Sitting of 18 June 1986

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

    COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN (TAFF CROSSING) BILL
    Ordered,
    That the Committee on the County of South Glamorgan (Taff Crossing) Bill have leave to visit and inspect the site of the proposed works, provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visit and that any party who has made an Appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by his Counsel, Agent or other representative. — [The Chairman al Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Small Firms
    Mr. Brightasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about his Department's latest plans for reducing the burdens on small firms.
    The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Morrison): My Department's plans, together with those of other Departments, for reducing burdens on both small and large firms are outlined in the recently published White Paper "Building Businesses … Not Barriers". I have to date received no representations arising from the White Paper.
    Mr. BrightIs my hon. Friend happy that there is adequate liaison between his and other Departments of State, in particular the Department of Employment, which inherited the small firms unit? Is there still the will and momentum to rid small businesses in particular of petty burdens, which is probably the most significant factor nowadays deterring people from going into business?
    Mr. Morrison: I can assure my hon. Friend that there certainly is the will and commitment to continue with a deregulation policy. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and I were, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, originally in the Department of Employment, so on that level there is good liaison. In addition, three Cabinet Ministers—my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Employment and my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General — are involved in the deregulation process.
    Mr. MacKenzie: Is the Minister aware that one of the biggest problems faced by small firms in Britain is that of cash flow? It would be of great practical assistance to them
    1028
    if he could lift the four-month moratorium on the payment of regional development grants and other forms of financial assistance to small firms.
    Mr. Morrison: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says about the moratorium, but he will appreciate that the regional development grant scheme is demand led. However, I shall look at the point that he has made.
    Mr. John Browne: Does my hon. Friend accept that the greatest disincentive to the creation of small businesses, as shown in recent studies, is not a lack of capital, or indeed a lack of markets, but the administrative burdens placed on smaller businesses? Does he further accept that the Government have done a great deal in that respect already, but much still needs to be done? Will he look earnestly at and accept the recommendations of the Conservative Back-Bench small business committee?
    Mr. Morrison: I agree that administrative burdens are one of the disincentives to setting up new businesses, but the other significant point is the attitude towards small businesses. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has changed that attitude and there is definitely a feeling that small businesses should he encouraged and persuaded to set up and to prevail and prosper. I hope that it goes without saying that we listen carefully to any proposals put by my hon. Friend and his colleagues on the small business committee.
    Mr. Ashdown: Is the Minister aware that the new Data Protection Act 1984 has placed considerable burdens on small firms, especially those seeking to use the new technologies to make themselves more efficient? Has his Department made any recommendations to the Home Office on how those burdens might be reduced or simplified in favour of small firms?
    Mr. Morrison: I am aware of the concern that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but, as he will appreciate, we must conform with what our European colleagues have agreed. However, the matter is kept under review.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: As my hon. Friend will not reach Question 26 on the Order Paper this afternoon on precisely this subject, may I ask him whether he plans to make any changes in the accountancy rules for small businesses'?
    Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend is a pessimist in these matters. I hope we can progress speedily and that we shall reach Question 26. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has direct responsibility for these matters and I expect that he will make an announcement in the not-too-distant future.
    Mr. Eastham: When, in due course, the Minister considers these matters, will he also consider the matter of selective assistance in cases where grants are not mandatory? Some firms fill in forms for civil servants, wait about six or seven months and then find that they do not qualify for grants. Is it not about time that we did something about this?
    Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman raises a perfectly fair point. He probably realises, just as the House realises, that a review of regional grants and regional selective assistance is currently taking place. We are certainly looking at the precise point that he has mentioned. By and large, I receive many more plaudits than criticisms. Of course, there may be the odd reason for criticism. As I say, we receive mainly plaudits because the officials in my

    1029
    Department and in the regional offices are generally speaking, considered by all and sundry who apply for grants to be efficient and helpful in the processing of the necessary forms.
    Mr. Thurnham: May I ask question No. 24? I hope that we shall reach question No. 24. May I ask my hon. Friend to have a word with his right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General about the provisions of the Latent Damages Bill which require firms to keep records for 15 years? Does my hon. Friend not agree that that is an excessive period for small engineering and other firms?
    Mr. Morrison: I am hopeful that we shall reach question No. 24. My hon. Friend asked about the Latent Damages Bill. I do not pretend to be expert on that, but of course I shall raise the matter with my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, and no doubt he and my hon. Friend could discuss the matter further.
    Mr. John Smith: In expressing our understanding of the very sad reason why the Secretary of State is not able to be with us today, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to express to the Secretary of State and his family our very deep sympathy and condolences?
    Mr. Morrison: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said, and I shall certainly pass on his message.

    Postal Services
    Mr. Peter Brunivelsasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to end the Post Office's monopoly for the handling and delivering of mail.
    The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): No, Sir, but I remind my hon. Friend that there is already free competition for the collection and delivery of all mail, except inland letters charged at less than £1.
    Mr. Bruinvels: Although the Post Office has become more efficient and more profitable, surely my hon. Friend will accept that its suggestion to increase the postage rates by another penny when it cannot deliver more than 87·6 per cent. of post the next day is not exactly good news? Should not alternative services be offered? Is that not what the Conservative Government believe in?
    Mr. Pattie: The first point I make to my hon. Friend is that the chairman of the Post Office has given preliminary notice to the chairman of the Post Office Users' National Council that he is considering a rise of l p for first and second-class mail. It is worth reminding the House that after inflation is taken into account, the first-class tariff is now about 13 per cent. lower than it was in 1981 and the second-class tariff is 26 per cent. lower. When one sets that against the quite considerable efficiency that the Post Office achieves, it shows that the Post Office does not have a bad record.
    Mr. Key: My constituents reckon that the service is between 13 and 26 per cent. worse than it was some years ago. Although the expensive advertising campaign of the Post Office seeks to persuade us that inter-city postal services are very good, postal services in rural areas such as south Wiltshire have declined considerably. That is just not good enough.
    Mr. Pattie: Although I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point, I have to say that everybody tends to be
    1030
    aware of postal letters or packets that do not arrive and to take completely for granted the letters that do arrive and which form the vast proportion of the mail. I am sure that the chairman of the Post Office will avidly read this exchange in Hansard and will note my hon. Friend's remarks.

    Computer Research
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the new round of funding for computer research, ESPRIT II, proposed at the recent European Economic Community in Luxembourg.
    Mr. Pattie: We have not yet received formal and detailed proposals for ESPRIT II, but we have made clear, in the Research Council, our strong support for programmes like ESPRIT which promote the competitiveness of European industry.
    Mr. Wainwright: How do the Government propose to recover the ground on computer research and development which has already been lost to Japan and the United States? They will be unable to do so as long as they continue to spread thinly the relatively modest resources that they have put aside covering projects such as EUREKA, RACE, Alvey I and possibly Alvey II as well as ESPRIT. Would it not be much better to concentrate on the one scheme that is Communitywide and that would put the resources of Italy, Benelux, Spain, Denmark, and so on behind us?
    Mr. Pattie: The hon. Gentleman's question indicates, dare I say, a lack of depth on this matter. Those projects are not alternatives. There is no point in suggesting that we should concentrate entirely on a European programme if we do not at the same time maintain a reasonable national capability to complement that European activity.
    Mr. Dalyell: I agree that there should be some depth in these matters, but have the Government reached any judgment about the effect on the ESPRIT programme of British and European participation in the strategic defence initiative programme?
    Mr. Pattie: The short answer is no. The time scales involved are rather different. Participation in SDI envisages participation in various technology programmes which look at much longer-term requirements than the ESPRIT II or even ESPRIT I programme would involve.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Will the Minister confirm that he is resisting Treasury pressure to treat every departmental contribution to European programmes as alternative funding that therefore involves a cut in national funds? The hon. Gentleman says that we must have a reasonable level of nationally-funded operations, but does he realise that unless we have very full funding for our national programmes we shall not be able to participate effectively in the European programmes? Will he therefore give an assurance that our contribution to Europe will not be made at the expense of United Kingdom programmes, and at the expense, in particular, of Alvey II?
    Mr. Pattie: I am happy to confirm that. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), we are not talking about alternative or substitutional activities. It is important to put that on the record.

    Ferguson Ailsa
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he is now considering for the Troon yard of Ferguson Ailsa.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: We have accepted British Shipbuilders' decision that the operations at the Troon yard of Ferguson Ailsa should cease once the present order hook is complete. I understand that British Shipbuilders is now seeking potential buyers.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that when the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). the Secretary of State for Defence, recently visited the Ailsa yard at Troon he made two specific promises: that the Government would examine what orders, and particularly Ministry of Defence orders, might be brought forward; and that the Government would consider the report of the consultants Planning Industrial and Economic Development Advisers and the possibilities in it for the Troon yard? Will the Minister confirm that the right hon. Member for Ayr was speaking on behalf of the Government when he made those two pledges? When will we have a report on the result of those two promises? How will discussions now be undertaken with British Shipbuilders to ensure that it is aware of the implications of the right hon. Gentleman's promises?
    Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in this matter, he will appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence always speaks on behalf of the Government. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the remarks that I and my right hon. Friend made during the debate on shipbuilding were concurrent.
    Mr. Lambie: Despite the Minister's original answer and British Shipbuilders' decision to close the Troon yard, if Ferguson Ailsa wins another order will the Minister lean heavily on British Shipbuilders to ensure that the order is built at the Troon yard so that both yards can be kept open?
    Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman has attended our shipbuilding debates and he will appreciate that such decisions are for British Shipbuilders to make. It is for it to decide in which yards to place orders. However, I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Sayeed: Though the difficulties of Troon are similar to those of other yards that are owned by British Shipbuilders, there being twice as many modern ships as there are cargoes to fill them, is there not a case for ensuring that ships and cargo rates are not dumped on the market by countries outside the EEC which are subsidising their shipbuilding and freight rates to such a great degree that British Shipbuilders and British shipping companies cannot compete?
    Mr. Morrison: The simple answer to my hon. Friend is yes. That is precisely what we are discussing at the Council of Ministers for a successor to the fifth directive.

    Westland Helicopters
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what meetings his predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) had with officials on the morning of 24 January in relation
    1032
    to the Westlands affair; what was the purpose of the meetings; and what conclusions were reached as to the action his predecessor should take.
    Mr. Pattie: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) held several meetings on the morning of 24 January. Some of these related to Westland, and some were attended by officials. His meetings on Westland were held to inform himself of latest developments.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is it conceivable that civil servants of the quality and integrity of Sir Brian Hayes would have advised the then Secretary of State to remain in office if they had thought that the full story had been one of deception by their Secretary of State of their Prime Minister and of themselves for over a fortnight? Is it not clear from Linklater and Leigh in "Not with Honour" and from other information that the strands of the spider's web led to No. 10 Downing street? Is not the lawyer's letter the real reason why the House did not have Friday 6 June?
    Mr. Pattie: The hon. Gentleman will know that all questions relating to advice offered by an official to a Minister are confidential. Any matters that he cares to deduce from the book that he has mentioned or any other work is entirely a matter for him.
    Mr. John Smith: Is the Minister aware that in the book to which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred, while it is said that civil servants counselled the former Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), to stay, the politicians present, who presumably included the Minister, gave contrary advice? Was that contrary advice — namely, that the former Secretary of State should resign — coloured by their knowledge of the machinations which had gone on both in the Department of Trade and Industry and at Downing street over the discreditable Westland affair?
    Mr. Pattie: As it happens, I was chairing a seminar in the lower parts of the Department at that time. Therefore, I am unable to speculate on any of the reasons that any of my colleagues might have had for the statements that they made.

    Export Statistics
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the combined total value of United Kingdom exports for 1985 to China, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Pakistan, Romania, Saudi Arabia and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): United Kingdom exports to these countries amounted to £2·7 billion in 1985.
    Mr. Chapman: As these countries are just some of those which on any criteria cannot be called free and democratic, will my hon. Friend confirm that Britain does much trading with undemocratic countries and countries with oppressive regimes? In considering the morality of trading with South Africa, should not the Government in all consistency examine their trading policies with at least some other evil and undemocratic countries?
    Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. Censorship, judicial execution—in many places in public

    1033
    —and imprisonment without trial are all characteristics of the countries that he mentions and a number that he does not. Were these elements to be a bar to normal trading relations, our trade would be even more circumscribed than it looks like being at the present, but such judgments are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
    Mr. Madden: Has the Minister any information that the Government of Saudi Arabia are seeking to restrict travel by British citizens to Saudi Arabia to two airlines, British Caledonian and Saudia?
    Mr. Clark: I have no such information, but I suggest that the hon. Gentleman addresses his queston to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport on the next appropriate occasion.
    Mr. Alexander: Did my hon. Friend see the reported comment this week by Mr. Jing Shupeng of the China International Trust and Investment Corporation Ltd. that British businesses were losing out because they were too expensive? Does that not underline the Government's concern that our businesses have far too heavy overheads and are still not really competitive in world markets?
    Mr. Clark: There are a number of things that can contribute to a non-competitive cost in a business tender. Certainly Her Majesty's Government are doing their best to compensate for that by the soft loan facility which offers finance to projects in China at an extremely high level of subsidy.
    Mr. Ashdown: Is the Minister aware that British high-tech trade to the Eastern bloc countries since the late 1970s has halved to £40 million and, at the same time, the United States high-tech trade to Eastern bloc countries has increased eight times since 1981, to $2 billion and is forecast to double again next year? When will the Government stand up to attempts by the United States to control British high-tech trade by using United States law in Britain, since it is now clearly being used to advantage the United States and disadvantage the United Kingdom high-tech industry?
    Mr. Clark: There is a great deal in what the hon. Gentleman says and I regret this state of affairs very deeply. Her Majesty's Government are always ready to protect those firms which wish to resist—
    Mr. Ashdown: Wet.
    Mr. Clark: It is not that. I cannot put it in any stronger language. Her Majesty's Government are always ready to resist claims of extra-territoriality on the part of the United States, but in each case it has to be left to the commercial judgment of the firm concerned. If it is the firm's judgment that by so doing its status in relation to its primary supplier will be altered and damage its commercial prospects, who are we to override that?
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is best for individual traders to decide with whom they would like to trade rather than for Governments to attempt to impose sanctions?
    Mr. Clark: Indeed, I welcome that. If traders make that choice and ask for our protection they will have it.

    Oil Prices (Economic Effects)
    Mr. Kennedyasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his most recent assessment of the impact of lower oil prices on the manufacturing and exporting base of the United Kingdom economy; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: Lower oil prices will benefit United Kingdom manufacturing and non-oil exports. They will provide the non-oil sector with a great opportunity to build on the substantial gains of the past five years and to expand output further.
    Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Minister for that reply. However, does he agree that his Department must remain concerned about the effect that that will have specifically on the oil sector and the oil-related sector? Will he give his Department's view of the fact that the Chancellor based his entire Budget strategy on an average oil price levelling out this year at about $15 a barrel, but that the Scottish Development Agency has carried out a computer projection which has shown that if even that price is attained and persists it will lead to a 40 per cent. cut in spending by oil companies, with all the attendant catastrophic effects which that will have on the Scottish economy? What action does he propose to take?
    Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman asked a direct question as to whether I still agree with the analysis in the Chancellor's Budget statement in terms of manufacturing output being at around a 3 per cent. increase this year. The answer is yes. I would expect the two to match each other. Therefore, I think that the Scottish economy can gain. The hon. Gentleman makes the point. For the oil sector there will be a compensation the other way round.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the competitive advantage of lower fuel oil costs will quickly be squandered if pay claims in manufacturing industry continue to be settled at levels above the rate of inflation?
    Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend. Ultimately, the increase in better productivity—and to be fair we have had much better productivity during the past five years—is the key to an expanding manufacturing sector and the ability to gain or regain markets.
    Mr. Williams: Does the Minister agree that it will be tragic for this country if, when the long-awaited upturn in world trade at last takes place as a result of the collapse in oil prices, we see yet another aspect of the Government's wanton destruction of manufacturing industry in their complete failure to invest oil revenue, so that we lack the breadth of industrial base to take advantage of the upturn? Do the Government not feel at all guilty over the fact that in the event of an upturn we shall be mere spectators and the new wealth and the new jobs will go to our competitors?
    Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman is being his usual pessimistic self. He will recall that a Select Committee report in another place predicted gloom and doom in the event of a substantial drop in the price of oil, but no one could have anticipated that that drop would take place in such a short period. Nevertheless, the outlook for the manufacturing sector remains extremely good.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that our main competitors will also benefit from lower costs so

    1035
    it will not he so easy for us? Heavy engineering uses a great deal of energy. Will he impress on the Secretary of State for Energy that it is crucial that energy costs to industry in this country should fall by at least as much as for our competitors in other countries?
    Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend that we live in an international market-place so we must ensure that our productivity gains are as good as, if not better than, those of our international competitors. I also agree that the cost of energy, especially for heavy users, is a key element in that productivity.
    Mr. Wilson: Given the previous concentration of the oil industry in Scotland, is it not simplistic for the Minister to assume that any of the benefits of lower oil prices will extend to the Scottish economy in view of the spending cuts that have taken place? Will he consult the Scottish Development Agency for an assessment, and if it is shown that Scotland will suffer particularly adversely as a result of the fall in oil prices will the Government restore the cuts in regional aid that they made two years ago?
    Mr. Morrison: I assure the hon. Gentleman that, with my responsibilities for regional policy, I keep closely alongside the Scottish Development Agency. He should he aware that at present the agency is looked upon eagerly and with some envy for its great success and ability to attract new industries to Scotland, and I congratulate it on that.

