally wrong, to put it in the arena in the first place.
Looking at it as a national problem, what are the facts? One of the tragic facts is that in 1984, 20 per cent. of mugging victims were school children. The noble and learned Lord referred to that in passing by saying that most victims were among the young—and I shall refer to that again in a moment, because there is a current popular misunderstanding—and that, by and large, it is youngsters attacking youngsters. Twenty per cent. of mugging victims in 1984 were school children. It is a commonly mistaken concept that the main victims of mugging are the aged, sympathetic though every one of us is to the cases which occur, and shameful they are, of old people being attacked.
I took the trouble to look at the interesting and informative Research Bulletin issued by the Home Office Research and Planning Unit. It is No. 20 of 1986. I am sure that your Lordships will forgive me if I quote the findings:
"Two findings have emerged consistently from the BCS—and from analysis of police statistics … young people are more at risk of violence than their elders, and men more than women. Table 1"—
I shall not go through Table 1, if your Lordships will forgive me—
"shows that for all three categories of violence, the likelihood of victimisation falls sharply with age, and that for every age group men are more at risk than women, (with the exception of mugging where risks for the over-30s are equally small for men and women)."
There is another aspect where I believe there is some misunderstanding and where I have found myself helped by the same Research Bulletin. In the course of her interesting speech the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, properly referred to drugs. I believe that unless one makes a relevant comment on that subject in this debate the public might be misled. The Research Bulletin contains an article headed,
"Criminal convictions of persons first notified as narcotic drug addicts in 1979–81".
1176
It is very informative. There are two conclusions. The first is that although half of the males and two thirds of the females notified as drug addicts
"had not been convicted before the age of 28 … Those notified as drug addicts were almost three times as likely to have been convicted … as those of a similar age in the general population".
We can gather from that that those who were notified as drug addicts are much more likely to be convicted as criminals in regard to criminal charges.
One then finds, in regard to crimes of violence, the fourth conclusion on page 29 of the Bulletin:
"The proportion of their convictions for violent offences did not change over the period before and up to two years after notification and was lower than the equivalent figure for the general population".
It is interesting that those who were registered as narcotics, though prone to general criminal charges, appear to have less proneness (if I may use that word) to crimes of violence.
Those are interesting observations. Even though statistics do not tell the whole story, in a debate such as this, that deals with the increase in various kinds of violence, we ought to concentrate on what the increase represents. We can then try to analyse it, try to find some reasons for what has happened and consider some of the things we ought to be doing nationally about it.
In relation to violence against the person, in national terms for England and Wales the figure in 1985 was 121,731, up 7 per cent. on the 1984 figure. I make no point of the fact that 1984 was a leap year and therefore one might have hoped that the figure for 1985 would have been a little less; but it was 7 per cent. up. What was the change in that category of violent crime against the person since 1979? It was up 40 per cent. The crime clock, as they call it, registered during that year one violent crime against the person every four minutes. We are told that the biggest deterrent to committing crime is the rate of crime detection. The clear-up rate for 1978 for violent crimes against the person was 77 per cent. In 1985 it was down 5 per cent. to 73 per cent.
What about damage to property? In 1985 there were 538,964 notifiable offences. Since 1984 the figure is up 8 per cent. It is up 76 per cent. since 1978 and the crime clock last year registered one offence for each minute of that clock. The clear-up rate in 1978 was 30 per cent. and in 1985 it was 23 per cent.—down 7 per cent.
What are the figures in the metropolitan area—of great concern to us all? In 1985 the figure for violence against the person was 20,242; up 7 per cent. since 1984. Since 1978 it is up 61 per cent. The crime clock registered one such offence every 26 minutes in the metropolitan area. The figure for vandalism and criminal damage was 113,094; the change since 1984, up 10 per cent., and the change since 1978, up 88 per cent. The crime clock registered one such offence every five minutes. Mixed up among these figures are those dreadful cases of rape and brutal killing of children that make every single one of us sick in our stomachs.
The object of this debate, I freely admit, is not just to register statistics, not just to claim credit or to cast discredit on any government. Governments should realise that their policies can help in this terrible

1177
national difficulty. No government have the monopoly over being able to cure. The nation is looking to see whether instead of making empty election boasts, as has been done in the past, we are realistically considering proper solutions to the problem, if we can find them.
I shall not touch on family matters or other points of that kind because my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies will deal with them in his speech. But I want to present some suggestions to your Lordships. I do not pretend that they are terribly original, but they ought to be introduced into this debate. The first is the need for real collaboration between the community, the police and the Government. Crime and all that breeds it has many causes and there is not the slightest doubt that part of the trouble, certainly in regard to our youth, can be found in poverty, bad housing, and unemployment as well as in other factors that my noble friend will deal with hereafter.
We have talked about partnership, but what ought the partnership to be doing? It ought to be thinking of practical matters at local authority level, as well as national level, and at voluntary community level, as well as in any Civil Service directives that may be issued. What about improved street lighting in regard to crimes of violence? What about more policemen on the beat? What about better community relations with the police?
What about entryphones and other improvements for the security of the home? What about a very good class of resident caretaker on estates; and what about grants by local authorities to low-income households to help them with home security? What about tighter control on the availability of guns, and what about a licensing system for shotguns? It might interest your Lordships if I were to say that the number of recorded offences involving firearms doubled over a period of 10 years. We ought to be looking at these matters, and we ought to be looking generally at the whole aspect of the community joining with the police and government, and government and local government being responsible for practical measures.
I have only a moment or two to deal with the other part of this Motion and I shall not be speaking for more than that. What about the innocent victims of crime? There ought to be, without any doubt at all—and this has been said in your Lordships' House whenever this matter has been dealt with—substantial financial help for local and national victim support schemes. There is no doubt at all that sympathy, trained sympathy and warm sympathy, for the victim just after an assault comes at a most critical time in a citizen's life and can make all the difference in the world. What about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board? We have debated that. We have debated the quantum of the awards; we have debated the personnel available and the question of time being taken by the board in regard to the compensation of victims.
I am not going to say any more. The noble Lord the Minister knows the views of the House and of many of us who are worried about these matters. I know that he is concerned about them. I have not wandered into whether our prisons are full or are not full. I have not wandered into other matters that the noble and
1178
learned Lord sought fit to include in his, as always, extremely profound speech. I have tried to confine myself to the Motion before us. I hope that our combined wisdom, irrespective of party, can get rid of one of the pernicious elements of our time, violence.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I start with a sincere tribute to the noble Baroness. We over here regard her as practically our only friend on the other side where penal matters are concerned. This week I heard two Tory Whips saying "Well, her Ladyship never votes with the party". I would not mind if that were true, but that is not so. The truth is that she never votes with the party on penal affairs, and why? It is because the Government are always—I was about to say "wrong", but that is not correct—stonewalling. We are always pressing for action and they are always refusing. This is based on five generations at least at the Home Office. I have been dealing with the Home Office for over 30 years and it has not changed at all, yet the people are all entirely different. They are good, intelligent, ready to listen and ready to give you any information you want, yet nothing ever happens.
I should like to give three instances of this which are not wholly irrelevant in that I do not think that we can deal with violence as a thing by itself; we have to deal with the whole picture of crime. My noble friend, who first of all told me to speak and then told me what to say, also said that she wanted to keep the debate pretty wide, so I am helping her! On three occasions that I merely happen to remember—and I have looked up the dates—I, or a colleague from this side of the House, have put up a suggestion which has been adopted, in two cases entirely and in one case partially, after something like 10 years to 15 years.
The first was the Jellicoe Report, which we started from NACRO and which made one or two perfectly obvious recommendations that had to be accepted. I am glad to say that a week or two ago they had the main thing not as coming from Jellicoe but from a different inquiry. I shall not tell your Lordships what it was because we do not have time to go into all this. That is one instance. I, and other people also, over 15 years ago asked about censoring letters; about whether it was necessary for anyone except Category A prisoners to worry about letters at all. Could they not get access to telephones? Within the last two years or 18 months, this has begun to happen. The noble Lord will correct me if I am being unfair, which I have no intention to be. I do not mind if I am a little, because the point stands.
Thirdly, and thus most importantly, there is the question of executive release. In a debate on the May Report in 1982 I brought out a suggestion which had been made in the report that executive release of one kind or another could be a useful solution. Just before the Criminal Justice Act 1982, because there was a prison officers' strike threatened, the then Home Secretary took the right to use executive release in an emergency and then did not use it. But we succeeded in getting it into the 1982 Act in the permissive form. Now, with the prison officers again on the verge of a strike, the Home Secretary says that he may have to use it. It was not used earlier because it was always

1179
said—and this applies to each Home Secretary concerned—that it would be used only in an emergency. I suppose that they do not think that a rise in prison population from, I think, 42,000 to 47,000 during that period is a crisis. But I repeat what I have said in this House at least eight times: we do!
Those are three instances of where, however hard you press, it takes 10 or 15 years to adopt a constructive solution. Each of these suggestions is a constructive one. The censoring of letters has ruined the business of running prisons for years. It is high time it stopped. The use of telephones in a proper way, not for Category A prisoners, is right and I hope that it is being done. My point is that a situation which most of us here have been watching for a very long time (I, like the noble and learned Lord, certainly for over 30 years) has been getting absolutely, steadily worse in every single respect every year.
More people commit crimes. More people are recidivists. More people commit crimes of violence. No one has a clue about what to do. I certainly do not. That is why I found it depressing to prepare a speech for this debate, and partly why I have been talking about something slightly different.
I should now like to return to the subject of violence. First, it is a difficult subject, because violence is a result of what in old-fashioned terms I would describe as the aggressive instinct in man. I dare say that psychologists will say that there is not one, but I do not always believe what they tell me. Every nation begins by living by violence as being the only good. The fighting man is the ruler, and he is the only man who is respected. To some extent this applies in schools, as we see from the occasional film, such as that delightful film about a hawk (I cannot remember what it is called) where the boys fight and they are admired if they win. Early Wodehouse stories tell us the same thing. There is something real here. Young people, particularly boys, like the whole of this, and have no criticism of it.
I could give a sad case as an example. When I was in Northern Ireland a fine priest was running an approved school. He came to me almost with tears in his eyes. He asked me what he was to do. He said that boy after boy was brought in there for having helped the IRA and had been caught by the police. He said that his school was not secure and that he could not hold the boys, who went straight back to the men who are their ideals and are the ones whom they love. They thought of them as brave fighting men who were not frightened of throwing bombs at people, and all that sort of lovely thing. The boys were good boys who, if they could have been kept away, might have been diverted to something else. How do we deal with that? We cannot change human nature. We must accept it and deal only with one's little bit of it, such as one's family. That is all that we can do. No government can do anything except it be of a defensive nature.
I want to talk about one thing which is hopeful. Things are not nearly as bad as they were 100 to 150 years ago. At that time there was a horrifying level of state violence. People who offended were flogged. In the navy and the army the flogging was incessant and was boasted about by everyone. The treadmill was used as a punishment. We have moved a little way
1180
since then. Children do not hoot at hunchbacks in the road today. They do many other things, but they do not do that. Not everything is going backwards. That is the only good thing that I have to say.
I certainly grew up, and I think all young people grow up, reading books of adventure and, to some extent, horror. One of my favourite books was, A Gentleman of France by Stanley Wayman. We were told that the hero had killed 17 men in duels. We thought that was splendid and it made the book exciting to read. I remember to this day the crack of the back of the wrestler whom Beltane was supposed to have killed in front of the count, or whoever it was. The book was called Beltane the Smith. I cannot remember who wrote it. I have never struck a man in anger in my long life. The stories had no bad effect on me; they are probably not too bad. The point I am trying to make is that there is something innate with which we are trying to deal which becomes twisted and abused and leads us to where we are now.
At lunch only today I as talking to a member of an old family in this House who boasted that her ancestors had been pirates. I should not think that there is one really old family here of which something of that kind could not be said. There we are: this is not an easy problem to deal with. There are more people, and they are becoming worse.
The sad thing is that Christianity, or religion in general, seem to have almost no effect. It makes some people better and others worse. Look at Northern Ireland. I say no more. It is a deep and difficult subject.
Penologists not only differ from one another, they talk in statistics, but the problem is made up of a series of individual personal problems. I tried to do what the noble and learned Lord did much better, which was quickly to write down the categories of violence. The first, clearly, is terrorism, which he left out because he is going to speak about it somewhere else. I am not, and so I shall say a word about it now.
The point about terrorism is that one can do nothing except fight it or agree with it and let it go. There is no middle course. Wherever we have been in our empire we have always chosen to fight it. Sometimes terrorism has a good case and sometimes it has a bad one. The IRA has no case at all. If it won the whole of the rest of Ireland would be horrified, but that is by the way. It is no good trying to change terrorists; it is no good trying to deter them. However, they must be given maximum sentences.
I have always argued against long sentences, but I am in favour of long sentences for terrorists. The only deterrent effect that long sentences have—it is sometimes seen when they come out—is on the parents, who, having lost someone for 10 or 12 years, do not want to lose them again however much their friends may try to get them back. I think that is general in every form of terrorism, wherever it is.
The second category is that of the professional criminal. He is a different matter. He must be fought. He can be deterred. There is no doubt that a long sentence worries a professional criminal. I have often talked to men coming out of prison who say, "I am going to go carefully now because next time it will be a very long sentence, and I do not want that." There is

1181
a deterrent element in long sentences for the professional criminal.
I do not know whether anyone heard MacVicar on the wireless two or three days ago, but he had the last word on that subject. He said, "Of course, if you want to cure the professional criminal all you have to do is give him enough money." The professional criminal is working for cash. Clearly we cannot do what he suggested. Someone serving a six-year or seven-year sentence, in a well-run training prison, can probably be made to become interested in earning money in a different way in probably three out of 10 cases. Some of those people are skilled, and something like that could be done.
Thirdly, there is the crude robbery, the mugging, which is a new and most frightening crime. I think everyone in the country would agree that mugging to obtain money for drugs is a most difficult problem, and I think that most muggings nowadays are for drugs, as they are in America. All I can say is that we shall continue to press the Government all the time to do more and more about that. It is a frightfully difficult problem. The worst difficulty arises in inner city areas with groups of dissatisfied black people who are being sold drugs, and some of whom run drugs. The police must deal with the problem, and those people then begin to hate the police. The chances of bringing the people together with the police become fewer and fewer.
The next category consists of crimes of petty violence related to public-houses and drink. We want to deal with the drink laws. A good deal could be done which is not being done. The care of people arrested for drunkenness is still in its more primeval state. We have been pressing for reform for years, and it has still not been properly dealt with.
There are two issues on which I think there is still some hope and about which the noble Baroness asked me to speak. I shall not say much, because I have said it all before. It would bore the House; and, worse still, it would bore me. The first point is about Grendon. In so far as there is irrational violence which is not committed out of greed, lust or vengeance, Grendon has shown that it is possible to deal with it. First, such people can be contained there reasonably well without violence; and, secondly, it can go some way towards curing them.
I made a long speech about Grendon the other day, and the poor noble Lord the Minister who must reply should not have to hear it again. I shall not make that speech again. Something can be done there. I have made it clear that we do not think that the treatment is being carried out as fully as it could be.
Then there is the inner city area which I spoke about three or four months ago. I referred to Ted Watkins, who is a black trade unionist, and who was in Watts during the riots of 1961 and 1962. He formed groups of people to put the place right, he borrowed money and started an organisation. He has done an extraordinary job and is now employing 1,000 people there. The young people who hated the police, and who in fact rioted against the police, now have telephone links and use walkie-talkies with the police. They ring up the police if anything is going wrong.
1182
It is possible to change violence into something quite good. He has shown how to do it, and in fact has done it. The Government—I think it is the concern of the Department of the Environment—are starting groups in local areas with extra subsidised money from the inner cities and it is essential that they use the technique that was worked out there. What that chap said was, "If you give people the chance to put their home right, if you give them the money, the material and the training, they will not only do it but they will do it far cheaper than a contractor, and they will end up by loving their home and loving their country". Those are the two things which are hopeful today. Those are the two ways in this appallingly difficult problem which are worth trying. On that note, I hope that both of them will be pursued. Lastly, may I say that I think it is a very gloomy subject.
4.52 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we have listened to an entertaining speech from the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. He showed us where he felt that hope lay, and I am bound to say that I was momentarily encouraged. But I did not really believe it and when the noble Lord finally sat down I did not think he did either. I thought he had momentarily and uncharacteristically distanced himself from this side of the House, when he said that my noble friend was the only friend that he had on this side, and then he recovered the position by saying: "on penal matters". The noble Lord has many friends on this side of the House. I was deeply impressed that my noble friend had instructed the noble Lord to speak and told him what to say. That shows she is very effective at lobbying. I was the recipient of neither such privilege, but maybe because my noble friend thought I was both beyond hope and beyond help.
But I should like to express my thanks to my noble friend for having introduced this debate on a matter which is of very considerable concern and importance, and in a speech which was astonishingly wide-ranging and knowledgeable. Looking at the list of speakers today, I realise that most people are experts on penal matters and on this subject. I claim no such expertise. I am merely one who stands on the sidelines and does not particularly like what he sees.
What I wish to say this afternoon will mostly centre around fear, because there is hardly a person who is not shocked or alarmed by the increase in crimes of mugging, rape and assault which are going on at present. It is literally terrifying—terrifying for those against whom the crimes are committed, and terrifying for those who think that they will be among the victims—and that category is far bigger than the former category.
It was always relatively safe to walk around the streets of London, save for a very few areas; but it is not so now, nor in other cities, nor even in the countryside. It is with horror that night after night, in the solitude of their own homes, people have projected into their sitting rooms by television scenes of the battered and scarred faces of those who have been beaten up—often defenceless old ladies—and the stories of how that has come about. It is almost too horrifying to believe that this happens here; yet it does,

1183
it goes on and it strikes fear into the hearts of the viewers.
Rape used to be a rare thing, something which few people came across, and yet it is now commonplace. Accounts of rapes appear every day in the newspapers, even of gang rapes, and of the terrifying ordeals and experiences which those unfortunate women, girls and children go through. Those experiences will never be erased from their minds. No wonder is it that many of them suffer from nervous tensions and even nervous breakdowns, and no wonder is it that their attitudes to life and to others take an irreversible twist.
Fear is contagious and it is incipient. The daily diet of rapes and muggings, which is related in detail on television and in the newspapers, terrifies countless hundreds and thousands of others who have not been, and who never will be, the victims but who fear that they might be. Television has a captive and often a lonely audience. It is a fertile ground for fear. Television companies will say that by reporting these incidents the perpetrators of the crimes are more likely to be caught and that people have a right to know what is going on. Sometimes, I think that people would rather not know.
But it goes further than that. The reporting of these events sows the seeds of ideas into the minds of others; it stimulates them to do things which otherwise they might not do; and the details which are given show them how to do it. Civilisation is a very thin veneer and the surface of it can easily be stripped away. The media have a responsibility to take the right balance between reporting and informing, and on the other hand inadvertently creating fear.
The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack told us that all crimes have increased. That is what most people feel. That is no cause for satisfaction. Society is uneasy because the simple values of humanity and respect for the other person seem to have gone. Robbery is not sufficient. It has to be accompanied by mugging, with the added inducement of fear to get your way. Rapes are not just the result of lust. They now extend to women of 70 and even to children of four. And we now have the pitiful increase in sexual and other attacks on children.
Twenty years ago, I did not know anyone who had been raped. I now know three people, daughters of three of my friends, who have been raped, one at five o'clock in the afternoon in her own house in a residential part of London. This kind of attitude towards innocent people cannot go on. Is it not surprising—and indeed is it not a shocking reflection on what we like to call our civilised society?—that people become scared stiff in their own homes?
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor acknowledged that fear exists, but said that it was not justified by the facts. That may be true, but fear does not respond to statistics. It disorientates people; it turns reason on its head, and the fact that it cannot be justified does not mean that it can be abated. I know a middle-aged intelligent lady who is on the verge of a nervous breakdown because of what she has seen on television and because she thinks that that is therefore bound to happen to her.
1184
She is not alone in this. She is merely one of many who feel this way. She is not a lady who lives on her own. She is a lady with a husband and she lives in the country, not in the town. The fact that she has a bouncing, aggressive Alsatian dog, who puts the fear of God up anyone who goes anywhere near her or the house, does little, curiously enough, to assuage her anxiety. Irrational it may be, but factual it is. These people are frightened; and if people like that are afraid, what about the old ladies living on their own in the big cities, in Glasgow and Leeds, and in parts of London such as Brixton? They have every reason to be frightened and they have every reason to look to Parliament for protection.
Fear is a foul weapon. It destabilises people. It destabilises society. It creates anxiety, anxiety which is lifelong where children are concerned as parents grieve over what they did wrong that allowed their children to become the victims of some of these practices. We have seen only too much recently of the viciousness of international terrorism. Some people, Americans in particular, now fear to travel. Governments have a duty to protect their people from a hostile enemy from without. Governments equally have a duty to protect their people from a hostile enemy from within. These people who rape and mug trade on fear to get their way. They use the knife, the cosh and the boot with as much rejection of humanity and with as much indifference to feeling and to morality as does the international terrorist. This form of internal terrorism, unco-ordinated and unorganised though it may be, has to be countered with equal severity. It is no use us saying, "How terrible it is, but it is not our fault. It is the times in which we live. It is happening everywhere".
It is our fault. As parents or teachers or Parliamentarians, in our different and varied respects we set the standards. We are responsible for the society in which we live. In some ways we reflect it. In some ways we mould it. In our compassionate way we sometimes say that these people are sick. Sometimes they are, my Lords, but sometimes they are plain evil. Unemployment, disenchantment, disaffection, drugs—none of these excuses personal responsibility for personal actions. None of these justifies the self-indulgence or self-gratification of one at the expense of the degradation and denigration of another.
For the hideous crimes of mugging and rape the punishment in my judgment is inadequate. A period of imprisonment or a fine is a pathetic condemnation for the defiling and destruction of the body, and sometimes the mind, of another. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that the greatest deterrent is the fear of detection. So it may be but the type and quality of the punishment when detected frequently determines the worthwhileness of the risk involved in undertaking the criminal act. One man put the respect for his conviction and for his victim into true perspective. When he was fined £300 for raping a young woman, he said:
"Well, it was worth it".
Here I know I shall part company with some of your Lordships but I have no hesitation in saying that, in my judgment, for that type of person who perpetrates that type of crime a sentence of corporal punishment ought to be available to the courts for use where

1185
appropriate. Fines have increased; prison sentences have been increased; prisons have been built and are now overflowing. They have not worked. Crime continues to increase. The severity of the punishment should reflect the severity of the crime and the system which we adopt at present is painfully and transparently inadequate. As a result, others suffer.
I do not believe that it is right for us in Parliament to wring our hands in horror at what is happening but to do nothing. Our first duty must be to protect law and order. Our highest priority must be to protect the innocent. So far we have failed, and the facts reflect that. I hope that as a result of this debate the Government will seriously consider new measures to protect our countrymen from this offensive and frankly uncharacteristic wave of terror which is affecting our country today.
5.5 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness for introducing a debate into your Lordships' House which has enabled so many valuable, interesting and important things to be said and to be heard. I should not want in any way to minimise the importance and the seriousness of the present crime rate in this country but I should like to enter a caveat about the way the matter is sometimes presented, because I think it has important implications. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already spoken about this.
The way that the crime statistics are presented can have a very important bearing on public attitudes to crime. The annually published crime statistics include only offences which are recorded by the police. This has already been said. The British Crime Survey that was conducted for the Government in 1982 and 1984 adds the considerable figures of unrecorded crimes. The survey certainly indicates that more crime occurs than is recorded and therefore more than is publicly recognised but it also presents some important facts about crime: that most law breaking is of a petty nature; that the vast majority of offences are against property and not against people.
It may sound frivolous, but these are not the words of some bright journalist but of the British Crime Survey. It has estimated that a statistically average adult can expect to be robbed once every five centuries, assaulted with injury once every century, have his car stolen once every 60 years and be burgled at home once every 40 years, and that the chances of robbery are less than the chances of being admitted to hospital as a psychiatric patient. Those points are made by the British Crime Survey. They serve a point in trying to get things into perspective which is very important for public opinion.
The media talk a great deal about a rising tide of crime but comparisons cannot actually be made because the survey of crime took place for the first time only in 1982. The so-called "rise in crime" is, the survey says, and as the noble and learned Lord has told us, probably the result of more people being concerned about crime and therefore reporting it and about the police being more efficient and therefore recording it.
1186
To say these things is in no way to deny that in this country we have a serious problem. This has been made clear by a number of noble Lords. It is to say that it is important to be as rational and accurate as possible about the facts of the situation if we are to develop a more just and more effective penal system. We are not served by the way the media often play on sensationalism with regard to this whole matter and the way sensationalism in turn plays upon our own inner unconscious feelings and reactions to crime, which very often give rise to insensitively punitive attitudes by all sorts of people and make them block off more informed approaches to penal issues.
I should like to say a word about the National Association of Victim Support Schemes, which has been mentioned in your Lordships' House today. I say it here not just because the pioneering work that it is doing deserves our thanks and our encouragement but because those involved say explicitly that they want to avoid publicity which will increase the fear of crime. They press other bodies involved in the field of crime to do the same. They are saying the same thing—that it is really important to try as hard as possible to get the facts straight and to be rational about this. The association works closely with the Home Office Crime Prevention Unit and currently works on various projects with it. They are concerned with the impact on the victim, which can be deeply disturbing and distressing, and also with the effect upon the community as a whole, in respect of the fear that is generated by that kind of situation. They urgently wish always to contact the victims of crime immediately. The police are now fully in support of the association but it needs all the voluntary help it can get. That is worth saying in your Lordships' House and it is important that it should be said.
I believe that the association's concern to avoid sensationalism is very important because sensationalism sends out powerful ripples that can affect people in general and greatly increase public fear. That can make for punitive and irrational attitudes which do not help to achieve the right kind of community awareness and the right kind of penal system. Rational and informed public opinion is most likely to be able to view straight and clearly the problems we are talking about.
I fully realise that the bishops are not in your Lordships' House in order to preach sermons—they have other places to do that—but I should like to try a little riposte to what was said just now by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, when he remarked that Christianity was not of any help in a situation where one was faced with problems that one did not know how to solve.
We live in a culture in which a whole lot of things have happened over the past few centuries that have made belief in any spiritual values very difficult for many people to hold. Those developments include the scientific revolution, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, urbanisation and two world wars. One could build up a whole list of things that have happened to Western society that have made it difficult for many people to hold spiritual values.
Some people look at the spiritual values that are on offer—Christianity among them—and come to the