    Unfair Trade Unit
    Mr. Sumbergasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about his Department's new unfair trade unit.
    Mr. Stanbrookasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to take steps to improve the way in which complaints by British firms about unfair trading practices by foreign competitors within and without the European Community are dealt with by his Department; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alan Clark: On 13 May I announced the formation of the unfair trade unit to co-ordinate work on complaints about all forms of unfair practices in international trade. I intend the new unit to enable the Department to respond more quickly to such complaints. The establishment of the unit does not represent any change in policy away from open international trade and towards protectionism.
    Mr. Sumberg: While I welcome my hon. Friend's reply and the establishment of the new unit, which I believe will have a useful part to play, may I ask whether he is aware that many business men, and especially those in the paper industry in my constituency, feel that they are suffering as a result of unfair foreign trade practices but are not sure how to tackle the problem and to whom they should go for advice? What support can my hon. Friend offer business men in general and the paper industry in particular?
    Mr. Clark: That is precisely the kind of instance for which the new unit has been set up. Unfair trading can arise from a number of sources—as a result of dumping, for which there are recognised procedures, as a result of subsidies, agency arrangemens in restraint, counterfeiting, and so on. If my hon. Friend's constituent will write to the
    1036
    Department the matter will be referred to the unit and he will receive immediate advice on appropriate steps to try to obtain redress.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Is my hon. Friend aware that many British firms are mystified as Ito what to do about unfair competition from abroad? Even Government Departments seem to be unaware of the facilities that can be offered by the unfair trade unit and its predecessor. They are not co-ordinated in Brussels, so often the reaction there to a complaint is indifferent and off-putting. Will my hon. Friend assure us that this unit will adopt a public identity that will counteract the previous tendencies of other Government Departments, and will he ensure that it gets all the resources that it needs?
    Mr. Clark: Certainly that is my intention. I am grateful to all my hon. Friends for allowing me to publicise this in the Chamber. The anti-dumping unit was concerned only with the narrower question of dumping. The unfair trade unit has been expanded and is intended precisely to embrace all the different aspects of unfair trade that in many cases baffle business men. As my hon. Friend has said, they do not know how to start correcting them. I hope that all my hon. Friends and all Opposition Members will take note of the existence of the new unit and will encourage their constituents to refer cases to me so that I may pass them on to the unit for immediate investigation.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that one of the unfair trade practices that baffles the public is that which allows mountains of food and lakes of drink to accumulate when people are starving? Will this unit deal with that source of unfairness, or turn a blind eye to it?
    Mr. Clark: The unit is concerned with imports.
    Mr. Spencer: Is my hon. Friend aware of the reprehensible practice of some foreign companies of cross-subsidisation between subsidiaries to conceal the true cost of their products? A textile manufacturing firm in my constituency called Bentley Engineering has been hit particularly by this reprehensible practice.
    Mr. Janner: It is in my constituency.
    Mr. Spencer: Can my hon. Friend assure us that such activity will be within the purview of the unit?
    Mr. Clark: Certainly it will be considered. Such activity is difficult to trace, for obvious reasons, but I should not want a case not to be referred to the unit simply because it seemed to be too difficult or elusive. I should be glad if my hon. and learned Friend would write to me about that.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does the Minister agree that in order to extend the freedom of international trade it is essential to have strong defences against economic warfare conducted against us by contries where export trading is in the hands of the state? If so, can he reassure the House that his welcome unfair trade unit will not be handicapped and shackled by crude numerical reductions in the manpower of the Civil Service?
    Mr. Clark: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall do my best to ensure that that does not happen. I do not see any sign of it.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend agree that for six years we have been promised that the country that indulges in more unfair trade practices than any other country on the face of the earth, Japan, would be dealt

    1037
    with? Does this mean that at long last those promises will become fact and that the Japanese will have to compete fairly rather than being allowed to destroy one high-tech industry after another when it does not suit them to have competition? Will they keep their word at long last?
    Mr. Clark: Whether they keep their word is a matter for them. Certainly those who have doubts that they may should be fortified by the promulgation of the unit. Indeed, I expect that imports from Japan are likely to be among the first to feature in the programme. The two successful anti-dumping cases in the last year both related to Japanese products.

    Japan
    Mr. Pollockasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken to follow up the initiative of the Prime Minister at the Tokyo summit when she pressed the Japanese Prime Minister to remove the tax-duty discrimination faced by Scotch whisky bottled in Scotland.
    Mr. Alan Clark: We are continuing to press strongly for the removal of Japanese discrimination in the tax and duty facing Scotch whisky and other imported alcoholic drinks. The European Community is to have further talks with the Japanese shortly, and we continue to take every opportunity to press the case bilaterally.
    Mr. Pollock: Although I am encouraged by that reply, may I ask whether the Government made it clear to the Japanese authorities that their grading of liquor taxes represents a tax on quality, and therefore discriminates strongly and unfairly against this unique quality product from Scotland? Has it been pointed out to the Japanese that if we were to indulge in similar fiscal tactics against Japanese products, which are equally strong in their market sector, that might be a lesson which they would begin to understand?
    Mr. Clark: I agree with my hon. Friend about the quality of Scotch whisky. The Japanese practice of grading alcoholic drinks is practically impossible to define in any sense which makes it possible to contest it. For example, Bourbon whisky is rated lower in duty terms than Scotch whisky, although the price is the same. My suspicion is that this relates more to political relations between Japan and the United States than to some abstruse factor in the grading.
    Mr. Kennedy: Will the Minister give more information about the state of the welcome bilateral pressure to which he referred? Which of our European allies are being more helpful to the United Kingdom and the constituency needs of the hon. Member for Moray (Mr. Pollock), myself and others north of the border, and which are being less helpful in regard to this disgraceful exhibition of protectionism and disincentive against a United Kingdom export to Japan?
    Mr. Clark: While the Community is putting together a case to take to the general agreement on tariffs and trade, it would be invidious of me to differentiate between those which are in favour and those which have reservations. The House knows that, regrettably, we are to some extent circumscribed in the multilateral trading system by being a signatory of the treaty of Rome and by the GATT. In the last resort, when those inhibitions continue to restrict
    1038
    action and abuse continues without adequate control or compensation, and if we cannot get the support of our Community partners in a European initiative, we would certainly have to consider unilateral action.
    Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend will be aware that there are many products that can be described as quality products and that they can be manufactured anywhere, but that Scotch whisky is unique and can be manufactured only in Scotland. It is the product of Scotland and is regarded by the Scots as their flag bearer, as 90 per cent. of the product is exported. If the Japanese are allowed to get away with the practices in which they have indulged recently, others might decide to follow, and that could be very damaging for the Scottish industry.
    Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend is right. Discrimination also exists in Korea and we are doing our best to correct that. When, two weeks ago, I was in Korea, I had talks on this subject. My hon. Friend will be glad to hear that I found the Koreans more receptive to our view than the Japanese have so far managed to be.
    Mr. John Smith: The Minister told us a little while ago that his judgment is that the Japanese are exercising political discrimination in favour of the United States in respect of Bourbon whisky and, presumably, political discrimination against the United Kingdom in respect of Scotch whisky. Will he tell us what political action the Government intend to take?
    Mr. Clark: I should have thought that there was very little that we could do, short of increasing our gross national product to approximately the same level as that of the United States. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that there is a special relationship, if one can use that phrase without being discourteous, between Japan and the United States, and I believe that the arrangement is in recognition of that. If we had the clout, I do not doubt that the Japanese would accede immediately. The fact is, however, that there is no comparison between the leverage which the United States can exert on Japan and that which we can exert.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the most recent figure for output in manufacting industry; and how this compares with the figure for the same month six years ago.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: Manufacturing output in April 1986 is estimated at 104·4 based on the 1980 average of 100. This is 1 per cent. higher than in April 1980.
    Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend not concerned that manufacturing output has not only fallen over the last six years but that it is substantially lower than it was in 1973? Is he aware that 1973 was 13 years ago, and can he think of any comparable period since the industrial revolution when manufacturing output in this country fell?
    Mr. Morrison: I am aware that manufacturing output fell between 1973 and 1979 by 4 per cent. — the five years of the last Labour Administration. However, in the last five years, output has increased by 11 per cent.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Contrary to what the Minister has said, according to the CBI there has been a dramatic fall in manufacturing output, and without a booming

    1039
    manufacturing industry other jobs fall by the wayside. Will the Minister re-phrase his answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) and give the exact figure?
    Mr. Morrison: I am quite happy to give the exact figure. Manufacturing output continued to fall from 1979 to 1981, which means that the current level is below the 1979 level. I am concerned. However, during the last five years, output has increased by 11 per cent.
    Mr. Grylls: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problems of manufacturing industry in the late 1970s and early 1980s were almost directly the result of the hyperinflation from which this country was suffering? Surely the best help for manufacturing is to get ourselves competitive and to keep inflation down to the level that this Government have achieved.
    Mr. Morrison: I certainly agree with what my hon. Friend has said, but one could add several other elements. Perhaps it had something to do with very low productivity and the fact that strikes were very much to the fore during that period. That has a lot to do with output going down. Equally, now that the strike record is a lot better, it has a lot to do with output going up in a very satisfactory way.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister not agree that the position in the last seven years has been the worst in British history since records began? Does his concern take him so far as to analyse the position in competing countries? If so, does he not accept that Britain's record is far worse than that of our competitors and that the competitors who have fared very well indeed have been those whose Governments have taken an entirely different approach from that adopted by the present United Kingdom Administration? Does he not think that there are lessons to learn from our competitors?
    Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman will have heard in an answer to a previous question, I am always concerned about our relative position in the international market place. I agree that we must look very carefully indeed at our Japanese, German and United States competitors and,g where we can, learn lessons. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will also note that since 1980 we have had a 30 per cent. increase in output per head. That is a very satisfactory base on which to build.
    Mr. John Mark Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures he has just quoted might be even better if there were a little more sympathy and compatibility between VAT deadlines and actual trade credit? Will he have a word with industry and his right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury to see whether they can improve cash flow in business?
    Mr. Morrison: As my hon. Friend would expect, I am always concerned to convey to my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury particular aspects that bear directly on how they are able to operate in industry, and I shall certainly take his comments on board.
    Mr. Williams: Does the Minister recollect that world trade in manufactures has increased by more than 17 per cent. since this Government came to office? Will he now give us the figure which until now he has so coyly avoided? How much lower is manufacturing output today than it was in 1979?
    Mr. Morrison: I am not avooiding it. In fact, I had not been asked that question until the right hon. Gentleman put it to me. There has been a fall of 6 per cent. since 1979. I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not like the good news, but he will appreciate that the major fall happened in the first two years, and since then there has been a very significant increase over the following five years.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that output in manufacturing industry would be much higher if British manufacturing industry were even more competitive than it is now? One factor in that is the unrealistic increase in wages that has taken place in recent years. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the representatives of manufacturing industry spent less time wailing about factors beyond their control, such as interest rates and exchange rates, and more time considering matters within their control, such as wage rates, the state of British manufacturing industry would be much better?
    Mr. Morrison: I agree in part with my hon. Friend, but I do not think that the picture is as black as he likes to paint it. Obviously I agree with his main premise that the better the productivity, the greater the output. From my visits to every part of the country I know that productivity gains in many companies, both old and new, are significant. In those companies employment is now secure, whereas it was not secure seven years ago.

    Foreign Goods (Dumping)
    Mr. Hayesasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his Department is doing about the dumping of foreign goods in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Anti-dumping action is the responsibility of the European Commission. My Department works closely with United Kingdom industry on the preparation of complaints in order to ensure that appropriate protection is given against unfair competition.
    Mr. Hayes: This is all very well and interesting, but is my hon. Friend truly satisfied that the anti-dumping process is sufficiently rapid and effective? If he is not, what will he do about it? Many of my constituents are sick to death of trying to trade with one arm tied behind their backs.
    Mr. Clark: I would like it if my hon. Friend could give me specific instances rather than say that a number of his constituents are trading with one arm tied behind their backs. I am keen to help them. It is my principal purpose in this position to assist firms that have suffered from handicaps of this type. If he cares to give me the details.. I will see what can be done. I agree that at present the procedures are rather cumbersome and long drawn-out., and that in many cases the onus of proof is higher than one would like, especially in regard to proving injury, but to some extent we are the captive of Community and GATT rules. To say that nothing is being done is unfair. At present we are involved in 14 cases and further cases are under review. If my hon. Friend passes his constituents" cases on to me, I do not doubt that we shall have some more.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that I am aware that the Government are not doing very well on this problem? I realise that the Minister is trying his best to renegotiate

    1041
    the multi-fibre arrangement, but with the Government's attitude it appears that anybody can come from anywhere in the world and dump what they like on these shores. It is about time the Treasury Bench applied for the Chiltern Hundreds.
    Mr. Clark: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, as I am to all hon. Members who express their indignation at what is going on in the so-called international free trading arena. I accept much of the argument that they put to me. Will they give me the benefit of the doubt in the sense that the unfair trade unit itself has been in existence for less than a month and I am doing my best to correct these cases? However, I depend on hon. Members for reference of individual cases. The unit is set up, the personnel are there and we are ready to examine in detail every case that is referred to us.
    Sir Anthony Grant: If my hon. Friend wants a specific incident, is he aware that at present in docklands there is a large silo of cement which the Greeks are seeking to dump on the British market? Is he aware that that would cause great harm to British makers of cement, such as Rugby Portland Cement in my constituency? Will he look into the matter and do his best to ensure that an antidumping application is pursued with all due vigour in Brussels?
    Mr. Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The House must forgive me if I read. It is the first time this afternoon. Both my Department and the Department of the Environment have maintained close contact with the cement industry and are fully aware of the concern expressed at the threat from an increased level of low price imports. The European Commission has completed the necessary investigation and a formal announcement of its findings is expected shortly.

    Manufactured Goods
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the most up-to-date state of the United Kingdom balance of trade in manufactured goods.
    Mr. Pattie: In the three months ended April there was a deficit of £1·1 billion.
    Mr. Canavan: Does the Minister not have an iota of shame in him when he stands at the Dispatch Box month after month giving an appalling account of his stewardship? Does the Minister realise that if he were in charge of an industrial manufacturing company he would be sacked for gross incompetence and dereliction of duty?
    Mr. Pattie: I offer the hon. Gentleman and the House some figures which I think will assist the hon. Gentleman in taking a sensible view of the matter. In 1970 the value of exports of manufactures was 50 per cent. higher than imports. In 1985 the value of exports of manufactures was 10 per cent. lower than imports. Over that 15-year period there had been a decline. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that British consumers had formed the view that British-produced goods were not well enough produced, well enough designed, properly priced or adequately supported by after-sales service. They had voted with their cheque books and bank accounts to buy imported goods. That is the criticism of the manufacturing industry.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my hon. Friend appreciative of the detrimental effects on the balance of trade if British
    1042
    Airways buys American engines rather than Rolls-Royce engines? In the circumstances, will he convey to the chairman of British Airways that hon. Members feel strongly that Rolls-Royce should get the order, in the interests of the British aerospace and aero-engine industry?
    Mr. Pattie: I am sure that the chairman of British Airways reads the Official Report with the same attention as the chairman of the Post Office, to whom I referred earlier. I hope that he will read the opinion by my hon. Friend. We are in close touch with the Department of Transport on the matter and we hope for a satisfactory outcome.
    Mr. John Smith: I thought that I heard the Minister say in an earlier answer that the deficit in the first quarter of 1986 was £1·1 billion. If that is correct, is it a revision of the figure of £1·4 billion, which is in the latest statistics issued by his Department? In addition, will the Minister tell us why he thinks it is adequate to blame British industry for the deficit in our trade and to accept no responsibility whatsoever for the policies of the Government, which have been deeply inimical to the success of British manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Pattie: Yes, I will. I attempted to give a 15-year view of the fact that the manufacturing capability of this country appears, over that period—under successive Governments — to have been unable to meet the requirements of a variety of different markets both abroad and in this country. Therefore, companies find that their prospects and sales diminish and some go out of business. Then we have complaints from the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). The answer is to follow policies, which the Government are doing, which improve the competitiveness of companies in this country so that their products and services will be more attractive.

    Information Technology
    Mr. Philip Oppenheimasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is satisfied with the present level of encouragement given by the information technology and electronics based industries to information technology training and skill development in education.
    Mr. Pattie: I welcome the steps taken by some leading firms to promote the provision of relevant education and training. But, as my hon. Friend pointed out in his recent study, there is room for industry to collaborate much more with the education system at all levels to meet skill requirements.
    Mr. Oppenheim: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is it true that the plethora of Government schemes, some of them run by the Department of Employment and some by his own Department, and the plethora of training schemes run by private industry are, in many ways, confusing? Is it not time that the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Employment, and industry tried to get together to work out some national system of training on the German model?
    Mr. Pattie: I do not know whether the German model is necessarily the best one to follow. There is a great deal of activity at present. Industry has set up the information technology skills agency and yesterday the ACARD report on the future of the software industry in the United

    1043
    Kingdom was issued. One of the report's main recommendations was that British industry should place major emphasis on training, which is very much to be welcomed.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Is the Minister aware that the ACARD report, which no doubt he has read—
    Mr. Pattie indicated assent.
    Mr. Robinson: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has read it. Is he aware that, reading between the lines, the report amounts to a terrible indictment of the Government because of their neglect to provide real support measures for the software industry? That sector is growing even more rapidly than the information technology industry as a whole. For example, in 10 years' time, 40 per cent. of IBM's total revenue will come from software sales. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that urgent action needs to be taken by the Government? We want not words from him but action by his Department.
    Mr. Pattie: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has been reading the same report. The report's analysis is substantially in line with the measures that we are already taking. The report contains interesting ideas. In line with our response to all ACARD reports, we shall consider this one carefully and, no doubt, report in the autumn.

    Exports (Departmental Assistance)
    Mr. Hirstasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department is taking to assist British industry to secure major export contracting and other orders.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: My Department provides a wide range of services for all exporters through the BOTB and ECGD. For the larger orders these can include assistance towards the cost of bidding as well as support with financial packages.
    Mr. Hirst: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that British Shipbuilders is pursuing a large order from China which, if won, would result in vessels being built at Govan Shipbuilders, a successful yard on the. Clyde where a number of my constituents work? Will my hon. Friend assure me that his Department will spare no efforts in enabling British Shipbuilders, and ultimately Govan Shipbuilders, to be successful in winning this important order?
    Mr. Morrison: I assure my hon. Friend that I am aware. of what British Shipbuilders is doing in trying to get that order from China. I can give him the assurance also that the Department is doing everything possible to help British Shipbuilders to secure that order. I shall personally keep closely in touch on this matter.

Ministerial Statements
Mr. Speaker: Private notice question. Mr. Denzil Davies.
3.31 pm
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it directly connected with questions?
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: It is directly connected with this whole matter, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: Which whole matter? We have not considered it yet.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, we shall have four items, either private notice questions or ministerial statements. On average, they will take half an hour each, which means that the main debate, for which the House has prepared itself, is not likely to start until 5.30 pm. Bearing in mind that at least three of these items are not of such monumental importance that they could not be dealt with on another day, why is it that on some days we have no statements, although the House must know that such issues will be brought up, yet today we are to have four statements, which means that an important debate cannot start until at least 5.30 pm? Who makes up his mind about this nonsense?
Mr. Speaker: It is not my decision. It is a matter for the Leader of the House.