1187
conclusion, with great intellectual integrity, that such values are not something to which they feel they can aspire. I highly respect that position of complete intellectual integrity, but there are many who turn away from Christianity particularly—and from other spiritual values, too, but let us say Christianity—because of the risks involved in turning to it and because it demands such a reversal of values and convenience.
If that touches the heart of anyone as I speak, it is worth thinking that that may be holding them back from making exactly the kind of contribution to the saner society that we have all been saying we need as the background to being able to do anything more about the problem we are debating.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, before the right reverend Prelate sits down, the point I was making was that religion was very much stronger in this country when flogging men around the fleet was considered a perfectly good thing to do. Christianity does not deal with the matter as it stands; of course it should. The fact that it does not is not really a criticism of Christianity—it is a criticism of us.
5.13 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for bringing this subject to the House for debate today—and it is a most interesting subject. I note the first part of the Motion concerning the increase in crime, but I intend to speak about measures to protect innocent people.
The greatest protection would of course be the elimination of crime, but as a magistrate of many years' standing I am not at all confident that we are likely to see that happen. The best that we can do is to reduce the opportunity for crime and increase protection. Fear—an aspect that was discussed widely by my noble friend Lord Ferrers—is a very powerful emotion. Fear can also be a cause of violent crime. The criminal who did not set out to be violent, if interrupted during the course of a robbery or other crime, may in a moment of fear and panic turn to carrying out a most violent injury. That is another way in which fear may operate.
Fear is also a major factor in preventing crime and in protecting the innocent, as people who are afraid go to the trouble of doing what they can to protect themselves. The environment in which we live is very important. It can either be an environment that extends an invitation to crime or it can be one that is protective. There are architectural designs that have proved disastrous. I cite the Mozart Estate in north Westminster, which, just a few years ago, won all sorts of design awards. Today, no one is willing to accept housing on that estate because the crime statistics there are so high. The elevated walkways put there for the comfort and convenience of residents have proved instead to be rat-runs and a means of escape for all kinds of muggers and criminals. The tenants are delighted that the council is now taking action. I believe that something like £2 million is to be spent on removing the walkways, which are already coming down. That will change the whole atmosphere of the
1188
estate and give the people living there a feeling of security, that they will not be subject to surprise attack.
The location of tenants within a block of flats is also highly significant. It is difficult for a mother living on the tenth floor of a building to be certain that her child is safe and not liable to be attacked or kidnapped—as so many children have been recently—when that child is playing in a space 10 floors below and her mother can only watch from a kitchen window. Again, the design of modern council housing provides for small backyards and gardens—and very attractive they are, too. Such designs have only been developed through the experience and discovery of how disastrous some award-winning architectural designs have turned out to be.
In conservation areas, there is of course resistance to improved street lighting of the kind to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred. However, I am a great supporter of modern street lighting. In one street in which I lived, the council installed bright lighting. Those residents who liked the previous rather eerie, gaslit effect were up in arms because they felt that the new lighting destroyed that atmosphere. However, it has caused such a reduction in crime and in the risk to residents walking home at night that tenants and residents in Westminster are now welcoming bright street lighting. It certainly means that one no longer risks finding someone lurking in a dark corner.
In the same way, lighting should be arranged in porches and on stairs. In the case of local authority housing it is very important that broken light bulbs should be replaced. No matter how good may be the lighting plan, it is no use at all if it is not operational.
Secure doors and windows are also very important. Entryphones have been mentioned, and I came across many such devices during my canvassing days. I must say that I do not believe that they are as reliable as one might expect. There is always one tenant who has no idea of the risk involved in admitting strangers. I do not remember ever calling at a block of flats where, if one pressed enough buttons, someone did not press the remote entry button without querying who was there. I am told that the current ploy is to press the entryphone button and say, "Flowers", and then someone will let you in. We must become more aware of the need to check who is at the door.
That applies particularly to old people. I was interested when the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned that 20 per cent. of crimes of violence were against school children. He did not give a figure for crimes against the elderly. I do not believe that statistics tell the whole story. Today, the elderly live under a curfew, almost, and that is why the statistics for crimes against the elderly are much lower. The fear about which my noble friend Lord Ferrers spoke is so strong that the elderly tend to remain indoors from the time when it is dark until the next morning. Indeed, there are so many daytime muggings that it is difficult for the elderly to venture out in safety even then. There have been occasions when elderly ladies coming to my surgery for new sets of teeth have been knocked down in the street just for the 10p or 20p that they have in their handbags. Very often there is no thought of stealing a large amount of money because young muggers are after anything they can get.

1189
The elderly are gullible and vulnerable. They have a reputation for keeping a bundle of cash hidden away somewhere. Many people believe that the elderly do not trust banks and will keep something of value under their bed or in their stocking, and so they present themselves at the doors of the dwellings of the elderly. They say they are calling on behalf of the social services or the gas board. All sorts of excuses are produced. Often the elderly person makes no check as to who these people are. They let them in and, of course, all sorts of unfortunate results follow. Sometimes it is only a case of robbery, but in other cases very serious physical injuries are inflicted on them.
Alarms in old people's dwellings are very important, not only for the security of the old people in terms of illness but also if they have cause to need urgent help. Again, Westminster Council has an excellent arrangement linked to the telephone system. Old people do not need to get to the telephone. They carry a small gadget and, by pressing it, activate an alarm call. There is a man on 24–hour duty in the council house attached to the system who can respond instantly, knowing that someone needs help. That is a good system because it is extremely important that any alarm or protection system for the elderly does not, as it were, put a notice in the window saying, "I am elderly and at risk". That is just inviting the attention that is not wanted.
Therefore, as we have heard from the statistics, the old and the young are in a very vulnerable position as regards violent crime. There is a very fine line to be drawn between fear and alarm and caution. One must try to give people a sense of caution without creating alarm, and that is not easy. There is this requirement to be aware of the need for the protection of oneself and of others. I noticed from the paper this week that personal alarms have just been issued to nurses in Bristol; and the women students at Essex University have been given personal alarms.
Perhaps the statistics which have been quoted showing that men are more at risk arise because men consider themselves more brave, and perhaps are not so keen on having personal alarms as are women. However, women certainly welcome something of that nature which will emit a loud screech if they are attacked and which can be carried with them. I know that there are many different devices which are illegal in this country. In other countries people carry aerosols, but I have had experience in court of people who have come to this country with such items, which are perfectly legal as self-protection in their own country but which are not legal here.
Burglaries form a large part of the crime figures. As I said earlier, the risk is where a burglar is interrupted when committing a crime. The statistics, which show that 70 per cent. of drivers in London leave valuables in their cars which are visible, explain the very high number of broken car windows that can be seen. What we must do is change the climate of public opinion in such a way that people no longer accept that crime is inevitable and ever-increasing, and so that they work together to support one another and the community.
Reference has been made to violence in the family. Much is being done on that front. Assistance centres
1190
have been established. There is the Chiswick shelter for women who have been attacked, where violent crime was involved and who have left home. This is a very good movement in this country, and it is growing all the time. However, I was alarmed to see a report this week in the medical press of a doctor who was mugged in his local building society, with many of his patients standing watching outside the window He recognised these patients and wondered why none of them went in to help him. He said that there was only one man in the building society with him, and when he was attacked by the two men that man was seen to sidle out of the building society. That was an extraordinary incident.
More alarming, and certainly something we should consider now that the Government have just issued a blue discussion paper on primary health care, is the fact that in London some areas are becoming "no-go" areas for visits by doctors at night. This applies particularly in South London. Doctors call in a deputising service because they cannot go as a single doctor into those areas at night. That situation has existed for some time. It is prevalent in South London, but not just in the poorer parts. The situation has now got a degree worse. The answer service, which normally sends a doctor and a driver with radio-communication, now finds that if the doctor goes to the door on his own he is mugged, and if the driver remains in the car on his own he is mugged. The latest suggestion is that they might have to take guard dogs with them. It is certainly a matter of serious concern. People who call for a doctor at night desperately need that doctor and it is essential to have the doctor's visit.
The medical press says that doctors in such areas should always be accompanied by a police officer. However, I should not think there are enough police officers available to accompany every doctor who is called out at night, so I do not think that is a practical answer to the problem. The days of the rent collector who went round collecting cash payments in bags of money have gone. It was abolished in the Greater London Council area largely because of the murder of a young rent collector.
However, there are still people from the London Electricity Board and the gas boards who call to empty coin meters, and it is important that those people should be protected while they are working, f am pleased to be able to tell the House that in the electricity world new types of payments for the prepayment meters are being introduced. Coin meters will become a thing of the past. Small meters are being developed where one has a key which can be electronically recharged at the electricity board and will be prepaid. The key will be usable only in your own meter so there will be no incentive for anyone to steal it. That will be a great protection and will mean that much less money is carried about. We all know about telephone boxes and how the card-operated telephones are gradually being installed because the old money-operated boxes were being broken into and were such a source of crime.
The London Electricity Board also suffers from violent customers. Yesterday we were considering the plan of a new showrooms and offices which is being set up in one part of London. The board is having to make special provision to receive customers who might

1191
become violent. The board is getting an increasing number of people who are attempting violent actions against the staff. Separate interview rooms are to be designed to deal with that problem. I have suggested that they install closed-circuit television in the interview rooms. In New York there are closed-circuit television cameras in most lifts. In that way an observer is able to watch that no one gets mugged or attacked in a lift. One man is always watching.
In London, transport is the big problem. The amount of violent crime against conductors and drivers is increasing all the time. Although the bus crews now have two-way radios, that has not eliminated the problem. In the constituency I represented, there was an establishment known as The Pink Elephant. All attempts to have a late night music and dancing licence were refused by the Greater London Council. Eventually, and fortunately, the place was closed, more or less because the licensing courts so restricted the hours when alcohol could be served that it became unprofitable. I understand that it is now to be demolished. Bus loads of local residents had complained and opposed the granting of that licence, year after year.
Then the police had to be called in because Southgate Station was regularly closed by London Transport as it was not prepared to cope with the frightening number of uncontrollable people who arrived at the station. When the police were called there were thrown down on the station the large number of sharpened sawblades, sharpened into the most lethal-looking hooked knives, and deadly weapons, it was quited disturbing to see. Therefore, these are ways in which we can help, and I believe that local councils will help because they will now have more control over the licensing of such establishments.
There are the young and the disturbed. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned that there are fewer registered drug addicts involved in crime than other people; but I think that it is the unregistered drug addicts about whom we must also think. Many people have told me that their children who are drug addicts will not register or attend any clinics because they are not prepared to be subjected to even that degree of discipline which is involved in receiving a supply of drugs. Registered addicts receive a regular supply of drugs. They are not the ones who are desperate to obtain drugs and who go out and attack people to get money in any way they can.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive me for intervening, but the point I made was a comparison with the percentage of registered drug addicts concerned in ordinary crime which was three times that of the general population, whereas in regard to crimes of violence it was less. There seems to be something to be deduced from that statistic, though I take the noble Baroness's point.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I think the difficulty with all statistice is that we cannot assess what is not there. The point has been made by other speakers that the degree of frustration felt by young people can be quite a worrying aspect of this problem. In London, however,
1192
there is no shortage of jobs. I have a job to offer someone at the moment. I know many people in London who have found that on telephoning the careers service they receive the answer, "We are sorry but we have no young people available at all for jobs". So there are jobs available in London.
It is often said that, although there was tremendous unemployment in the 1930s, there was no real degree of violent crime. I believe there has been a change in the standards of behaviour over these past years. There has been a change in standards of morality and in addition there has been the influence of TV images. Above all perhaps I must lay the blame in London at the door of the education system. There is something wrong with our education system if it is not giving a sense of purpose to young people. It is not creating interest or giving any incentive in life. I am sorry to say that in London at the moment this is a real problem. I hope that after May, when we have a directly elected ILEA, we shall see an improvement, because London has not always had that failure of education. It has had it recently, and it has it now.
I think that there is a need for change in the attitudes of society. There is a need for less selfishness and for more consideration of others. There is a need for a community which cares enough to support and protect its members. It has been said that it is foolhardy to try to help others in the moment of crime. Of course it is, when one is just one individual against a group or in a situation in which one is greatly outnumbered. It may be very brave but it is very foolhardy.
Yet recently I have seen the effect produced by ordinary people in the Philippines when they stood around tanks and actually stopped the might of those tanks. It can be done. If people are really willing to work together to stand against criminals and against attacks—not by exposing one single individual against the criminal, but by the community caring and working together and doing their best to support one another, to keep watch and ensure protection of themselves and their neighbours—then I believe that we shall see a decrease in violent crime.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, we must remember that this great crime wave about which we are so worried is worldwide. It has occurred in third world countries and in Communist countries. It happens in all political systems, and so we must not think that we are alone in this situation.
There are many reasons for it. According to some statistics which I have seen, drug-related crimes seem to predominate, but lack of home discipline and bad environmental conditions for youngsters can also lead to crime in the future. In the big cities like Manchester and London I believe that no less than 35 per cent. of all children born are illegitimate. It is slightly less, something like 20 per cent., in the smaller towns. Obviously it varies. Where there is such a high number of illegitimate children, there are often one-parent families and mothers who are teenagers. The chances that the children have of growing up normally are surely very small. Of course some of these children grow up normally and some make a great success of life, but they are on a hiding to nothing in doing it and it is very difficult.

1193
In places like Liverpool, and indeed in all the big towns, there are many children who do not know the name of their father and many who do not know their mother either, because the young mother has handed the child over completely to her parents or to someone else. What chance does the child have in that situation?
These children probably lack parental discipline from day one. I do not know much about bringing up children, but possibly, perhaps, for example, they do not get a bottle regularly or receive the kind of discipline which gives them a good start in life. They may later get discipline in the wrong way, in the form of baby-battering or whatever. In this respect the NSPCC and local authorities are making an enormous contribution and perhaps they may save at least a certain number of the children. I wonder whether matters can be improved by training young mothers before the baby is born and whether pre-natal training could cover not only the time up to the birth of the child but also the bringing up of the child in its early stages.
When the child goes to school it must be subject to school discipline. The type of discipline depends very much on the teachers, their competence and their ability to control and influence the children without necessarily shouting at them and using undue verbal force. Undoubtedly, however, a few children are uncontrollable. They are probably truant and nothing can be done about them.
The other day in my part of the world certain parents appeared in court because they were not sending their child to school. They came up and explained that the child had been pushed back to school over and over again. They had taken the child to school and they had done everything that they could, but as soon as they left him he ran away. There was nothing the teachers could do about it apart from expelling the child and sending him to another school, from which he ran away again.
I believe that to deal with that sort of thing and with violence against teachers, which is now prevalent, there ought to be corporal punishment administered in schools. It does not do much good, but I believe its deterrent value has an effect when everything else has been tried and failed. There are teachers who say that they despair of some of these children because they have no sanctions which they can apply.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull talked about intermediate treatment. This is extremely good and has been very successful. With this intermediate treatment it is the first time that these children have had fair dealings from anybody. When they go to a detention centre it may be the first time that they have had regular, square meals. Intermediate treatment and some detention type systems for youngsters can be effective and can do some good for the child.
But featuring large in what is wrong in our society at the moment are the media—television and the films. Explicit sex is seen on television. Is it necessary? We continually see violence, violence against women and sadism, and we do not have to go far to buy a pornographic paper; you can even buy one on a Sunday. This may not affect most people, but if these things are so widely available I believe that youngsters
1194
particularly and even older people with weaker intellects may well be affected. There is no doubt about it; people re-enact the crimes which they see on television. Those responsible for television programmes say that these crimes do not influence people and that what people see on television has no influence. If, on that basis, advertising does not influence people, it is extraordinary that channels can exist entirely on advertising.
Crime on television poisons people's minds. It bends not only their minds but also their characters. When this happens early in a child's life, it tends to desensitise the child, who becomes more accustomed to crime and thinks nothing about violence. There was a case recently, again in my part of the world, that resulted in a policeman receiving the Queen's gallantry medal. He was on duty when two other officers were attacked by a man who was known to be a burglar, armed with a shotgun. They approached the man, who fired at them. Luckily, one of the policemen ducked, but even so his hat was blown off his head The policeman who gained the award disarmed the man. Later, the man said that he had seen on television a chap with a sawn-off shot gun who had gone out and done a job and that he had thought it would be a good idea to do the same.
One hears this sort of story over and over again. I believe that the liberals—I mean liberals with a small "I"—of the 1960s have much to answer for. They have damaged society in their efforts to be liberal. It is not, I believe, practical to legislate now against television violence. We have seen over and over again how legislation has failed in the courts. But this is possibly a matter where public clamour can be aroused. When sufficient people begin to say that all this violence on television is wrong, public demand will perhaps have effect.
Some criminals, particularly those who repeat crimes and who are also mature, wish to change. It was, I believe, the Cambridge rapist who said that he hated himself, that he was disgusted with himself, that he did not want to do it again, but that then some influence, probably pornography, took over, and he did it again.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the Cambridge rapist wanted to change his sex. Was that in the noble Lord's mind?
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I am sorry I missed what the noble Earl said. Did it relate to a change of sex?
Noble Lords: Yes.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I do not quite see the relevance. If, therefore, some of these people want to change, are they able to do so? I would ask your Lordships whether we are able to change ourselves. Some of us do not regard ourselves as perfect. We know our faults and we should like to change. Is that possible? How many people can stop smoking? Some can but many of us here probably have not the willpower to do so. If it is difficult for us to overcome faults that we know we have, how can we expect some criminal, quite likely of lesser intellect, to overcome his natural instincts?

1195
There are, in addition, such things as Y chromosomes. I hope that there is no doctor in the House able to argue with me, because I shall not be able to take him on. I understand, however, that Y chromosomes exist within the body, that they distort the character and that they can leave someone with less control over himself. While criminals have to go to prison for the protection of the public, it is bad luck if they are built in such a way that they cannot help themselves. I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether any medical work is taking place in this field.
It is known, for instance, that if people who are aggressive receive female hormones they lose some of that aggression. It is, however, a clumsy way of going about things because of the great number of side effects that are totally undesirable. Yet one wonders whether in 50 years' time work may not have been done that will help those people who are physically unable to bring themselves within the law. Is any research taking place to target medicine towards helping criminals? If people could be cured or helped in that way, it would certainly be cheaper than sending them to prison.
One hears often in the House the inference that magistrates and judges send people to prison at the slightest provocation. This is absolutely untrue. Magistrates go to enormous lengths not to send people to prison. One is amazed sometimes to find that people with a long record of offences have never been to prison. Often, they have had to do community service. That is an effective scheme. About 70 per cent. of those undertaking community service do not offend again during the period of the order. Most are unwilling workers who do not carry out their duties very well. Yet, in some cases, where the community service involves work at schools or homes for the handicapped, the offenders realise that there are people worse off than themselves. Up to 3 per cent. wish to go on working at those places and so become reasonable citizens within the community.
All your Lordships agree, I think, that prison is a pretty hopeless place. It gets the burglar out of the community and out of people's hair, but it does not achieve anything else. Too frequently there is no work in prison and the prisoners do nothing while they are there. They go to prison without a trade. They are unemployable and able only to thieve. And they come out without a trade, still unemployable, and able only to go back to crime. This seems an extraordinary state of affairs. I wonder what plans exist to increase attempts to rehabilitate prisoners before they leave. There should perhaps be the option for prisoners to undertake some weeks of training before they leave prison. At least they would then be employable. This would be especially useful for youngsters and enable them to have the chance of employment.
5.47 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I agree very much with the last words that fell from the noble Lord who has just spoken. I thought that I would agree with him earlier in respect of pornography. Suddenly, however, he swerved away and said that in that regard he did not believe in legislation. I hope that he will not adopt that
1196
attitude when Mr. Churchill's Bill comes to this House. I disagree totally with the noble Lord and also with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, about corporal punishment. There has been a good discussion of that subject in this House lately, and I shall not embark upon it again. As both the noble Earl and the noble Lord are aware, it has been investigated again and again by various inquiries here and elsewhere, and all informed opinion is against it. This does not mean that I do not agree with all speakers about the gravity of the situation. It was brought home most vividly perhaps by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. But the noble Baroness, I am glad to say, did not then go on to adopt the extreme remedies suggested by some noble Lords. She has, however, made your Lordships very aware of the awful situation.
Like others, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for the manner in which she opened the debate. I have ventured before now to call her a humanitarian mole sitting behind the Minister, well situated to do him down, so to speak. I think of her now as a kind of Sword of Damocles resting above the head of Mr. Tebbit. I am glad for his sake that Mr. Tebbit, the chairman of the Conservative Party, was not sitting there. He might have found it a discouraging experience. His views in recent years have been quite appalling—totally unlike those of the noble Baroness. All of us must give credit to the Conservative Party in these latter days for choosing the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, as its spokesman on crime and punishment. It is the most sensible action that the party has taken since I left it about 50 years ago. I shall not, however, proceed with further reminiscences. There are all sorts of aspects that cannot be pursued today.
Most of us on these Benches—and, I know, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull—believe that alternative remedies ought to be made much more use of. My leader today, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would be the first to denounce the policies of the present Government and the effect of those policies in producing unemployment. I go along with anything that is said in criticism of the social policies of the Thatcherite Government.
I shall try to confine myself to slightly different matters.
A noble Lord: Why?
The Earl of Longford: Is that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Earl really must not accuse me of doing things that I did not do. I kept my mouth tight shut. I think that it was my noble friend who sits next to me.
The Earl of Longford: As it was not the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I really do apologise, my Lords. It is the only thing about which I am going to apologise to the noble Earl, because I thought that his speech was so dreadful that I will not apologise for making that comment.
To come back to the main issue, in these few remarks I am going to concentrate on sentencing. It is the recollection of many of us here that a few years ago

1197
the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw—I gave him rather belated notice that I was going to say that, but it will not be the first time that I have said it, and it does not really require an answer—when he was Home Secretary began in the most enlightened way by expressing the hope that the judges and everyone else concerned would reduce sentences. Then the noble Viscount, in spite of the fact that he was and is perhaps the most popular member of the Conservative Party, went to the Conservative Conference in 1981 and got the bird in a very painful way, so he then abandoned any idea—this is history—of trying to reduce sentences.
His successor, Mr. Brittan, at that time at least was more canny; later his canniness deserted him, but he was at that time very prudent. Therefore, when he went to the Conservative Conference, he took a very different line and recommended the increase of sentences—in other words, exactly the opposite policy, which no doubt was popular for the time. That policy was adopted—namely, heavier sentences particularly for the violent criminals about whom, after all, we are speaking today. Those policies of Mr. Brittan, which I am afraid have been carried on up to now by the present enlightened Home Secretary, have been denounced by many people, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, when we discussed these matters at the end of 1983, and by many others. Again I will not pursue that issue.
If we are talking about sentencing, we must realise that sentences in relation to violent criminals, with the abuse of the parole system, have been much increased in practice by the present Government. They are already the heaviest sentences known to anyone in Europe today. That is what the Government have done. It is no good anybody saying that this is not a party question. It is a question on which the Government are facing criticism by anyone, whether their own supporters or the Opposition. On this point, they are very much to be criticised.
I want to bring in here a little evidence which your Lordships will not regard as conclusive but which will, I think, be of some interest. I was going to suggest that it conflicted with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, but, anticipating that, he has, I think, fled. Therefore, I cannot say that this conflicts with his views without his being able to reply.
With regard to the effect of sentences on violent criminals—and I know that there are a lot of different kinds of violent criminals, as has been well explained to us by various speakers—let us take criminals who have committed some of the most violent crimes over a period of years. Very few of us in this House, my Lords, can put ourselves in the minds of those violent criminals. I have often heard noble Lords talking as though they perfectly understood the mind of a violent criminal. After many years' contact with them, I do not pretend to understand those minds but at least one can ask them for their point of view.
In the last day or two I have spoken to two of the most famous or notorious violent criminals. One served 18 years and the other served 19 years, and they are now both out of prison. One is prospering in legitimate business and the other is running a large club for young black people in East London. They are
1198
both in that sense making good, having been many years in prison.
I asked them for their views on the question we are discussing today, the causes of violent crime. Surely it is not a bad idea to ask some of the most violent criminals what they think is the cause of violent crime—at least they know more about it first hand than most of us. I asked one of them who had spent 18 years in prison—if I mentioned his name, your Lordships would all know who I was talking about but the name might be emotive so it is better not to mention it—what he would feel was the reason for the big increase in violent crime in recent years. This is an intelligent man who is doing well in business, as I said. He replied, "It goes back to 1964 and the irain robbers." I say this with proper respect for an old friend of mine who might have had some involvement in that particular matter. At any rate, as I have said, he said, "It goes back to 1964 and the train robbers. The 30 year sentences became a criterion and sentences lost their value after that. Prisoners began saying to themselves, 'If I go back to prison it will be for very many years, even for a minor offence', so to resist arrest they carry guns or knives."
That is a perfectly dispassionate opinion. This man had absolutely no axe to grind and nothing to get out of giving that opinion. That is an honest opinion given to me in the course of a long discussion in the last two days.
I spoke to the other man. He is helping to run a very successful club for young black people, where, I am glad to say, I am assured there is no violence whatever. He is a friend of the first man so they might be supposed to have similar views, but he did not know that I had put the question or what answer I had received. I put the same question to the second man, who has been out of prison for about a year, having spent 19 years in prison and having been in prison before that. I said, "Why do you think there has been this big increase in violent crime?". He replied, in just the same way as his friend, "Because of the tremendous increase in sentences". He developed the point at some length and he said to me, rather crudely perhaps, "If I were going to mug you and knew that I would get a sentence of many years in prison, I would knock you out to make sure that you would never recognise me".
That is an absolutely honest opinion which is the attitude of a man who has been involved in many violent crimes. My Lords, we have to pool our knowledge with other people bringing forward information from other quarters. I am laying before the House some up-to-date information on the attitudes among some of the most violent criminals to the increase in violent crimes, and they are both men, as I say, who are doing well now.
My Lords, these two men undoubtedly had a very difficult start in life. I agree, therefore, with everything that has been said about the need to provide a much better life for young people. I know that has been a special interest, among her many interests of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. When I was doing an inquiry for the Nuffield Foundation into the cases of crime 30 years ago, it was agreed by the experts—and they agreed about one point only—that the biggest single