Royal Ordnance Factories
3.32 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his decision to halt the sale of the ROFs.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): The House was informed last October that, subject to the normal caveats of trading performance and stock market conditions, we hoped that Royal Ordnance plc would move to the private sector in mid-1986. Since then, planning has been in train for a stock market flotation this summer. As I announced to the House in a written answer yesterday, however, although substantial progress has been made in the process of transforming Royal Ordnance into a fully fledged commercial entity, it has not been possible to take this far enough and to have in place all the features necessary to provide the basis for a successful flotation this summer. It remains my intention to privatise Royal Ordnance, and I am giving further consideration to the means of achieving this.
Mr. Davies: To the right hon. Gentleman's discredit, and he knows it, he has had to be dragged to the Dispatch Box to give his answer on the Royal Ordnance factories. He had hoped that yesterday at 3.14 pm, during Defence Questions, he could slip the announcement through, but the plan failed. The right hon. Gentleman did not even have the guts to come to the Dispatch Box to make a proper statement about it.
For the three years before the right hon. Gentleman became Secretary of State we argued, both in the Chamber and outside the House, that the Government's plan to sell off the ordnance factories was not only nonsense but extremely damaging to the factories, to the employees and to the national defence interest. The Government did not listen. Inurned in their ideological tomb, they had no time for rational thought or reasoned argument.
While all that was going on and all the money was being spent, the ordnance factories were getting thinner. When the Government started this process the factories were valued at about £400 million, but that figure was rapidly reduced, until a few months ago an optimistic view in the City would have set their value at £150 million. That was one measure, although not the only one, of the damage that the Government have inflicted on the Royal Ordnance factories.
What is to happen? Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that before the next general election he will not further dismember the ordnance factories but will return them to the status of a trading fund, in which the Government found them? Secondly, what will happen to those employees who lost their jobs as part of what was euphemistically described as preparation for privatisation? Ministers can walk away, as two did during the Committee stage. Merchant bankers, stockbrokers and management consultants can walk to the banks with fat fees paid by the taxpayers, but those who worked in the factories can walk nowhere except to the employment exchange.
Thirdly, how much has the operation cost the taxpayer over the past three years both in fees to private consultants and in time and man hours used in the Civil Service? Finally, will the Government learn from this lesson, drop the damaging plans to privatise the royal dockyards and stop that privatisation before more damage is done?
Mr. Younger: I have not heard such a good example of making bricks without straw for a long time. I do not intend to join the right hon. Gentleman in his ideological tomb. It remains the Government's belief that it would be better for the Royal Ordnance factories to be privatised—
Mr. Jack Straw: Why?
Mr. Younger: —for the many reasons on which our original plan to do so was based, which are that, to have a successful future— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) might find it more helpful to hear what I have to say, even if he disagrees with it.
If the industry is to have a more successful future, it must rely for its future not only on home but on export orders. It has a much better chance of getting better export markets if it is in the private sector and fully competitive. For that reason, privatisation must still be the objective.
On the right hon. Gentleman's other questions, I cannot give him an undertaking that before the next general election the ordnance factories will be restored to the status of a trading fund, because the Government have no intention of going back to that solution. The position of the employees who lost their jobs earlier on, has nothing to do with the present postponment of privatisation, which is all that I have announced today. As to cost, it is too early to say what the cost of advice. And so on, would have been at this stage, but if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to know and tables a question I shall he happy to find that information for him. As to t he dockyards, this is a wholly different situation, with a wholly different solution, and my announcement makes no difference to the intentions for them.
Sir Antony Buck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many, if not all, Conservative Members thinks that it is right to pursue a policy of privatisation, as we won the general election on it? When will the revised timetable go ahead? Will he pay tribute to Mr. Bryan Basset for all that he has done in the early work to try to effect that which we hope will come to fruition before long?
Mr. Younger: I thank my hon. and learned Friend and echo his view that we are greatly indebted to Mr. Basset and the management of Royal Ordnance for the tremendous efforts that they have been making over recent weeks. As to the principle, the House will understand that when the decision is taken to go for a flotation on the market, it is essential that that should be done only when the company is clearly in the right state to make that flotation successful. In our judgment, the company is not at present in such a state as to make certain a really successful flotation. Again I hope and think that the House and my hon. and learned Friend will agree that if that is the case, it is very much wiser not to go ahead until it is in a proper state for a successful flotation.
Mr. James Wallace: Is the Secretary of State in a position to confirm to the House that one of the most important factors in this decision was the protest from Vickers about the placing of orders for Challenger tanks with Royal Ordnance and that the Government did not allow any competition for that order? If that is true, does it not blow a great hole in the Government's much vaunted competition policy?
Mr. Younger: No decision has yet been taken about the order to which the hon. Gentleman referred. As I have said, the criterion for this decision was whether the company was really ready for a successful flotation. Our judgment is that it is not yet ready and that we must wait until it is.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that, apart from the problems of the Challenger order, the judgment of the management of the Royal Ordnance factories was that they were ready? Will he say something about the central issue, which is not whether or not the Royal Ordnance factories should be privatised, but in what way, because it is being reported that the Department of Trade and Industry now wants to sell off piecemeal, in a privatised form, the whole operation. This is very important, because it will lower competition and result in the loss of many jobs in a city like Leeds.
Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is quite right to locus on those two points. As to the judgment whether this was the right moment to float the company, I do not say, and I have not said, that it would have been impossible, but think my hon. Friend will agree that, with all sorts of obligations to the House and everywhere else, it would be right to be able to justify this as being the best moment to go for flotation, and we consider that that is not so. As for other options, I said in my answer that we shall now consider a broad range of other options for privatisation., but of course it is too early to say which will prove to be the right one.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Does not this sorry tale prove that the Public Accounts Committee was right to say that privatisation should not go ahead until the opening balance sheet assessment had been made? Unless we know the economic value of the company, how can we try to sell it? How can we convince the taxpayer that he is getting the proper price for the assets that we are selling? A number of assets have been sold below cost, and it is to the shame of this Government that they are not making sure that this does not happen again.
Mr. Younger: I think that the right hon. Gentleman may be missing the point slightly. Of course he is right, and the Public Accounts Committee under his leadership is also right, to say that we cannot impose a flotation without having all the facts. We should have had all those facts if flotation had gone ahead, but the right hon. Gentleman, of all people, will surely agree, with his responsibilities to the Public Accounts Committee and otherwise, that to justify a flotation it is necessary to demonstrate that a proper price is being obtained and that an effective flotation is being carried through. As our judgment was that that could not be done at present, I hope he will feel that we were right not to proceed.
Mrs. Anna McCurley: It took some time for the work force to appreciate and reconcile itself to the principle and effect of privatisation. This was achieved by reason of the fact that it was to be the Royal Ordnance plc, an integrated whole. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that when the time comes for privatisation this will still be the case and that the Royal Ordnance factories will not be sold off piecemeal?
Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point about the acclimatisation of the Royal Ordnance employees to privatisation, and I reaffirm that it remains our objective to achieve the privatisation of Royal Ordnance. I cannot give the undertaking that my hon. Friend requests about the way in which it will be done, because, as I have already said, we are still reviewing all the possible options for privatisation from now on.
Mr. Straw: Does the Secretary of State not understand that when he refers to a successful future for the Royal Ordnance factories, thousands of ROF employees, including hundreds in my constituency, have paid for the privatisation policy of this Government with their jobs? —[HON. MEMBERS: "That is not true"] Yes, it is true, and Conservative Members know it, and the country knows it. Will the Secretary of State now come clean and have the guts to admit at the Dispatch Box that one of the policies that he is now looking at is selling off the different bits of Royal Ordnance plc piecemeal?
Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman does not usually talk rubbish, but it is absolute rubbish to say that any member of the staff of Royal Ordnance has paid for any part of this with his job. The number of jobs in Royal Ordnance is determined by the amount of work that the factories have and whether they are competitive enough to obtain orders, wherever they are. As I have said, we are considering what is the best option for the future.
Mr. Richard Ottaway: My right hon. Friend will be aware that since it became a plc the Nottingham factory has an expanded order book and an increased work force. Regrettable as the delay is, will my right hon. Friend assure me that if there is to be a reconsideration of the method of selling the ordnance factories, the unprofitable Leeds group, which is grouped with the Nottingham factory, will not hamper full independence for the Nottingham factory?
Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's latter point. Such considerations will have to be looked into when we consider all the options for the future. My hon. Friend said that the Nottingham factory's work force has expanded since privatisation, and I am not sure where that leaves the hon. Member for Blackburn, in view of his extraordinary remarks earlier.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: Does the Secretary of State recognise that his comments this afternoon will add greatly to the fears that already exist among the labour force in Leeds? The workers have already sacrificed their jobs for privatisation, and they now run the risk of losing more because of the lack of Challenger tank orders and the fact that the Minister seems to prefer to break up the Royal Ordnance factories and sell them in parts? When will the Government look after those workers who have given so much for Britain on so many occasions? Do the Minister and the Government not have some moral responsibility towards them?
Mr. Younger: There seems to be a change of tack among Opposition Members who have for some time been at pains to say—incorrectly—that the work force was not in favour of privatisation. If the hon. Gentleman is changing his tack now, he should say so. I have made no decision to break up the Royal Ordnance factories, and I thought that I had made that clear.
Sir Hector Monro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the period or preparation for privatisation the Royal Ordnance factories have been negotiating the sale or long lease of some plants, including one in my constituency? Can he assure me that the postponement in no way prejudices the present negotiations, because the work force and myself want an assured future for those at the Powfoot plant?
Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can give him that assurance. The postponement makes no material difference to that situation, about which I know he is extremely concerned.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Will the Secretary of State recall a matter that was raised a moment ago? A number of us are interested in Barnbow in Leeds. The matter of Nottingham and the plant there being profitable was mentioned. The work force at Barnbow was told that it would he better off after privatisation, but it is now not to be privatised. Did I get an inkling that because Nottingham is profitable and has been given orders there will be even more redundancies in Leeds as a result?
Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman would be wrong to draw any such conclusion, nor have we decided that privatisation is not to go ahead. I have said only that the flotation cannot go ahead in July as planned. The future of any form of organisation will depend on the amount of orders that all the Royal Ordnance factories get and I hope that they will obtain as many orders as they can.
Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those who have consistently been in favour of privatisation will not necessarily be displeased at the delay in the flotation of the company on the market, as this will give more time to examine all the issues involved and to get them right when it happens? Would he care to say a word about the problems of Royal Ordnance with the competitive tendering policy of his Department particularly in relation to foreign companies? Finally, is he aware that we do not take kindly to Opposition Members launching an attack on the Government about redundancies in Royal Ordnance factories, when, under their control, as many jobs, if not more, were lost through redundancies?
Mr. Straw: That is not true.
Mr. Atkins: If the facts are checked, Labour Members will be able to confirm that that is true.
Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is correct to say that there were a large number of redundancies indeed when the Labour party had responsibility for the factories.
My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important point — the weight to be placed on the Opposition's alleged indignation about the matter. If I had announced today that we were going ahead with flotation on a basis that was not altogether clearly advantageous, we can imagine what the Opposition would have said. They would rightly have severely criticised us, and for that reason we can place little credence in their synthetic indignation.
Mr. John Cartwright: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Government's anxiety to sell off the Royal Ordnance factories should not be allowed in any way to hamper the supply of much needed equipment for

1051
the armed forces? Can he assure the House that the Government's efforts to get out of the mess that they are in will in no way delay the placing of much needed orders for the Challenger tank?
Mr. Younger: The decision on the Challenger tank will be taken on the basis of the best possible value and delivery and on other such factors. I can assure the hon. Gentleman on that point. He asked about the supply of equipment to the armed forces. There is no reason why the change should make any difference to that, and I agree with him that it is a mater of great importance.
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway) spoke about the Nottingham Royal Ordnance factory and the stability of the work force. Is my right hon. Friend aware that at one time the work force at Nottingham declined from about 2,000 to just over 1,000? That happened under the old trading status, and the growth in the labour force at Nottingham has occurred solely during its current plc status.
Can my right hon. Friend say something about the difference between the management structure of the old system and the management structure of the new system? Can he tell us what benefits that gives the present plc management, whether or not the company is privatised, in going out and getting business that was denied to the company under the old system? Will he give some assurances to my work force in Nottingham?
Mr. Younger: I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend. It seems that recent efforts by the Nottingham factory management have been fruitful and productive, and my hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to that.
1052
In terms of the future of the various Royal Ordnance factories and the jobs in them, I have to tell the House that it is the gaining of orders, especially export orders, that will make the difference to all these factories. I hope that management will go ahead and make the factories as competitive as possible, in order to obtain the best possible level of orders.
Mr. Denis Healey: I agree with the Minister that it is the state of the order book that determines the date of sale if privatisation is intended. Will the Minister confirm that it was his intention last week to announce that the Challenger tank order would be given to the Leeds factory? The placing of that order is at his disposal. On Saturday he was dissuaded from taking that decision by the intervention of a private firm which is a well-known supporter of the Conservative party. All his plans are now falling to pieces because he is not now able to give the Challenger order to Leeds. The Leeds factory has a long history, going back to the beginning of the last war, of being the best provider of main battle tanks to Britain. Many people believe that it makes the best main battle tanks in the world.
Mr. Younger: I share the views of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) about the excellent work carried out at the Leeds factory. He is right to draw attention to that. I am glad of his confirmation of something that has not been agreed by many of his colleagues, namely, that it is the state of the order hook that will determine the future of the factories, wherever they are. There was never any intention to announce any Challenger order next Saturday. As I have said, the decision on that order will be taken on the basis of the best price and the best factory.

Social Security Benefits (Students)
3.54 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, I should like to make a statement about social security benefits and students.
In January the Government published proposals which were a first step to channelling support for students more through the educational maintenance system than the social security system. I referred these proposals to the Social Security Advisory Committee and I am today publishing the committee's report together with the Government's response to it. I am also laying before the House amended regulations which take account of its views and those of the local authority associations and others expressed during the consultation period.
It remains the Government's view that in the long term it cannot be sensible that students should be subject to two separate but intertwined systems of support. It cannot be satisfactory to have students permanently dependent upon a system which is primarily designed for those who, for various reasons, cannot work rather than for those who have withdrawn voluntarily from the labour market to study. The vast majority of comments to the Social Security Advisory Committee supported the principle of rationalising student support. But at the same time three main concerns were expressed.
First, there was concern that the major change proposed to housing benefit, whereby the accommodation element in the grant would be taken fully into account when assessing housing benefit entitlement, would cause a wide range of losses. The Social Security Advisory Committee shared that concern while at the same time recognising the case in principle for the change. Although there is no doubt that the present rules treat students more favourably than other claimants, the Government are prepared to withdraw that proposal.
Second, there was concern that in relation to the withdrawal of housing benefit for accommodation left unoccupied in the summer vacation some students would not have time to change existing plans and commitments. We recognise their concern and, therefore, this measure will not take effect until the summer of 1987, as we accept that students who have already entered into rent commitments for this summer could face difficulties.
Third, there was concern about the position of students without an award who have begun their studies on the assumption that they would continue to draw benefit at the current level. We accept that we should protect the most vulnerable of these—existing students living away from their parents' homes. Those students will be treated as now for housing benefit—in respect of privat rented accommodation in term time and the short vacations— up to 1 April 1988, or when their present course ends.
The remainder of the Government's proposals are largely unchanged. We shall remove entitlement to unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit in the short vacations when students are already provided for through the grant. We shall simplify housing benefit administration by averaging grant income for the whole of the grant-assisted period. Students in halls of residence will in future be able to claim housing benefit only during the long vacation, for which there is no provision in the grant.
Our proposal to make a £36 additional increase in the grant still stands and is an important step to the long-term
1054
aim of shifting student support away from the social security system. Nevertheless, the Government recognise that there are important issues to be discussed before making further progress towards that aim. This raises a question of a wider review of student support and that will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science in his statement shortly.
Our other proposals have been widely welcomed and will go forward. We shall extend help under the students' dependants' hardship scheme to cover the full year for two-parent families, as well as single parents. We shall disregard for housing benefit those parts of the grant which cover books and travelling expenses. That change will now take effect for the academic year 1987–88. We shall provide a firm legal basis for treating students' income from parental covenants so that it does not affect their claims to benefit during the summer vacation.
The Government's long-term aim of removing students from the benefit system has been widely welcomed and accepted in principle. It cannot be right that generations of students should be encouraged to depend on social security. We set out our proposals five months ago and we have responded carefully to the comments made upon them. I believe that the proposals I have described today represent sensible steps towards rationalising provision for students, and reducing their dependence on benefits.
Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that, although we welcome the fact that students will at least now not be made homeless by housing benefit cuts this summer vacation, he is still proceeding with substantial benefit cuts for students which will not be adequately compensated for by the grant system? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that his proposals will cause severe losses to up to 250,000 students who are caught in the crossfire between the DHSS and the Department of Education and Science?
Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the two-month delay in making this statement, since he had the damning SSAC report at the end of March, has accentuated the difficulties particularly for mature students and for those from poor backgrounds, because several housing benefit offices, such as those at Reading, Aberdeen and Dundee, have already been refusing to allow students to sign on? Will he therefore issue immediate instructions to all DHSS offices to meet students entitlements in full this summer?
Is the Secretary of State aware that, while the Opposition understand the principle that students should be supported by grants and not by means of the social security budget, we do not accept that benefits should be cut sharply before an adequate alternative grant system is formulated and implemented? The mere promise of a review of grant in the light of the aborting of the previous one is a wholly insufficient substitute.
Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that student entitlement to social security benefit has been growing solely because of the diminishing value of the grant, which has fallen by 20 per cent. in real terms since 1979? Is he aware that what is proposed today is scarcely a genuine review when students are being squeezed by the DHSS while proper compensation from the DES slips further into the future?
How does the Secretary of State justify failing to improve on the original and miserly £36 compensation a

1055
year for loss of housing benefit during the short vacations? Why does he not admit that he is looking to parents to met at least one third of the losses?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his continued insistence on removing entitlement to unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit at Christmas and Easter is tantamount to saying that students should not be available to work in the short vacations? The falling real value of the student grant means that they need to find work or to claim benefit to get by.
This statement means that, contrary to the clear prescription of their own advisers and contrary to natural justice, the Government still intend to take money away from students on the basis of a vague promise of some future IOU. That is wrong-headed and unjust. The Secretary of State should withdraw all these benefit cuts until the grant review is completed.
Mr. Fowler: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has just said. He says that he understands the principle of seeking to reduce students' reliance upon the social security system. I hope that he supports that principle because that was the position of the majority who gave evidence to the Advisory Committee. There will be an opportunity to debate the regulations when they come forward.
The hon. Gentleman is not right in his generalisation about losses. Indeed, 140,000 students will gain from our proposals. As a result of our concessions, many fewer housing benefit losses will take place. Students are not normally affected by losses from more than one source.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: How many losses?
Mr. Fowler: As losses are not cumulative, it is not possible to provide that information.
Mr. Skinner: How many?
Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman understood the means whereby — [Interruption.] It is not possible to work out exactly what the losses are and the number of students who will be losing because the losses are not cumulative.
We are seeking to return to a position where help for students is channelled through the educational maintenance system. That must be right. Only a few years ago no students claimed from the social security system and now most do, at an annual cost approaching £120 million. Claims by students for housing benefit have come literally only in the past three or four years. It has not been the housing benefit system that has created that demand.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has failed to understand the significant concessions that we are making. For example, there is the concession of deferring the removal of housing benefit for unoccupied accommodation in the long vacation. Another concession is the decision not to proceed with the new method of calculating housing benefit. These are substantial concessions that have been made in the light of the evidence that has been given to us. We stand by the principle that it cannot be right to have two systems running side by side. It must be right to have more help for students channelled through the educational maintenance system.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will have heard the Secretary of State say that there will be a debate on this
1056
matter. As there are two more statements to follow on broadly the same issue, I shall limit questions on this statement until 4.15 pm, and then we must move on.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: Having asked my right hon. Friend to slow down the transfer from reliance on housing benefit, may I congratulate him on making this statement to the House? Will he confirm that the principle of providing support for students, principally through the student grant system, is still very much an aim of the Government? Will he confirm also, sitting as he is next to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, that as we move forward there will be meaningful discussions between the two of them so that a better timetable for achieving our objective can emerge?
Mr. Fowler: I confirm what my hon. Friend says. There will be discussions between my right hon. Friend and I. I think that it is right to have the longer review of the overall position which bodies such as the Advisory Committee want. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that there are three significant concessions in the statement, which will appear in the regulations that will be placed before the House, which I believe will be widely welcomed by the student population and the Advisory Committee. At the same time, we have adhered to the principle of seeking to have more help coming through the educational maintenance system than through benefit, which I believe is in the public interest as well.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Why has it taken so long for the Secretary of State to make this statement? Is he aware that university vacations at St. Andrew's, Cambridge and Bangor have already started? What does he say about the Advisory Committee's comment that he has switched some of the specifically targeted benefit savings to indiscriminate flat rate subsidies? That seems to move against all the principles that he has adopted in his other social security reviews. Is he not putting the cart before the horse by pre-empting the review that the Secretary of State for Education and Science will be announcing later?
Mr. Fowler: I do not think that that is fair. We said in the Green Paper on social security last year, and in the White Paper, that it was our intention to move in the direction that I have outlined. That has been supported. We are taking only a first step, however. We have made significant concessions and the overall savings position has been very much affected by that. We have sought in the concessions that we are making to guard against students being affected in a sudden way. Students will enjoy a significant concession during the coming summer vacation.
Mr. J. F. Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement should be welcomed widely in the House and outside? Does he agree with me that it should be viewed against the most generous system of student support in the western world? Will he confirm that the concessions that he has announced will cost about £20 million? Will he further confirm that both housing benefit and supplementary benefit will be available to students for the long vacations?
Mr. Fowler: Help will be available in long vacations. As my hon. Friend suggests, it is right that that should be emphasised. It seems not to be understood, even by some

1057
of those who have been lobbying on these matters over the past month, that the proposals are confined to short vacations and not to long ones. I must remind the House that we are spending £5 million in housing benefit that goes to halls of residence. The administration costs of paying that £5 million is £3 million a year. [Interruption.] It seems absurd that sensible people like the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) should be defending such a system.
Mr. Frank Field: Does the Secretary of State really expect the House to believe that he got his statement through the Treasury without detailing the number of students gaining and the number losing? Will he come clean and tell the House the number of students who will still lose under these proposals? As he is so caught up with cumulative and non-cumulative totals, I am sure that the House would be happy with a non-cumulative total.
Mr. Fowler: I cannot give that figure for the reasons that I have stated. What is certain is that 140,000 students will gain from the full £36 we are making available. There are obviously two main sources of loss—unemployment benefit in short vacations, and housing benefit on unoccupied accommodation in the long vacation. The hon. Gentleman will know, for example, that we are postponing the introduction of that until 1987. It is not possible to give the exact figure that the hon. Gentleman requires.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that I am glad that he has listened to the anxiety of students on covenants who are unfairly affected vis-a-vis those on sponsorship and those on full grants, and has taken steps to remedy that? However, I am still worried about those who can get accommodation only by taking an annual lease. That situation will not disappear in the summer of next year. My right hon. Friend has given himself leeway to think again, and I hope that he will do so.
Mr. Fowler: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I think that she will recognise that postponing the implementation of the proposal for a year enables the position to be examined from the point of view of the student and the landlord. Clearly we shall keep the position under review.
On the matter of the restoration of policy on the treatment of parental covenants, that decision has been widely welcomed. We shall put that beyond doubt in the regulations.
Mr. George Foulkes: In relation to the revised proposals announced by the Secretary of State today, can he tell us what the total saving to the DHSS budget will be in the first full financial year?
Mr. Fowler: In 1986–87, which is this financial year, the overall saving will be about £8·5 million. In 1987–88, it will be £16 million.
Mr. Michael Latham (Ruthland and Melton): I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to the expressions of concern of many of his supporters on this matter. Will he give an assurance that it is not the Government's intention that qualified students should be denied places in higher education because they or their parents cannot afford it?
Mr. Fowler: I can readily give that assurance on behalf of the Government.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement seems to be an exercise of unwitting self-condemnation? Does he accept that in some areas there is a serious regionally intense problem? Does he accept that in areas of high unemployment, the Government's underlying assumption that students can work in the long vacation is simply not tenable because of the job starvation in those areas? Does he also accept that the problems faced by students in those area are particularly acute and seem to have escaped his attention in the statement today?
Mr. Fowler: We are not making proposals on the long vacation. It seems that the hon. Gentleman has asked a question based on an entire misunderstanding of the position.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in so far as I understand the statement, I welcome the alleviations in it? For the benefit of myself and the House, will he put in the Library a simplified and clarified version of what he has said in order to give students and their parents the benefit of clear information?
Mr. Fowler: I accept that. I shall certainly endeavour to follow up my hon. Friend's request.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: How much cash has the right hon. Gentleman winkled out of the Treasury for extending the students' dependants' hardship scheme?
Mr. Fowler: I cannot give that figure off hand. I should be glad of the hon. Gentleman's support on this, if I interpret it as support. Clearly that is one area where money will be paid.
Mr. Dalyell: How much?
Mr. Fowler: It is not a substantial amount. What is a substantial amount is the concession that we are making on the method of calculating housing benefit where the savings are £20 million less than would otherwise be the case.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: What peculiar ability is it by which the Secretary of State can estimate projected savings for the Treasury but cannot estimate the projected number of affected students?
Mr. Fowler: For the very good reason that there is a series of proposals which may affect individual students but which are not cumulative. Unless one knows the individual position of each student, it is impossible to give the kind of information that the hon. Gentleman wants.

Students (Support)
4.14 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on student support.
The measures just announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services mark a return towards a system in which support for students will be provided through the single channel of the educational maintenance system. It is a limited step, taken in close consultation with my Department. I am, however, convinced from the many representations I have received that it would be very difficult to make further progress towards disentangling students from the social security system without a wider examination of the whole structure of student support.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I, in association with the Secretary of State for Social Services, have therefore decided to institute a comprehensive review of all aspects of financial supprt for students in Great Britain studying at first degree or equivalent level. It will examine the maintenance needs of students and the extent to which they should be provided for from public funds, having regard to other actual and potential sources of support, including loans.
The study will be carried out under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden). The Scottish Education Department and the Department of Health and Social Security will be represented on it and the Education Departments of Northern Ireland and of Wales will be associated with it. The review will be carried out within Government, but we shall be open to representations and advice from every source. We shall undertake extensive consultations and consider international comparisons. The outcome of the review will itself be in the form of published proposals for public discussion and consultation.
Meanwhile, because the Government recognise the needs of students, we have mitigated the proposed removal of benefit whilst maintaining the level of compensation through the grant system originally proposed. Subject to the agreement of Parliament, the maintenance grants of students living away from home will be increased by £36 per annum from the beginning of the academic year 1986–87. This will be in addition to the increase of 2 per cent. which my predecessor announced on 16 December and will result in an overall increase of 4 per cent. on present rates for students living away from home. That is higher than the current rate of inflation. A similar addition to grant will be made in Scotland. A paper setting out detailed grant rates is being placed in the Library. The main rates of grant applicable to Scottish students are being given separately in a written answer by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland today.
Student numbers in higher education are at an all-time record level. We want still more to benefit. The Government stand by the principle of access to higher education for all who have the necessary intellectual competence, motivation and maturity, regardless of parental income. We want to ensure that students will neither he deterred from entering higher education nor handicapped in their studies by lack of means. But in doing
1060
so we must have regard to the claims on national resources. That is why I think that the time is ripe to investigate with an open mind all possible forms and sources of support.
I hope that the House will welcome the review which I have announced today.
Mr. Giles Radice: I welcome the Government's partial retreat from their original proposals on social security entitlement for students. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that they should be withdrawn altogether until the review is complete. Can the right hon. Gentleman, unlike his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, tell the House how many students will lose out as a result of the revised proposals? Is he aware that his statement conveniently ignores the fact, recently admitted by the Minister with responsibility for higher education, that the real value of the student grant has fallen by one fifth in real terms since 1979? The statement holds out no prospect of a significant improvement.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his in-house review, with its restrictive terms of reference, ignores the financial needs of non-degree students and pupils who stay on in full-time education after the age of 16, although both groups are vital to the future of this country?
Finally, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his attempt to present the idea of a review of student grants as a promising new beginning has a hollow ring for those of us who remember the previous so-called comprehensive review, which was set up in humiliating circumstances by his predecessor in December 1984 and unceremoniously abandoned last autumn? What guarantee is there that the latest review, for which the right hon. Gentleman has given no completion date, will not suffer a similar fate?
Mr. Baker: As to whether we should postpone the changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services until the review has been completed, I remind the hon. Gentlemant that the Social Security Advisory Committee recognised that there was an element of double counting in allowing supplementary benefit and unemployment benefit for the short vacations. Those are the two principal changes being made. As my right hon. Friend said, the administrative costs of dealing with those very small claims this year was out of all proportion for the social security system.
I accept that the value of the grant has fallen by about one fifth or £90 million in real terms, but I remind the House that social security payments have risen to more than £120 million within the system. Housing benefit, which was principally introduced about four years ago, accounts for about £50 million for that. I should also point out that although grants have been cut, the number of students has risen by 80,000 under the present Government whereas under the Labour Government it fell by 2,600.
I do not know whether the Labour Front Bench intends to restore the level of student grant to what it was in 1979. In a speech last Friday the Deputy Leader of the Labour party seemed to put some kind of bridle on the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice). Durham wants to spend but Sparkbrook says "Whoa". A newspaper headline on Saturday read:
'"Expansion not on' Hattersley tells dons".

1061
On the hon. Gentleman's final question about the review and why I have announced it, I should state clearly that when I assumed responsibility for this office I looked at this question and decided that a review was clearly needed. That is why I have announced it today.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are two classes of student today—those on full grants and those whose grants are expected to be topped up by their parents, some of whom cannot afford to do so? Will he examine that aspect to ensure a more even situation for all students? Will he also seek to restore the grant lost through inflation?
Mr. Baker: The review will certainly look into that aspect. Student support now comes from two sources—from grants and from the social security system — and that is the sum of money that the review will consider. I have stated that loans are not ruled out as a means of topping up grants in recognition of the very point that my hon. Friend has made.
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the major flaws in his statement is that the review is to be conducted within Government and that it is impossible to welcome a review when the membership of the review team is to come from the same ideological straitjacket as the right hon. Gentleman?
Why does the right hon. Gentleman exclude the 16 to 18-year-olds, and why is his proposal confined to first degrees or equivalent? Will the review be sufficiently cross-departmental to include Manpower Services Commission funding which often stops people going into training or education when it could be used for that purpose?
Does the reference to loans mean that the outcome is cash limited and that if the right hon. Gentleman cannot get any more cash on the table when the review findings come out there will be a return to loans? Is he aware that loans already exist? They are known to students as overdrafts.
Mr. Baker: As I said in my statement, the review will be cross-departmental because other Departments are involved, principally the DHSS but also the Scottish and Welsh Departments. The review will be wide and thorough. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will be starting on it later this summer —[Interruption.] It will have to be thorough because it is the first review of student grants for 25 years.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Rubbish.
Mr. Baker: With great respect, it is the first for 25 years.
I am glad that a Liberal Member raised the subject of loans, although he should perhaps clear his channels of communication with the leader of the SDP, who made an important speech at Stirling university in February indicating a fundamental change in student support and floating the idea that student support should be operated by the universities and polytechnics themselves and that students should be given not only the student support money but part of the tuition fees to take around to address different institutions. The leader of the SDP also
1062
said that students would be able to take out loans for topping up, so there seems to be some support in part of the alliance for the concept of loans.
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I welcome the announcement of a thorough and comprehensive review, but may I impress upon my right hon. Friend that the voices of industry, business and schools must be heard as well as those of higher education and Government? Will the review include the problems of parental contributions and the wider problems of financing research and academic salaries?
Mr. Baker: Financing research and academic salaries are rather separate matters, but I warmly endorse what my hon. Friend said at the beginning of his remarks. The review should certainly cover the attitudes of schools and the other aspects that he mentioned. I am concerned about the disincentive for 18 and 19-year-olds to go into higher education. This has been well measured over the years and probably owes more to the social attitudes and quality of education in schools than to cash considerations.
Mr. Max Madden: Does not the Secretary of State owe it to students to give a clear statement of the date given to the review team to complete its work? Will he undertake that all evidence submitted will be published? In view of the dramatic reduction in the real value of grants since 1979, does he not also owe it to students to state that new money will be available for a substantial increase in student grants when the review is completed?
Mr. Baker: The review will examine the whole question of student support. which might be a mixed system of grants and loans or grants and sponsorship. All these ideas are opening up. For example, Mr. Ball, who is warden of Keble college and chairman of the board of the National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education, which includes the polytechnics, made a proposal last week recommending grants for two years and loans and sponsorship for the third year. Ideas of that kind will have to be examined.
The evidence will be public. I am sure that the various bodies will make it public themselves. If they do not do so, we shall make it public unless they ask for it to be held confidential, as some of it might be in matters of this kind.
Mr. Roger Sims: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on recognising the significance of these problems and instituting a review so soon after taking office. Will the review take into account the disparities which now exist among authorities in relation to discretionary and mandatory grants as this leads to some apparent injustices?
Mr. Baker: I can confirm my hon. Friend's last point.
Mr. Frank Field: Does the Secretary of State realise that the total increase in the student grant that he has announced today, inadequate as it is, is twice the increase in the old-age pension? Would it be right for Britain's 9 million pensioners to conclude that that is where they come in the Government's pecking order?
Mr. Baker: That question would be best directed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I believe that I have secured a pretty good deal for students this year in that the basic grant is going up by 4 per cent., which is more than the rate of inflation.
Mr. J. F. Pawsey: Despite some of the carping comments from Opposition Members, will my right hon. Friend accept that the review will be thoroughly welcomed not only in the House but by those in higher education? His reference to student loans will be widely welcomed. We hope that it will receive favourable consideration by the review body. May I ask for further advice? In regard to the 4 per cent. increase that he mentioned, does that mean effectively that at least for this year the grant has been inflation-proofed?
Mr. Baker: The grant for those students who are not living at home has been inflation-proofed. I think this will be welcomed by many students. As to loans, that is a matter which is very much a matter for public debate. Various schemes have been put forward in the student world itself and in the academic world. They relate not just to student support but to the whole financing of higher education. There is now a greater fluidity and mobility in the thinking on that subject than for many years.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that in all his answers about the thoroughly comprehensive review he has —inadvertently, I assume—forgotten to tell us the completion date? Am I right in assuming that the review will not be finished before, say, August 1988, or is it that two years for him is only a short time in politics?
Mr. Baker: I think that it will be completed before that. I should think that it is likely to be completed in the course of the next year. Then it will be a public consultation document. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Surely that is what the House and the country would expect. Surely I am not expected to hold a review under a Government Minister and to slap the result on the table and say "That is that." We want to hear wide views and comments from the many people who are affected.
Mr. Alan Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a widespread welcome among many anxious students and their families for the decision to re-establish the review and in particular for his willingness to contemplate a properly structured loans element? Can he see any way other than through loans whereby students can be disentangled from the clutches of the social security system and whereby all who are academically qualified may have an equal opportunity to enjoy higher education other than in conditions of penury?
Mr. Baker: The main thrust of what my right hon. Friend and I have said today is to disentangle students from the social security system. I think that enjoys wide support across the House. In the Beveridge report, which I studied last week, he specifically recommended that students should not be eligible for unemployment benefit. We are not making that change at the moment. Under what my right hon. Friend has said today, students will still be eligible for supplementary and unemployment benefit during the long vacation. One cannot withdraw those benefits without having a review to replace them with other forms of support. I do not exclude schemes of sponsorship by industry or a form of loan, possibly on a subsidised basis.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: In attempting to recast the grant structure for students, will the Secretary of State take into account a possible serious knock-on effect if loans were to be institutionalised? Does he realise
1064
that Scottish universities offer courses on a four-year basis and that that could be a substantial disincentive to students coming to Scottish universities?
Mr. Baker: I understand that. That is why a Scottish Minister will be closely involved with the review.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Clearly the Government cannot have a bottomless pit of expenditure on student grants. Is it not right that the Government are spending £2,800 million on student grants? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the review body should examine the question of interest-free loans? Does he agree that students cannot always survive on the grants that the Government give? With the problem of unemployment they may not be able to find work to augment their grants. Therefore, interest-free loans would be an important step forward.
Mr. Baker: Certainly the review body will examine that. It is fair to remind the House that, compared with other western developed countries we have a uniquely high level of student support — three to five times higher per student compared with Holland and Germany, and significantly higher than in Denmark, France and Italy. The difficulty in Britain is that the two systems— the social security system and the educational maintenance system—have become tangled. It is in the interests of everybody to sort that out.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: in view of his statement and his earlier answer, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Scottish Education Department will be represented fully by a sponsoring Minister, that is, his hon. Friend the Minister at the Scottish Office who is responsible for education, in what the Secretary of State has described as the most thorough review in 25 years? Will the Scottish representatives on the review body take the opportunity to bring again to the attention of his Department additional living allowances for students at universities in cities London which have exceptionally high living costs? In the Scottish contest I think particularly of Aberdeen for obvious reasons. Will the review consider the potential for extending the principle of additional living allowances beyond London to other cities in Britain?
Mr. Baker: Clearly the review body will examine such points. I assure the hon. Gentleman that a Scottish Minister will be involved. There are often many things that we can learn from the Scottish educational system.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: Having pressed for this fundamental review on student finance, I should like to join many of my hon. Friends who welcome it. That welcome will also be reflected in Norwich where the fundamental review is very much required by those involved in the university of East Anglia and elsewhere. Does my right Friend agree that higher education is so vitally important that we must attract finance into it in all possible ways? Does he agree that in the fundamental review we must try to find alternative ways of getting finance into higher education for the benefit of young people so that the endless wrangling with the DHSS over finance may cease?
Mr. Baker: I hope that one of the prizes that will come out of the review will be a fundamental examination of the inter-relationship of student support with the financing of universities, polytechnics and institutes of higher education. One of my ambitions is to increase the