1199
factor was the broken home. That was 30 years ago. Everyone is aware that in the last 30 years the proportion of broken homes has increased greatly, partly through legislation and partly maybe through a weakening of public morals. At any rate, there has been a great increase in broken homes, although in fact they cannot be held responsible for the lives of the two men whom I have quoted. But they are still the biggest single factor.
I shall finish in a moment, but that point brings me back to the position where I thought that I was going to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough. I think that philosophically I do, but his practical ideas did not seem to me satisfactory. When we are talking of any decline in morals we cannot ignore the effect of television. When I was involved in the pornography inquiry 15 years ago there was a good deal of resistance because people liked the idea of freedom of sex. But now, when there is freedom of violence, the public is a good deal more ready to smash it, to level a real war on pornography. I hope that the noble Lord will agree with this. I welcome the initiatives taken, for example, by Mr. Churchill and Ms. Clare Short. I welcome any other initiatives taken in that direction. In the long run those initiatives will bear fruit. At the moment we must deal with a great many detailed questions. For that and many other reasons I once again salute the noble Baroness. I do not know what we would do without her.
6.2 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, it is not the first time that I have had the privilege of succeeding the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and I must confess that I find it difficult. He has a way of couching his wisdom in so entertaining a form that anything I say is likely to be humdrum. I hope that the noble Earl will forgive me if I do not attempt to follow too closely—but there it is, that is showbusiness.
I am reminded instead of something that happened a long time ago. In 1969 we had a debate on this subject on the dangers of violence in contemporary society. In the course of that debate, Lord Stonham, answering at that time for the Government said:
"We should be thankful that, compared with the United States, we are at present a safe and orderly society; and we must keep it that way."—[Official Report, 12/2/69; col. 453.]
That was 16 years ago but perhaps it bears thinking about now.
I remember that particularly because it was I who inaugurated that debate. In doing so I became thoroughly aware of that great jigsaw puzzle that my noble friend Lady Faithfull has had to go through, researching into all manner of things, to produce the ramifications and the wide-ranging debate that she laid so expertly before us this afternoon. I use the words "jigsaw puzzle". Preparing for any debate I suppose is a jigsaw puzzle but this seems to be subject to the proviso that a jigsaw puzzle cannot be put together in the air. One has to lay it on a table. It needs a background of some kind.
The background to the jigsaw puzzle of contemporary violent crime, I suggest, is the spiritual climate of the age. That is something that among all
1200
the wealth of statistics that are deployed before us, and the measures that are suggested for dealing with them to reduce crime, and to protect the innocent person, tends to be forgotten. We have not heard much about it this afternoon. To my relief we had one allusion which came from the right place—that is the Benches of the Lords Spiritual on my left—when the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln touched upon spiritual matters. He slightly spoiled the effect—this is a slightly frivolous remark, I confess—by saying that it is not the province of Bishops to make sermons in the House of Lords. I am not altogether sure about that. I would probably be among the first to complain if it happened, but nonetheless I think that it does not happen often enough. Selected Bishops might well address a sermon to us from time to time. This is a complaint that I have to make against the Church, but I make it in a friendly way and I hope that both right reverend Prelates representing the Bishops will understand.
I shall not refer to statistics in what I shall say. I simply take it for granted that violent crime is on the increase and is very worrying and frightening. If that is not true —if in some respects it is decreasing—that makes no difference. I am absolutely certain that there is a great deal too much of it. I ask myself—and I should like to ask others for an opinion—as to how it came about. I am now referring again to the spiritual climate of the age in which we live. Spiritual matters are not my concern; but as nobody else seems to talk about them except for a glancing blow from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln, perhaps I might be allowed to have a thought. I am not in any way preaching a sermon but it is an inquiry.
I should like to go back a little in history to the Second World War. That war left a legacy of the most appalling violence that the world had experienced—deliberate violence, deliberate cruelty. There is no need to rehearse those facts again now. Then it stopped. It is my personal belief—I do not know whether anybody shares it or not—that there was a spiritual legacy left in the atmosphere of the world when that war came to an end from which we are suffering today. I shall not enlarge on that because I might well be told that metaphysics is not a fit topic for discussion in the House of Lords.
To continue, I spent four years abroad in that war. When I returned home, one of the things that struck me was a breakdown in manners. People were short tempered and "chippy" in Great Britain, in a way that was quite unfamiliar to me having been away for some time. I say that in no spirit of criticism. I did not feel critical about it at the time. It was perfectly obvious that it was a symptom of long drawn out privation, suffering and, perhaps above all, fatigue.
Time went on and we continued to have real deprivations in the form of shortages of rations. The rationing reached its lowest level, or highest intensity—according to which term one likes to use—two years after the war was over when we had potato and bread rationing. That may be difficult to believe now. However, that is when rationing was at its worst. Children were being brought up then, presumably by their parents, in an atmosphere of the black market and of fiddling under the counter. I remember this very well. I was not a child by a long

1201
way then. I was therefore able to observe other people's children and noticed how almost invariably they were subjected to the experience of hearing their parents talk about fiddling something—whether cigarettes, potatoes, petrol, clothing coupons, or whatever it might be. All over the country, at all levels of society I suspect, there was an atmosphere of petty dishonesty, pilfering, and getting the better of the establishment in one way or another. This is not a healthy atmosphere for children to grow up in.
And so it went on. Other more important factors came in about that time or soon after. We had a breakdown of family responsibility. Everybody complains sooner or later about the lack of parental responsibility for children. I suspect that this arose at about that time. Various factors may have contributed to it. I dare say that the coming emancipation of women may have done. Women insisted on their own womanliness and went to work in larger numbers and their houses became less closely attended.
Then in the 1960s we had what my noble friend Lord Gisborough has referred to as the liberals and the permissive society. There is no need to describe what is meant by that now. It is known well enough to everybody. This was probably the culmination of disaster. This saw the real breakdown of what up to that moment had been considered proper moral standards by which people should live. I suspect that the delay in seeing the result, the pay-off, of that collapse in moral standards has come right the way through the works as we are seeing them now. Forty years after the end of the war we have probably reached our lowest point.
Over all this there was superimposed the welfare state. We are greatly and justly proud of the welfare state. From time to time we tell ourselves that it is the envy of the world. I am not totally convinced of that; it may or it may not be. However, I am convinced that there is a price to pay for it. It is almost similar to the dilemma facing Germany in the days before the war, which Field Marshall Goering neatly summed up by saying that there was a choice between guns and butter, and he personally chose guns. There is plenty of butter in the welfare state because that is what it is for, but the price is a heavy one to pay.
The price stems from the fact that from the very beginning of life everyone is brought up to think that he or she has a right—I repeat the word "right"—to be looked after by other people. There we have a breakdown in responsibility—responsibility for one's individual self. Parental responsibility has broken down; personal responsibility to a great extent is flying out of the window after it. When Beveridge initiated the welfare state and the National Health Service I do not think that he envisaged a situation in which young people, coming down from school, college or university, should be cast upon the world without a job, and be paid for doing nothing. That was not his idea; he resisted it, but he was overruled. It is now possible for young people, finding themselves unemployed, to remain unemployed by choice. That is a great corruption of the spirit.
Somewhere along the lines we had something which was entirely new in our social system; it was an idea,
1202
hatched up I know not where, which manifested itself in the upper reaches of the trade union movement. It became accepted that every trade unionist had a right to an increase in pay every year. It had nothing to do with inflation or personal merit, but it was simply that a year had passed and therefore his pay ought to go up. It was known and is still known as the annual pay round. It was new and unjustified, and was a manifestation of what we had, and still have—the selfish society.
It is all very well to talk like this, whether or not anyone agrees with me, but we are supposed to be talking about how we should protect innocent citizens. Basically, we must do this by discovering the truth behind what I have been saying—the causes of all these things. It is all very well to think about methods of penal reform, longer sentences and all kinds of things. Hundreds of excellent ideas have been suggested in the speeches this afternoon. However, will they do any good, beyond being mere palliatives, or do we not have to discover the root causes, as I have been suggesting, and see what we can do about them?
Someone ought to speak up and say what has not been said in my hearing for a very long time, except by my noble friend Lady Faithfull this afternoon when, in her opening speech, she said that crime is wrong. How often do we hear anyone stand up and say that anything is wrong, except perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Soper? Surely it is a function of the Church to say that something is wrong, whatever it may be—not necessarily crime. Recently in conversation with me someone (he was not a Member of this House or another place) complained that he hears parsons and bishops say that they are saddened by this or that manifestation of society as it now is, that they grieve for situations of this kind, whatever they may be; but never do they say, "This is wrong". There must be people to stand up and say, "This is wrong". Who are they to be? It used to be the Church. By "Church" in this country, with its Church established by law, one has to mean the Church of England. Sadly, for various reasons I am afraid that the Church has lost a very great deal of its authority. I suspect that one reason for this is that from time to time it tends to throw up an odd prominent figure, a bishop, who thinks aloud. It is not a good idea for bishops to think aloud. They may talk aloud, but they should not think aloud. If they do some thinking and they have great doubts about dogma, about faith, or about the truth of their religion or their obedience, that would be a proper topic of conversation on the Bishops' Bench or perhaps in the smoking room of the Athenaeum. However, it is not a good topic for conversation in books, newspapers or on the wireless because invariably the result will be to destroy the faith of and to perplex large numbers of innocent people who look to such persons for their spiritual guidance and who find that they are actually being damaged. That is sad and, following my own precept of a moment ago and pretending to be a bishop, I will say that it is wrong.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl who he means by the "Church"? He said that the Church should stand up and say this, that and the other. He is a member of the Church; the Church comprises the laity as well as the clergy and

1203
bishops, and I think that that needs to be borne in mind.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, that is a very reasonable criticism. I did say that the Church necessarily meant the Church of England. As to how this voice should be expressed is another matter, with which I shall deal in a minute. I will probably not deal with it in a satisfactory way, but I will deal with it in some way. I know that it is difficult to personify the Church and give it a voice, but I have hinted that I was thinking in terms of the House of Bishops at this moment. If the bishops speak with an uncertain voice, it is difficult to see who should arm himself for the battle.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if the noble Earl will forgive me, is there any doubt throughout the United Kingdom, whatever the state of our citizenship, whatever our multiracial content, that crime is wrong? Who has to say this and to whom?
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, if the noble Lord will be kind enough to let me get on with my speech, I shall tell him; at least I shall put forward an idea to that purpose. I am only eliminating one body, which I do with sadness, which I do not think is particularly well-fitted for this. I do not think that the World Council of Churches is well fitted for it either, because it is known to subscribe money to people who actually practise terrorism in Africa. I should like to see people, leaders of all kinds—and I am thinking particularly of religious leaders of all faiths and all obediences—not speaking for the Holy Catholic Church, the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church or for any particular group of persons, but speaking as enormously authoritative bishops or enormously authoritative and respected rabbis or chief rabbis. I do not particularly want to know who they are or what they belong to; I want them to speak as individual voices, in harmony and unison.
I do not know how this could come about. I see no reason why it should not come about. I want to see all faiths—Hebraic, Islamic, Hindu, anything you like—not using any label, but speaking with the voice of the spirit. It should be possible and I believe it must be possible. Perhaps some people who might be qualified to join in such a chorus would bear that in mind. I hope that that goes some way to answering the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
I do not know where St. George lived or was believed to have lived.
Lord Harvington: Romania, my Lords.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: Romania, my Lords? I thought it was somewhere in Asia Minor. Perhaps it is the same thing. It is wonderful what geographic facts one can learn from one's noble friends. Wherever it was, there was a terrifying dragon laying waste to, I think, a village. It was a dragon of violence and no doubt evil. In response to prayer, St. George (who I suppose was not a saint at that time) returned, posthumously in fact, and despatched the dragon. Today is St. George's day, who will speak for St. George?
6.20 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, my comments today may be brief but my feelings on this vital subject are immensely strong. I, for one, feel drained of compassion when I think of what parents, families and friends must suffer when little, innocent children disappear and then are found murdered, having been sexually abused. Coming from Yorkshire, as I do, I found something particularly tragic about the little girl from Morley who went down her street to fetch a loaf of bread and did not return. Perhaps it is the simplicity of the last message that she performed for her mother that has made the police forces come together. It seems a pity that they have not been working in closer co-operation before this. May I ask the Minister the question: why has it taken so long? Was this not the criticism which ran through the television films of Operation Julie, the drugs operation, which showed the difficulty of getting the police to work together?
With modern-day transport it does not take long to travel hundreds of miles, especially with the network of motorways. Crime travels fast these days. I, for one, do not think that the police can solve these terrible crimes without full public participation. But far more important is to stop them happening in the first place. Could the public not be more on the alert for suspicious characters and keep a watchful eye over the young and innocent?
Society has fallen very low when even members of the Church abuse children. Therefore, men might be held on suspicion if they are seen to be taking an interest in a vulnerable child, even if they are trying to protect it. Perhaps it will have to be the women who take a strong lead in protecting the little innocents of society.
A serious situation is developing. At this year's President's Conference of the British Red Cross Society I heard that there was a fall off of Red Cross cadets attending classes. Many of the classes are held in the evenings as this is the time the instructors are free. The drop in cadets is due to fear of abduction when returning home.
First aid and nursing skills are so important to encourage responsible basic health care, and this is one of the reasons why at the Committee stage of the Education Bill I moved an amendment to provide more health education in schools. With the growing expense of health care education is important on many aspects of health provision and particularly on the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse. Both these contribute to a more violent society. Education seems to be our greatest hope for the future. If we can reduce the demand, there will be less point in the evil marketing, which is still increasing.
Drunkenness is a large contributory factor to child abuse within the family. I have spoken with many young people from Borstal—now youth custody—over the years. Some fathers have told me that when they come in from the pub at night and hear the baby cry their reaction is to pick up the baby and shake it, which is a very dangerous thing to do. These at-risk fathers need training so that they understand that children may be hungry, cold, or wet and need changing. They need educating, and they do respond.

1205
But the violence and impatience which stems from drinking puts many babies at great risk.
May I ask the Minister whether the worrying problem of incest is on the increase, or is it being more talked about? Are the numbers of cases held nationally? This week I was told of a case in Devon of a father who had had incest with his six-months old baby. This is something no animal would do. Is it not time that there was a committed think tank to try to resolve some of these dastardly happenings? How much research is done on these matters? It really must be done.
Locking these criminals away in prison for 23 hours a day in a cell and then letting them out will not solve these problems. They may be much worse on discharge. Do they not need intense group therapy so that they may be able to put themselves right when they have looked at where they have gone wrong? May I ask the Minister whether some of the new prisons that the Government are now building are going to have systems like those at Grendon, which tackles some of these difficult problems?
I support schemes in the community, such as the tracking scheme which seems to be working, but today's Motion deals with violent crime. Closing prison workshops is one of the most depressing aspects of the prison problem at the moment. Should we not make the people who commit crimes pay back at least something to society?
Prison officers tell me that homosexuality is rife in many prisons and that the spread of the HTLV III virus is inevitable.The frustrated prisoner with AIDS may try to cut himself and spray blood into the mouths of prison officers.This I consider would be a violent act. Will the Minister, who is so fit and keen, not take this matter under his wing with some urgency and see that all members of the prison staff who so wish are instructed in what to do and in what protection is needed, so that panic and fear are eliminated?
Some months ago I asked the Minister, Lord Glenarthur, whether he thought that castration would be a deterrent against rape. As he is in the prime of life with a splendid zest and enthusiasm for living, he is the ideal person to answer this question. After that question I received hundreds of letters in support of the need for such a deterrent. Of course I would not want anyone to be castrated, but equally I do not want anyone to be raped. There would be a choice: to rape and take the consequences, or just not to consider it.
What makes me think that strong deterrents for the prevention of crime are necessary arises from being told by prisoners, when I was taking a discussion group in a prison, that they would go on committing crime as long as it paid. I argued with them that they were shut away in prison in cramped conditions away from their friends and freedom, but still they did not think that this was a strong deterrent.
Having sat through a showing of the horrors of the so-called nasty videos, I am certain in my mind that they have contributed to some of the violent crime, as I am sure have some of the violent scenes on television. May I ask the Minister whether these dastardly videos have been removed from the shops and whether they are no longer being made? What is happening to all
1206
those videos which have been around for years and may still be corrupting young people in their homes?
I have recently been shown round the Black Museum at Scotland Yard. There are many offensive weapons, which seem to be increasing, in the form of razor-sharp plastic knives, terrible round spiked objects on chains—all made to maim and harm. Should we not toughen up the laws to include knuckle dusters and many other horrible things?
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for instigating this debate on a subject which is of such concern to so many people from all walks of life and of all ages. We should be aiming at prevention so that tiny children are safe in their cots, old-age pensioners do not fear that they will be beaten and robbed and young women can once more walk in safety without the fear that they will be jumped on from behind, robbed and raped. To sum up, I feel we need more education and more effective deterrents in society if it is to be better protected.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, with regard to her earlier remarks perhaps I should tell the noble Baroness that, concerning the most unfortunate cases of maltreatment within the family, the NSPCC (with which I have the privilege of being associated) is building up its facilities for studying this all the time. In certain areas it is working jointly with the local authority. There is a tremendous amount of work going on to identify the problems about which she spoke.
We must all thank my noble friend Lady Faithfull for introducing this debate and for so cleverly ordering the right people to take part so that they balance their speeches one with another. I propose to base my speech mainly on my experiences in the Isle of Wight, which will perhaps give a slightly different flavour from the inner cities (for instance, in the contribution of my noble friend Lady Gardner), and because hitherto it has been one of the more tranquil counties in the country. I shall not speak about its prisons, of which we have three, two of which are major ones, as I wish to talk about the problems raised by this debate; the serious increase in violent crime in my country.
Crime generally in the Isle of Wight has increased by a third in just the last two years, 1984 and 1985, which is a great deal more than the national average given by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. The particular concerns of the police are violent crime—especially involving aggressive young men, usually well under 25—and drugs. Regarding the violent crime, in earlier years the island has always had problems in the summer months, with gangs coming from the mainland on holiday and having fun beating people up, mainly in the holiday resorts. Now, out of season there is a disturbing growth in violence of the same sort by local lads.
Drug-taking is also on the increase at all ages. I heard only yesterday from a man who was driving me of a girl of about 12 years old, who he had difficulty in avoiding and who was sniffing a cloth soaked in lighter fuel and wandering all over the road, just like a drunkard. She was a drunkard, a girl of only 12. Your Lordships will know of many such examples. That is

1207
an example of simple drug consumption, but, and perhaps because of it, hard drug-taking is also on the increase. Though drugs are not specifically the subject of this debate—and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has told us that they do not have the effect (if I understood him correctly) on violent crime that perhaps one might at first think—they are a contribution to violent crime in certain cases. It is therefore relevant to talk briefly about them, though I shall concentrate mainly on the other subject.
Drugs are increasingly available, so I am told, and at ever cheaper prices. With some success the police are endeavouring to identify and catch the pushers, but with the small drugs squad that a small island with a small police force naturally has, this is an uphill struggle because of the quantities of drugs in the market and the readiness of people to be pushers, which is a sad reflection on our community. I suppose it all comes down to money.
The police are also co-ordinating with the schools to put across to the young the very serious consequences of all types of drug-taking. One hopes that this may achieve results in the future, though it is early days and these things take time to work through. In the meantime, the example of those around them may delay the effect of the good messages being conveyed when the children are younger. It is difficult to see how the problem can be solved quickly.
There are many causes of violence, and varying points of view have been put to me from various sources. One of the causes of the violence of the young men about whom I was talking earlier is that they are following the example of the visiting gangs in the summer. That is straightforward. Another cause is seriously thought to be—and other noble Lords have mentioned this—that they are seeking the macho image of young men on television, both in soap operas and in real life at "demos".
It is significant to note this when one sees a demonstration on the television. I shall not have a go at television, for other noble Lords have done that, but I have been thinking about this matter. Pictures of demonstrations on television generally show the police charging with their batons to a much greater extent than they show the young men charging at the police and misbehaving. One can understand why this may be so; one has to protect the television cameramen. They are probably safer, and the police probably tell them that they are safer, behind the police lines than they would be if they were behind the demonstrators. This is a definite problem for which one cannot blame the television people entirely, but it is something that they should perhaps take into account.
My other point is that my advice would be that we do not particularly want the young demonstrators televised, because they have the macho image and they will be copied by other young men who will behave badly locally; they will follow them rather than copy the police. It is a complicated story, but it needs thinking out by the television people, because they have a responsibility, which I am not always sure they realise. However, that is a diversion.
My next point has been touched on previously, though I shall run over it quickly. It is the lack of
1208
parental discipline. However, both the police and the education people to whom I have spoken point out that imposed discipline and self-discipline have decreased throughout the community over many years. My noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery referred to this with great eloquence. It is partly due to increasing lack of respect for any sort of superiors. I suggest that this, in part, is brought about by the bad behaviour from time to time of some of those so-called superiors, some of whom have even on occasions sat in your Lordships' House. When they behave badly much publicity is given to that.
There has also been a slackening in personal discipline and high standards of honesty by many parents of all sorts. In some ways, although my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery put this back to the immediate post-war period, I think that it has become rather worse and slacker recently, now that people have so much. Everybody has a television set on which to see what everybody else has, and they want the same. Expectations are higher and somehow honesty slips.
I suggest, however, that there are indications that this trend of parents is beginnning to reverse. My experience, gazing at a fairly wide section of the community, is that the young new parents in their mid-20s now have a better sense of responsibility than parents of their age had 15 years ago. That is a movement in the right direction. We have to hope for that, because the effects will be some time a-coming.
The schools, it is agreed, also make a contribution and there is no doubt that the national lack of self-discipline reflects itself among school teachers as among anyone else. The industrial action by school teachers has also unquestionably added to the tendency of children to lose respect for authority and for the rights of others to lead an unmolested life.
Outside the control of the schools there has been the lack of certainty of a job for the young school-leaver in recent years. This engenders a lack of hope and also makes it more difficult to teach uninterested teenagers of both sexes. Teachers in the past could encourage attention in class, especially during the last two years at school, by showing that the children could get better jobs if they were even partially educated. The lack of hope, without certainty of a job, which is more marked in the Isle of Wight than in the rest of South East England because of the exceptionally high unemployment, is a definite contribution to the lawlessness of some of the young.
Briefly, because we have heard from my noble and learned friend and we shall hear more from my noble friend the Minister of some of the things that have been done by the Government which could contribute to curbing violent crime, I pick out the many initiatives of my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham, especially YTS, which in its new form can bridge the gap between leaving school, finding a preference for a job and getting a stable one thereafter. That may help to deal with this problem of the lack of hope. There is no doubt that the school authorities think that there is a good chance of that, and that is hopeful.
We have heard from my noble and learned friend of the many initiatives that he has taken. I should like to

1209
suggest to your Lordships that he has taken them over two Parliaments in a steady progress of improving the structure of the law in a whole range of different ways. I presume to say that I think he should be congratulated on having done so consistently over the period in which he has sat on the Woolsack.
I shall not keep your Lordships long. The other two things that I should like to mention are the neighbourhood watch and the community consultative groups. The neighbourhood watch is just starting in the Isle of Wight and only in a couple of areas. The police tell me that they do not do anything unless the local community exercises its own initiative, which seems to me to be sensible. But it will grow.
The community consultative groups, on the other hand, are now the law and the police have been surprised even in our county at the warmth with which they have been accepted by other people of all walks of life who sit upon the groups. That is hopeful for the future, but there seems to be a gap at the moment, although it is early days, between what they and the parents can do and what the lawless young people do.
There is thus some hope that in communities like mine the rise in violent crime may be abated in the future. But that can happen only if, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said towards the end of his speech—and I may say that I did not agree with the early part of it but I did with the end—the spirit of community responsibility is regarded as important. He gave us some excellent examples of community responsibility. I entirely agree with him, and if that can be encouraged and built upon, not only in our county where I hope that it is already, this spirit should spread through to the inner-city areas. My noble friend Lady Gardner gave us many examples in Westminster of where that is happening; where the local authority is working to do its bit to cure the problems. I hope that all is not hopeless and that the trend may reverse itself, but I cannot see it doing so quickly, and that is sad.
6.47 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lady Faithfull for introducing this debate and, as forecast by her, I should like to confine my remarks to what happens to a violent man after he has been arrested; for, as a prison officer said to me only last week, "Just because you lock up a violent man, you don't lock out his violence".
As I understand it, there are three periods of incarceration for a criminal which would be, first, the remand in custody awaiting trial; secondly, the period in a local prison after conviction awaiting transfer to what I think is now called a training prison; and, thirdly, the serving of the remainder of his sentence in that training prison. During each of these three periods, a violent prisoner can easily become more violent. This is because in the local prisons he is likely, as many noble Lords will know, to be "banged up" for 23 hours out of the 24 in very crowded conditions and he can also be, as they say, banged up in the training prison as training prisons suffer from staff shortage. But what I find puzzling is this. Just after the war, the inmate-to-prison officer ratio was 7:1. Now, it is only 2:1. How, therefore, can one explain the staff shortage with the vast increase in numbers of prison
1210
officers—that is, I think, from about 2,000 in 1947 up to 19,000 today?
If I may, I should like to look at each of the three periods of imprisonment, in turn, to ask questions and to make suggestions. The first period is waiting in prison to be tried. It is, of course, too long; it may be two years. It was therefore very heartening to read the speech made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to the Prison Reform Trust on 10th April to which my noble friend Lady Faithfull has already referred. It was an extremely good speech. In it he mentioned the introduction of time limits in four pilot areas: Birmingham, Bristol, Maidstone and Southwark. The limits last for 182 days between arrest and arraignment. Should the limit be exceeded, it will trigger (as he puts it) the termination of proceedings; in other words, the accused goes free. I think that is promising but I must ask my noble friend on the Front Bench why the period is so long and why it is only on a trial basis in a few areas, since the formula is already well tried in another country—Scotland—where they have the 110-day rule, which I gather has been working very well for many years.
The second period of detention is when a man is locked up in a local prison after conviction awaiting transfer. That can also last for more than a year. Once again, staff shortages make it likely that the offender will be confined to his cell. However, once again I am encouraged by another part of the Home Secretary's speech when he mentions the commissioning of an efficiency scrutiny to see whether escorting could be run more efficiently. It is a wasteful process to use prison officers for court duties. That point was made by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. We should perhaps examine the possibility of using another body of men for that task.
I suggest to my noble friend that prison officers are overqualified merely to sit beside the accused in the dock for eight hours a day. The only qualifications such a man needs are those required to prevent an escape and for that all he needs to be is strong, muscular and honest. I do not mean to be flippant but all we need is an honest nightclub bouncer.
One prison officer told me that he needed to be in court to gain information about the nature and extent of the crime, to listen to speeches by the prosecution and defence counsel, statements from witnesses and so forth. He said that he needed to relay those details back to his superiors. That argument does not hold much water with me. Do the prison authorities really need to know the details of the evidence? Could it not be that "GBH—10 years" is all they need to know? Even if that is not enough, surely all trial evidence is transcribed and if the authorities need to know the minutiae they can read them.
I understand that 40 per cent. of local prison officers are involved in court duties. If they can be released for normal duties, the "banging up" obviously lessens, workshops open, free association becomes possible and, it is to be hoped, a violent man becomes less angry and more manageable.
I come now to the third period of incarceration, which is the training prison. The reduction of violence there seems to be hardest nut to crack. It is good news that we are building 18 new prisons and refurbishing

1211
many more old ones, but their architecture seems to be wrong. My noble friend will surely agree with me about the old Holloway C1 Unit. It is odd that both prison officers and the Prison Reform Trust prefer the Victorian radial gallery prison to any of the modern, more humane ones. I can see their point because an officer standing in the centre of Strangeways Prison, for example, can see every gallery and bank of cell doors in that prison. If we close in the galleries and put corners in the passages it takes double the number of officers to supervise the same number of prisoners. That is perhaps why there are staff shortages in the new training prisons. It seems to be a design fault that makes those prisons so violent.
I quote an extract from a report on Holloway C1 by my honourable friends Charles Irving and Janet Fookes. They write:
"There has been a break with prison design and a move towards a hospital model. In our view the result has been disastrous. There is a very low level of daylight in the cells. There is no daylight to corridors and protuberances preclude observation by staff of inmate behaviour. There are drab colours: low ceilings, and little natural light giving a strongly depressing and claustrophobic atmosphere. Significant areas of the cell are not visible from the observation posts in the door. Washing facilities are made of delft and easily broken. Fittings such as lights, radiators etc. have sharp edges and are easily broken or used in self-mutilation"—
and then the clincher—
"The ratio of disciplinary staff to prison inmates is as high as 1–1. However court appearances take up so much time that confinement to cells is greater than anyone would like".
Holloway is for women and it is both a local and a training prison, but I refer also to Frankland, Wymott and Wayland. It seems that some of those modern training prisons are the most violent of the lot.
I do not believe that architectural mistakes cause the whole problem. In the speech which I referred to earlier, the Home Secretary is rather critical of the way in which the work of prison officers is broken up into separate tasks which discourage flexibility. He said:
"We are still too dependent on high levels of voluntary overtime workingand this hinders effective management and planning."
In addition, the 1984 Control Review Committee recommended a system of small units for long-term prisoners who present such serious control problems that they cannot safely be contained in the training prisons. It is heartening to know that the first of those has already been opened at Parkhurst, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone will know, and that another four or five are planned. I hope that their architecture will be satisfactory.
That apart, I have one other ray of light to shed on our Front Bench. Only yesterday the governor of Holloway Prison said to me:
"Since Lord Glenarthur got his paddle in the water a couple of months ago, things are really shifting".
I can only ask my noble friend to go to it, not just at Holloway but throughout the length and breadth of the kingdom.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to those of other noble Lords for the manner in which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, introduced this interesting and important subject. I should like to concentrate on the police and make one or two
1212
suggestions as to where there could be minor improvements. Matters certainly should be explored. I should like to thank those who at short notice have given me a great deal of information and have taken a great deal of trouble to provide me with facts and figures.
After 1974, the Labour Government were rather reluctant adequately to remunerate the police to keep the good men in the force. It was sad that between 1974 and 1979 we lost between 8,000 and 9,000 officers. They tended to be the brightest and the best of the sons of the morning, because they were offered jobs and they decided to vote with their feet and leave the force. I am glad to say that we were elected in 1979 on the promise that we would improve police remuneration and pay a good deal of attention to law and order. We have done that since 1979 and 1983.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, was submitted to and implemented by the present Government's predecessors?
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that. I do not know who implemented it. It was in our manifesto. The report was to hand. We were in a position to put it into action straightaway, as we did. I think that we took the right course and we did it on the platform upon which we had been elected. The point that I am making is that we lost some valuable people, and 10 years later the police are, to some extent, missing the middle management that those people would now have provided. I think that is sad.
People probably do not realise—I learned this as a result of my own inquiries—that a young policeman of about 22 years in London would now receive a basic salary of £9,075 per year, and overtime is often added to that. That is not a bad starting salary by any standards. It is a good and valuable career. I hope that in the future more good and true young men will be attracted to a career in the police.
I learned from the Sunday newspapers, as has been mentioned, that the Labour Party has now decided to make law and order one of the platforms of its policy. I am delighted about that. I think that the more that people are agreed about the need to strengthen and improve our police force and its organisation, the better. The more parties that can agree to that, the better.
I would remind the Labour Party that in its 1983 election manifesto—I looked this up—and as late as its party conference in 1985, it re-established its policy that, in future, police authorities will have to be elected. Those police authorities will lay down policing policies in their areas. In view of the Labour Party's enlightened approach I hope that it will drop that proposal, because it is a recipe that in some areas the Left-wing have used much to the disadvantage of the police.
I noticed in the party political broadcast last night that the punchline right at the end was a small, attractive young child of about five or six. She was going along and a rather sinister man started to follow her, so she ran up to a policeman and got a pat on the

1213
head. So already we are beginning to see the new Labour approach in their party political broadcasts.
I think that some of us did not realise—I certainly did not realise—that the strength of our police force in England alone is 120,000. The police force is now bigger than the army, the navy, or the air force in this country. There are one or two small but major differences compared with the armed forces. First, the police have no cadet college; and, secondly, they have too few reservists. I should like briefly to cover those two points. I feel some sentiment about the Hendon Police College because it was in my constituency, and I recently reread the history of it. It was extremely successful. It was founded by Lord Trenchard in 1934, and for five years it set a fine example. Two hundred cadets went through there, and your Lordships have only to look at the honours that they received in World War II to realise what a wonderful job was done in both selection and training; and there was only 15 months' training.
Of those 200, 184 earned honours, 40 of them Orders of St. Michael and St. George, with KBEs down to MBEs. Nine also had awards. Eleven of them received DFCs and four had George Medals in World War II. That is a fairly high figure from a moderately small intake. Unfortunately the Labour Government, and I think the police at the time, agreed not to set it up again in the same form after the war. I wonder whether, if our armed forces had abolished Sandhurst, Dartmouth and Cranwell, we would now be seeing leaders emerge with the intellect, drive, imagination and leadership qualities which those colleges achieve. I also wonder whether we ought to see if something like the old Hendon ought to be set up again.
I concede that the police pick and train their future leadership by accelerated promotion, which starts at about the age of 27, and they then go through Hendon or Bramshill. They have six months in the training school and one-and-a-half years as cadets. I wonder whether in that respect, with the need for people with good, trained minds, the degree of accelerated promotion might be extended and perhaps started rather earlier—young men are much more mature now—at the age of say, 25, rather than 27. That ought to be examined. I am not suggesting that we abolish what is already good, but I am asking whether the two could run in parallel. After all, half the officers in the navy come from the lower deck, and go through the ranks in the other services, so the two are not in contradiction. You could run the two in harness, and the services show what can be achieved with that sort of set up.
I have been looking at the latest figures, and I still believe that the police are not attracting graduates in sufficient numbers. The 1984 figures show that the metropolitan police attracted 122 in an officer force of 1,200, and that is not very large. Perhaps more cadets, or a different sort of cadet, would be attracted if we re-established a cadet college on the pre-war pattern.
I now turn to the reserves. It is very interesting that we have increasingly found that the territorials in the army do a wonderful job. I am not thinking just in terms of cost, but when exercises take place the reports generally say that the territorials showed a wonderful sense of responsibility, knowledge and enthusiasm;
1214
and you get eight territorials for the price of one regular. So you could increase the manpower quite considerably without increasing expenditure if there were more reserves of special constables in support of our police force.
The global figures are that there are 16,000 special constables in England out of a total force of 120,000, so there is approximately one reserve for every eight regular police. In London there are 1,600 specials in a force of 27,000, which is only one in 17. These reservists could be attracted and used. We see tremendous and good advertisements in our newspapers for territorials, but (perhaps I have overlooked them) I have never seen equal advertisements for specials to support our police.
There are various reasons why we should possibly increase the number of our specials. First, they could help to build bridges of understanding between local communities and the police force. If they are living and working locally, it is an extra method of trying to construct those bridges of understanding. After all, the need for that was underlined in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman.
In fact, it is now a statutory duty to set up proper consultative arrangements with representatives of local communities. The specials could help in that process.
They could also be used—obviously, they have less experience than the regulars—in a situation like Brixton or Tottenham, where the regulars were on duty all through the night. The next day, the authorities contacted all the reservists and all the normal policing duties for that day were done by specials. Again, in the exercise last autumn the army territorials and the reservists were called up, and that is another example of the use to which people can be put.
The army treat their reservists with tremendous attention. They give them challenging jobs to do, they train them well, they keep their enthusiasm high and they put in charge a very senior regular officer. I am trying to be constructive. The police do not do this, and I wonder whether a regular senior police officer could be put in charge of the specials. I know that there are 43 independent police forces, but he might set the pace from the centre and encourage progress to make sure that reservists were being recruited, trained and given challenging opportunities all over the country.
I now come to an area which may arise during discussion of the Education Bill. We must try increasingly to make sure that policemen, and, perhaps even more importantly, policewomen, are allowed into our schools to spread the gospel, to encourage crime prevention and, incidentally, to teach road discipline in order to reduce road accidents. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, nodding, because it cannot be right to keep the police out of our schools. That is where the community bridges should be built; and I particularly stress the need for women.
When you are trying to warn young girls of some of the dangers which I am afraid exist, there is no better person to do that than a woman. She can sympathetically explain the difficulties, whereas a man would be more inhibited in dealing with these problems. So there is a job to be done of rebuilding the

1215
community relationship with the police. When we discuss this aspect on the Education Bill I hope there will be support from all parts of the House so that, at least, we shall write into the Bill the need to allow our policemen to get into the schools and do the job, which can only improve the relationship and, in the long run, improve the morale of our police and the efficiency with which they act.
7.9 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may say at the outset that, despite the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, and I may differ about the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, and its timing, I agreed very much with what he said. We were discussing these issues only the other day on the Education Bill, and it is absolutely essential that they are dealt with, because young children are at risk of violent crime. It is vital that every possible step should be taken to safeguard them—certainly by means of policemen going to schools. I find it deplorable that in a limited number of schools in London, and now elsewhere, that has been made impossible as a result of the action of some members of the teaching staffs. I very much hope that the House will agree with that view when we come to discuss this matter again on the Report stage of the Education Bill. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, that that is fundamental.
I come now to the initial speech in the debate from the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. It was particularly helpful that she raised this issue today from that side of the House because inevitably a number of us have become almost weary at the sound of our own voices when talking about criminal justice issues. Indeed when one is talking about this subject, this range of issues, one is slightly alarmed at the prospect that one may be repeating almost precisely the words that one used in an equally admirable speech only three, four or five weeks before. So it was helpful that the noble Baroness raised the issue. It has been a constructive debate and what has been particularly constructive is that a number of Members of the House who are not old criminal justice recidivists like some of us have participated in the debate and made some very interesting speeches. I refer particularly to the speech we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. I found myself very much in agreement with a great deal of what he said about the structure of the police service.
There cannot be much doubt that violent crime probably creates more anxiety in our society than almost any other issue, with perhaps the single exception of the problem of unemployment. But hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens are oppressed with the fear of being victims of violent crime. Politicians as a class tend to discover this when they are canvassing during by-elections because they find that elderly people in particular are very concerned even at answering their own doors after about half-past six or seven o'clock in the evening. That is a new problem. I do not believe that 15 or 20 years ago there was anything approaching the same level of concern. But it is now growing at a rapid rate
1216
and I think that we all have to recognise it and take action to deal with it.
I do not propose to discuss all the proposals which have been made by noble Lords in various parts of the House as to how we should deal with this. But perhaps I may refer to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. He will not perhaps be astonished to learn that I did not wholly agree with his solution to the problem—that of corporal punishment. I shall give two reasons for that. First, it would of course—and the noble Earl may not regard this as a decisive argument—be inconsistent with our obligations as a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. There has been a decision in the European Court of Human Rights on precisely this issue—the issue of birching on the Isle of Man. We are a signatory and the present Government—in my view, rightly—have extended our relationship with that convention. They did so within the past 12 months for another period of five years. Therefore it would be impossible for us to reintroduce corporal punishment unless we were to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. I should have thought that the number of people favouring such a course of action would be very limited.
The second reason is that every form of independent inquiry that has ever taken place on this issue has demonstrated that corporal punishment is not a solution to the issue of violent crime. There was for instance, the Cadogan report—I suspect that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may remember it because I think it came out at just about the time he was Conservative candidate in the Oxford City by-election in 1938. That Report, of a committee set up during the period of the Premiership of Mr. Neville Chamberlain, demonstrated quite conclusively that this was not the way of dealing with the issue of violent crime. That general approach was incorporated in the Labour Government's Criminal Justice Act of 1948.
I understand the sincerity of the noble Earl's views on this matter and the very alarming cases that he cited of the victims of violent sexual attack. It is a terrifying problem. It scars the victims for life. But, with great respect to him, I do not believe that that is the way in which to solve the problem.
When we started the debate we had the good fortune to hear the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I found myself very substantially in agreement with him. The noble and learned Lord and I sat on opposite sides of the House for a period of five years when he was in Opposition and I was a Home Office Minister. We disagreed quite substantially on a number of occasions but during those five years he never made a trivial party point on the issues. I very much welcome that type of approach. On no set of issues is routine party point scoring less appropriate. One of the great advantages of this debate is that we have risen above that. There appears to be an immense gap between the kind of debate we have had in this House today and any similar debate taking place just down the corridor. From that point of view, there has been a useful and worthwhile discussion on a matter of great public importance.
I come now to one part of the analysis of a number of noble Lords opposite which in some respects would be shared by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who,

1217
unhappily, is not with us for the moment. I refer to the view, shared by Mr. Tebbit, that some of the problems which we are now experiencing—the tensions in our inner cities and the increasing level of violent crime which we have been debating today—are in some way the responsibility of the "permissive society", as it is described, which was introduced in the 1960s. This formed a part of the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, and the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough. With great respect, I do not agree.
Let me say what should happen if indeed it is the view that the permissive society is the explanation for all our current ills. First, if that is indeed the reason, one has to explain why violent crime is rising in so many other countries which did not experience this permissiveness. Why has violent crime risen, as it has risen, in France, Germany and Italy? Each of those countries has experienced almost precisely the same set of difficulties as we have experienced in this country. But, quite apart from that, if it is the view that what happened in the 1960s explains what we are now experiencing in this country, let us look at what happened.
First, there was theatre censorship. Are we really going to suggest that, as a result of breaking the relationship between the Lord Chamberlain, who at that stage had some control over what was allowed to be shown on the stage in London, and the theatre, there has been some form of impact on the crime statistics?
Let us turn to a more controversial issue—abortion. Who actually wants to repeal the Abortion Act which went through in the late 1960s? Certainly there is argument—legitimate argument—about what the appropriate guidelines should be for medical practitioners. But there was abortion before that Bill went on to the statute book. Of course there was. If you had money there was no problem. The difficulty arose before the passage of that Act if you did not have money. What happened, as we know, was a whole series of destroyed lives of young girls who were victims of backroom abortionists who did the job with knitting needles. I do not want to go back to those days and I doubt very much whether even a significant minority in this House wants to do so either.
There is then the point of whether we should reopen the whole question of whether homosexual behaviour between consenting adults should or should not be a criminal offence. The recommendation of the Wolfenden Committee appointed by a Conservative Government and adopted by Parliament made a change that has, in my view, improved the quality of life in this country.
Lastly, there is the question of capital punishment. The question of capital punishment has been debated in another place on many occasions. In the present Parliament, with a Conservative majority of more than 160, the return of capital punishment has been rejected by an overwhelming majority.
Those were the central issues involved in the introduction of the so-called permissive society. I do not believe that there has been any significant move in either House of Parliament to turn back the clock. I do not believe that there is a simple relationship between what happened in those years and what has happened
1218
in the past few years in terms of the rapidly-escalating level of serious crime.
Nor do I believe the comfortable alternative theory, which is that everything is the fault of unemployment. I do not believe that for a whole series of reasons. First, there was a substantial increase in crime in the last quarter of 1973 and throughout the whole of 1974 and 1975—when there was a relatively high level of employment in this country. It would be impossible to say that the reason why crime was rising at that stage—and in one year it rose by no less than 17 per cent.—was because of unemployment.
On the other hand, it would be equally foolish to say that there is no relationship whatsoever. Of course there must be some relationship between crime and the hopeless lives that many young people have in some of our crowded inner-city areas, where they are experiencing a high level of unemployment. In Brixton, it is between 70 and 80 per cent. among some black school-leavers. In one ward in Liverpool the figure is 90 per cent. Of course there must be some relationship between that appalling situation and the level of crime. However, as I have indicated, this does not provide a simple explanation for the set of problems we have been discussing today.
Having said that, I turn now to the role of the police, which it is important to discuss, the matter having been raised, as it was a few moments ago, by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. It is common ground that the police can operate effectively only if they can work in a climate of co-operation with the community. We have to accept the fact that in recent years the police have been dragged into the political debate. The House will recognise that, particularly at a time when the role of the police is so relevant to dealing with the problems of serious crime in this country, that has shaken the morale of the police service very substantially. The police do not wish to be seen either to be supporters or opponents of any government. Their job is to uphold the law and, by and large, I believe that they do that job with considerable efficiency and still with the support of the overwhelming majority of the country.
There are of course some policemen who behave improperly. Certainly there are some racialists in the police service, just as there are some racialists among journalists, among politicians, and among social workers. It is not a problem that is unique to the police service in any way. Unfortunately—and this point was touched upon in our recent debate on the crime problem of inner London—we now have a group of publicly-financed so-called police monitoring groups whose central objective in many cases is to destabilise the police service. By doing so, they will make an already grave situation a great deal worse.
Some substantial improvements have been made, both during the lifetime of this Government and during the lifetime of their predecessors, as I as trying to say to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. The Government have undoubtedly provided more resources to the police, just as their predecessors did. Thanks to unemployment and, undoubtedly, to a substantial increase in pay, which was largely implemented by the present Government's predecessors, there is no particular difficulty in

1219
recruiting policemen. In fact, quite the reverse; there is a long queue outside the recruiting office door.
However, there are some substantial problems for the Government to answer. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will touch upon one of them tonight: given the fact that it is now possible to recruit policemen far more easily than in the past, what does he propose to say now, following the debate we had two months ago, about the very substantial cuts in overtime that have been enforced upon the Metropolitan Police by the present Government?
As I indicated in that previous debate, there are serious problems facing the Metropolitan Police. Crime is rising at a very substantial rate, with 75 per cent. of all armed robberies taking place in their district. We deserve some indication as to whether we shall have an early answer from the Home Secretary to the request made by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police for substantially improved resources to deal with the serious problem of crime in London.
I hope that the Minister will deal also with the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, as to what will be done about shotgun control. Shotguns are being used in more and more robberies, and yet there is no indication that the Government propose to strengthen firearm controls so far as shotguns are concerned. What do I mean by improved controls? First, I mean that there should be some form of control over shotgun ammunition. At the moment there is none. Secondly, there should be some obligation on the owner of a shotgun to look after it and, if it is stolen, he should be required to give a very satisfactory explanation as to why that has happened. Finally, I find it quite extraordinary that we are still subsidising the shotgun licence owner, because the Government has cheerfully agreed that the fees should not represent the cost of administering the service. It is the only major area of administration of license fees, as far as the Government are concerned (and I shall be interested to know if the noble Lord is in a position to contradict me), where a subsidy element has been tolerated not for one year, not for two years, but for four years. We deserve some explanation as to why that has been allowed to take place.
Finally, I come to an issue that has been raised by Members on both sides of the House, and that is the situation in prisons. At the moment, prison numbers are only just below 47,000, and certified normal accommodation is about 40,800. Unless there is a substantial change of policy we shall soon be passing a figure of 50,000 inmates. I believe that could happen, and that it would substantially wipe out such advantages as we are able to derive from the increased prison building programme.
That is a menacing prospect. I have indicated on a number of occasions in the past, although certainly a number of noble Lords on this side of the House do not share my view, that I am in favour of that prison building programme. There is a fundamental inconsistency if one says on one occasion that conditions in the prisons are intolerable, as indeed they are, and at the same time opposes a prison building programme that can make them better. For instances, the building of
1220
the new remand prison at Woolwich is of crucial importance in improving the position of unsentenced male offenders in London. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has on a number of occasions pointed out the appalling situation when men who have not been convicted of any criminal offence are held in conditions that are as deplorable as they currently are. I therefore very much welcome the fact that we are to have a new remand prison in Woolwich. I believe that to be right.
One should also recognise the immense pressure not only on inmates but particularly on the staff of the prisons under present conditions. That, no doubt, is one of the reasons, although not the only one, for the present dispute between the Prison Officers' Association and the Home Office. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, will be in a position tonight to give any indication about what is happening. I understand that there have been further negotiations which have taken place today according to the tape outside. I recognise, as I think Members in all parts of the House do, the admirable and devoted work done by many members of the Prison Officers' Association. They are working, as I have indicated, in thoroughly bad conditions. They have to face the awful problem of "slopping out" and the consequence of being present on those occasions when at 7.30 a.m. on a hot summer morning the chamber pots are brought out by hundreds of prisoners in our overcrowded remand prisons. I think that creates tremendous tensions as far as main-grade prison officers are concerned.
I very much hope that this dispute between the union and the Home Office will be resolved. However, I should say this. I very much hope that if there is a dispute there will be some form of restraint by the POA. The threats which have appeared in the press that in some cases they are going to stop visits by wives and children to men held in custody and the threat which is held out that lawyers are not going to be allowed to visit their clients, do not in my view enhance the reputation of the prison servicer. I hope those threats will be dropped and that there will be a satisfactory resolution to this problem.
Everything that has been said in this debate indicates the urgency of this problem. What I have said shows the need for a substantial further increase in the resources available for our criminal justice services. I understand, of course, the pressures on public expenditure. I also understand the view of the Government that one of the central priorities should be a further reduction in the standard rate of income tax. But when we have to make a choice between these crucially important areas in our criminal justice system, it would seem to me a very strange order of priorities were we to say that further cuts in income tax come before what is in fact the safety of the public.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should like to thank, as the whole House has been doing, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, not only for having initiated the debate but also for the steering, or direction, which she gave in her opening speech. The noble Baroness is a distinguished social worker and is in constant touch with agencies, organisations and people who matter in