1065
participation of 18 and 19-year-olds in higher education. We have done very well since 1979 with a further 80,000 full-time students. I want to see progress above that figure.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Having two children on four-year courses at Edinburgh university, may I ask the Minister what is the objection to either he or the Under-Secretary reading out the written answer so that the Scots may question him on it?
Mr. Baker: That is not a matter for me. I have tried to answer as well as I can. As regards universities, of course I have responsibility for those in Scotland.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement about the review will be very welcome on this side of the House, and that many of us wish it more luck than the last one? Does he agree that it is extraordinary that the main form of finance for students comes as non-returnable grants from the state? Is it not time tha we exploited other areas of society and in particular future employers? Should we not encourage them to take more interest in and to give more financial support to students whom they will be recruiting later?
Mr. Baker: I have sympathy with that approach. Many companies—larger and medium-sized ones for the most part — have sponsorship schemes and sponsor students in one way or another both at first degree and at postgraduate level. That is one area where I hope that the review body will be able to see an expansion of involvement of other sources of finance.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on maintaining the tradition of his predecessors—every time the heat is on student grants, they set up an inquiry? He will recall that, when the Prime Minister was in opposition in 1978, she promised students a fundamental inquiry. The right hon. and learned Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) set the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) on to a grants review in 1982. When it failed to come up with proposals for loans, it was quietly abandoned. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), when under pressure 18 months ago, set up a review of student grants which was quietly abandoned when the pressure was off.
What guarantee is there that this review will be carried through? What will the timescale be? We were assured on all of the previous occasions that I have described that the fundamental work and the collection of information had been done. May we have a rather shorter timescale? Will the right hon. Gentleman include in the review mature students and access courses for mature students? If the Secretary of State for Social Services does not know how many winners and losers there are in the propsoals, does the right hon. Gentleman, because last time around, even the Prime Minister could answer a question about that?
Mr. Baker: The review body will have to consider the implications of its findings for mature students. I have already been frank with the House about the time. I think that the body will report next year. As for the certainty of the review, I have announced it at the Dispatch Box of the House of Commons and it will happen.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are still in the middle of questions on the statement. We have a ten-minute Bill, another statement and an important debate ahead of us. Some of the hon. Members who are rising in their places wish to take part in that debate. I shall allow questions on the statement to continue for another five minutes, during which I hope that most hon. Members who are rising in their places will be called.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall take the point of order at the end of the statement.
Mr. Dalyell: My point of order arises out of the statement.
Mr. Speaker: I shall take it at the end of questions on the statement.
Mr. Michael Stern: I join those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have congratulated my right hon. Friend, especially on that part of his statement which puts student loans back on the agenda. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to bring ourselves into line with what is regarded in the rest of the world as an acceptable level of student support, the grant element must inevitably fall?
Mr. Baker: The review body will have to examine that. It is quite true that there is a variety of means of support for students in other countries. In America, for example, support involves a higher element of loans, many of which are cancelled by the employer when the graduate is employed. The review body must examine that type of arrangement. I assure my hon. Friend that the review body will deal with the issues that he has raised.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the review will be especially welcome to those of us who have urged his Department to examine student grants? Does he further agree that that review must be conducted on the understanding that it is no answer to say that our system of student maintenance is better than that in any other country? The system is deteriorating, and something positive must come out of the review.
Mr. Baker: I think that I am right in saying that, since the student grant was established in its current form in the 1960s, it has steadily declined in real terms. There is pressure on whatever Government are in power, therefore. We need a complete overhaul of the system and I hope that that is what the review will lead to.
Mr. Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend's announcement is excellent news for students, hut does he agree that much damage has been done by the uncertainty of the past few months? Will he therefore give a deadline by which the review should be completed? Does he agree that to let it drag on, perhaps well into next year, would be damaging to students who are anxious about their future? Will he say that the review will be completed by Easter?
Mr. Baker: I am reluctant for obvious reasons to give a specific date for completion. The review must be thorough and take account of comparisons of many other countries. I expect the review to report during next year. I understand the urgency.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Although I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement, which is

1067
useful for all students, does he agree that British universities are the best in the world? Is it not therefore a privilege rather than a right for our students to go to university? Does my right hon. Friend agree that once students get to university they must aim to get qualified? If there was the incentive of a part grant, part loan system, would they not do even better?
Mr. Baker: I think that some would. Our best universities are certainly the best in the world, but my statement also refers to polytechnics, some of which are absolutely outstanding. I visited one in north Staffordshire last week, the computer department of which comes third after Imperial college and the computer department at Cambridge university. It is a great triumph for a polytechnic to get to that standard.
Mr. John Browne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this comprehensive review will be widely welcomed by students, centres of learning and industry'? Is he further aware that loans will be welcomed? Does he agree that there is a real fear among students at a time of high unemployment about what will happen to the servicing of loans if the students are unemployed? Does he agree that such a loan should be on a soft basis—that debt service should be geared to future employment and salary levels?
Mr. Baker: Terms of loans and the extent of softness or the subsidy required will obviously concern the review. I understand what my hon. Friend says.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the softness or interest-freeness of the loan is not nearly as important as the fact that repayment should not start until salary levels reach a certain point, as that would avoid the reverse dowry on girls?
Mr. Baker: I accept the problem that my hon. Friend has described. One of the reasons why the review must consider practice in other countries is that they have considerable experience of operating such systems. It is not as if we are breaking new ground. There is plenty of experience to learn from on the continent and in America. That is why the review body must take full international comparisons into account.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: In regard to inflation proofing, would I be unduly rash to assume that, between now and when the report is ready for implementation, student grants will increase broadly in line with the rate of inflation?
Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is asking me to anticipate the discussions that I shall have later this year with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I think that I have shown good evidence of the token of the Government's concern today in that the level of grants for students who live away from home will be 4 per cent. higher this year, which is higher than the current rate of inflation.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may not be within your knowledge that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland returned from his official visit to Mexico solely to be here for the statement on student grants, and for no other possible reason. As the Secretary of State referred in his statement to written answer, and as Scottish universities are affected rather differently, would it not have been at least sensible to have allowed the Under-Secretary of State to make a statement so that he could be cross-questioned on it?
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that that is not within my knowledge. We had better have the next statement.

Supplementary Benefits (Board and Lodging)
4.48 pm
The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on supplementary benefit arrangements for board and lodging.
As the House knows, when the main lines of the present system were set in April 1985 the Government undertook to monitor its working carefully and to review the financial limits on maximum payments after a year. Following the subsequent decision to have a general social security uprating in July 1986, it was thought sensible to defer any changes until then, but meanwhile, in advance, to make significant increases in the limits for residential care and nursing homes alongside the previous uprating in November 1985.
I am arranging to place in the Library copies of reports on the extensive monitoring and statistical surveys undertaken by the Department since April 1985, together with the full report commissioned from the consultants Ernst and Whinney on residential care and nursing homes. I have placed in the Vote Office copies of Ernst and Whinney's summary of its report, and of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's response to the Social Security Advisory Committee's comments on last November's amending regulations. In reaching our conclusions we have, of course, also taken account of the representations that we have received from Members and from other individuals and organisations.
For ordinary board and lodging, our most recent figures show that expenditure in 1984 rose not to £380 million, as we earlier estimated, but to over £500 million—an increase of no less than 80 per cent. in a year. At the same time, the number of boarders increased from 112,000 to over 160,000. Our monitoring and surveys confirm the existence of an accommodation market unduly influenced by the amount of benefit payable, rather than by normal commercial factors, and of an unacceptable degree of abuse. Many landlords have reduced their charges in response to the restraint imposed, and across the country our studies show average charges are for the most part close to average limits.
In view of this, and of the continued need to ensure firm control in this area, the Government have concluded that no general increase in the financial limits for ordinary board and lodging, or in the associated meals allowances, is at present justified. This is also the case for hostels, where our monitoring showed that average charges in all regions including London were below the present limit. We have, however, looked again at the current limit for couples without young children which is one and three quarter times the single adult limit. This has been widely represented to us as unrealistic, and we have decided to increase it to twice the single limit, as for couples with young children.
It will not surprise the House that many of the representations about ordinary boarders have focused not on the financial limits but on the limited time for which many of those under 26 can be paid as boarders at all. The regulations which came into effect on 24 November 1985 provided for those paid as boarders at the time to be exempt from time limits until 28 July 1986. We propose to
1070
extend that exemption indefinitely. New boarders under 26 will, however, continue to be subject to time limits, which we do not propose to change, unless they come within the extensive range of exemption categories covering those for whom longer-term boarding is a genuine need.
I turn now to the limits for residential care and nursing homes. Following the November 1985 increases of £10 a week in the residential care limits and £31·40 in the nursing home limits, the evidence is that in general homes charging at or below the average will fall within the benefit limits— in several categories, well within. While there is therefore no clear case for an all-round increase in July in addition to last November's, we nevertheless think it right to make some further increase where the evidence suggests it is most needed, in the limit for residential care homes for the elderly. We now propose that this should go up by £5 to £125 a week, making an increase of £15 a week overall since April 1985. In addition, we intend to make five important changes to meet specific problems which we judge to be of greater significance than the limits for particular categories of home. First, for those elderly people in residential care homes who are very dependent who are at present limited to £120 a week, we propose an increased limit of £140 a week where they qualify for the higher rate of attendance allowance.
Secondly, for blind people over pension age, where the same limitation currently applies, we similarly propose to increase the limit from £120 to £140 a week.
Thirdly, for those in residential care or nursing homes in Greater London, we propose to increase the limits by a special extension of up to £17·50 a week.
Fourthly, for those whose benefit is being paid at a transitionally protected rate in July, we propose an addition of up to £10 above their protected rate. This is a departure from the normal conventions concerning transitional protection, but one which will I think be welcomed in all parts of the House.
Fifthly, for those who are away from a home for short periods—for example, for a break or to maintain contact with their families—we propose new provisions to meet retaining fees.
Taken together, the changes I have outlined mean that, for example, the limit for a severely disabled elderly person in a residential care home in Greater London will rise by £37·50 a week. To assist the House, I am arranging for details of the new pattern of limits to he inserted in the Official Report.
These proposals are an important step towards the more flexible approach, but within a firmly-controlled framework, which is also the aim of the longer-term studies that we are conducting with the local authority associations, in consultation with the private and voluntary sectors. Subject to the views of the Social Security Advisory Committee, we intend to embody them in regulations to take effect from 28 July.

Residential Care and Nursing Home Limits from 28 July 1986

Residential Care Category

July Limit£

London Limit£

Present Limit£

Elderly

125

142·50

120

Very dependant or Blind Elderly

140

157·50

120

Mentally ill

130

147·50

130

Residential Care Category

July Limit£

London Limit£

Present Limit£

Drug or Alcohol dependant

130

147·50

130

Mentally Handicapped

150

167·50

150

Physically Disabled

Disabled under pension age

180

197·50

180

Disabled over pension age

125

142·50

120

Very dependant elderly

140

157·50

120

Others

125

142·50

120

Nursing Home Category

Mentally ill

180

197·50

180

Drug or Alcohol dependant

180

197·50

180

Mentally Handicapped

200

217·50

200

Terminal ill

230

247·50

230

Physically Disabled

Disabled under pension age

230

247·50

230

Disabled over pension age

170

187·50

170

Others (including elderly)

170

187·50

170

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: The first point that I should make on behalf of the whole House is to complain about the timing of this statement in relation to the publication of the information on which it is claimed to he based. Most hon. Members will not have seen the monitoring results on which this statement is said to be based, but I have them with me. Clearly it has been impossible for any hon. Member to assess the information contained in them in the time available before the statement was made.
Last July, following parliamentary questions about the results of monitoring, I wrote to the Minister. I wrote again on 15 October, not having had a reply. I finally received a reply in December from the Under-Secretary, which indicated that the information would be published
"as soon as we are in a position to do, although this may not now he until after Christmas."
Obviously, in DHSS language,
"may not now he until after Christmas"
means 18 June.
From the brief glance that I have had at the information, it is clear that the monitoring in respect of care was carried out early in 1985. It also appears that in respect of another report the information was ready in February this year. Why, therefore, was this information in its cold form not made available to the House in time for hon. Members to consider it before this statement was made?
The Minister said that many landlords have reduced their charges. I draw his attention to a report, which I am sure he has seen, entitled "It's the Limit", which indicates that landlords in London have recently put up their prices by 20 per cent. since the limits were set. It suggests that in 1984–85 the average price for a single room was £85·34 a week, compared with the DHSS allowance of £48·30. The report shows that in London only 60 hotels had charges below the limit set, and that of those only 22 had any vacancies. On average, people were sharing four to a
1072
room, although in some cases it was as many as 12 to a room. We are talking about 10,000 people who are subject to these limits in London.
In recent weeks, surveys have arrived in the House from various other parts of the country. They have usually been local studies. I refer the Minister to one that we have received from Preston, which indicates that none of the bed-and-breakfast establishments or hotels that could be contacted were within the maximum allowance, and that only one had ever taken unemployed people. In any case, only one had vacancies, and again everyone was expected to share rooms with strangers.
I also refer the Minister to similar reports from Ipswich, which indicate that many claimants are not able to live below the limits that now exist. There is a reference to bed and breakfast costing £73 a week, and no establishment there is within the cash limits for bed and breakfast. Therefore, it is hard for us to believe that the Minister's summary is justified, and I am not sure about the liming of the study that was made.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the fact that there would he no general increase in the meals allowances. I think I am correct in saying that these meals allowances have not gone up for two years, during which VAT has been imposed on takeaway meals and the average increase in the cost of food has been 12 per cent. That must mean that these meals allowances, which are inadequate now, will become seriously inadequate in the coming year.
We are glad that the Minister is now giving the proper rate for couples, as that has always been what landlords have charged, as opposed to what the DHSS has given. We are also pleased that the threat of the time limits has been removed for existing boarders. Nevertheless, I remind the House that all the difficulties that have been experienced will still apply with equal force to new boarders.
The Minister referred to the extensive exemption categories. As there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that those categories are not working properly, will new claimants still have to apply to he made exempt—as opposed to that being considered as a point of principle —and what will happen to appeals?
The hon. Gentleman said that the costs for residential care homes were considered to be adequate. The evidence was collected in 1985 and compares costs at the beginning of 1985 with limits at the end. I refer the Minister to a series of reports from voluntary organisations, such as the Royal National Institute for the Blind, all of which show that existing limits are inadequate. All their complaints will not be met by this statement.
I note that no increase is allowed for the special category of senile dementia, although 22 per cent. of people over 80 fall into that category. If the Minister claims that the new limits are adequate, why is an increase being proposed for transitional protection? Presumably transitional protection is above existing limits and, indeed, new limits, so if the new limits are adequate, why is that proposal needed?
Finally—[Interruption.] I am sorry if I am distressing hon. Members, but this is an important subject and I have drawn their attention to the amount of information on which the statement is based. Will the Minister tell us how the physically and mentally handicapped will be affected by the statement? Their transitional protection was due to come to an end in April 1986 and they are presumably facing the effects of these proposals.

1073
The information about these regulations was made available to the House only at the last possible minute and in a form that makes them extremely difficult to assess. It is outrageous for the House to be treated in this way when it is clear that much of the information has been available for months.
Mr. Newton: Perhaps I can deal with the hon. Lady's questions in the order in which she asked them. We have made available more extensive monitoring and survey information than, I suspect, any Government have hitherto made available in connection with a matter of this sort. I shall not make any apologies for the fact that it has taken us some time to put the information together and ensure that it was available to the House at the right time.
The Central London Social Security Advisers Forum is a complex matter and it is difficult to comment on everything that the hon. Lady mentioned, but we think that the survey overstated the case. The survey appears to be based on the proposition that supplementary benefit should enable people to compete with tourists for hotels in central London—a proposition which we do not accept. We are not sure whether its data are complete. As the forum knows, DHSS officials merely responded to some advertisements in newspapers over a particular period and found 20 places advertising within the DHSS limits which were not included in the CLSSAF list, so we are sceptical about that.
The hon. Lady is right in saying that the meals allowance has not been increased for some time. On the other hand, one of the surveys by the social security policy inspectorate shows that a majority of claimants think that the meals allowance is adequate. Indeed, it is only a fraction less than the householder rate of supplementary benefit and is significantly higher than the non-householder rate of supplementary benefit. Therefore, we see no good reason for increasing it at present.
The hon. Lady suggested that not everyone would be fully satisfied with the residential care homes limits, and I am sure that that is the case, but she referred to the Royal National Institute for the Blind, and she will have registered the fact that one of the significant concessions in my speech was specifically directed at the elderly blind. Indeed, the general concession that I have announced for those in receipt of the higher rate of attendance allowance is expected, and certainly intended, to cover the group suffering from senile dementia, to which she understandably referred.
I simply do not understand the hon. Lady's point about transitional protection. Its purpose was to cover those in homes who were paying levels which, by definition, were above those that we thought it appropriate to meet through supplementary benefit. We protected them at that time and have concluded that it is right to improve that protection to ensure that their position is fully safeguarded. That is entirely sensible. Indeed, the whole package is far more sensible than the hon. Lady's rather grudging comments gave it credit for.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Does my hon. Friend accept that the majority of us do not take the carping view of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), that we were perfectly happy to listen to what he had to say, and that we shall study the basic information at our leisure, because there will be other
1074
opportunities to debate the subject? I wish to thank him for two particular matters. First, I thank him for responding so generously to the genuine problems of voluntary homes which look after the frail elderly, especially in Greater London. The Minister has made immense progress there and listened carefully to the many homes that put views to him.
Secondly, I welcome what he said about the transitional provisions, which 98·5 per cent. of the House understood, leaving 1·5 per cent. on the Opposition Benches who did not, and for what he said about people in accommodation not having to move as a result of the eight week short-term period. My hon. Friend has listened carefully to the points put to him, certainly by Conservative Members, and he deserves warm praise for what he has done.
Mr. Newton: Perhaps I may return the compliment by saying that I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the trouble that he took to ensure that I was put fully in the picture about some of the problems that were troubling him.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Again I must say that there is to be a debate on this matter. Following this we have a ten-minute Bill, which, I understand will be opposed, so that will delay the subsequent debate even further. I shall allow questions to continue until 5.15 pm and then we must move on. I ask hon. Members to make their questions brief.
Mr. Frank Field: First, is it wise of the Government not to make any changes in the time limits and the exemption categories, considering that a constituent of mine. Simon Cotton, managed to take the Government to the High Court and the Court of Appeal and win? Is there not a case for extending those exemption categories? Secondly, as the fees increase for old people in nursing homes who are eligible for attendance allowance, should not the attendance allowance be unfrozen?
Mr. Newton: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point is that I am not sure that I understand the connection that he makes with Simon Cotton, because the issue of exemption categories was separate from the Cotton case, and we adjusted the regulations in November —[Interruption.] I understand that Mr. Cotton was not exempt, but the case concerned the technical legitimacy of some parts of the regulations, and that has been corrected. At the same time, we took the opportunity to extend the exemption provisions to give the Secretary of State a discretionary power over exemption in cases of exceptional hardship.
I must make it clear that we do not propose to reintroduce the disregard of the attendance allowance, which undoubtedly led to excessive payments in many cases under the previous regime, as was generally accepted. In respect of residential care homes, we propose to introduce an additional limit for those in receipt of the higher rate of attendance allowance as a proxy measure of their likely need for care over and above that which would normally be provided in the home.
Mr. Robin Squire: Clearly both the statement and the accompanying evidence will repay study. However, will my hon. Friend say whether the summary of that evidence is that at present there is sufficient accommodation available in London, particularly for single people, at the present rate?
Mr. Newton: Our general view is that the evidence suggests that there is sufficient accommodation to meet legitimate needs for board and lodging, that the average price comes within our limits and that it is not appropriate to increase the limits for London, which my hon. Friend may have had in mind. I would not necessarily tie those comments to central London. This matter includes an issue on which we have already touched, which is whether the supplementary benefit system should be expected to enable people in London, or coming to London, to compete with tourists for hotel accommodation in central London.
Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Minister explain to the House the impact of these proposals, and any others that he has in mind, on women in voluntary refuges run by Women's Aid? Will he particularly consider the supplementary benefit position of women, not only during their period in refuge, but at the point of transition when they leave the refuge and start looking for alternative accommodation?
Mr. Newton: The point about alternative accommodation is rather wide and goes into other aspects of the benefit system. Refuges would normally count as hostels, in which case the time limits would not apply. The limit would be unchanged under the proposals. As I have said, our evidence clearly suggests that the average charges for hostels are generally within the limits that we already have.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: I warmly welcome the various changes announced by my hon. Friend in respect of residential homes. He and I have spoken about such homes in the past. I recognise that central London is an expensive area in which to run such establishments. Does my hon. Friend concede that costs are also fairly high in areas close to London? Would it not have been better to introduce a tapering measure so that my constituency, which is the first one just over the border of Greater London, would not be adversely affected?
Mr. Newton: I might have predicted the points raised by my hon. Friend because, as he knows, I pass through his constituency—I do so only because the roads are now so much better—on the way to my constituency, several times each week. I think that my hon. Friend understands the problem. Generally, costs are higher in London than in other parts of the country. There is no such clear pattern elsewhere. Wherever we draw a line, there will be difficulties. I regret that my hon. Friend's constituency is just outside London, but the step that we have taken is the appropriate one for the moment.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Can the Minister assure us that, once the board and lodging regulations for new applicants bite on 28 July, he will carefully review the position over coming months? Some alliance Members fear that there will be great deal of confusion and hardship as a result of those regulations. I welcome the increases effected by the changes. Do they take proper account of the extra impositions placed on residential homes by the Residential Homes Act and the Residential Care Homes Regulations?
Mr. Newton: There is no change in the time limits. New claimants have been subject to a time limit since November. From 28 July, existing claimants as at 24 November will continue not be subject to a time limit. As
1076
I understand it, the arrangements are working satisfactorily. About a quarter of the younger claimants fall within the exemption categories.
At the time we made what I might call the interim increase—which was a substantial increase—last November, we had in mind the fact that increases in the charges for registration, and so on, were coming along. The £15 a week increase in the basic residential care limit, taking November and July together, takes sufficient account of the costs imposed by the registration system.
Mr. Nigel FormanDoes my hon. Friend accept that many of the changes that he has proposed are welcome, because they are well chosen and are well directed at specific deserving categories, notably the residential elderly in London? Does my hon. Friend agree that in the longer term there will be a problem that must be addressed? We must get more regional and category differentiation into some of the measures, because there is a danger that what is adequate in some parts of the country will be inadequate in central London, and vice versa.
Mr. Newton: Ideally, we should have more differentiation according to individual homes, instead of on a regional basis. That is why we attach so much importance to the working party with local authority organisations, and to the pilot studies using local authority social service assessment procedures. We hope to start these studies later this year.
Mr. Christopher Chope: I thank my hon. Friend for his sensitive attention to this complicated area. I thank him also for what he has done for the severely physically disabled in residential care homes. I also draw attention to the staggering sum spent on ordinary board and lodging payments. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that all that money is reaching the landlords for whom it is intended? If not, will he introduce a voucher system?
Mr. Newton: I am not satisfied that all the money reached the people for whom it was intended. We are aware that there was a degree of abuse, both among claimants and landlords. We have sought to tackle that. The result of the measures that we have taken, together with those that I have announced today, will be to reduce still further the amount of abuse, to concentrate what money is spent on those who have a genuine need for it, and to tighten up the system generally. It is clear from what my hon. Friend said that he will support our efforts.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: I welcome my hon. Friend's excellent statement and his willingness to publish all the information available, including the Ernst and Whinney report. Does he agree that, on the basis of a rough, back-of-the-envelope computation, the increase that he has announced for residential care means an increase, since April 1985, of about 13·5 per cent. for most people in private residential care, and up to 27 per cent. for the more disabled, the blind and the handicapped? Is that not how we would expect a Conservative Government to behave—to target their money on those most in need?
Mr. Newton: I can only express my gratitude to my hon. Friend, without necessarily confirming her second figure. The first figure of 13·5 per cent. is about right. The