1221
this area of responsibility. The Government will no doubt pay due regard to the constructive proposals which she has advanced.
We had the privilege of listening to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor's detailed analysis of the recent statistics and placing them in their historical perspective. I also enjoyed the occasional statement of his underlying beliefs.
I do not propose to introduce any statistics. I think the essential facts have been rehearsed and referred to in many speeches. However, to summarise, I believe that we are faced with two main factors. First, the police force is almost up to its established strength: it is about only 2,000 short of the established figure. Of course we accept that the police have conducted themselves in a way which commands the respect and confidence of the public. We are grateful for that commitment. We therefore accept that it is imperative that they should be given the resources that they require.
The second factor is a worrying or baffling factor. It is this. After giving due allowances for changes in the reporting and recording practices, and indeed imperfect recording, crime and violent crime continue to increase. I think that except for the occasional year such as 1963, 1976 or 1979 it has been on an upward curve since the end of the Second World War. There is no hint that we are approaching the hoped for plateau. Indeed, the sad comment of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was that we have not seen the improvement that we had hoped for.
It is no consolation to be told that violent crime has also been increasing in the Republic of Germany, France and some of the other EC countries, or to be told that we are holding more men in prison than is the case with the EC countries. Neither is it a consolation to know that, notwithstanding the increased lawlessness, we in the United Kingdom—except, sadly, for parts of Northern Ireland—are still living in a pretty humane society.
I go back to the first factor which I mentioned; namely, that the police are almost up to their establishment strength. I do not know how the authorised establishment figure for the police is calculated. Perhaps the Minister will confirm whether he takes fully into account all the relevant developments of the past 15 or 20 years. During the past 15 years terrorism has been imported into this country. How many policemen have to be employed to combat one terrorist? Is it one, 10, 100, or more? Again, we are only too aware of the racial tension and the racially motivated harassment in the inner-city areas which also impose an additional burden on the police. Moreover, the police—and we support them in this—are engaged in the development of crime prevention measures. Here again, this imposes additional demands on manpower and resources. For those reasons therefore we are entitled to ask whether there are good reasons for increasing the strength of the police.
Let me bring together the two main factors as I see them. On the one hand, the police are almost up to establishment strength; but, on the other hand, crime is increasing. Therefore, from that we may conclude
1222
that the police on their own cannot solve the problem of the increasing crime rate. We cannot ask the police on their own to cure that particular sickness in our society. Your Lordships will recall that that was the message that the Lord Chief Justice brought to the House about four years ago. Indeed, I believe it is the message that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor delivered to the House earlier today.
In the course of the debate there have been many references to the numerous possible causes of the increased rate of crime. I think we all agree that they are many and are often complex; there is unlikely to be a single cause. I have had handed to me a long list of at least 62 specific measures which, it is said, could assist in tackling the problem. I shall not trouble the House with the 62 measures; I shall leave it to the Home Office officials to work them out.
I was gratified that the noble Baroness, lady Faithfull, after reading the report of Mr. Kaufman's important speech in The Times of 21st April, acknowledged that, though the emphasis differs and varies, nevertheless there is much common ground. At least that is my interpretation of her interpretation of Mr. Kaufman's speech.
There have been references by a number of noble Lords to unemployment—and not just unemployment itself, but unemployment which in turn leads to poverty, hardship and stress. I have no wish to generalise or to sloganise about the connection or the interrelationship between the highest-ever level of recorded crime and the highest-ever recorded level of unemployment which coincides with it. We may not have a full understanding of the connection, but we believe that there is a relationship. The Government should not be at all surprised that many people, whether or not they feel safe on the streets, believe that there is a connection between the two.
Perhaps I should mention another factor which has been referred to by a number of your Lordships this afternoon and which was not so obvious 15 years ago. I refer to violence on the television screen and to the video nasties. We are gratified that the existing guidelines laid down for producers and editors are currently being reviewed by the BBC and the television companies. We trust that they will take fully into account the fact that almost 50 per cent. of those cautioned or convicted for violent crimes are under the age of 21.
There is a feeling—or possibly that is too weak a word; a growing conviction—that the weakening of the family unit, which after all is the oldest of our institutions and has served us throughout the centuries, may have something, or indeed a great deal, to do with increased crime. Of course we all know that there can be a great deal of discord within the family unit from time to time. Nevertheless, it is our conviction that the family probably offers the best chance for people to develop secure relationships, a sense of love and security, a sense of identity, a sense of belonging and a sense of responsibility. These are the very qualities that we want to support and strengthen us in the fight against crime.
But of course that begs the question: why is the family unit disintegrating? It is a very important question and one which is very difficult to answer.

1223
What steps can the government of the day take to strengthen family cohesion? What measures are available to the government of our day? Is there a case for appointing a Minister for the family whose task would be to ensure that central and local government policies which could strengthen the family were not pursuing conflicting ends? Is that a possibility?
It must also be recognised that it is very difficult for members of a family to stay together and care properly for each other if they are unemployed, poor and badly housed. These are the very factors which can lead to family breakdown; and if many families are breaking down, that leads to a community breakdown.
We agree that schools obviously have an important role to play. Education on drug abuse should be a part of the school curriculum. We also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and with other noble Lords that there is a need for greater support for all agencies which are fighting drug and alcohol abuse. I noted with much interest and sympathy the recommendation of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that care and treatment orders should be issued in respect of drug addicts and glue sniffers. Thus the offenders—or patients—would receive care and compassion in secure accommodation.
Many of your Lordships have referred to the prison service. We agree wholeheartedly that there is a need to "de-overcrowd" our prisons and to improve facilities for work and education in the prisons, with better preparation for release and rehabilitation.
However, I return to the central theme of the debate, which is that the police on their own cannot deal with crime and that crime prevention needs the co-operation of all agencies and all people. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, argued the need for a joint framework for social policies at central government level, as recommended 10 or 12 years ago. Can the Minister tell the House how many of the ideas set out in the joint framework statement have been implemented? I shall also be grateful if the Minister can tell the House whether the Government have given, or will be giving, consideration to the appointment of a Minister with special responsibility for the family.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, also argued the case for a justice and order council to be set up for every district, to work in common harness with the police. Again we agree that it is imperative that there should be a partnership. But I should have thought that there may be differences between our side of the House and Lady Faithfull. I believe that on these Benches we see the local authority playing the lead role in the partnership among the police, local authority and other agencies.
I turn to one of the matters referred to in the speech of my noble friend Lord Mishcon: namely, the award of compensation to the victims of violence. We must not neglect the victims of violence. If the offender can afford to pay the full amount of the compensation to his victim, he should be ordered by the court to do so. That would be one sure way of bringing home to the offender the consequences of his conduct. Can the Minister assure the House that the courts are making full use of the compensation powers contained in the
1224
Criminal Justice Act 1982? In conclusion, I would invite the Government to examine as a matter of urgency all the proposals and suggestions that have been advanced in the debate and to consider whether and to what extent they are acceptable to them.
7.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we have almost reached the end of a long and interesting debate, one that has been full of feeling and concern. It has been wide ranging, too, with many different sides of a seemingly intractable and frightening problem given an airing. Some diverse and interesting views have been expressed on how to lessen what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor described as the social evil of violent crime and how we might deal with those who offend in such an intolerable way. I agree that my noble friend Lady Faithfull has done all of us a service by giving us the opportunity to debate the subject at a time when it is so regularly drawn to our attention by the media. I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me notice of some of the points likely to be raised in the debate. I hope that it means that I shall be able to answer some of them more comprehensively than might otherwise have been the case. But a great many points have been raised.
The Motion echoes the Government's concern about violent crime and our determination to enhance the protection of the public. I shall return to this important theme from time to time throughout my reply. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor referred to the broad scope of the Government's strategy against crime. He stressed that we must take steps to prevent crime of every kind taking place, that we must enhance its investigation and detection, and that, when offenders have been caught, they must be dealt with in a fair and effective manner. Two elements of that strategy are particularly relevant to today's debate. They have at their heart the interplay between the criminal justice system—the police and the courts—and the community with the aim of giving real stimulation where and when it is needed on a local basis.
The first area that I should like to mention is crime prevention and the wider role of the police in the community. I shall come later to the support of those who have been the victims of crime. Crime prevention must be a key element in any government's strategy. We have made important strides. In 1983, we set up a special crime prevention unit within the Home Office to develop and co-ordinate crime prevention initiatives and to create public awareness of steps that can be taken to prevent opportunist crime. And so much violent crime is opportunist. Support and advice have been given to many local initiatives generated through the work of police crime prevention officers, crime prevention panels and other local groups—the sort of initiatives to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pointed.
Another indication of growing public awareness is the expansion in the number of neighbourhood watch schemes, mentioned, with particular reference to the Isle of Wight, by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. These now number over 9,000. They involve neighbourly supervision by householders and they

1225
represent, in that way, the grass roots of crime prevention. An evaluation of a scheme in Bristol showed a drop in overall crime of 22 per cent., not an insignificant figure. Such measures will also be likely to help prevent violent crime in the neighbourhood. Other crime prevention initiatives are being directed at specific types of violent crime, including attacks on bus staff, crime on the London Underground, violence associated with licensed premises, violence to staff in the workplace and commercial robbery.
Crime prevention, and its relevance to crimes of violence, also has a high profile nationally, stimulated by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister's seminar on the subject in January. Her purpose in holding the seminar was to mobilise the support of people outside the police and the Government to develop a range of initiatives aimed at reducing the opportunities for crime. The discussions by representatives of national and local organisations, industry, commerce, the trade unions, the police and the Government, of a variety of themes resulted in a number of firm objectives. We are determined to pursue these and to monitor them through the new ministerial group on crime prevention chaired by my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Giles Shaw. Like my noble friend Lady Faithfull, I hope that the group will serve its purpose. I am sure that my honourable friend will note the views that my noble friend Lady Faithfull has expressed about its expansion to cover other areas.
Two other crime prevention initiatives deserve a mention today. We believe firmly that the community itself has the ability and the desire to help in the fight against crime. So, with the support of the Manpower Services Commission, the Home Office crime prevention unit is actively promoting the use of resources under the community programme to fund local crime prevention projects in which the long-term unemployed will be involved.
Another important new initiative to harness local action against crime is the group of five local crime prevention projects announced by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary last October which will aim to involve a wide variety of local agencies, businesses and residents. I am sure this approach is right. We must encourage local people to identify their local crime problems, whether violent or otherwise, and develop suitable local measures to tackle them. My noble friend Lady Faithfull's idea for local justice and order councils is an imaginative proposal for channelling local concern about crime into practical action for preventing and dealing with it. Her suggestion would appear to have quite a lot in common with the approach adopted by NACRO's juvenile crime unit in tackling juvenile crime in 10 different parts of the country. The NACRO project has been financially supported by the Government and we are following it closely and with a great deal of interest.
I share to a great extent the concern of my noble friend Lady Faithfull about children. In developing what I am going to say now about the responsibility of parents, I include so much of what was said generally about the whole structure of the family. There can be little doubt that the single most important responsibility for ensuring that children grow up to
1226
respect the law and to behave as responsible members of society rests with parents. I agree with my noble friend Lord Gisborough that it is they who can best ensure respect for them, leading to self-respect for the child and hence for other individuals and society as a whole. In children's earliest years, parents' attitudes are a crucial influence upon the way that their children develop. Later, as children grow into the difficult years of their early teens when they are most at risk of offending, by encouraging love and respect and a clear knowledge of what is right and wrong with their children, built on the foundation of the first five years, parents play an essential part in helping them avoid that risk. Of course, broken homes, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, described them, play a part in so many of the tragedies that later unfold.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull referred to a particular initiative so far as parents are concerned The Government are of course anxious to bring home to parents the extent of their responsibilities. That is why, in the Criminal Justice Act 1982, we strengthened the powers of the courts to make parents responsible for paying the fines and other financial penalties imposed on their juvenile children. As the criminal justice White Paper explains, we are also considering whether courts, in imposing supervision orders on juvenile offenders, should be able to impose certain requirements on the juveniles' parents. As my noble friends Lady Faithfull, Lady Gardner of Parkes, Lord Mottistone and others have said, schools have a vital role in helping children develop as responsible law-abiding citizens and helping them steer clear of delinquency. They represent children's first experience of institutional authority and the need for standards, discipline and respect for others to provide the essential self-discipline to steer them through their lives. We are anxious to enhance the contribution that schools make. The Education Bill now before your Lordships goes some considerable way to help put things right.
All these strands—community co-operation and involvement, parental responsibility for their children's proper development and the role of schools in encouraging good citizenship—are most important to deal with the harmful effects of what my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery has referred to, and is widely known, as the permissive society. Whatever name one gives it, the past 30 years have seen a breaking up of community, a reduction in standards of parental care and control and a devaluation in the good influence of schools. We have seen the growth of individual freedom without a corresponding development of personal and collective responsibility. Now is the time for many traditional values to be re-established, and the Government will continue to take a lead in their encouragement.
I turn now to the police. Improved arrangements for inter-police force co-operation in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, wished it to be have been in place for serious crimes since the Yorkshire Ripper murders. The police well understand the need for a partnership with the people they serve. They are increasingly seeking to work with others in the community to tackle the criminal and social problems they come up against.

1227
Other local agencies, both statutory and voluntary, have a responsibility to support the police in this work. The police themselves have done a great deal in recent years to forge effective links with all sections of the community in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, would want them to. At the inter-agency level the police have in some areas helped to set up multi-agency panels involving people from local authority services such as housing, education and social services, as well as voluntary organisations, to combat the evil of racial attacks. In London the Metropolitan Police has set up five such racial attack panels.
Under Section 106 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 police community consultative committees are being established in all areas of the country. Such committees should become the focal point for liaison between the police and the community, and I very much hope that these consultative committees will become an important part of communication on policing issues of local concern. Local crime prevention initiatives, as well as involving ordinary citizens in the fight against crime, have brought the police into close contact with the public. This is a role that they have taken to willingly and with considerable imagination.
But, above all, we place in the hands of the police the responsibility for solving crime. It is a task with which they struggle to cope, so great are the other demands upon them. We hear many disparaging remarks about the decline in recent years in the rate of offences cleared up by the police. What is often overlooked is that the number of offences cleared up steadily rises—over 1 million in 1985—and that the great majority of violent and sexual offences, on which the police concentrate their resources, are cleared up. Seventy three per cent. of violent offences were resolved in 1984 and 72 per cent. of sexual offences.
I am sure that these figures could not have been achieved in the face of rising crime without the enormous additional resources which have been made available to the police since 1979, more manpower, more and better equipment, more and better training. As my noble friend Lady Faithfull said, the total manpower available to the police has increased by well over 13,000. We have encouraged police forces to use their resources more efficiently to get the most from them; for example, by employing more civil staff so that experienced uniformed police officers and others are available on the beat and for other operational work. To pick up a little of the theme that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was developing, we are examining how to ensure that adequate resources continue to be available to enable the police service to discharge its inceasing commitments along the lines that the noble Lord was developing.
My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing drew attention to the valuable role of the special constabulary and the part that it can play. Let me assure him that the Government entirely share his view. We see an essential role for special constables in the police service both as a trained body of reserves to assist the regular police at times of unusual pressure and as a practical link between the police and the public they serve. It is for chief constables to decide how many specials they
1228
need, but we encourage them to recruit as many as they can usefully train and deploy. I am glad to say that after 10 years of continuous decline we have had modest but encouraging increases in the total numbers of specials in England and Wales in each of the last four years, and we shall continue to do what we can to sustain this healthy trend.
For some years the police service has been anxious to recruit more graduates. A total of 648 graduates was recruited last year, and 65 per cent. of recruits have educational qualifications of five O-levels or better. At the end of December there were 5,376 graduates in the police service, compared with 1,277 in 1978. There are opportunities for accelerated promotions, as my noble friend will recognise, through the special course at the Police Staff College at Bramshill. I note the point that my noble friend made about his desire for a cadet college.
In 1984 we issued guidance to chief officers of police reminding them of the need when they recruit to take account of the long-term needs of the service. They need to recruit people who can cope with the complex and changing problems that the police service will be facing in the next 10 years and who will become its leaders in the 21st century. My right honourable friend's police advisory board is looking at ways of improving arrangements for career development in the police service.
I turn now to victims.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, as he may recall, whether there was any possibility of his telling us the decision of the Home Secretary on the application made by the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis for increased resources. In our last debate two months ago, the noble Lord said that it was on the Home Secretary's table. What is the situation now?
Lord Glenarthur: It is under active consideration by my right honourable friend, as I think the noble Lord will expect me to say. Indeed, I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Harris, himself who said that, if there was to be good news, he did not imagine that my right honourable friend would allow me to give it. I can only say that it is still under the careful consideration which the noble Lord would want it to be.
In the past it has often seemed that the victim of crime, the innocent party, has been ignored by the state, yet resources have been poured into dealing with the offender. But times have changed. We recognise that, if confidence is to be maintained in the criminal justice system, the victim's interests must be taken into account. The Government have been anxious to do all they can for the benefit of victims of violent crime. They certainly deserve the sympathy which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said they should have.
First of all, financial compensation is available to the victims of violent crime under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. In the year 1984–85 over £35 million was paid out to nearly 20,000 applicants from this source. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary recently announced in the White Paper—this may be of particular interest to the noble Earl, Lord Longford—the proposal that the

1229
scheme be put on a statutory basis, which will further strengthen the position of applicants who will have a legal right to receive compensation and which will provide specific parliamentary authority for expenditure.
In addition, the criminal courts may order convicted offenders to pay compensation to their victims, and we are actively seeking ways to encourage the courts to make greater use of this power. The Criminal Justice Act 1982 allowed compensation orders to stand as a sentence in their own right and to take precedence over fines. The recent White Paper announced the Home Secretary's proposal that the court should in all cases be required to give reasons for not awarding compensation to victims. But no amount of financial compensation can ever make up for the emotional and physical scars suffered by the victims of crime, particularly violent crime and such crimes as residential burglary. Many people feel vulnerable in every respect of their lives after the security of their home has been breached, however much or little has been taken.
That is why the Government have welcomed and encouraged the development of victim support schemes and have substantially increased the funding provided to local schemes and in recent years to their national association, which was particularly mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln. Although not every town or district has a support scheme, there are now 282 spread widely over the country, and we hope that they will continue to flourish.
A special kind of victim to whose needs we have given particular attention is the victim of rape, an offence which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has rightly called uniquely barbaric. Police forces have made great strides in the sympathetic treatment of rape victims, which I have mentioned from time to time from this Box.
I should like now to pick up some of the points which have been raised today. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, mentioned in particular crimes towards children. I certainly share, as we all do, her concern for horrible abductions of young children. They are particularly vulnerable, and parents naturally have the main responsibility—a difficult one to discharge—for their protection. Parents should always know where their children are, of course. They should teach their children to say "No" to strangers. The Home Office has a range of publicity material aimed at parents and children, including recent Peter Pan material, issued by arrangement with the Abbey National Building Society.
My noble friend Lord Gisborough and others referred to violence on television. It would seem surprising, with such a powerful and, some would say, even intrusive media, if there were no links between television violence and the behaviour of some of those who watch it. Until research is able to prove the issue one way or the other it would be right to err on the side of caution. This is precisely why the broadcasters are required to draw up guidelines on the portrayal of violence, and to be particularly careful when large numbers of children may be expected to be watching; and why the public clamour, to which my noble friend
1230
referred, is called for. No doubt that feature will be noted by the broadcasting authorities.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord which way his idea of caution works? As far as research is concerned, that will never prove anything conclusively in this field. But does caution mean caution about the violence displayed, or caution about interfering with the violence?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Earl may well be right in saying that it may be difficult for research to lead in some conclusive direction. The important thing is that the broadcasting authorities must be aware through the public clamour that was directed at them, because they have to draw up the guidelines to deal with this matter. They have the most enormous responsibility on their shoulders, and one which I am quite sure they will continue to take seriously.
The matter of prisons was raised by many of your Lordships. It is, of course, true that we have a large and increasing prison population. The fact that it is increasing in other parts of the developed world is also a concern. There are obvious limits on the action which can be taken by the Government to reduce the prison population. The courts must remain free to deal with the offenders who come before them in a manner which they deem appropriate. The Government have a duty to provide the powers and resources to enable the courts to perform their role. But we are seriously concerned about the size and cost of the prison population, and we have taken a number of measures which go towards ensuring that prison is reserved as the ultimate sanction when no lesser sentence is adequate. We have encouraged the use of police cautioning. We are developing a range of non-custodial options, and are encouraging that.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, raised the question of the POA dispute. I note what the noble Lord has said. I hope he will understand if I do not comment on it because I can tell him that talks have been going on this afternoon and I do not know what stage they have reached.
On the question of court escorts raised by my noble friend Lord Mersey, yes, court escorting is a matter which seriously drains prison officer resources. This is a matter which is being looked at in a scrutiny at the present time.
So far as training for youngsters is concerned, I can assure my noble friend Lord Gisborough that training takes place within youth custody centres in a variety of different forms. People are able to take City and Guilds qualifications in such things as welding, bricklaying and so on. The sad aspect is that despite the major efforts made it does not always have the effect on youth recidivism that we all wish it to have.
The noble Baroness raised the question of AIDS. I certainly share her concern about that. However, there is a great deal of incorrect information about which must be put right. We do all we can to educate all those concerned in prisons about the question of AIDS.
I am not quite sure about the context of the introduction of the remarks by the noble Baroness about castration. I have to say to the noble Baroness that I am told it does not have the effect of removing

1231
the violent element in this sort of attack. But I can also say that my honourable friend Mr. Mellor is shortly going to write to the noble Baroness about it.
My noble friend Lord Mersey asked me about time limits. I can say that they are being used in test areas. The time limits reflect the average length of time that cases take to come to trial in those areas. The intention is to eliminate the most serious delays when the accused is remanded in custody and to encourage a general tightening up by setting realistic time limits.
The matter of drug offenders is a serious concern. I sympathise with the view expressed by many, including my noble friend Lady Faithfull, that those who cannot help themselves to kick the drug habit should receive help to do so. I am bound to say that there are serious moral difficulties about locking up any person, even with care and compassion, where no breach of the criminal law is concerned. At present this can only take place if the stringent conditions of the Mental Health Act are met. However, many of the features recommended by my noble friend are present within the scope of a probation order. The court may, when dealing with a drug offender, as most addicts are, make a probation order with a condition of attendance at a day centre or clinic which can help with the addiction. Such orders are administered with compassion and are not a punishment. For that reason the court may not make an order unless the offender is willing to comply with it.
My noble friend advocated use of the Scottish model so far as the juvenile justice system is concerned. The Government are following with interest the current debate about the juvenile justice system and the various suggestions for reform which have been mooted. These include proposals for transferring all or some of the present functions of the juvenile courts to a new family court. The Government established the interdepartmental working party to examine the idea of a family court. They hope to publish before very long—within the next couple of months—a consultation document which will make an important contribution to the discussion about these important questions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked about incest. There were 277 cases reported in 1985, and 88 per cent. were cleared up. About the same number of cases have arisen in each of the last four years, so the figures are much the same.
Vandalism, and the fact that that can develop into serious crime, was raised by my noble friend Lady Gardner. That is an important area. The Department of the Environment's priority estates programme has shown that crime and vandalism on the most neglected estates can be significantly reduced by better management—for example, by increased caretaking and cleaning—and, as my noble friend said, better designs of new estates could also alleviate that problem.
I must also mention the elderly. We are concerned about the needs of the elderly, and much of the activity of local police crime prevention departments is directed at advising and assisting them. There are of course things that the elderly can do to reduce their
1232
susceptibility to crime, with which things my noble friend will be familiar.
The wide-ranging nature of today's debate bears witness to the complexity of the problem presented by violent crime and the measures required to deal with it. All the positive matters mentioned today have an important place in the strategy against crime. But they do not compromise the overriding concern of this Government—which is a feature of the Motion by my noble friend Lady Faithfull—that we must protect innocent people from the growing evil of violence in our society; or, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, a fear of it.
Our actions since we came to office are evidence of a determined stand against those who terrorise the innocent in the way that my noble friend Lord Ferrers so vividly described—and how much I agree with a lot of what he said! Many of the steps have already been mentioned today. The police are stronger in numbers, and training and equipment are deployed more effectively. Once the violent offenders have been caught we have sought to ensure that the courts have adequate powers to deal with them, which, in the case of the most serious violent crimes, means a sentence of life imprisonment. In the exercise of the Home Secretary's descretion to authorise the release of life-sentence prisoners the overriding factor has always been the protection of the public. In the very worst cases of murder that factor was given formal recognition in 1983 so that release in these cases is not considered for a very long time. After life-sentence prisoners are released they are carefully supervised so that public protection is always properly considered.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers suggested that available punishment for the most vile crimes is not adequate, and he went on to suggest corporal punishment for those who defile the body and mind. I am quite certain that many people in this country will strongly agree with what he says, but the issue raises all sorts of difficulties and I fear that quite often his views will be agreed with more out of emotion than out of rational consideration. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, much research has gone into this, and in many reports that have come forward it has not been shown to be effective in the past.
My noble and learned friend spoke earlier of the severe punishment which prison represents, and there should be no doubt of the tough measures now available for dealing with violent offenders, nor of the Government's commitment to protecting the public by catching and punishing the criminal. But we must recognise that the police, the courts and the prisons cannot solve the problem of violent crime. As my noble friend Lady Faithfull said, by the time it reaches them it is too late. The remedy must be found at an earlier stage and it is for this reason that we attach so much importance to crime prevention, to engaging the support of the community in the fight against crime, and to the fundamental importance of family life as a basis to a law-abiding society. Only by pursuing these long-term goals can we create the kind of society in which we and our children can live in greater security.
I have grossly over-shot my time, but I fear that it has been impossible to cover every point that has been raised today. I shall study the Official Report with great care. This debate has provided the opportunity for two

1233
important themes to be developed. The first is that there is no quick or magical solution to the problems that we face. They have developed over time for many of the reasons spoken of today. No government can turn that trend round overnight, or in one, two or even three Parliaments. The sociological reasons for the trend are argued long and hard by the experts. However, common sense tells us all that lowering of standards, including the spiritual standard referred to by my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery, and a less ordered sense of responsibility have in one way or another contributed towards the pernicious and remorseless increase in crime, of which crimes of violence form a small but serious and frightening proportion.
The second theme is that the Government are fully alive to what has taken place. They have encouraged research into it; they have taken and are taking positive steps to counter it; they encourage new ideas. In essence they have helped to create and develop the contemporary framework in which the community at large and individuals in particular can play their part to help bring about the change to the kind of values and social order which we all so earnestly desire. It is a major responsibility and an awesome burden for us all. The Government cannot achieve it alone, but what is in our gift we will not shrink from.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, the time is late. I should have liked to make many comments, but I shall not detain your Lordships' House, particularly as another debate is pending. First, perhaps I may say how privileged we have been to have my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor speaking in this debate today and spending so much time on the Woolsack. We are most grateful to him.
I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for speaking on behalf of the Labour Party at the beginning of the debate and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for winding up on their behalf. I am also most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I nearly missed him yesterday and I was delighted to see that he was to speak on behalf of the Alliance. I should like to thank all other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has been a wide-ranging one. I have noted 18 points on which recommendations have been made—not 63, but perhaps I have missed some. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

The Forestry Commission
8.24 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is now their policy on the future of the Forestry Commission.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. At one stage in the discussion on future forestry disposals on 8th November 1984 the Secretary of State for Scotland made an important statement. At col. 7 he said:
1234
"The Government have decided that the commission's disposals programme should be extended to 31st March 1989 and that its main purpose should be the rationalisation of the estate."
He went on to say:
"The commission can now plan ahead on this basis without the uncertainty and attendant difficulties that frequent reviews can cause in achieving a coherent approach to the management of the enterprise."
I am sure the Minister will realise that, following that assurance in November 1984, there was some concern expressed in many areas as regards forestry about a leak in the Economist in February of that year which indicated that the Cabinet was seriously considering the disposal and privatisation of the entire forest estate, and they hoped that if they disposed of the forest estate, they could realise from the Treasury £1.5 billion. I am quite sure that any substantial disposal of that kind would be realised at a heavily discounted rate because of the large amount of land that would be placed on the margin.
I asked a Question of the Minister in this House on 12th March and he gave me some assurance regarding the acceptance of the policy of 8th November 1984, but he went on to say that of course that disposals policy is from time to time reviewed. This is not quite consistent and not quite as reassuring as we would expect, in view of the statement of the Secretary of State for Scotland that his assurances would banish the uncertainty and attendant difficulties.
Therefore, tonight's debate is largely to give the Minister the opportunity of reassuring us about the Government's future policy, particularly in the area of disposals. So far there is authority to dispose of land to the value of £100 million. The first disposals target was £84 million. This has now been raised to £100 million by 1989, and I gather that at the present rate of disposals £78 million has been realised. No one would object to a rationalisation of the forest estate. It is sensible that the estate should be looked at and that we should realise that in some areas there are no possible future development prospects; or, from an economic point of view, it may be sensible to sell off land to a neighbouring larger estate. That makes good sense. Therefore, we are not arguing against the £ 100 million target if it is to be realised by 1989.
However, we are deeply concerned about the possibility of further disposals. If this programme takes us to 1989, that would be a very appropriate time because it will take us pretty close to an election, when I hope that the privatisation mania, which seems to be an obsession with the Government, will have subsided and there will be a much more rational approach to these matters. I should like some assurance from the Minister that the privatisation programme, the disposals programme, which has been mentioned, will be determined by good land use management and not by the requirements of the Treasury in meeting its PSBR targets. That is important, and that is the important assurance that we should like.
Although I am speaking from the Alliance and there are other speakers who will participate in this debate, I do not regard this as a party matter. I refer the Minister to the statements released by the Timber Growers Organisation (TGO), the responsible private sector woodlands organisation, when the leak in the Economist was discussed in the press. The TGO said:

1235
"A strong Forestry Authority is a pre-requisite. Any action which could result in the diminution, or even dismemberment of the Forest Authority, should be most strenuously resisted".
It goes on to discuss the role of the forest enterprise, and says on the basis of its record:
"It has fulfilled [its] task exceedingly well".
What I am talking about tonight in arguing against a further disposal programme is not a party matter; it is a concern of the private sector as well as of those who are engaged in the state sector.
Forestry is interesting. It is the prime example of a mixed economy operating successfully and in partnership. The total productive woodland in this country in Forestry Commission estates is 892,000 hectares, and for private woodlands, 1,145,000 hectares. There is almost a balance between the private sector and the public sector. They do not operate in opposition or in conflict with one another. One of the great functions of the Forestry Commission is to encourage the private sector. It does that by making research facilities available. It is the authority for grant aid for forestry, for the dedication schemes and for reviewing private practice. It is a partnership and an understanding.
I am delighted to say that the partnership has been successful. One of the most important economic justifications for forestry is the degree of import saving. We are all concerned about the balance of payments and the decline of manufacturing industry, but we are still importing 90 per cent. of our timber requirements. The United Kingdom production last year was 3·8 million cubic metres; the import bill was for 39·7 million cubic metres. Despite the extension of forestry since 1919 and the active afforestation programme, private and public sector, we are still meeting only 10 per cent. of our requirements from domestic supplies.
Forestry is important as an employment creator. I am sure that the Minister, with his experience in the north of Scotland, will appreciate that, with the decision of the many oil companies operating in the North Sea to reduce their investment by over 40 per cent., employment opportunities in the north of Scotland are substantially diminished. The figure does not look large. The Forestry Commission employs over 6,000 people, the private sector almost 11,000 and the forestry and wood processing industries 25,000. It does not look like a big figure, but it is desperately important to rural communities.
As was discussed today on the Question on rural post offices, it is important to have some possibility of a survival, in a balanced and sensible economy, of opportunities for employment in the countryside. Not everyone wants to live in large cities. One of the most exciting things is to see people enjoying and working in rural communities; the small communities in the countryside.
It is important to realise too that forestry does not stop at the forest gate. It is only because there is a Forestry Commission that we have been able to encourage downstream investment. Before anyone builds up a pulp mill or a wafer-board factory—such as was visited recently by the Minister—he has to have guarantees of continued supplies. You can only get these guarantees where there is one large authority to organise them. Investment in pulp mills, wafer-board
1236
plants and plaster-board plant is only possible because guaranteed supplies were made available.
I thank all who are speaking in this debate—I understand that you do not do that at the end of an Unstarred Question—and particularly the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, my successor as chairman of the commission, and the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, whose distinguished father was a previous chairman. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, because this is their second time round today in a debate. Both of them starred in the earlier debate.
Let me say a word or two about the other aspects of forestry. Concern has been expressed about the Forestry Commission neglecting conservation. The Forestry Commission has taken that on board, and I shall not read the documents that it has supplied to me in this connection. It is actively in discussion with the Nature Conservancy and with other responsible bodies to ensure that they discharge their responsibilities sensibly.
Noble Lords may have seen the recent declaration of policy in connection with broadleaved woodlands. The Forestry Commission, in its commitment to this new policy says:
"Broadleaved woodlands are an integral feature of the British Landscape heritage, and any apparent threat to their future produces an understandable outcry. But their importance goes well beyond their visual appearance".
There is no doubt that the Forestry Commission is responding to the criticisms that have been offered in connection with the conflict with the environmentalist.
In another document on conservation the Commission declares its objectives:
"One of these objectives is: 'To protect and enhance the environment'. Part of that objective concerns landscape design, and the Commission has set out what it is doing in a separate publication".
We learnt the lessons of the rather ugly and unattractive plantings of the immediate post-war period after the first war, from 1920 onwards. We are devising our forests and landscaping them in such a way that they are attractive to the eye and enhance the environment. I remember a Member of this House saying that the contours of a forest should resemble the shadows of passing clouds on the hills. If you look at some of the new forests, some of the forests that are now maturing, you will see that these considerations have been well learnt.
There is one other aspect, and it is an aspect which may be affected by any substantial privatisation. The Forestry Commission accepts its social responsibilities in the field of recreation. I know that my noble friend Lord Hunt will be saying a word or two about this in the course of this debate. There are 32 camp sites, 576 picnic places, 611 woodland and nature trails, 191 forest cabins and 20 arboretums. All of these are designed to get people into the countryside, to let them escape from the pressures of urban life and to see the beauties of the countryside and enjoy them.
That is an obligation the Forestry Commission has tactfully pursued and accepted, and I suspect that that might not be entirely so if the entire estate were sold off, although I must pay tribute to some private woodland owners who have accepted, as part of their dedication scheme, public access to these estates. But

1237
there is no doubt that the impact of public access in the countryside is generated substantially by the leadership of the Forestry Commission.
One final word about its obligations to the private sector. The Forestry Commission provides the research for the entire private sector. It administers the grants and it examines the plans of private planting to ensure that they are consistent with good forestry practice. It provides most of the training in the forestry industry. It would be a sad day if the contribution that it makes in these respects were to be diminished in any way by substantial government intervention.
I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, before on the subject of encouraging private investment in forestry. When I left the Forestry Commission I became chairman of the Economic Forestry Group, which is designed to encourage private investment. But it concerns me a little that the balance between the private sector and the public sector should be maintained. I noticed, for example, that the planting programme of the Forestry Commission in 1978 was 14,000 hectares and for the private sector was 6,000 hectares. In 1985 the Forestry Commission planted only 5,000 hectares and the private sector had gone up to 16,000 hectares. I am not complaining about that. I think it is a good thing, but it is only possible because there is a generous tax regime available to make it attractive to plant trees. That, too, is a good thing because there are opportunities for investing in many things other than the Stock Market. If we have a tax regime that encourges private planting for the small immediate rewards that are available, taking a long-term view, that could be a good thing.
I initiated this debate at this late hour simply to seek the assurances that I mentioned in opening. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us these assurances, clarifying the situation and making it possible for this industry, which depends on taking a long-term view, to plan sensibly and on a long term.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, the service of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to the forestry industry is well known. His concern has been well expressed tonight, even though I suspect in another capacity his heart may be elsewhere, at Wembley, on this occasion.
I have no doubt that I shall find myself in a substantial minority tonight. I rise to speak in this debate because I should like to see a sensible and viable curb on the increase in the forestry acreage in the United Kingdom. Above all, I should like to see no further large-scale planting in our upland areas and in particular in the Highlands of Scotland. I believe our moorland and upland areas are far more valuable than a large amount of the marginal livestock-rearing land elsewhere in the country. They are far more valuable from a conservation point of view, from an amenity point of view and from an employment point of view.
I should also like to see the Treasury take a hard and firm look at the tax concessions which it grants to private forestry. I should like to see these concessions limited to no more new planting. I do not want to destroy the marvellous forest units that many people have built up, but I should like the Treasury to say quite firmly that it will not extend the tax concessions
1238
to another new acre taken into forestry; it will continue to guarantee people what they are already used to, but it will not encourage planting of fountain forestry and economic forestry or encourage other people to take over vast areas of land to plant with more and more trees. After all, we had the argument not long ago on the Wildlife and Countryside Act. But why should we continue to use taxpayers' money to give people grants to plough up moorland and reseed areas of vital interest to people? I fail to see why we should continue to use taxpayers' money to destroy the amenities that so many people want to keep.
Then there is the damage in many areas of forest that large-scale afforestation can do to our rivers. That is covered in the Forestry Commission's report at paragraph 124. It admits there the large amount of water that trees drink up. Many of our rivers are being destroyed by the vast planting going on in our watersheds. A watershed today can take only so many acres of forest and we should be aware of the damage that is being done to our fishing and other valuable amenities in this country by increased planting in the uplands.
The reason that I am so much in favour of the sale by the Forestry Commission of its 2.9 million acres to financial institutions, which in their turn would offer shares in the woodlands to their clients, is simply that at a stroke the supply of private woodland would be increased by 78 per cent. It would be years before commercial investors wanted to plant another fir tree anywhere else in the United Kingdom. I hope that the Government will look carefully at these proposals and not draw back.
As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, the Forestry Commission has a grant-aiding role to continue to play. It also has an important role in research and development, so the commission would still have a part to play. There is no certainty and no concern why the commission staff should be affected if the woodlands passed into private hands. They still have to be looked after, and so it is merely a question of changing the employers. The sale would raise, as the Economist estimated, some £1.5 billion, as against the present loss on the Forestry Commission to the taxpayer of £54 million a year, which we have to find after approximately £150 million a year has been raised by forest sales.
I feel also that if we had better commercial management of woodlands we should avoid some of the glaring mistakes that I see in the northern conservancy on my boundaries up in Sutherland. The Pinus contorta in Syre Forest in Sutherland were decimated by the pine beauty moth 10 years ago. Whole areas of the Syre Forest were killed off and were not replanted, yet the Forestry Commission—which is typical of a government department—moved 10 miles away to the Shin Forest and planted acres and acres of the same beastly lodgepole pines, which are now being defoliated and destroyed by the pine beauty moth. Great local concern is being expressed because the pines will have to be sprayed with some new chemical about which there is a great deal of concern.
However, private woodland owners in the same area have avoided the mistake simply because they do not plant on such a vast scale and they do not plant Pinus contorta on such a vast scale. Most of the private

1239
woodland owners in the area have done their planting in accordance with the existing vegetation with Sitka spruce and the Molinea flushes; larch where there was bracken. It has been much more sympathetically done and has avoided the problems that we have seen in both the Syre and Shin Forests.
As for the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, produced about employment, no fewer than two forestry commissioners have tried to persuade me to disgorge land in Sutherland to them. Had I done so, a desert would have been created. The clearance by the Forestry Commission in central Sutherland makes what was done by the dukes and earls of Sutherland a hundred years ago look like nothing. The clearance has created a complete desert in the centre of Sutherland. The Forestry Commission has moved its forest workers out to the coast and done nothing whatsoever to maintain communities. The local community of Altnaharra has been maintained because we have held our frontiers against the invasion of the Forestry Commission. I am sorry, but I do not think the record of the commission is all that good, certainly in the areas with which I am familiar.
8.48 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I want to look at the subject, as your Lordships will probably expect, from the point of view of environmental conservation, and to look particularly at the effect of afforestation on wildlife and the need to plan and manage forestry in an environmentally sympathetic way.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, has done us a great service by bringing this debate forward tonight. We seldom have a chance to express our views completely on the work of the Forestry Commission, and this is a valuable opportunity, though I am sorry about the reason for his bringing it forward. He drew attention to the doubling of the amount of land under forestry since 1919 from 1 million to 2.2 million hectares. That was the figure I have and I think we are roughly in agreement. But I should point out that 70 per cent. of that is conifer and there is a sad decline in broadleaved woodland which I feel the Forestry Commission is not doing enough to replace.
The noble Lord mentioned—and I shall not bore your Lordships with repetition—the functions of the Forestry Commission. But I should like to add one small function of the commission which is often overlooked. That is the function of advising at local level. It is still possible, I understand, at local level to get advice on a single tree from the Forestry Commission if one is in need of it. I know that many of my friends have found this very valuable in the past and it is something that I think we should be very sorry to see disappear. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has given us most of the figures for the increase in private sector forestry and has drawn our attention to the fact that it has been encouraged by a favourable grant and tax system.
The Government aid which has helped to encourage this shift is running at between £30 million and £40 million a year in grant aid and tax relief. That is a figure which has to be put on the other side of the sum when we are considering the cost of the Forestry
1240
Commission because that is a figure which perhaps we could question.
This drift to heavily subsidised private forestry has conservation implications which need to be considered also. Much of the new private forestry—and I emphasise "new" because I have no quarrel at all with private forestry that is properly managed by long-term forestry owners who have an interest in its future—is carried out as a purely financial exercise which is not related even to the value of the crop. Grants are available from the Forestry Commission and they are awarded:
"for and in connection with the use and management of land for forestry purposes".
The grant is available at an early stage and it is not repayable if the objective fails. All that is necessary is that they should discover that the ground is capable of growing trees. The quality is not questioned. Therefore, land which is basically ill-suited for forestry nevertheless can attract a grant and tax relief, which makes it a good proposition in cash terms from the owner's point of view but which yields little or nothing to the supply of timber for commercial use; and the environmental consequences can be grave.
Land which, in its unforested state, provided valuable wildlife habitat—and I shall come on to Sutherland shortly—is destroyed at public expense for no reward to the national economy. The system of grant allocation is open to question. Applications which are passed to the regional advisory committees whose duty it is to reconcile differences are sometimes decided by individuals with a direct interest in the result of the application. I can give examples of this although I shall not abuse privilege by so doing. But in some cases there have even been retrospective grants which have been of value to members of the regional committee.
Regional committees meet in private, do not publish reports and are not publicly accountable for what they do. It is essential that these committees should be restructured to ensure fair representation of all interested bodies and that there should be an input from the Nature Conservancy Council. I was very glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that consultations are now taking place. But they are not taking place as of right and it still seems to me that it is important that there should be a statutory requirement for the Forestry Commission to consult the Nature Conservancy Council, and that the Nature Conservancy Council should, as of right, be included on the regional committees.
A constructive change, too, would be the awarding of grants for silvicultural management rather than solely for plantation establishment—which is what seems to be happening at the moment. I suggest too that reports from these area committees should go to the Minister rather than to the Forestry Commission so that there is a degree of public accountability in the whole exercise.
If we look for a moment at the new Agriculture Bill which is about to come before your Lordships, there is an important element in it which is the declaration of environmentally sensitive areas. Forestry will affect these areas and I understand, for example, that of a list of 19 sites which are shortlisted to be designated as

1241
ESAs on the Cambrian Mountains, about a dozen already have forestry applications outstanding which have been made in the past 18 months. May I ask the Minister whether there will be full consultation on forestry applications in these and in other environmentally sensitive area applications when they come?
The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, drew attention to the misuse of the uplands for forestry. Perhaps I could enlarge a little on the case of Sutherland and Caithness. Scotland has between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. of the world's blanket bogs. These support a rich variety of flora and fauna, including a number of rare birds. We have an international, not merely national, duty to conserve them and yet they are being rapidly reduced by draining and by afforestation. Fountain Forestry and the Forestry Commission between them own about one-third of this area and one-sixth of that has already been planted with conifers.
The Secretary of State for Scotland was asked last year to consult about this particular problem and to impose a moratorium on further work until consultations were complete. This request was refused. The Forestry Commission will only consult normally with the Nature Conservancy Council on sites of special scientific interest and although this is very valuable, it is really only a very small part of the whole.
The Scottish Office has suggested—and it seems to me a very sensible suggestion—that, in this time of agricultural surpluses, it would make sense to realise Grade 4 agricultural land for forestry and possibly even Grade 3. But that, I think, would come at a later stage. This would need to be a part of a financial package to help tide farmers over in the meantime until there was some return; and, of course, the Forestry Commission budget could not support this. It would need to be agricultural money. But in order to protect what is left of the uplands, I think this is an essential exercise. There is no point in growing yet more on Grade 4 land to add to our already overwhelming agricultural surpluses. It would be a positive step towards solving the conflict between conservation of special wildlife areas and the needs of forestry.
We have tried on many occasions to put a duty on the Forestry Commission to consider the needs of conservation but with very little success. The words of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, are very encouraging; and I know—and we are grateful for it—that within the Commission there are officers who have had a long-term interest in conservation and who have a feeling of responsibility about what they are doing. But there is no statutory requirement upon them to continue to take that attitude, and your Lordships will appreciate that that could change with a change of officer. I should like to express appreciation to those officers who have been very imaginative and very sympathetic in the past—and long may they continue!
Now we have this new threat to endure which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has outlined. The sale of forestry land authorised in the 1981 Act has made possible a creeping privatisation which is gathering pace. He has pointed out to us how quickly that pace has grown in the past year or so. This danger was foreseen in this House by noble Lords who, I am glad to see, are in the Chamber tonight; and despite the
1242
soothing words of the then Minister the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, at the Second Reading of the Bill, the reality looks like being even worse than those noble Lords feared at the time.
I look forward to the reply this evening from the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, who may perhaps have some encouragement for us; although I am afraid I must doubt it. I have the greatest respect for those forestry owners who truly own and manage their forests, as I said earlier; but the unseen, twice-removed cash investors have no long-term interest in their holdings, and an increase in this kind of ownership cannot benefit the countryside in the end. The noble Lord's Question was well worth asking but I can only look to the answer with some foreboding.
9 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I should like to join my noble friend Lord Taylor in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on their stoicism and stamina in enduring and taking an active part in two successive and long debates. It makes me feel duly ashamed because I was expected to take part in the earlier debate but I knew that I did not have the fortitude to do so and therefore I ratted on that one to join your Lordships in the debate on which we are now engaged.
I should like to thank my noble friend for putting down his Unstarred Question because it enables me to raise two matters with the noble Lord the Minister who is to reply. I hope that he will be able to reassure the House on these two points which arise from the Government's forestry policy and which are extremely important to national parks and to the wider arena of the upland areas.
The first point derives from the supplementary question that I asked on 12th March following my noble friend's Starred Question on that occasion on the matter that we are discussing tonight. My question reflected the concern of conservation and amenity bodies about future prospects for public access and amenities in our forests once Forestry Commission land had passed into private ownership in accordance with Government instructions.
My question was necessarily brief and it is no reflection on the perspicacity of the noble Lord the Minister that he mistook what I was trying to get at. He thought that I was talking about public rights of way and of course he was able to assure the House that those are safeguards after transfer of land ownership and do not lapse on that account. In fact, my question was intended to find out how those privileges of public access and amenities—the kind of amenities referred to by my noble friend and so generously and imaginatively granted and developed in many of its forests by the Forestry Commission—had fared since 1981. During that time 100,000 hectares of Forestry Commission land have been sold under the terms of Section 1 of the Forestry Act 1981. I also wanted to know what was likely to happen to public access and amenities during the current year when a further 10,000 hectares, as I understand it, are to be disposed of in the same way.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the need to safeguard public interests had already been voiced

1243
five years previously. It was expressed most cogently and movingly by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, on 11th May 1981 when in Committee she moved an amendment to Clause 1 of the Forestry Bill. I shall quote her amendment which explains itself. It does not need to be put in context. The amendment read:
"(a) It shall be a condition of sale in any disposal"—
that is, of Forestry Commission land—
"that existing access and amenity provisions shall be maintained".—[Official Report, 11/5/81; col. 332.]
That amendment was cogently moved and received considerable support in Committee. In fact 78 of your Lordships voted for the amendment and 100 against. During the debate on that amendment I pointed out that we were legislating not for a matter of months ahead but for a number of years before any amending legislation could be expected.
We are now five years on since the Forestry Act became law and the need to safeguard the amenities and access has grown considerably. I think it was for that reason that on 12th June 1985 in Committee on the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Bill, which is now law, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, moved an amendment. It was designed to strengthen Clause 4 of that Bill which lays upon the Forestry Commission duties in regard to conservation. He, too, wanted to safeguard public access and amenities in that Bill which is now law.
The amendment was withdrawn by the noble Earl because of the urgent need to get the Bill onto the statute book and to prevent it falling because it was a Private Member's Bill. The record, which I have just read, shows that the noble Earl was less than satisfied with the assurances given by the noble Lord the Minister, Lord Skelmersdale. There was great urgency to get the Bill onto the statute book and the noble Earl withdrew his amendment.
Your Lordships will be aware that the Agriculture Bill, to which the noble Baroness has just referred, which is shortly to come to your Lordships' House, contains no reference to forestry. The matter was raised in Committee in another place on 28th January 1986 when Mr. Home Robertson pointed out:
"When land leaves the hands of the Forestry Commission the Government lose control over any activities on it".
Against that background, I have some questions for the Minister. I shall phrase them in two ways. Is it still true to say, as was stated by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, during the debate on the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, to the Forestry Bill in 1981 that,
"If the Forestry Commission decides that public access is important, then it will not sell the area at all, but it will have a sale and lease-back, and in that way all amenities can be preserved"?
The noble Earl said:
"That is an important safeguard".—[Official Report, 11/5/81; col. 339.]
We will all agree with that.
I shall put my question in another way. Has that been the case during the past five years? In other words, has the Forestry Commission in fact withheld land from sale to safeguard public access and amenities? As a corollary will it continue to hold it under the Government's present policy of selling more
1244
land in the current year and in the future? That is my first point.
I shall move rapidly to my second point and deal with it briefly. Other noble Lords have touched on it. It concerns afforestation or new tree planting operations, whether carried out by the Forestry Commission or private owners in national parks and the less-favoured upland areas. The need to bring forestry under planning control analagous to agriculture has been argued during debates on both Wildlife and Countryside Acts and on other occasions inside and outside your Lordships' House, and that need, I contend, is much more urgent today than it was five years ago.
Conservation bodies were encouraged last year when the Department of the Environment agreed to consider sympathetically a recommendation made by the Select Committee on Agriculture and the Environment in another place that landscape conservation orders should be introduced for use as a long-stop measure to prevent action prejudicial to landscapes in national parks. Your Lordships will be aware that the Nature Conservancy Council already has such a power for habitats, for SSSIs, under Sections 28 and 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and it is strongly held by myself and by those I represent that the Countryside Commission should have a comparable power as a last resort in regard to the wider environment.
Landscape conservation orders are highly desirable now with the prospect that many farmers, as was said by the noble Baroness, may be turning to alternative forms of farming or other uses of their land as a result of the new EC quota restrictions. Such alternatives may well include commercial planting and cropping of trees in upland areas and, in particular, in the national parks. I so agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, because in certain landscapes—and I am thinking of the uplands—afforestation can be scenically undesirable and indeed disastrous to the landscape.
So I shall appreciate from the Minister any information on what progress has been made not in his department but in the Department of the Environment in consideration of that recommendation in regard to landscape conservation orders by the Select Committee in the other place.
9.10 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I also am immensely grateful for this very opportune Question which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has brought before us and very grateful, too, that the question has been asked quite bluntly about the possibility of privatisation of the whole of the Forestry Commission's woodlands. I have always felt that the Forestry Commission was divided up into three different parts, the first being those outlying woods, which I assume come into the figure that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, mentioned, that are being sold off at the moment. I always believed that that was probably the right thing to do and that they should fall back into private hands.
I have always felt, too, that at the other end of the scale the Forestry Commission, since its inception in, I believe, 1919, has owned various areas of quite exceptional beauty which it should retain and look