1077
increases for particular needy and vulnerable groups are substantial. I shall check my hon. Friend's mathematics later.
Mr. Derek Spencer: Is my hon. Friend aware that some local authorities, such as Leicester county council, have used the Residential Homes Act to discriminate against the private sector? Will he ensure that when the order is drafted, it is done in such a way that local authorities cannot meddle in the benefit system?
Mr. Newton: The matter would be subject to a separate order. I endorse what my hon. and learned Friend said about the tendency of some local authorities to seek to demand from homes in the private and voluntary sector standards higher than they have in their own local authority homes. We are anxious that the registration and inspection procedures should be worked in a sensible and flexible way. Within the past few months we have strengthened our advice to local authorities in that respect.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement and the good news that there is to be an increase in allowances for residential care homes. Noting my concern that it is a growth industry, can my hon. Friend assure the House that the payments will be properly policed? Has my hon. Friend considered making recommendations about a minimum fee and a maximum fee for those poor, unfortunate people who receive love and attention in residential care homes?
Mr. Newton: The regulations set maxima. Obviously, they do not set minima. We have enough difficulty deciding what the maxima should be, without seeking to venture down the other path. The object of policing is to get a benefits system which directs help to those who need it, and not to those who do not. Some aspects of ordinary board and lodging must be seen in the light of our announcement a few weeks ago about the injection of additional staff into the system to combat fraud generally and, not least, fraud in the board and lodging area.

Child Benefit (Upratings)
5.17 pm
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State for Social Services, in the event of an increase in the Retail Price Index in any calendar year, to lay before Parliament the draft of an uprating order which will make an increase in child benefit with effect from the beginning of the following financial year of not less than a corresponding percentage; and to make future increases in child benefit a charge on the National Insurance Fund.
It is 40 years since Parliament adopted, with all-party support, the introduction of the family allowance. That was a weekly child credit which is now incorporated in the child benefits that are the subject of my proposed Bill. The weekly tax-free allowance, payable directly to the mother, has become the central feature of our system of family income support, and it has been relied on by millions of mothers to help with the feeding, clothing and care of what must now be the majority of British citizens. It is the most economical allowance in terms of administration, because it is a universal benefit. There is no case-work. It has nearly 100 per cent. take-up. It is highly popular. One reason for that is that mothers can rely on it every week in making their plans for the household budget.
In the course of the 1970s, it was decided by Parliament to amalgamate family allowances with the child tax allowances, which were included by William Pitt in our income tax system at the very beginning— before the end of the 18th century. The purpose of the child tax allowances was to leave families with children relatively better off than those without children to support. That is a social objective which I do not think would be seriously challenged by anyone.
I have sought the leave of the House to introduce the Bill because I am concerned at two recent developments in official policy regarding families with children. One is the proposal to replace the family income supplement, which is also normally drawn by the mother, with a new family credit to be added to the pay packet of the breadwinner. The Secretary of State agreed at Report stage on the Social Security Bill to reconsider that suggestion, which has been widely condemned, but we have not yet seen his alternative proposals. My view is that we must maintain the practice of paying the money to support the children direct to the caring parent.
The other evidence of official policy towards the support of the family which is causing concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House is the lack of commitment to maintaining the real value of child benefit. The object of my Bill is to ensure that the real value of child benefit is not diminished by inflation with the passage of time. It is, in fact, a Bill almost identical to the one that I introduced with the support of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and one of my hon. Friends—now a member of the Government—in 1980. That Bill was not opposed by a single hon. Member, but the DHSS and the Treasury have not taken due notice of that fact.
If child benefit fails to hold its real value, the practical effect is to raise the share of the total tax burden which is borne by the section of the community—between a quarter and a third of all income tax payers—who have responsibility for the care of children. In so far as child

1079
benefit is the successor to family allowances, if its real value is reduced, there is a fall in the amount of help that we give to support poor families without obliging them to submit to a test of means.
Last year's uprating of child benefit effectively took 35p a week off its real value. The increase proposed for the coming year would not significantly restore that cut. The effect is to add to the difficulties of families seeking to keep out of the growing number of people dependent on means-tested benefits. That number has now risen to the terrible, unacceptable total of 14 million.
For those in work, an increase in child benefit has the effect of a cut in income tax, aimed selectively at families with children. For those who are not in work, a rise in child benefit assists poor families without diminishing in any way their incentive to take work and to save to improve their position.
In 1975, in the Committee on the Child Benefit Bill, an amendment proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the present Paymaster General and Minister for Employment on behalf of the Conservative party and supported by, among others, my hon. Friend the present Economic Secretary to the Treasury and myself would have linked child benefit to the retail price index. Unhappily, under Treasury pressure, it was defeated by one vote.
In the debates on the Finance Bill in 1977, my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary and other prominent people made clear their commitment to the indexation of the tax allowances on the basis of the principle of the Lawson-Rooker-Wise amendment; but the child tax allowances were not covered by the new rules because they were already being phased out. If child benefit had been raised since 1979 in line with the personal and married persons tax allowances, it would now be £8, not £7, a week. What has happened in practice is that a sum of more than £600 million a year in potential spending power has been lost by families with children and has been distributed to taxpayers at large, the majority of whom do not have children to support.
My Bill is intended to ensure that this process does not continue. It proposes, in effect, that child benefit in future should be treated at least as favourably as the major tax allowances under the Lawson-Rooker-Wise formula, which is accepted on both sides of the House.
My Bill includes the proposal that the necessary funds should be drawn from the national insurance fund. This is not just a trick to get around the rules of order. I think that it is important to revitalise the national insurance fund and to resurrect the contributory principle. Since the contributions to the national insurance fund were put on an income-related basis in the 1970s, many people have come to regard their contributions merely as a form of income tax. I prefer to think that the acceptance of the liability to contribute to society by paying income tax should be seen as the qualification of the citizen for the benefits of a system of income support at the times of dependency, which of course are the reasons why we pay child benefit, unemployment benefit and old-age pensions. The national insurance principle should not be lost hut, instead, should be relied on to produce the necessary buoyant source of funds for the provision of a basic income guarantee.
The gross cost per week of maintaining a child in community placements with foster parents range between £37 and £50 a week. The cost in local authority residential
1080
care ranges between £270 and £420 a week. Those figures surely prove that it is good sense to give every encouragement we can to parents to look after their children in their family home. I trust that the House will approve my motion.
5.24 pm
Mr. Frank Field: I rise to oppose this measure being passed without a vote. I do so because, as the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) has already reminded us, in 1980 the House passed a similar measure without any objection, yet the passing of that measure did not have the effect that we had hoped for on the collective judgment of the Government. Since 1980, we have had an early-day motion which has shown how strong is the support from both sides of the House for this measure. Indeed, those voluntary organisations interested in promoting child benefit have been busy at work and gained private assurances from numerous hon. Members.
Although I fully realise that votes in the House are only one way of bringing our collective view to weigh on the Government, I believe that it is a very important one. I think that I know my colleagues well enough to believe that the assurances they have given in private will be reflected, when they have a chance in the Division Lobbies, in public. Therefore, when the appropriate time comes, I shall divide the House. Needless to say, I hope that the Bill is passed with a substantial majority.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 ( Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 3.

Division No. 227]

[5.26 pm

AYES

Abse, Leo

Cohen, Harry

Alexander, Richard

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Alton, David

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Anderson, Donald

Corbyn, Jeremy

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Cormack, Patrick

Ashdown, Paddy

Craigen, J. M.

Aspinwall, Jack

Critchley, Julian

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Crouch, David

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Cunningham, Dr John

Barnett, Guy

Dalyell, Tam

Barron, Kevin

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

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

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Deakins, Eric

Beith, A. J.

Dewar, Donald

Bell, Stuart

Dixon, Donald

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

Dobson, Frank

Benyon, William

Dormand, Jack

Bermingham, Gerald

Dubs, Alfred

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Eastham, Ken

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Fatchett, Derek

Boyes, Roland

Fisher, Mark

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

Flannery, Martin

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Bruce, Malcolm

Forman, Nigel

Buchan, Norman

Forrester, John

Buck, Sir Antony

Foster, Derek

Caborn, Richard

Foulkes, George

Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

George, Bruce

Canavan, Dennis

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Cartwright, John

Greenway, Harry

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Gregory, Conal

Clarke, Thomas

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Clay, Robert

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Clelland, David Gordon

Hardy, Peter

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Harvey, Robert

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

1081

Haynes, Frank

Richardson, Ms Jo

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Robertson, George

Hume, John

Rogers, Allan

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Janner, Hon Greville

Rowe, Andrew

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Rowlands, Ted

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Sheerman, Barry

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Kennedy, Charles

Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Knox, David

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

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

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Skinner, Dennis

Lyell, Nicholas

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

McCartney, Hugh

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

McCrindle, Robert

Speller, Tony

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Steel, Rt Hon David

McGuire, Michael

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Stott, Roger

McTaggart, Robert

Strang, Gavin

Madden, Max

Temple-Morris, Peter

Marek, Dr John

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Marlow, Antony

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Tinn, James

Meacher, Michael

Torney, Tom

Meadowcroft, Michael

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Wainwright, R.

Michie, William

Wallace, James

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Walters, Dennis

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Wilson, Gordon

Pike, Peter

Winnick, David

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Winterton, Nicholas

Prescott, John

Woodall, Alec

Price, Sir David

Radice, Giles

Tellers for the Ayes:

Rathbone, Tim

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams and Mr. Robin Squire.

Raynsford, Nick

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

NOES

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Tellers for the Noes:

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

Mr. Frank Field and Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, Mr. David Crouch, Mr. Nigel Forman, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman, Sir David Price, Mr. Tim Rathbone, Mrs. Renée Short, Mr. Robin Squire and Mr. Dafydd Wigley.

CHILD BENEFIT (UPRATINGS)
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams accordingly presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State for Social Services, in the event of an increase in the Retail Price Index in any calendar year, to lay before Parliament the draft of an uprating order which will make an increase in child benefit with effect from the beginning of the following financial year of not less than a corresponding percentage; and to make future increases in child benefit a charge on the National Insurance Fund: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 July and to be printed. [Bill 185.]

Foreign Affairs
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maude.]
5.38 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Yesterday, the House spent the entire day discussing South Africa. Today, the opportunity to consider, if the House wishes, the rest of the world has been truncated as a result of the proceedings so far. The House will be pleased to know that I do not intend to extend my sights that far. If points arise during the debate, especially if any hon. Member wishes to say anything further about South Africa, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office will deal with them when he replies to the debate. I shall concentrate mostly on East-West relations, the NATO Alliance and arms control. I shall also say a word about the European Community in the light of next week's European Council and the United Kingdom presidency of the Community, which starts on 1 July.
The previous full-day debate on foreign affairs was as long ago as November. One point on which there has been some development since then is terrorism. I shall not rehearse all the arguments provoked by the Libyan affair some weeks ago, but I underline the growing emphasis, which will be welcomed on both sides of the House, on the simple proposition that terrorism must not be seen to be a cost-free option for fanatics. It is of the utmost importance that the world, and especially the Western world, should continue to strenthen its practical defences against terrorism. We can take some encouragement from the significant progress made in that direction.
At the Tokyo summit and in the European Community, the Western approach has been increasingly concerted. The United Kingdom has played a key role in that search for consolidation and the important follow-up work is being undertaken with diligence and enthusiasm.
It is right, as hon. Members will remind me, that we should address ourselves also to the causes of terrorism. One of the most outstanding is in the middle east, where Her Majesty's Government continue to play an active role in diplomatic efforts towards a solution to the long-running Arab-Israel dispute. The House will recall my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to Israel. I have had the opportunity to discuss in detail the position there with the American Secretary of State. King Hussein is again in Britain for talks, and the matter has been fully discussed in the EC Political Co-operation Committee.
The United Kingdom's position is unchanged; it remains based upon the principles of the Venice declaration. What is needed is action by the parties and, above all, agreement on who should participate in any talks. The judgment of all those with whom we have discussed it recently is that there is no scope for any new European Community initiative. During our presidency, we shall remain active and anxious to help in any way that we can.
That is not the only source of terrorism. The United Kingdom faces its own long-standing terrorist threat from the IRA. The House will be glad to know that the United States Senate has made valuable progress in its consideration of the extradition treaty. We warmly

1083
welcome the continuing commitment of the United States Administration to that extradition treaty and to the Anglo-Irish agreement.
Mr. David Winnick: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Mr. Geldof's remarks regarding the IRA and the murderers on the other side of the sectarian divide in Northern Ireland have been useful and should be understood by those people in the United States who, perhaps wrongly, oppose the approval of the extradition treaty?
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that some people in Britain have been held responsible for terrorist offences in Italy? In a written reply that I have just received, the Home Secretary said that the cases are being kept under review. If we wish to be consistent, should not those people wanted in Italy for terrorist crimes be deported from Britain?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman spoilt what looked like being a unique occasion. I cannot comment on his second point at such short notice. On the first point, I congratulate him on having, for the first time, interrupted me to make a point with which I wholly agree. I almost included it in my speech, and I am glad to welcome the hon. Gentleman's unusual contribution. I am sorry if I have embarrassed him.
Sadly, terrorism was a topic discussed during my visit to India some weeks ago. I expect that it will be raised again in our brief meeting with the new Indian Foreign Minister when he visits London on Monday next week. His visit will give me an opportunity, which I also take now, to underline the firm commitment of Her Majesty's Government to the territorial integrity and unity of India, to renew the offer that we have made to the Indian Government and to strengthen our bilateral extradition arrangements, which are a practical expression of both countries' shared opposition to terrorism.
Another topic discussed in India was drugs. The House will welcome the fact that the Indian Government have agreed to the stationing of two British drug liaison officers in Delhi and Bombay.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the Foreign Secretary, in the context of his discussions with the Indian Foreign Minister, be able to discuss the help that India could give to bring about constructive discussions with Sri Lanka? It is extremely important that something is done to bring an end to that conflict, which cannot be resolved by military means.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree with that diagnosis of the state of affairs in Sri Lanka, which I was able to discuss during my visit to India. The Indian Government and Prime Minister take a close interest in it. If possible, I shall try to discuss it again later.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: There has been some anxiety about answers given during a recent foreign affairs question time, that the agreement on the placing of drugs officers had been made in principle, but that the officers were not yet in place. Will my right hon. and learned Friend press the Indian Foreign Minister on that point when he meets him?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the need to secure the implementation of the agreement, but it is proceeding along the lines that my hon. Friend would wish. I share his understandable anxiety.
1084
My journey to the subcontinent also included Pakistan. There I had the opportunity of seeing how well Pakistan is coping with the problems posed by the enormous number of Afghan refugees. I visited the Khyber pass and was immensly struck by the phrase used by the Pakistani Foreign Minister, who said that I should encounter there the noble ghosts of Britain's past. That was a striking and vivid phrase, but sadly, my impression after visiting that camp for Afghan refugees and also a Red Cross hospital was one of suffering on a massive scale. That is why the United Kingdom remains determined to keep high on the international agenda the Soviet Union's invasion and continued occupation of Afghanistan. If Mr. Gorbachev is serious in wishing to impress the world with the Soviet desire for peace, he should start in Afghanistan.
That brings me to the wider subject of East-West relations and gives me an opportunity to restate some basic facts about British foreign policy, starting with the fact that, for 40 years, the tragic division of the European continent has set the framework for a large part or Britain's foreign and defence policies. Of course, it must be acknowledged that history has given the Russians some cause to be suspicious of threats to their security, but it must also be said that, even on the most benevolent interpretation, their military posture constitutes the most massive over-insurance in history.
It is not just military tension that divides us. The Communist system has fanned Russian suspicions by preventing the free flow of people and ideas. The divide across the continent is not just military. It is also political and social. We cannot and should not seek a good relationship with the Russians at the price of ceasing to defend our values; that need not be the case. If we believed that, we should be counselling despair. The Government and I believe that East-West relations can be improved, and the tension reduced, through dialogue and exchanges.
If the search for improved relations is to be sustained, we must never allow ourselves to forget the vital difference between societies that are open and free, and societies that are closed and unfree. There is a difference.
NATO is a free alliance, based on genuinely shared values. Free peoples vote to join NATO as was evident in the resounding pro-NATO result of the referendum carried out by Spain's Socialist Government. But although NATO members are free, they are interdependent and they have freely chosen that interdependence. In that sense, Europe and the United States need each other. The commitment of American troops and arms to the defence of western Europe is central to our security. The contribution of Europe to the political cohesion and security of the free world is equally irreplacable.
I am glad to notice that there has been a growing enthusiasm among Labour Members for Europe as an ideal, not because they relish the European relationship for its own sake but because it represents a means of asserting their instinctive and growing hostility to the United States. For them, sadly, Europe is all too often an alibi for knee-jerk anti-Americanism. Our long-standing commitment to building up the strength and unity of Europe does not spring from hostility to the Atlantic relationship. Our aim is to strengthen that partnership and, for the sake of that partnership, the Alliance needs a stronger European partner to make it more balanced.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman comment on the reported remarks