1245
after in such a way that they are enhanced, kept beautiful, used by the public and kept out of the hurly-burly of commerce, selling wood, providing employment, saving imports and all the various matters that have been mentioned by different people.
Then I believe that in the middle there is an enormous amount of woodland that has been built up, much of it since the last war though some of it, I suppose, between the two wars, that is of immense importance to the country and, as has already been said to the private owner. It has been said already that the private owner rides in on the back of the Forestry Commission. The Forestry Commission brings in the sawmills, and I am not talking about the little ones that you see at the side of the road here and there. We must have proper pulp and sawmills if the private forester is to maintain his forest in a sensible way and make a reasonable living from one generation to another. One must come back to that.
So I hope that this main block—and it is by far the largest area—will be kept in the hands of the Forestry Commission for as long as possible. In this day and age, I would not even make the commercial aspect the main reason for doing that, although it is a very important one. The most important reason is that we are a small island, we have a very large population and we must all be aware that there are people in our cities who do not have anywhere in particular to go, because the country is for the most part privately owned. In the future the Forestry Commission should look closely—and I say this quite carefully—at a much cleverer way of combining commerce and access. I know that it has tried very hard indeed. I know that a great deal has been accomplished. We have heard about nature trails and so on. But it is my impression—I live on the edge of the New Forest, a much used area—that there is much more imagination yet to be deployed and a much more intensive use, without, one hopes, making it appear intensive to the people who indulge in that use and enjoy it.
With regard to the future of the Forestry Commission, I should like to mention one tale about my father. When he had been chairman of the Forestry Commission for a little while I asked him whether he enjoyed the job. He said that he enjoyed it immensely. He liked the people with whom he was working and he enjoyed working with trees. He said that trees grew so slowly that he would be dead long before all his mistakes were discovered. I should like to say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that if there is any idea of privatising the large middle area of the Forestry Commission that I have described, I am afraid that the mistake will be discovered long before we are dead, and it will be a very grave mistake.
Another duty of the Foresty Commission has not been touched on as yet. I refer to its relationship with the private owner. I am not necessarily talking about the large corporate private owner whom the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, does not appreciate very much. In many ways I agree with her. I refer to the ordinary private owner. Back in 1947 the dedication scheme started. I was always led to believe that there were three elements to the scheme. One was that the owner should, so to speak, lock himself into a management plan, a five-yearly review with perhaps rather too much bureaucracy attaching to it. In return for locking
1246
himself into that situation he received grants, which have been mentioned, and there was as well the tax advantage.
My first question is one that I have asked before in your Lordships' Chamber. Perhaps I may point out that the grants from then to now have gone up by 440 per cent. I am talking of my own position. One of the major inputs—notably wages—has gone up by nearly 2,000 per cent. I should like to ask my noble friend whether Her Majesty's Government are thinking of reviewing the position. I asked my noble friend Lord Belstead this question some time ago. He said that it was being thought about. But the difference is so dramatic that I feel that it is wrong and that the bargain that was entered into in 1947 has not been kept, at least in spirit. It is worth noting too that the price of timber has been unsatisfactory over the years compared with ordinary forestry costs. The private owner has had a very difficult time indeed.
I should like to mention one small point. Whatever happens in the way of Government cuts in expenditure, I most sincerely hope that the Forestry Commission will keep its hands on a certain amount of research. You have to research into timber affairs as much as you do into farming ones. It is just the kind of research that would come up for the chop, so to speak, quicker than anything else, because people are not too aware of its importance.
There is not a great deal more to be said except to express the hope once more that nothing too dramatic will happen. But I should like to put in a little pita, not about the particular species which offends the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, so much up in Sutherland but about softwoods in general. Again and again—though perhaps not so much this evening—one hears the coniferous plantations being criticised. I have a suggestion to make. First, perhaps the reason why those plantations are criticised is because they are still relatively young. But when those trees grow to their full maturity, they can be the most beautiful things. I would cite Kyloe Forest, in Northumberland, Boldre Wood in the New Forest and Catheral Grove on Vancouver Island. All those are very beautiful indeed. It would be a good idea if the Forestry Commission looked at their woods now and laid by reasonably substantial areas, which ties in with what I said earlier about their sites of exceptional beauty, and managed them in such a way that the trees would be allowed to grow to their full stature and would not be cut down at what commercially would be the right moment.
I hope that my noble friend will be able to reassure the House that he is not thinking of destroying the Forestry Commission.
9.21 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for bringing this subject forward as a Question. It would seem from the effects that the policies of this Government have had that they envisage the role of the Forestry Commission as a shrinking one. The reduction in staff and sale of Forestry Commission land would at least indicate that that is so.
May I suggest to the noble Lord the Minister that that should not be so, and at the same time expand upon a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol.

1247
In recent months we have heard a great deal about overproduction of food within the EC and the effects that recent policies have had upon farmers' incomes and the value of agricultural land. It is reasonable to expect that a fairly large acreage of marginal land will fall into disuse if a viable alternative is not offered to farmers. It would seem sensible to suggest that an alternative should be offered before the land reverts to brambles, bracken and scrub.
The farming community, despite some of the noble Lord's doubts, has become increasingly aware of the importance of environmental management, as opposed to exploitation, and the indications are that many are now considering forestry as an alternative to arable or dairy fanning. The present system of grants seems to be reasonably satisfactory for existing woodland owners, but I do not believe that it provides sufficient incentive to farmers to plant and, perhaps more importantly to maintain new forestry until it begins to show a return. As noble Lords will know, that can be anything from 20 to 40 years.
Farmers who have been used to sowing and gathering a crop and to receiving an income from it within one season will naturally be reluctant to accept the fact that their income will be minimal, if anything at all, in their own lifetimes. The present grant system, involving three payments—the first 70 per cent. at initial planting and then two payments of 15 per cent. at five-year intervals—may not provide sufficient incentive.
Experts believe that if 14 per cent. of agricultural land in the United Kingdom came out of production a balance between the demand for and supply of food would be achieved. Currently, agricultural support amounts to some £60 per acre. It has been suggested by forestry experts that if the Government would accept that liability on a limited acreage—say, that 14 per cent.—for a period of 25 years, with half the total sum to be paid at the initial planting and the rest in annual payments subject to satisfactory management by the owner and the forfeiture of any future right to agricultural grants, that would not only encourage farmers to change the use of some of their marginal land but would also go some way towards reducing the forecast severe timber shortage in the next century.
I know from experience that one cannot just plant a few hundred trees and expect them to grow. On our 10 acres of woodland, my husband and I spend most of our weekends, summer and winter, clearing brambles and other weeds from around young trees, pruning, and protecting them from damage by rabbits and squirrels. We do it for pleasure and do not apply for grants, but a farmer to whom the woodland is part of his business would probably need to employ someone to manage it.
The Forestry Commission, with its tremendous store of knowledge, could be made responsible for administering such a scheme and for ensuring that it was not abused. I realise that it would be no simple matter to plan and execute, but there is no shortage of expertise within the Forestry Commission and the private timber management concerns. The United Kingdom has some of the best timber growing conditions in the world, and yet our imports of timber cost in excess of £4,500 million a year. Only 10 per
1248
cent, of our land is devoted to forestry, and I am sure that the noble Lord the Minister will agree that, given the current deficit in timber production and the gloomy forecast for the future, any encouragement to farmers to change the use of some of their land under suitable circumstances would benefit both them and the nation.
May I therefore ask the noble Lord to speak to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State and ask him to consider seriously the promotion of such a scheme through the Forestry Commission? I am sure it would be welcomed by farmers, foresters and the general public, particularly if it is dealt with promptly, sensibly and sensitively.
9.26 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for having asked this Question, because many people would like to know what is the Government's intention regarding the Forestry Commission. I should declare an interest as I am a director of a firm which deals in private forestry; namely, the Economic Forestry Group.
I was interested in what my noble friend Lord Kimball said. He certainly seems to have a "thing" about woods. At a time when agriculture is going through considerable difficulties there might have been some opportunities for forestry to have helped out in the areas where agriculture is finding peculiar difficulties in the more marginal land. But if that happens, clearly it would be against my noble friend's interest.
My noble friend did not think too much about the Forestry Commission, as I understood him, but I have always been an admirer of the Forestry Commission. I have admired the way it has looked after its woods and the enthusiasm of its staff. I have admired the competent way in which it has administered the state's function with regard to private woodlands. It has a reputation for uprightness, competence and specialist knowledge which has been of immense value. I am sorry it is answerable to three political masters—the Ministry of Agriculture, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office—because that is hardly the most likely way to get precise and concise direction. However, that is one of the facts it has to live with.
The Forestry Commission has one drawback; that is, it is state funded. Therefore, it is always vulnerable to government cuts and whims. When money is tight the Forestry Commission is always likely to have its budget cut, and that is hardly the way to make the best use of its resources. There are those who take the view, "Why should taxpayers' money be put into the forests of the country?" The answer, of course, is that historically it has been so. That was necessary when the Forestry Commission first started. It is questionable whether that should continue now that privatisation is all the rage.
There was a row some five years ago when it was decided to sell off some of the Forestry Commission's assets. Noble Lords will remember that all too well. It had never been done before. Personally, unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, I did not see any great harm in that. It was an absurdity to permit the Forestry Commission to buy but not to sell. It seemed perfectly reasonable that it should rationalise its

1249
business. It seemed perfectly reasonable for the Forestry Commission to return to the Treasury some of the money that over the years had been put into it. What is and would be wrong is to consider that here is a larder which can be continuously raided, year after year, as a means of providing money annually for the Treasury.
I remember when I had some small responsibility in these affairs that I wrote a note to that effect to some of my more hawkish ministerial colleagues, and I took great care over that letter, drafting it myself on a long journey all the way up to the North of England. Some weeks later one of my colleagues said to me, "Which civil servant wrote that letter for you?" I am bound to say that I was slightly numbed.
I see nothing wrong with selling Forestry Commission assets and reorganising the size and shape of the Forestry Commission, if that is necessary. I see nothing wrong in inviting public participation by putting capital into the Forestry Commission and privatising it in that way, as was done with British Telecom. What is quite wrong is that the Forestry Commission should be forced by the Government continually to sell off its assets and for the Forestry Commission then to be expected to manage an ever-decreasing rump. That really would be selling off the family silver.
Forestry is a long-term business. It is capital-intensive and it needs long-term investment. There is one source of substantial funds which can be and is required to be put into long-term investment. I hesitate to say it to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, but in fact it is the institutions. Even though institutions have substantial funds, they have never put more than about 2 per cent. into forestry. I think that British forestry would benefit from the infusion of institutional capital. But that can only be done in one of two ways. One way would be for the Forestry Commission to sell off some of its productive woodlands, which of themselves are a reasonable size and would be a good investment. Institutions do not want to have small parcels of indifferent woods, or even small parcels of good woods. Of course I accept that this is anathema to the Forestry Commission and I quite understand why, but it might attract substantial funds of private capital and, ipso facto, it would release public capital.
The second way is to privatise fully the Forestry Commission by making it into a company and then selling the shares. In effect this would keep the business of running the state's forest in one entity as it is now, but private capital would be put into what might be described as the company, thereby releasing public capital. I shall be interested to know whether my noble friend can say that the Government have either of these courses in mind, whether they consider the status quo should remain or whether they have any other ideas.
I should like to ask my noble friend a question on a totally different subject. Much has been done to make some of the large forests, especially those in Scotland, fit more sympathetically into the environment by contouring. I wonder whether my noble friend can say whether the Government and the Forestry Commission are content with this measure and intend to continue it, or whether they will modify that particular system.
9.33 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I also should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for instituting this debate, which is certainly worth having. I must also declare an interest, as I am a forester and I let land to the Forestry Commission.
It is most interesting to note that in Norway, where they have farms of about 200 acres on the west coast, a farmer there will grow a certain amount of corn—probably quite a small amount—and he will have a certain number of animals, and then he will perhaps have 100 acres of trees. The trees will form an integral part of his farm, so that for some part of the year he will be tending trees and for some pan of the year he will be looking after his farmland. To my mind this is an extraordinarily desirable situation.
Before I leave Norway, I should like to say that, in spite of all those trees which are in the valleys and upon the hills, over the ages—not recently, for different reasons—the rivers have been extremely good, clean and full of salmon. It makes me wonder whether the presence of trees really does destroy the rivers, as my noble friend has suggested.
The same sort of thing happens in America. The standard size of farm is 160 acres and the farmers earn their living from the trees which they cut down and replant. I presume they cut down about 20 acres a year or so and this is a going concern for them.
I confirm what my noble friend Lord Radnor said about the beauty of trees. People spend a fortune to go to America to see the very same trees that, if planted here, would prompt remarks such as, "What terrible trees you are planting. You are planting softwoods." The same people would immediately buy an expensive ticket to travel to the West coast of America to see similar trees.
At the moment, England has one of the smallest proportions of land in Europe down to trees. Only Holland, I believe, has a smaller proportion It is forecast by the experts, who are almost always wrong, that in 30 years' time there will be a great shortage of forestry and that the price of timber will go up. That is calculated on estimates of the destruction of forests that is taking place and the world reserves of forestry. So we are probably heading for a great shortage. This will make the import bill even greater than it is now. It is therefore necessary to think about increasing forestry for that reason if for no other.
I would suggest an increase in forestry on the Norwegian model whereby trees are, so far as possible, owned, and certainly looked after, by the shepherd at a time of year when he is not busy with the sheep. Unfortunately for the farmer investment is taking too long. I would support the suggestion of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, if it can be shown to work. The problem is to persuade the upland farmer to plant. He will not do so unless he sees the prospect of a return fairly soon.
There is an alternative, however. Many more people, I believe, would be prepared to plant privately in small areas in conjunction with the marginal farmer. I have in mind a scheme whereby the City investor would come to an arrangement with a hill farmer. He would ask the hill farmer to plant the trees, thin them and clean them and do all the work

1251
necessary on them, for which he would pay the farmer an annual income, perhaps doubling the income of the farm. This would mean an assured annual income for the farmer. At the same time, the City investor would take the benefit of all the grants and tax relief and would have the final crop to look forward to or, rather, for his son to look forward to.
One is thinking in terms perhaps of a half, or a quarter, of a farm in trees, with most of it remaining in sheep grazing. There would be areas of forestry that could then be used for other purposes. The City investor might wish to put a caravan or, if he could obtain permission, a house in the tree area. Or the farmer might run a caravan site, hidden from view in the trees. The trees might form part of a sporting complex where the City man could have a shoot. What is important is that the farmer would be joined with the City investor for mutual advantage. This could be best encouraged by grants and best arranged by land agents in conjunction with CoSIRA and the Forestry Commission grants.
My noble friend Lord Kimball said that he did not like forestry. However, one has to take account of the fact that people will travel to the Black Forest to see fir trees. And there are masses of large forests in England that people visit a great deal. It is really a question of what one is used to. One likes what one is used to rather than what is new.
The Forestry Commission must continue to exist. No one wants to see it destroyed. It has an important role in the provision of grants and in research. To fulfil that role, it must own its own base. One must remember that the object of the Forestry Commission was solely to produce trees; it was not to produce income. As it is there purely to produce trees, the ideal—if not totally practical solution—would be for the commission to plant the land and then sell it immediately. It is not like selling the family silver. It does not matter who owns these trees—they will still go on growing. It is also nonsense to suggest that, if the Forestry Commission becomes private, employment will reduce, because the new owners of the forestry will continue to need labour.
Access, I believe, can be taken care of. If there is an area to be sold which has public access, there is no reason why the sale should not stipulate that access should remain. To say that all Forestry Commission land should remain with the Forestry Commission is a judgment more of sentimentality than of logic.
9.37 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: I should like to join with others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, on introducing this Unstarred Question. As the noble Lord is a past chairman of the Forestry Commission, we are very fortunate to have his advice on the subject, as indeed we are to be addressed by another past chairman, the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie.
With regard to the Government's policy on the future of the Commission, no doubt a distinction should be made between whatever these plans may be on the one hand and the Government's general attitude to forestry on the other. Owing to the nature of the industry it would be understandable if anybody,
1252
Governments included, should ever feel less clear about the one than about the other. There may, for example, be great confidence in the skill and efficiency of the Forestry Commission to grow and manage trees combined with little faith in the long-term value of home-grown timber. Conversely, there may be a clear vision of the eventual value to the country of homegrown timber combined with undecided views about how public and private forestry can best achieve that.
What signs are there, if any, that perserverance with forestry can ever significantly benefit the economy and the balance of payments? The results so far have not been too impressive. Only 9 per cent. of our land surface is afforested compared with much higher proportions in other western European countries. Current annual costs of imported timber and timber products are still in the region of £4 billion, to which the noble Countess, Lady Mar, referred. Nevertheless, given that the Forestry Commission, and a serious, national resolve to afforest, date only from the end of the First World War, no one would really expect a proper impact on the economy in as little as 60 or 70 years—that is, my Lords, no one who is aware of the different maturity rates of the British tree and the British turnip. However, unless one is Rip Van Winkle himself, significant changes can reasonably be expected over 100 years even in British forestry. In this respect, present indications are encouraging, and professional forecasts estimate that annual home-grown wood production will double from 4.5 million cubic metres today to reach 9 million cubic metres and achieve 15 per cent. self-sufficiency by the turn of the century.
If we accept that future timber yields are worth waiting for, what policy should the Government adopt with the various factors that need to be taken into account when the industry is expanded further? To begin with, there is a balance between private and public sector endeavours. Clearly the effect of Forestry Commission land sales is to alter that balance. Two separate lines of thought appear to be behind the justification of the disposals. If the commission's resources are overstretched, judicious sales are said to ease the pressure. Secondly, it is argued that, even if the commission's resources were not overstretched, the private sector is better able anyway to take on the management and marketing of established plantations.
An extension of this line of thought might be that all the functions of the commission should be taken over, including planting. No doubt the private sector might achieve consistent national planting targets when conditions were favourable for a year or two. But there only needs to be a fluctuation in land values, prices and tax incentives for the private sector, quite naturally, to be discouraged. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that, while sensible sales by the Forestry Commission can bring some obvious benefits, in regard to planting the correct balance should be that the commission should at least match annual private sector levels in favourable years for that sector, and that in unfavourable years the commission should be prepared to compensate for lower private sector levels? Recently, and since its asset disposals first occurred, commission planting levels have dropped below those for the private sector.

1253
Turning to the social effects of future forestry policy, there is the bearing on the general numbers employed in the industry, on certain communities in difficult areas, and on alternative employments such as sheep farming. Again, in relation to commission asset disposals, it has been alleged that these will cause fewer people to be employed than original numbers, and that remote communities will suffer the most. Equally, fears continue to be expressed whenever forestry replaces or integrates with sheep farming. The counter claim is that employment and local opportunities stand to gain in the long run. Certainly many communities have already gained from afforestation over the last two or three decades in areas where forestry has often substantially replaced sheep farming. Provided that the commission asset disposals are discriminate, there is surely no reason why employment should not benefit fairly soon afterwards rather than the reverse. But there are particular communities in Scotland, and no doubt elsewhere, which would undoubtedly suffer from indiscriminate sales. Can my noble friend the Minister give the assurance that such indiscriminate sales will not occur?
Then there is the need to protect the countryside and prevent untimely land use without unnecesssarily inhibiting afforestation. Already in this respect there have been a number of useful incentives, such as that contained in the recent broadleaf policy and such as
1254
the initiative to which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred, to make forestry contours look like passing clouds. It would be interesting to have a progress report on that initiative.
On the whole, adequate controls are provided by the consultative procedure between the Forestry Commission and other bodies. EC agriculture surpluses are said to be one of the main reasons why the Government are reconsidering their guidelines to those bodies responsible for giving planting permission. Inevitably this will change, if only slightly, the role of the Forestry Commission within the consultative procedure. Can my noble friend the Minister say what new arrangements corresponding to the revised guidelines adopted there will be to minimise disagreement between the different bodies concerned?
The commission deserves a great deal of credit for what it has already achieved. Equally, it is clear that the important job it will have to do in the future is in no way diminished just because improved national timber yields are within sight. With the commission's assistance, a vigorous planting programme can continue well into the next century. A lead can be given with training, research and experimentation. And, as a result of its joint efforts with the private sector, increasing benefits are likely to come to the countryside and to the economy.
9.48 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, in rising to speak in the gap in the list of speakers, I make no apology for my name not having been put down because it was put down but did not appear on the list. I apologise most deeply and sincerely for my absence from the early speeches in this very important debate—a debate for which we are all very grateful to my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I was engaged in another meeting in this Palace—a meeting to which I shall presently have to return. I shall therefore be very brief.
However, I wished to speak for two reasons. Your Lordships have heard two SDP voices raised from these Benches today in this very important debate. I should like it to be absolutely clear that there will be no discordant note by a Liberal vote being added to those two from the Alliance Benches.
I have always had something of a love-hate relationship with the Forestry Commission. Like all noble Lords, I love trees, but I have not always been in total agreement with the Forestry Commission about where to plant them. When I had some statutory responsibility for the preservation of the natural beauty of our countryside, occasionally I had to erect obstruction in the way of the Forestry Commission with regard to planting programmes in areas of outstanding natural beauty, in some of our national parks, and so on. Therefore, there has been a conflict.
In addition, I did not always approve of the way in which the Forestry Commission planted its trees. It seemed to me that its system of single species, even-age planting, later followed by clear felling, was a rather strange way of proceeding. Had the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, been replying to this debate—as at one time seemed possible—I would have reminded him of a conversation I once had with his father-in-law, Richard Coke, who was a forester of international renown. He once told us both that the system of forestry of single species, even-age planting, with clear felling, was only practised by two groups of people anywhere in the world—the Prussians and the Forestry Commission. Times have changed and, in view of the arguments that I have had in the past with the Forestry Commission, one of the reasons I wished to speak was to say that I personally should like to pay my tribute to the work of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and their successor, Sir David Montgomery, for the work that they have done in recent years to change many of the attitudes which were formerly held in the Forestry Commission and which, frankly, sometimes made the Forestry Commission rather unpopular with some countryside lovers who were not madly keen on rows of regimented sitka spruce marching up and down their hillsides.
We have recently had some sort of a dispute on afforestation in Dunnendale in Cumberland, where I live. It is interesting to note that the compromise which has been arrived at there between the Countryside Commission and the Forestry Commission is clearly admirable. We now have a planting scheme which could not arouse any objections from anyone. In my time of interest in this subject I have seen the Forestry Commission change,
1256
with the planting of hardwoods and many species in a totally different and highly imaginative way. I have seen the Forestry Commission change in other ways. I can remember the days when Forestry Commission land was a "no-go" area for tourists. However, nowadays from talking to some members of the Forestry Commission one would think that they had actually invented picnic sites; not that they were something in which they reluctantly acquiesced as being totally inevitable in the end. Having done so, I think that they have carried out a truly remarkable job.
The other day we had an interesting debate in your Lordships' House about tourism. I do not think that any mention was made of the Forestry Commission in relation to tourism. It is right to say that some of the visitor attractions on Forestry Commission land in particular in Scotland, and one or two in England and Wales—interpretation centres for visitors—are an important part of our tourist attractions and have an immense importance to open-air recreational activity for our ordinary citizens. I merely wish to make those remarks, having occasionally found myself in opposition to the Forestry Commission.
I would join straightaway with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who made a most interesting speech. I am not saying that I shall never ever want anything changed. It is true that I was a little alarmed about the measure to which the noble Earl referred—the Forestry Act of some years ago. I was worried about what would happen to places like the Forest of Dean. I was a little worried lest some of our largely recreational forests, like the New Forest, were to be wholly taken over by some of the tycoons of the leisure industry. I also wanted guarantees that access to areas of land to which there had been public access for recreational activities would be preserved.
However, I would certainly agree with the noble Earl that if the Forestry Commission is allowed to buy then it must be allowed to sell. I also think that we must explore the other possibilities to which the noble Earl referred, and I do not object to any of those. They include the possibility of raising public money for the Forestry Commission by other means. An earlier speaker referred to the Forestry Commission being dependent on public funds. At present it is rather dependent on a lack of public funds, and it may perhaps have to look at other ways to get those funds.
However, the main point I want to make is as follows. The Forestry Commission has undergone this very welcome metamorphosis. Its attitude has changed in many ways. It now has plantings which are highly imaginative and immensely beneficial to our environment and our national heritage; immensely beneficial to the tourist industry, and to open-air recreation in general; immensely beneficial to the natural beauty of our countryside. It is not the time to start messing about with the Forestry Commission. I am not saying that we should not make any changes, but this is the wrong time for us now to talk about disbanding the Forestry Commission, or for some of the other draconian statements that I have heard.
I did not think many years ago that I would be standing up in your Lordships' House speaking