1085
of Mr. Caspar Weinberger over the weekend that in future, NATO troops will not be confined to the area of the North Atlantic, but will be used anywhere?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have not seen those reported remarks, although I know that the question of how NATO should react to out-of-area problems has been long considered. However, I would rather not be drawn into that discussion now.
Mr. Denis Healey: I do not blame the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am glad to have some sympathy from the right hon. Gentleman.
Since 1979, the Conservative Government have done a great deal, and with some success, to establish Britain's place in the European Community, and have worked, again with some success, to make the Community more effective. As a leading European nation, we welcome Europes growing confidence and coherence in dealing with economic problems. From time to time, economic tension is inevitable, and not always just across the Atlantic. There are new sources of economic tension, such as Japan and the new industrialised countries.
A strong European voice helps to make each of these problems more manageable. They are some of the issues that will be high on the agenda of Britain's six-month presidency of the Community starting next month. The presidency gives us the opportunity to secure progress on many fronts. One immediate objective is to avert, if we can, a major trade war between Europe and the United States. This was discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council in the first two days of this week, and the proceedings of that Council are reported in a written answer to a parliamentary question, given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker).
On the single question of the transatlantic trade conflict, it must be said that the accession of Spain and Portugal to the Community has affected some sections of United States trade. The economic effects of that are of modest significance when compared to the inestimable importance of binding two more countries through treaty ties to the Western democratic family of nations. We in Western Europe have been ready to pay an economic price for that, and we are entitled to look for a similar willingness from our friends in the United States.
Mr. William Cash: In the context of the adjourned debate on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill—and I agree with everything that my right hon. and learned Friend has said about the need for greater political and economic movement within Europe—will he confirm that there is no intention to move, through the use of the Bill, towards any kind of federal Europe?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I confirm that that question, which my hon. Friend says arises from the adjourned debate on the Bill, is best left to consideration within that context. I shall not be drawn into any such consideration now. I ask my hon. Friend not to be unduly perturbed by fantasies of a federal Europe and to take the matter calmly. Instead, let him join me in ensuring that the Community focuses on another practical question and one of great importance
1086
—the world agricultural problem. It is of value and importance that that was identified at the Tokyo summit, which called for global action to redirect the policies and structure of worldwide agricultural production.
It is also important that the general agreement on tariffs and trade round will include agricultural trade matters, as well as trade services. The problems of the CAP are a part, but only a part, of this world problem. Europe has a cereals surplus of about 17 million tonnes while America's cereals surplus is about 80 million tonnes. All the countries that are seeking to look after their agricultural communities, and struggling with the resultant surpluses, know that we must address the problem in concert. The CAP must adapt to changing circumstances, which must be a continuing process, and the CAP will be high on our agenda in the Community in the next six months.
We shall be dealing as well with internal Community issues. We need to keep a tight rein on the Community budget so that we live within our resources. We have a great deal to do in opening up the Community's internal market. A few weeks ago, in consultation with Ireland and Italy, we made three specific proposals for employment growth into the next decade. We hope that that will be the basis for an action plan during our office.
At the heart of all this is our commitment to setting up the largest market place in the world, within which people, goods and services can circulate easily. The United Kingdom is playing a leading and active part in formulating the European positions on all these subjects. We are doing so because we are, in that context, trusted and reliable partners. That would certainly not be the position if we followed the policies of Her Majesty's Opposition. They would isolate us not only in Europe but within NATO as well. That is why it is so important for us to have a clear understanding of Britain's place in the world, of the real threat to Britain's security. Only if we understand those things can we play our full part in collective defence and the collective pursuit of arms control.
The facts are not always palatable, but we do not do the East-West dialogue any service if we refuse to face them. The underlying realities have not changed. During the past 17 years, while the United States has observed a unilateral moratorium, the Soviet Union has amassed 300,000 tonnes of chemical weapon nerve agents, many times more than the rest of the world together. In Europe today, between the Atlantic and the Urals, the Warsaw pact has a superiority of some 1 million troops over NATO, three times as many tanks, three times as many artillery pieces and twice as many tactical aircraft.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Where do the figures come from?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not know why hon. Members are so astonished. These are the facts, as set out in the defence White Paper each year. It may be uncomfortable for Labour Members to know this.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose—
Sir Geoffrey Howe: No, I shall not give way.
Soviet military might on that scale represents a danger for our security that we neglect at our peril. In the face of that threat, nuclear deterrence continues to play a key role in the defence strategy of Britain and NATO. There is no room for the irresolution and gullibility of the Labour

1087
party on a question such as this. We are right to provide bases for the NATO deterrent and to maintain the credibility and effectiveness of the British deterrent, and we are right to keep our conventional forces up to strength.
It is interesting to see the way in which Opposition Members have helped to establish the case that I seek to make. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who is not honouring us with his observations today—he may he in unarmed combat with the other David—said on I June:
"we should be ready to replace Polaris with a minimum deterrent."
I want to be even-handed and draw my witnesses from more than one place, so I agree, too, with what the right hon. Member from Leeds, East said a few days ago, which was:
"if you want to replace Polaris"—
that is the aspiration of the right hon. Member for Devonport—
"there is, in fact, no alternative to Trident".
That is precisely why Her Majesty's Government are committed to the Trident programme. That is precisely why the logic of the Social Democratic party will lead at least the leader of that party to support the Trident programme. It will no longer be possible for the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), within the SDP, to cobble together a fudge with the unilateralists in the Liberal party. They know that better than anyone. The leader of the Liberal party argues and claims that the party's policy position does not amount to unilateralism, hut with respect that is disingenuous.
A credible British deterrent in the 1990s means modernisation of the British deterrent now. By trying to put off that position, the leader of the Liberal party and the Liberal party are seeking to achieve unilateralism by obsolescence—obsolescence through inertia, a fate similar to that of the Liberal party in the past.[Interruption]I am astonished to be receiving such acclamation from the Opposition Benches.
The chasm between those who oppose an independent British deterrent and those who favour an independent British deterrent will not easily be papered over by an SDP-Liberal commission. Until recently we thought that we knew where this massive alliance stood on these issues, represented as it is by the somewhat solitary looking figure of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Until recently we knew that the Liberals were opposed to the maintenance of an independent deterrent and that they were opposed to the deployment of cruise. We knew that the SDP supported the deployment of cruise and that it was ready to replace Polaris. The position was perfectly clear—total disagreement. Now there is a much firmer position—a firmly proclaimed maybe. The leader of the Liberal party got it right, I suppose, when he said the other day on "Weekend World":
"If we can't agree before we get into government, how are we going to agree in government?"
I am happy to say that that is a question he will be able to contemplate for many years to come.
I turn to the subject in a more serious fashion. The British and French deterrents are in fact very modest in comparison with the Soviet nuclear arsenal, but certainly they are not so small that Mr. Gorbachev ignores them. On the contrary, he knows what they are. He knows that they are an effective deterrent. That is why he hopes to persuade us either to abandon them or to let them fall into
1088
obsolescence. That is the basis of the beguiling suggestion that was made to the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), that the Soviet Union will cut one missile for every strategic missile that we cut.
Mr. Healey: It was made to Lord Whitelaw.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That may be so, but Mr. Gorbachev gave a different answer to the right hon. Gentleman.
However, the proposal conceals a fatal and important flaw. The Russians have over 50 times more missiles than we have. That discrepancy did not in the least discourage the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East from accepting the offer with enthusiasm. It would have been amazing to see the look of astonishment on the face of Mr. Gorbachev when they snapped it up with enthusiasm. Mr. Gorbachev knows, even if the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East do not, that this missile for missile offer is total and utter nonsense. Those are not my words. They are the words both of The Guardian and of the Daily Mirror. As The Guardian said, and I do not often find myself quoting it:
"The millionaire and the pauper do not equalise their status by each throwing away a few £5 notes."
On that basis, the position of the Labour party—to give
away our deterrent for next to nothing —is as dishonourable as it is ridiculous.
One wonders how it came about that the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East accepted this proposition. One can reflect upon the ventures of the Leader of the Opposition into the deeper waters of foreign policy and conclude that he is still not safe to he allowed out without his water wings, but when one comes to the case of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East we have a different explanation.
The House will remember that in the article he wrote the other day the right hon. Gentleman was positively carried away by the "sapphire skies" and "perfumed lilacs" of the Moscow spring. He waxed lyrical about them in The Observer. And increasingly it must be said, as we look at the right hon. Gentleman, that one gains the impression of someone who, in the twilight of his political career, is returning to his first undergraduate love. I only wish that he showed half as much commitment to the NATO Alliance as he brings to his self-appointed role as Mr. Gorbachev's PR man in this country.
Of course there is a role for dialogue between East and West. That is a dialogue in which the United Kingdom is playing and must play a leading part. Neither side needs to be armed to the teeth to be secure. Neither side, quite frankly, can afford to be armed to the teeth to be secure.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to say that the kind of response he is now making to Mr. Gorbachev was not the response of his Conservative colleagues when that meeting took place? I happened to be there. Will he tell the House whether he agrees that there should be a summit meeting between Mr. Gorbachev and President Reagan and, if he does, what influence he is exerting in that direction?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am just coming to the point that has been raised by the hon. Gentleman.
I was saying that there is certainly a role for the United Kingdom in promoting the dialogue that all of us want.

1089
Neither side can be armed to the teeth to be secure. Neither side can afford to be armed in that way. Of course we acknowledge, as I acknowledged earlier in my speech, that Soviet anxieties about security exist. We have no doubt, however, that patient diplomacy can promote Western interests and security for us all. That is one of the reasons why I have made a point of visiting the Soviet Union and all the countries of eastern Europe; that is why we were very glad to welcome Mr. Gorbachev here in December 1984; that is why we intend to maintain the dialogue between the Prime Minister and Mr. Gorbachev; that is why, on the recent parliamentary visit to the Soviet Union. to which the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) referred, the Lord President of the Council did just that; and that is why I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr. Shevardnadze, is coming to Britain on 14 and 15 July. It will be an important visit. I am looking forward to our discussions on arms control, regional and bilateral questions and human rights.
In pursuing that dialogue it would be foolish to expect that tremendous unilateral gestures by the United Kingdom will in themselves be a catalyst for agreement between the super powers. Certainly we wish that summit meeting to take place—and more than one such meeting in due course. The United Kingdom can, does and will continue to play a part in seeking, to bring about progress.
We believe that the Soviet Union is now seeking seriously to join the United States in the search for an agreement. Certainly it makes sense to proceed upon the basis of that presumption. That is what we mean when we say that we believe that we can "do business with Mr. Gorbachev." Mr. Gorbachev has his own reasons for wanting a significant arms control agreement. He knows the implications of a continued arms race for the Soviet economy, which cannot indefinitely satisfy both the military and the Soviet consumer. The Soviet arms buildup already absorbs—
Mr. Reg Freeson: That applies to all other countries.
Mr. Geoffrey Howe: I am not seeking to challenge that. One of the most profound reasons for seeking success in the search for arms control is the burden of arms expenditure on all nations. I do not need to be reminded of that. Indeed, anybody who has held the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that as clearly as anybody else.
However, for the Soviet Union, the arms build-up already absorbs nearly 16 per cent. of its gross national product, and on present trends that percentage will continue to grow. So Mr. Gorbachev, like every other responsible leader, has a strong interest in reaching agreement on arms control.
Mr. Freeson: The reason for my intervention was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was singling out one major power for his remarks in connection with the balance between economic prosperity and the arms burden. The whole world cannot carry on like this. Millions of people are starving in Africa, while millions of other people throughout the rest of the world are living in poverty. That will lead to war, unless all of us can do something about it, instead of just pointing the finger at others.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is remaking the point that I made, but with this important addition. The countries of the Western world have to take decisions about their arms expenditure as a result of democratic consideration through the ballot box and the House of Commons. There is always the check of democratic control on the arms expenditure of democratic Governments. The Soviet Union, because of its political structure, is far better able to sustain the massive arms expenditure that it does. It is only on that basis that it is able to sustain the massive 16 per cent. of its GNP on arms. For the Soviet Union, as well as for other countries, the need to recognise the constraints of economic resources in the end begins to tell and that is why there is that motivation.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend also agree that the Soviet Union spends far less on paying its troops and much more on hardware than we do?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Yes, many components of Soviet expenditure are worth studying.
Mr. Healey rose—
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity in a moment.
Mr. Healey: I thank the Foreign Secretary so much.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The question to which I want to address myself for the last minute or so—
Mr. Corbyn: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: No, not now, I am sorry.—is how best to move towards the agreement that we want. Until recently, it must be said, the Russian approach has consisted mainly of unrealistic proposals, backed up by well-orchestrated appeals to world opinion. That is no way to proceed. But there are elements in the Soviet proposals, including those outlined by Mr. Gorbachev in his speech two days ago, which we believe deserve exploration. We must emphasise that progress can only be made not at press conferences but at the negotiating table. Of course, adequate verification measures remain all-important.
The recent discussion of SALT II has raised those problems starkly. The United States has been right to stick until recently to the terms of that agreement. It is right now to dismantle its two Poseidon submarines accordingly. But it must be said that the best should not be the enemy of the good. It is our hope that the United States will not feel the need to abandon the SALT II limits, despite the evidence that it has of Soviet non-compliance.
Of course, there is also an onus on the Soviet Union to demonstrate its willingness to respect those agreements strictly. If not, the mutual confidence required for future progress is in danger and everyone loses. So it is important to remember that a dialogue is taking place between East and West on these important issues. The latest Warsaw pact statements in Berlin and Budapest are now looking more like a serious response to the West's proposals.
Finally, let me remind the House of those proposals in simple terms—comprehensive and coherent arms reduction proposals that were reiterated by NATO members last month in Halifax. There are five distinct elements of the NATO arms control package—first, a 50 per cent. cut in strategic nuclear weapons; secondly, the

1091
total elimination of intermediate range nuclear forces an entire category; thirdly, a worldwide total ban on chemical weapons; fourthly, the progressive reduction of conventional forces in Europe, eventually covering the whole continent from the Atlantic to the Urals; and, finally, wide-ranging confidence-building measures. That approach serves the interests of not just the United Kingdom but the Alliance as a whole. It is an approach in support of which the United Kingdom will continue to play its full part.
Arms control has to be tackled responsibly. As a distinguished British elder statesman has said,
"it is the stability of the military balance between NATO and Warsaw Pact which has kept Europe at peace for over 30 years … NATO's nuclear strategy is an essential part of that balance. To threaten to upset it by refusing to let America base any of her nuclear weapons in Britain would make war more likely, not less likely".
Those words are just as true today as they were then spoken in 1981 by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East.
We have taken account of the realities. We have worked and will continue to work to protect and promote British interests, not just in arms control and East-West dialogue, but across the whole range of foreign policy issues. We shall continue to go on doing just that.
6.14 pm
Mr. Denis Healey: I must start with the unfamiliar experience of congratulating the Foreign Secretary on a very lively speech. I have sometimes made rather unkind ovine comparisons about him, but I am bound to say that for much of his speech this afternoon he was frisking like a lamb, although on some occasions he presented a slightly less agreeable spectacle verging on the bizarre or even the macabre, like a dead fleece twitching. Nevertheless, taken all in all, I could not see more than six Conservative Members asleep at any time in his speech, and that must pretty well be a record.
Like the Foreign Secretary—unlike him I mean what I say—I plan to concentrate my remarks on the state of East-West relations and their impact on relations between America and Europe inside the Western Alliance. I want to discuss a little something that the Foreign Secretary hardly mentioned, although it is a British foreign affairs debate—the proper role of Britain in this complex situation. However, I must say one word about a matter which hears or could bear very directly on East-West relations and which the Foreign Secretary practically ignored, and that is the dangerous situation at the moment in the middle east.
We have a war in the Gulf between Iran and Iraq that could reach a climax this summer if Iran, as is not impossible, wins its summer offensive and then moves south into the Gulf states or exerts pressure on those states. This is an issue on which the Soviet Union and the United States seem to have recognised a common interest, but I am deeply disturbed that the new French Conservative Government seem to be attempting to intervene in that war on the side of Iran. I hope that when the Under-Secretary replies he will say something about Her Majesty's Government's attitude towards that new French adventure.
The other part of the middle east situation which presents serious problems is the growing tension between Israel and Syria. The Foreign Secretary may recall that only a few weeks ago when President Reagan was in Tokyo he made some remarks about Syria which were
1092
interpreted by Mr. Rabin, the Israeli Defence Secretary, in Washington that day, as implying the readiness of the United States to support military action by Israel against Syria. I am glad to say that Prime Minister Shimon Peres in Israel immediately took pains to deny that Israel had any aggressive intentions of that nature. But the party composition of the Israeli Government is due to change in October, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us something about Her Majesty's Government's attitude—
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Minister of State will reply.
Mr. Healey: I am sorry. I apologise for downgrading him. He certainly deserves to be Minister of State. I hope that he will also be a Privy Councillor. My word, what a wonderful life.
I hope that the Minister of State will say something about this because it is a situation which could turn dangerous at any time over the next few months, indeed during the summer recess.
Let me deal now with the major problem of East-West relations. I think that all of us in the House welcomed the summit conference between President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev in Geneva last year. We all hoped that it had established a degree of personal confidence between the two leaders which would make rapid progress possible on major areas of disarmament and some of the regional problems which are currently the most likely cause of war, such as the middle east, which I have just mentioned, Afghanistan—I endorse what the Foreign Secretary said about that and we raised it with Mr. Gorbachev when we were in Moscow—southern Africa and Central America. I hope that he is as disappointed as we are that there has been no visible sign of progress in East-West relations since the Geneva summit. Rather, the reverse has been the case. In their press statement after the summit, President: Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev assured the world that neither side sought military superiority over the other. President Reagan has repeatedly made speeches since then which suggest that he seeks military superiority over the Soviet Union, and notably in a speech at a recent ceremony in a marine training school in the United States. Mr. Weinberger and his Mephistopheles, Mr. Perle, have frequently gone much further.
President Reagan has lumped Mr. Gorbachev together with Castro, Arafat and Gaddafi as enemies of peace, although when that was pointed out to him he said:
"I must have goofed some place because, believe me, I do not put him in the same category."
Inevitably, world statesmen take seriously the words used about them by other world statesmen. In some areas the United States Administration have added to these verbal insults some real injuries. The bombing of Tripoli led to the postponement of the Shultz-Shevardnadze meeting which was supposed to set the agenda for the forthcoming second summit in the United States. The Foreign Secretary must agree that Britain's support for that bombing postponed the Shevardnadze visit to London, although I was delighted to hear from him today that that visit take place in a few weeks.
President Reagan's public decision to abandon the SALT 2 constraints next autumn on the eve of his proposed date for the next summit conference must be seen by everybody who follows these events as a damaging blow to East-West relations. In the same week Washington vetoed proposals to improve human contacts between East