1257
passionately on the side of the Forestry Commission. However, the work they are doing, in terms of the things in which I have great interest now, seem to be of immense importance, quite apart from the commercial importance, the economic importance, of our timber industry. Much of the credit for all that must go to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and Sir David Montgomery and others who have led the Forestry Commission into new pastures in a different way. In those circumstances it would be tragic if we now caused unnecessary difficulties in the commission.
9.56 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I apologise for not having put my name down, but I shall not detain the House for long. I should like the Minister to give us a little more information. We have had excellent suggestions put by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and agreed with by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, that what we should be doing is trying to put forestry into the hands of the smaller people on the land; the people who live there and work on it. This is the sort of thing that has been talked about not only in his country but other countries as well. Certainly we are going to have land to spare.
What I should like to ask the Minister is, what sort of sums have they done? Have they counted the cost of the enormous tax concessions? How much money do the Government pass up in these tax concessions? I look with a certain amount of dismay and distaste at the way the big forestry groups—with apologies to noble Lords who have declared their interest in them—go about things.
My rich friends who have taken up their offers of saving taxation find that they may be saving taxation but they are paying out very large sums indeed to the firms doing this work for them. The Forestry Commission could do a great deal of this sort of thing much better than the private firms, even though the money could come from the institutions. It would be interesting to know just how much the Government are passing up through the tax concessions.
The other thing is that they have obviously done a forecast on the world resources of timber. We have had given in various papers and by noble Lords in this House tonight various forecasts of the shortage that is going to occur at the turn of the century. Perhaps the Minister will be able to give us the Government's forecast. If it is in fine with the ones we have had, it seems to be a poor time to sell off the maturing forests.
9.59 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, at this time of night I had intended merely to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s of what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, but so much has been said in this debate that requires an answer that I must go a little further. We are obliged to the noble Lord for putting down this Unstarred Question and giving us the opportunity to deal with some of these points. It is a pity that it had to be so late, but that is the way of things in your Lordships' House.
1258
The noble Lord made the point that the Forestry Commission and the private sector were a mixed economy, and I could not agree with him more. The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, spoke about his father enjoying the Forestry Commission; so did I. I enjoyed the type of mixed economy in which I took part. I visited private forests just about as much as I visited the Forestry Commission forests, and the co-operation between the two was very good indeed. I have talked to many private foresters since this wretched rumour started about the complete privatisation of the commission and I have not found anybody until tonight who was in favour of it.
Another matter that the noble Lord emphasised I should like to emphasise as well. One cannot run any of the mills and processing plants that make timber board and pulp without a guaranteed supply. Many large areas of forest are in private hands at the moment, but they are all immature and the only body that can give a guarantee is the Forestry Commission, which it has to the various mills that have started up recently. That is an important point. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, takes note of it if he intends to give us bad news tonight, which, by the look of him, I do not think he will.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, also made a conservation point. I should like to emphasise, as other noble Lords have, that the Forestry Commission was given a remit in 1919 to make good the depredations of the war. In 1945 the Forestry Commission was given the same remit to rectify the depredations of that war by planting trees. It was not until 20 years ago, or fewer than 20 years ago, that it was given a remit on conservation and recreation. I bet my bottom dollar that many people who criticised the Forestry Commission never brought that up until recently. The environmentalists and the conservationists were quite quiet until recently for some reason. Since it was given that remit, the Forestry Commission, as most noble Lords today have emphasised, has done a tremendous job in the environmental and conservation senses. I wanted to emphasise that as strongly as I could.
The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, has a broad back. He will need it for a moment or two, because I propose to take him to task very severely indeed. He does not want any more large-scale forests. He makes the point because he will not take off the dark glasses of his salmon and grouse interests, although he said that he keeps some sheep. I point out, as somebody else did, though I forget who, that forests do not make any difference to fishing. There have been occasions when trees were planted too near rivers in the early days, but since the complaints the commission and private forestry have kept their trees well back from river banks. As someone pointed out, that does not harm the fishing.
The noble Lord mentioned the £54 million loss. I am sure that he does not mean that. As I am sure he realises, the £54 million that he mentioned has gone into trees, recreation and amenities and is a capital asset to the country. To say that that is a loss is a comment not worthy of him.
He picked out the lodgepole pine. That was not a big area compared with the whole area of forestry damaged by the pine beauty moth. One might say,

1259
"For God's sake stop keeping pigs!" because of the outbreak of swine fever a few years ago. We might stop keeping cattle because of the big outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in 1967 and 1968. Again, it is not worthy of him to make silly points such as that. The lodgepole pine in many areas is the only tree that can be grown. It is a perfectly good tree for pulp wood. If we are to have forestry in this country and use areas such as those, the lodgepole has to be planted. The noble Lord cannot get away with that.
The noble Lord went on about the labour question; that he employs more labour with his sheep, fishing and grouse. Two of those do not produce much. During my period at the Forestry Commission I made a lot of calculations and have done so since. For every person employed on a sheep farm, if that farm had a proportion of it, though not all, under forestry, the employment would be three times more; at least three men to one. That is borne out by anybody who has experience in forestry.
The other thing is, as the noble Lord knows, that I went up there and tried to persuade him to let or sell some land to the Forestry Commission back in around 1978. He was not very enthusiastic. He told me I was wrong. I took him away from some fishing on the banks of his stream. He had not been lucky. He was pleased to have a chat with me. If he had done that and done it intelligently, if he had taken advice of people who have done it and increased the production of sheep, got the advantage of the forest for shelter and got the advantage of the forest road to get to areas where he could seed and fertilise and things like that, he would have had a much more economic farm than he has today. I am sure that he is going to suffer for not taking my advice then. I would appeal to him to be very careful of what he says in the future; or I shall be harder on him still.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, spoke on the environment and on the question of the conifer versus the broadleaf. I must point out to her (and, to a certain extent, to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt) that there are whole areas which I have been speaking about which will not grow conifers. Admittedly, you can plant them and you can get a scrub forest of no use to anybody, except perhaps some wildlife. If we are going to plant in the areas of low-grade land in the Highlands and elsewhere, the bulk of it must be conifers. You can sprinkle in some other trees and make it environmentally good: but it has to be conifers.
There are about 20 million acres of what we call rough land, hill land, in Britain and 30-odd million acres of arable land. Now, 3½ million acres of that land is in conifers. Most of the broadleaf trees are in the lowlands. The idea is, and has been, that if we are going to do any good with forestry at all, we must double our conifer plantation and double in the lowlands the areas of broadleaf trees. That goes up to 7 million acres, and leaves 13 million acres. Surely that is enough to give all the environmentalists all the flora and fauna they want. It is quite ridiculous in my opinion to go on "giming" (to use a Scotch word) about planting trees when there is all that land to be left for wildlife and everything else.
I remember that when I was on the commission there was a row about too much planting in north-west
1260
Wales because it was going to kill out the kites. I went to see the ranger there and I asked him about it. He said, "All I know is that I was here when there was very little forestry and I am here now and there are far more kites now than when I was first here with all the trees". It was just a scare about the kites and there was no truth in it. I do not think I can go much further there except to say that the mis-use of the uplands is an expression that I myself would not use.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was quite worried about access if there is privatisation, and I would agree with him. It would be a pity if access was prevented following wholesale acquisition of land by the private sector. The noble Lord was also worried about the effect of forestry on the landscape and he thought that a lot was being done to improve it.
The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, was right to emphasise that just after the war the thing to do was to sell off the patches of land that were planted rather higgledy-piggledy. It was bad for management and everything else; and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, mentioned that also.
The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, also mentioned the question of the tremendous value of the forestry to the country. He also mentioned the New Forest, and I shall come to that in a moment. I have mentioned the point about his father enjoying the work of the Forestry Commission, as I did. I enjoyed meeting the people. Foresters have something about them; they are so fond of trees and the outdoors and so on. They are first-class people to get on with. I am not talking about the gentlemen, noble though they are, in offices in Edinburgh. I am talking about the people on the ground, the conservators and the people who plant and look after the trees.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, brought up an interesting point about trying to give farmers who plant trees a long-term return. She mentioned 50 to 60 years. That would have to involve conifers. I think that she was talking about land in Aberdeenshire that she and I know. It is low-class land and there would be a bit of a row if it had to be planted with conifers. It is a good scheme. I think it can be done only with public money. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, could raise any money for it. If broadleaved trees were to be planted, it would have to be done with public money because no private company would touch it, in my opinion.
The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, emphasised the point about integrating forestry and farming, and I could not agree with him more on that. I have made the point to his noble friend Lord Kimball and he should have a word with him in private also, just to keep him in his place. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, also mentioned people who go to the Californian coast in North America to look at huge conifers. He said how much they enjoy them. They then return to this country and complain about them. If they do not want to spend all that money, I suggest that they go up to the Great Glen in Invernesshire and see the beautiful spruce trees that are now 60 or 70 years old. I think that they will then fall in love with conifers after all.
The noble Lord emphasised what could be done with the amenities outside forestry. The farmers could have caravans which could be hidden by the trees,

1261
unless they learned to paint them green. For some reason they must be yellow and white. I could never understand that.
The noble Lord said that the labour requirement would be the same whoever owned the forest. That is right if we talk about numbers. Private companies tend to have gang labour, whereas Forestry Commission labour generally lives in the area. There would be a change in the type of labour which, in my opinion, would not be too good for the area.
I do not think that I need to say much about what the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said. He merely fired questions right, left and centre at the noble Lord the Minister and I shall leave him to answer. He said that the economic point was a difficult one, and I could not agree with him more. Broadleaved trees last for up to 150 years and conifers for up to 60, and it is difficult to make an economic assessment of the matter. We must just look at the situation as it is over the years and go ahead and plant trees. The noble Earl also mentioned the labour point.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said that he had fallen out with the commission several times over clear felling. He said that there were only two countries that clear felled. He cannot have moved about the world very much. I have been in Canada and a whole host of other places where a great deal of clear felling goes on.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I was merely quoting Richard Coke, who is known to the noble Lord. I was merely quoting what he said about the system of even age single species planting followed by clear felling. If Richard Coke is wrong, the noble Lord should tell him.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I stand corrected. The noble Lord said that he could see the advantages of the Forestry Commission and of imaginative planting, and he thought that the Government should not mess about with the commission. I could not agree with him more.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, gave a great many figures. They do not quite tie up with mine. But they are near to them. The total area of land belonging to the commission, including a number of farms and quite a lot of land that is not yet planted, amounts to—I can think only in acres, not hectares—just over 3 million acres. The value of the land and the trees must be enormous. I do not know what the Government think that is worth, but if they were to put it on the market, I think that it would depress the price of land and forestry all over the country. The figure of £1,500 million was mentioned. I think that that is a conservative figure; I think it will be much more than that. It is something that would need to be looked at before any rash proposals to privatise it were made.
The total number of people in the industry is quite large, nearly up to 30,000. I should like to emphasise that we have had the publicising of a change in the GLC and we have seen the host of things that have to be handed over to other councils or new quangos to run them. I should like to remind the Government that they would have a problem if they privatised the Forestry Commission. Who would look after the New Forest, and would they do it half as well as the Forestry Commission? There are 20 million visits made to our
1262
forests every year, so some people like forests and conifers. All these camping and caravan sites, which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, mentioned, would have to be looked after. We have nine arboreta and someone has to look after them. May I point out to the Government that not everybody has the same aversion to public bodies as they have?
I should like to emphasise the part that forestry people—and the noble Lord, Lord Gray, knows this better than I do—play in public life. I should like to mention two in particular, Finlay McRae in Glen Affric and Bill Grant in Grisdale. These two men have done a tremendous lot for the public life in the area where they have been all their lives, and something would be lost if the commission was privatised.
Finally, I should like to stress that research can never be a success unless it is tied to the practical side. I know that there will be research in the private sector, but the fact that it is tied to the Forestry Commission means that the research is meaningful in every way. I may say that the same applies to the plant breeding institute in Cambridge. I hope that we shall get a very satisfactory answer from the noble Lord, Lord Gray, tonight. He must have noticed that, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, he will not have a friend if his answer is to the detriment of the Forestry Commission.
10.17 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, for doing his best in his inimitable style to wind-up the debate for me and for leaving to me only the questions to which he himself did not know the answers. Nevertheless, I shall try to take over and deal in due course with some of the points that have not already been dealt with by the noble Lord.
But first I should like to join noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for giving us the opportunity to talk about this very important and interesting subject of the Forestry Commission. We have come to expect from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, a speech delivered with authority and feeling on the subject of the Forestry Commission. This is a reflection of the fact that not so many years ago he was its distinguished chairman, so naturally I listened with the greatest interest to what he had to say.
I claim no credit for anticipating to some extent that his Question on the future of the Forestry Commission was inspired by press reports, or should I say press speculation—and, indeed, that speculation has obviously been picked up by a number of your Lordships. Indeed, Ministers have been invited to say that the press have got it wrong and that nothing is further from the minds of the Government than privatisation. I gathered from some of the speeches tonight that much the same invitation has been offered to me. Of course, I cannot give such an assurance, not because the commission is about to be privatised but because, as the Government have already made clear, the policy under which the commission's assets are sold is kept under regular review.
As noble Lords will recall, the last such review resulted in the Statement in another place by my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. George Younger, in November 1984 to

1263
the effect that sales by the commission would be aimed at a rationalisation of its estate with a view to increasing its efficiency and commercial effectiveness. He made the point that the choice of properties to be sold—this point was raised particularly by my noble friend Lord Dundee—would remain with the Forestry Commissioners. I can give the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, the assurance that he sought, that there has been no change in this policy.
That Statement was broadly welcomed. I noticed particularly that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, made reference to the policy, which he accepted, as I think most people do, that the Forestry Commission buys and the Forestry Commission must be able to sell. As I said, that Statement was broadly welcomed, and it showed that when we carry out a review it is in an effort to find the most practical way forward. No policy can, or indeed should, remain sacrosanct indefinitely. But what I can say to reassure your Lordships in the circumstances of this debate is that any change of policy towards the sale of Forestry Commission assets—if it came to be felt that some change were called for—would be reached only after the most careful consideration of all the implications of such a change.
I would ask noble Lords not to take my words as an oblique admission that changes are on the way. I have said no such thing. What I am saying is that forestry policy in general has evolved over many years and will continue to evolve. The new duty placed on the Forestry Commissioners through the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985—to seek to achieve a reasonable balance between the needs of forestry and those of the environment—is an example of this. Certainly, no Government could be expected to agree that a policy should be decided at one point in time and then set in amber. I am sure that this is not something that the Forestry Commission itself would want.
The future of the Forestry Commission is of course very much bound up with the future of the forestry industry as a whole, and that I see as a bright one. This Government are fully committed to an expansion of the forest estate, in ways that are consistent with the needs of other land users. I make that point particularly for the benefit of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, who is genuinely concerned, as many conservationists are.
The estate is growing now at a rate of more than 25,000 hectares a year. This figure is somewhat below the rate of expansion that we envisaged when we set out our present forestry policy in 1980, but it is still no mean achievement. The commission's forestry grant scheme has been a success, and now we have the added and welcome boost of the broadleaved woodland grant scheme introduced by the commission last October. The response to this scheme has been heartening—perhaps even better than we expected—and not only will this mean more tree planting but it will lead to a greater variety of planting, with a better balance between conifers and broadleaves.
At the same time, many of our forests, in both public and private ownership, are now reaching the production stage, and the amount of timber coming out of them is expected to increase by some 80 per
1264
cent. by the turn of the century—which, after all, is not far away. This means that we are in a position to go on attracting new downstream industries, with an assurance that our forests will be able to meet their needs. In recent times we have seen the establishment of a major pulp and paper mill at Shotton in North Wales and of a structural composition board plant near Inverness. There has been expansion by Thames Board Mills at Workington to increase cartonboard production, and we are also witnessing expansion in particleboard manufacture and in sawmilling. We have every hope that there is more to come.
So our expanding forest estate is leading to the setting up of new industries, with all that means in terms of jobs. I echo the remarks of a number of your Lordships this evening in paying tribute, as I believe it is right to do, to the crucial role played by the Forestry Commission. It has made those developments possible by means of its reliable forecasts of production and by guaranteeing supplies of timber through long-term contracts, and by meeting those guarantees in a highly professional way.
I pay that tribute not just because I happen to be the Minister who has responsibility for the Forestry Commission; I pay it because I myself have seen the quality of those on the ground who are employed by the commission and the dedication of its officials, right down to the forest workers who are employed throughout Scotland and indeed throughout the United Kingdom.
I now turn to another issue that could have a significant effect on forestry. This is the clearly identified need to deal with the mounting surpluses of some agricultural products by making changes to the CAP. The significance of that for forestry is of course the recognition that in the right circumstances forestry can provide an alternative crop that is not, and never will be, in surplus in this country or in the Community as a whole.
So far as reform of the CAP is concerned, the way ahead is far from clear at present, but it could well be that at the end of the day forestry will be called upon to play a greater role in the economy of our countryside and in the maintenance of our rural communities. That will provide both challenges and opportunities for our foresters and not least for the Forestry Commission—both in its role as the forestry authority and as the forestry enterprise.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, as to the question of surpluses and replacing with woods those acres that might go out of production, does my noble friend really believe that that is a practical proposition? We are talking of farmers, and surely there is a very severe cash flow situation for them—unless, once more, the Government or Brussels are prepared to subsidise the whole situation very strongly indeed; and as my speech brought out, those subsidies seem to be getting eroded.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I propose to deal with those points in due course. I will try to answer some of the questions that were raised and I assure my noble friend that I will return to the matter that he has mentioned.
I am well aware that the idea of an expanding and vigorous industry alarms some people. Indeed, we have perhaps had a whiff of that today from my noble

1265
friend Lord Kimball and from the noble Baroness. However, I believe that is because of the fear that forestry might damage our countryside. I must put my cards on the table because I do not subscribe to that view, which takes little account of the praiseworthy efforts of foresters in recent years to come to terms with environmental needs, to achieve the right balance, and to make our forests attractive places for both man and wildlife alike.
Foresters are among the first to recognise that there is much more to forestry than simply planting trees and watching them grow. Earlier I mentioned the new broadleaved woodland grant scheme introduced by the commission, and I take the opportunity to remind your Lordships' House that the commission has also taken the initiative of updating its conservation policy and making it clear that it wishes to work more closely with conservation bodies, to the extent of setting up local liaison groups.
The private sector, too, must not be forgotten, because it has announced its best intentions through the publication by Timber Growers United Kingdom of its booklet The Forestry and Woodland Code, which recognises that there are many interests to be borne in mind in establishing and managing forests. I must resist the temptation to speak at length on that particular subject, but I feel that much of the criticism that is directed against foresters by environmental interests lacks that essential balance and a proper appreciation of the many advances that are taking place. Indeed, the very rumour that the commission might be privatised has brought forth a chorus of protest from a wide range of people, including amenity and environmental bodies who, when they thought that the chips were down, were quick to acknowledge the high quality of the commission's stewardship of its estates. This served to confirm my own view that there is a deep underlying support for forestry in this country, provided it is carried out with the needs of others very much in mind.
In many ways forestry is coming of age and it is doing so under the forestry policy that the Government set out in December 1980 and which is working well. That policy has not changed. In saying this I am not giving your Lordships' House a coded message. I am simply stating the facts and I hope they will be accepted. If there should be any intention in the future to amend that 1980 policy your Lordships would certainly be informed in plenty of time.
My noble friend Lord Kimball was pretty harsh, I thought, on the Forestry Commission but I pay tribute to him as a landowner in the Highlands who provides employment on his estate and makes sure that it is not casual or part-time employment. He employs people on a permanent basis. Anybody who achieves that and the success on the sporting side of an estate which my noble friend has achieved must have the thanks of the community. Nine or 11 jobs in Altnaharra represent a sizeable workforce and my noble friend has done a splendid job in maintaining it.
I shall not defend the commission further because I think that was extremely well done by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, with his knowledge as a former chairman of the commission. He dealt with the points adequately when he spoke.
My noble friend Lord Kimball and the noble Baroness were concerned about some of the planting
1266
which had taken place in Caithness and Sutherland. I am aware that there are misgivings, particularly in that part which is known as the flow country. But it is very large and not all of it can be of high conservation value. Properly considered and planned forestry schemes should not be incompatible with the needs of nature conservation. I can tell the noble Baroness that the commission now consults the Nature Conservancy Council on all afforestation proposals in sensitive areas in the flow country. We must try to get the right balance and the commission in its attitude is very much aware of this nowadays.
The noble Baroness also suggested that attempts to place a conservation duty on the Forestry Commission have failed. This does not fit the facts. The Forestry Act 1967 was amended last year by the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985 to place a duty on the Forestry Commission to seek to achieve a balance in carrying out its functions.
The noble Baroness also asked about forestry in environmentally sensitive areas, known as ESAs. There is no cause for concern here. The Forestry Commission has made it clear that it will not grant-aid any forestry scheme which is incompatible with the aims and objectives of an ESA.
The noble Baroness asked a number of questions, which I shall try to answer. She said there was criticism of the decisions of the regional advisory committees. I am afraid that she is misinformed because the regional advisory committees do not actually take decisions; they simply try to conciliate in disputed areas. At the present moment the composition of the regional advisory committees is being carefully revised and I have no doubt that the conclusions will meet with the approval of the noble Baroness.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also asked me a number of questions. I am sorry if I misunderstood his point on a previous occasion, and I hope I shall be able to give him the proper answer tonight. He asked me whether in the last five years the Forestry Commission had withheld sales to safeguard access. The answer is yes, the Forestry Commission has withheld properties from the market which otherwise would be eligible for sale under the rationalisation approach because of the heavy investment in recreational and public access facilities.
The noble Lord also asked me about the situation of properties for sale in consideration of public access. I have partially answered that question, but there is a further point. The selection of properties for sale within the overall policy laid down by the Government is a matter for the Forestry Commission. The commissioners have absolute control of this. The disposal programme is carried out entirely by the commissioners. They decide what properties they shall dispose of and the Government do not take an active part in that selection.
The noble Lord further asked me about the position of landscape conservation orders in national parks. This is still under consideration within government. I am afraid that since it is a matter for environmental Ministers it is not within my remit; but I have noted the question and perhaps I can arrange for a letter to be sent to the noble Lord to deal with that more fully.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, I often feel deploys her arguments so effectively in such a short

1267
time that many of our colleagues who took part in the debate which preceded this one could well take a leaf out of her book. She asked me about replacing surplus farm crops with trees. To some extent this relates to the point to which my noble friend Lord Radnor also spoke. The Government are looking carefully at the question of tree planting as an alternative crop to agricultural products which are in surplus and at the broader role that the Forestry Commission might play in relation to changes in the common agricultural policy.
The EC Commission has floated a number of interesting ideas, though only in the broadest terms so far; it has not yet spelt out much in the way of detail. At this moment it is difficult to gauge the possible impact on forestry in this country, but the question of the contribution that forestry might make is being kept firmly in mind and suggestions such as those which have been made by the noble Countess are helpful in these matters and will certainly be considered.
The views of consultees on the report, Woodland as a farm crop, are now also being analysed. The consultation exercise has provided a great deal of material on which to work, and we are grateful to all those who responded to it.
My noble friend Lord Radnor asked me about grants under the dedication scheme and suggested that they have not risen in line with costs. I point out to my noble friend that the grants are not index-linked. They are designed to encourage the establishment of woodlands. The main criterion must be whether they are meeting the needs satisfactorily. However, the Forestry Commissioners will be reviewing the grant levels with effect from 1st October this year, and we shall take into account the points which my noble friend has made. I think that to bring them up to the levels at which he hinted may be a little difficult, but we shall consider the points which he has made.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers, along with a number of others, mentioned contour planting. This is a question of good landscaping. Forestry has not been short in many cases of good landscape planning. Some instances may not be as satisfactory as others. But the commission has the benefit of advice from landscape architects and, indeed, in one case from an eminent landscape consultant. As forests mature, are gradually felled and are re-stocked, the opportunity is being taken to make them more diverse, to plant away from streams and to get rid of straight lines and rather ugly square boxes that are not in the best interests of amenity.
My noble friend Lord Gisborough made an interesting proposal concerning the encouragement of joint ventures between farmers and forestry investors. The Government will take such proposals into account in their consideration of measures to encourage farm forestry. My noble friend Lord Dundee asked how consultation between countryside bodies could be improved. The commission has issued a consultation paper on the composition and procedure of regional advisory committees. The aim is to help these committees to do their job of reconciliation as effectively as possible.
1268
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who has a habit of firing financial questions at me when I least expect them, asked me how much tax relief was given away through the commercial forestry policy. The best information that I can obtain for him is the 1980 Inland Revenue figure which at that time was £10 million a year.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, whose leg I pulled a little at the beginning of my remarks made, as he always does, an extremely valuable contribution. It is an enormous advantage in these debates to have the experience and knowledge of former chairmen of the Forestry Commission, and we are grateful to the noble Lord for what he said. He said that he could not read his own writing. I have to be absolutely honest and say that I made another comment about his speech but I cannot read my writing! We are on a par.
In conclusion, I thank once again the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for his interesting and constructive approach and for giving us the opportunity to paticipate in what has been a most enjoyable debate.

Yorkshire Water Authority Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  CDE CONFERENCE: CONFIDENCE BUILDING MEASURES
  CDE CONFERENCE: CONFIDENCE BUILDING MEASURES
  HONG KONG: NATIONALITY PROVISIONS
  HONG KONG: NATIONALITY PROVISIONS