1093
and West. Those proposals had already been agreed in Berne by the United States local representative and were supported by all of America's allies.
All these decisions by the United States Government were taken in flat defiance of the known views of all their allies. They deliberately sought to ascertain those views through visits by General Walters to Europe about the Tripoli bombing and a visit by Mr. Nitze to Europe about the denunciation of SALT 2. I am surprised that in the course of his speech the Foreign Secretary paid no attention to the great strains which have undoubtedly been imposed on the alliance as well as on East-West relations by those actions of the American Administration.
On top of the military and political strains on the Alliance there is now—the Foreign Secretary used these words—a trade war looming because the United States has decided to cut its imports of European food and drink in retaliation for what it sees as discrimination against some of its products as a result of the entry of Spain and Portugal to the Common Market. I fully endorse what the Foreign Secretary said about this matter, and I hope that his actions will follow his words. As an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, nobody knows better than the Foreign Secretary that a trade war between two parts of an alliance would have the most damaging political and military consequences.
Mr. Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what causes much offence in western Europe but certainly not to the Foreign Secretary and his supporters is the way in which the United States supports by various means terrorist regimes in Latin America in places such as Guatemala and certainly in Chile, while at the same time doing its best by military and diplomatic means to undermine a Government the United States does not like, the Government of Nicaragua?
Mr. Healey: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on that matter. One thing that slightly surprised me in the Foreign Secretary's speech was his suggestion that his loyalty to all the divagation in American policy was strengthening Britain's position in Europe. He must know better than anybody that the apparent deceit that he perpetrated against his European colleagues on the eve of the Tripoli bombing, which he knew would take place, and his support for that bombing and his position on central America have all caused serious strains between us and our European allies.
While all that has been happening on one side, the Soviet Union has made a series of new offers to the United States and the West on all the major areas of the disarmament negotiations, and so far no positive response has been elicited from the United States or the West on any one of them. Mr. Gorbachev made it clear to the noble Lord Whitelaw and to the other members of the recent delegation to Moscow that he has no interest in going to the United States for a second summit simply as an actor in a television commercial, the purpose of which is to boost President Reagan's image as a peacemaker. Mr. Gorbachev will not go the summit if there is no prospect of concrete results coming from his visit. The British Government have always rightly taken the view that summit conferences which do not produce concrete results are likely to do more harm than good.
1094
There has been much speculation in the West, and we had a little from the Foreign Secretary today, about whether the new Soviet proposals were intended seriously and sincerely or were made simply to divide the Alliance. I recently returned from the Soviet Union. I was a member of an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation and I was deputy leader to the deputy leader of the Government—a sort of gentleman's gentleman. The impressions which I will describe of this visit would be endorsed by all the other members of the delegation. The delegation consisted of hon. Members from all parts of the House, and we would all agree on our impressions, although we might draw different conclusions about the policies that the Government ought to follow.
We all left the Soviet Union with the conviction that Mr. Gorbachev sincerely wants disarmament, not because he sees himself as potentially militarily inferior to the United States, because in some key areas he is potentially superior, not least in space, as was pointed out in "Jane's" this week. That is especially true in the shadow of the recent dsasters in the American space programme. Mr. Gorbachev sincerely wants disarmament because he knows that it will be much more difficult to carry out his plans for economic reform in the Soviet Union if he cannot make cuts in his programme of defence spending. I endorse what the Foreign Secretary said about that, although I found that the slightly contemptuous way in which he described the situation came ill from a key member of a Government who came into office pledged to increase defence spending by 3 per cent. a year and have just decided for economic reasons to cut it by 6 per cent. over the next three years. I shall come back to that in a moment.
We concluded that Mr. Gorbachev genuinely wants disarmament. Secondly, I think we all agree that he has brought from Stavropol a fresh mind to Soviet foreign policy and is trying to feel his way towards a new approach. The House will know that since the Russian revolution of 1917 Soviet foreign policy has been dominated by the doctrine of the two camps—the capitalist camp and, as the Soviets call it, the Socialist camp—which are doomed to be locked in everlasting conflict until the final victory of the Socialist camp. This doctrine was fleshed out in some detail by Zhdanov shortly after the second world war.
To me, as to any student of the Soviet Union, the most important single statement made by Mr. Gorbachev since he took over was made in his speech at the recent party congress in Moscow. In it, he buried the doctrine of the two camps for good, and invoked the concepts of Leninist theory in order to justify that burial. I should like to read what he said, because it was a speech to the party faithful by the head of the party and not a speech by the leader of the Soviet Union to foreign journalists. He said:
"The prevailing dialectics of present-day development consist in a combination of competition and confrontation between the two systems and in a growing tendency towards interdependence of the countries of the world community. This is precisely the way, through the struggle of opposites, through arduous effort, groping in the dark to some extent, as it were, that the controversial but interdependent and in many ways integral world is taking shape."
That profoundly important statement was made by the leader of the Soviet Communist party and the head of the Soviet Union. It implies a totally different approach to the problems of the outside world. I believe that it will prove

1095
as cataclysmic in its consequences as the famous secret speech of his predecessor, Khrushchev, to another Soviet party congress 30 years ago.
The bombardment of new proposals from Mr. Gorbachev during the past 12 months represents an attempt to achieve that interdependence by, to quote him,
"groping in the dark … as it were".
From our visit we gained the impression that a great upheaval is still going on in the personalities and structure of the machine that makes foreign policy in the Soviet Union. Mr. Shevardnadze, a man with deep party experience but no experience of world affairs, has been made Foreign Secretary. Mr. Dobrynin, a man with deep experience of diplomacy, who has spent 24 years in Washington, has been put in charge of the party machine. Mr. Yakovlev, who has served as ambassador in Canada, is a key figure in Mr. Gorbachev's inner Cabinet.
I think that we all agree that Mr. Gorbachev is now running Soviet foreign policy. That is a quite different situation from that prevailing during the latter years, at least, of Mr. Brezhnev, when Mr. Gromyko, now the President, was running foreign policy. We also gained the impression, which was recently confirmed in a public statement by Mr. Falin, the head of the Soviet news agency in Bonn, that because of the upheavals in the structure in Moscow, it is taking time for some of Gorbachev's publicly stated ideas to work through to the coalface of negotiations in Geneva.
One good example is the change in Soviet policy on research into star wars. Mr. Gorbachev first said that he thought that there should be a distinction between research in laboratories or universities, and the testing of models, in an interview with Time magazine journalists last autumn in Moscow. But that surfaced for the first time as a formal negotiating position in the recent proposals made privately by Mr. Gorbachev to President Reagan, the details of which have been slowly leaking out during the past few weeks.
If we are wise, we must accept that the real nature of the new Soviet negotiating position will take some time to work through. But it is already clear that in almost every aspect of disarmament Mr. Gorbachev is making his negotiators adopt a very different attitude towards the problem of verification. He has made it clear, as Mr. Zagladin made it clear to our delegation when we were in Moscow, that the Soviets are now prepared to allow on-site verification in many of the most important areas. I believe that those changes are important, and I deeply regret the fact that the Foreign Secretary completely failed to refer to them. He just treated us to a turgid rehash of the defence White Paper without paying the slightest attention to those very important new initiatives or to that important new trend of policy in the Soviet Union.
I shall now look at the American side of the equation. The Foreign Secretary, in his usual way, accused anybody who attacked any aspect of President Reagan's policy of being anti-American. Let me remind him that I have said nothing in criticism of President Reagan's policy that has not been said with far greater force by American ex-Ministers with whom I have worked, as Secretary of State for Defence and as Chancellor of the Exchequer, in Washington. I think, for example, of Mr. McNamara. Indeed, my criticisms of the President's strategic defence initiative had already been made by each of the last three American Presidents: two Republicans, Mr. Ford and Mr. Nixon; and one Democrat, Mr. Carter.
1096
The most telling criticism of President Reagan's foreign policy was made by one of the most outstanding contributors to American international policy since the war. I refer to Mr. George Ball, who served as Minister of State under several American Presidents. He said that American foreign policy today reminded him very much of a series of pictures in a strip cartoon called, I believe, "Peanuts". That cartoon figures a rather innocent young man called Charlie Brown and a young lady who bears some resemblance to our Prime Minister called Lucy. Lucy is talking to Charlie Brown, and says: "Charlie, you should know that on this great ocean liner of life, upon which we have both embarked, there is a sun deck and deck chairs. Some of us will put up our deck chairs facing the stern of the ship so that we can see where we are coming from, and some of us will put up our deck chairs facing the prow of the ship so that we can see where we are going. Charlie, where are you going to put your deck chair?" Charlie replies, "Well I just don't seem able to get my deck chair unfolded." That paints a picture of American foreign policy today.
The tragedy is that the struggle between the ideologues and the pragmatists that we witnessed when President Reagan first took over, still continues. We had a period of some months when the pragmatists appeared to be winning. We have had periods, such as the one in which we are now enmeshed, when the ideologues have been winning. Nothing shows that more clearly than the President's surprising and confusing behaviour on SALT 2. He began by saying only a few weeks ago that he would unconditionally break the limits imposed by SALT 2 and that SALT 2 no longer had any force. A few days later he told the world at a press conference that his decision would depend on whether the Soviet Union could be persuaded
"to join in things they are talking about: arms control and arms reductions."
The President then said that he would have to break SALT 2 because it was blocking plans to modernise America's strategic forces. Of course all his acolytes joined in. Mr. Larry Speakes publicly contradicted the President and said that SALT was dead. The next day, the Secretary of State, Mr. Shultz, said:
"I do not like the use of the word 'dead'".
There is similar confusion over America's reaction to the latest Soviet proposal for deep cuts in strategic forces on condition that the anti-ballistic missile treaty is prolonged for another 15 to 20 years. For the first time, the Russians have said that they would not oppose research into space weapons, provided that there were no tests of models. That is a proposal which the British Government should solidly endorse. The Prime Minister's only reason for opposing a ban on research into strategic defence was that it would not be possible to verify research, but the Russians are now offering to forgo a ban on the sort of research that cannot be verified and to have a ban on tests of models, all of which can be verified. When the Minister of State replies, I hope that he will tell us that, now that the Russians have removed the obstacle which prevented the Prime Minister from opposing star wars when she first met President Reagan on the matter some 18 months ago, the Government will change their mind.
We are told by the newspapers that Mr. Kampelman, the President's negotiator, believes that it is well worth exploring the offer and that. President Reagan sent an encouraging letter to Mr. Gorbachev at the same time. We read in this morning's edition of The Times, however, that

1097
a senior Pentagon official—Mephistopheles again, I suspect—Mr. Perle, told the defence correspondent of The Times only yesterday that America would reject the Soviet offer because it would block star wars.
It is difficult for any Government, allied or otherwise, to negotiate with Washington when its policy is so confused and contradictory. It is not anti-American to say that, because this criticism is made in the United States day in and day out by those who have been responsible for American defence policy, foreign policy and disarmament policy.
In spite of this, I think that we would all agree—those of us who visited Moscow recently—that there is no question but that the Soviet Union is anxious to negotiate on all these issues if it is humanly possible to do so. One advantage of having Mr. Dobrynin at the top of the party policy structure in this area with 24 years of experience of the Washington jungle and many close contacts—even friends—among senior American politicians and officials is that the Russians will not easily take no for an answer. Although the abandonment of SALT 2 by the United States, which is threatened for this autumn, could allow the Soviet Union to establish a commanding lead over the United States by doubling the number of warheads on their intercontinental SS 18s—as the Foreign Secretary will know, this is why the American chiefs of staff were insistent that the United States should observe the limits—I believe that their response to anything that the Americans do will be proportionate, and that they will wait and see before they take any action.
With American policy so contradictory and so confused, I believe that Mr. Gorbachev and President Gromyko—the latter made the same point when he met us—were sincere when they said that they hoped that the United Kingdom could play a constructive role in helping the super-powers to reach agreement. President Gromyko made a comparison with the role that Sir Anthony Eden had played on many occasions during on many occasions during and after the war. I have no doubt that this is why, in spite of disappointment with some aspects of British policy, Mr. Gorbachev has decided finally that his Foreign Secretary should meet our Foreign Secretary to discuss these matters.
I shall run quickly over the areas where I believe that the British Government could make a useful contribution. First, there is the ban on chemical weapons. From the way that the Foreign Secretary discussed the matter, one would not have thought that the British Government were deeply concerned about the American proposal to produce binary weapons and have refused to commit themselves to receive them if the American Government request them to do so. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary will confirm that. No, he has sunk in a study of his papers. That is very wise.
Britain is chairing the discussions that are taking place in Geneva on a ban on chemical weapons. I understand that Mr. Issraelyan has been in London this week—he may still be here—to discuss this issue. I hope that the Minister of State will tell us something about the attitude that the British Government will take in the talks. We were told in Moscow that the Soviet Government are now prepared to allow the on-site inspection of the destruction both of stocks of chemical weapons and their production facilities. That certainly removes a major obstacle —
1098
perhaps not every obstacle—to an agreement. The whole world would breathe more easily if that could be achieved.
The second area in which I believe that we have a central responsibility is negotiation for a comprehensive ban on nuclear tests. We on the Opposition Benches—I think that I speak for all the Opposition parties that are represented this afternoon, but I am not quite sure what the latest position of the party for Devonport is on this matter—believe that a comprehensive test ban treaty would be by far the first and best contribution to a complete freeze on the development of new weapons.
Scientists have long believed that verification is possible even without on-site inspection. We were told that the Soviet Government have now agreed to on-site inspection of test sites both by national and international means, by which I would assume that they would accept the manning of monitoring stations inside the Soviet Union by representatives of the non-aligned states, which have promised to undertake this responsibility.
We are still told that the United Kingdom wants such an agreement; the Prime Minister has said so on many occasions. Why does she not invite the Soviet Union and the United States to meet Britain, as they did up to a few years ago when America broke off the talks, to discuss the introduction of a ban? Or are we sliding into outright opposition to a ban because the Ministry of Defence believes that we need tests to perfect the Trident warhead? I was confused, as I expect all Members were, by an answer given on 13 May by the Secretary of State for Defence, who said:
"We all wish that a way can be found as soon as possible of eliminating nuclear weapons altogether but. while they are there, testing is essential for safety and operational reasons."
The British Government have never said that in the past. But then the dear old Secretary of State for Defence went on to say:
"The Government's policy is to do everything possible to negotiate a comprehensive test ban treaty as soon as verification can be made credible."—[Official Report, 13 May Vol. 97, c. 542.]
What the hell is the Government's policy? Are they in favour of a ban if verification is possible, or are they against one as long as nuclear weapons exist? I hope that the Minister of State will clear up this disturbing confusion. Until the Secretary of State for Defence made his statement neither the Government nor any other Government had maintained that testing of existing weapons was necessary.
The third area where progress is possible and where we can play a role is on the strategic defence initiative. The Russians have now accepted the Prime Minister's position that it is not possible to verify a ban on research in people's heads or laboratories. It is possible, however, to ban the testing of models. Indeed, both sides announce these tests when they are carried out because they know that the other side will observe them.
Will not the Government reconsider their support for the strategic defence initiative? Any commercial gains that they might have expected from co-operation with the initiative went for a burton a long time ago. We know that British firms now expect at the most a few scores of millions of dollars against the $1,500 million for which the previous Secretary of State for Defence was asking. We know also that British participation in the research will be damaging to our own research efforts and will be subject

1099
to technological control by the United States. I hope that the Minister of State will tell us whether the Government are prepared, in the light of this new situation, to change their position on SDI.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As one who has constituents in Heriot-Watt university working on optical lasers, may I tell my right hon. Friend that some of those engaged in the work are worried—and not before time about—intellectual property rights, an issue which has not been sorted out?
Mr. Healey: I am aware of that, and I hope that the Government will publish the memorandum of understanding. The German memorandum has already been leaked totally to a German newspaper and some of the features of the German memorandum of understanding are profoundly disturbing to us in Britain. There can be no security reason for the British Government not publishing the same details.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of SDI, is it not obvious that Mr. Gorbachev and the Soviet authorities are so anxious to come towards the West and scale down the expense of their armaments because the United States is developing SDI and the fear of the expense of that is too great for the Soviet authorities to contemplate?
Mr. Healey: The Soviet authorities obviously do not want to spend money on SDI. I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman has that feeling. We are always told by the United States that the Soviet Union is spending more money on SDI than the United States. That, of course, is totally untrue and I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with me on that.
The point about SDI is that the Soviet Union does not want to have to spend more money in an area which will compete with the introduction of new technology into its own industry. However, it is capable of doing so if it is forced. It does not want to spend more money on any weapons, nor do we in Britain—which is quite clear from the Government's decision—or the American Congress. The real question is whether we can turn those economic pressures into useful disarmament agreements. I believe that we are now moving into a world in which the pressure of defence spending on national budgets is becoming intolerable for everybody, for us in the West no less than for the Soviet Union.
The American Congress is imposing a cut on planned American defence spending of $80 billion over the next three years. The British Government, originally pledged to a 3 per cent. annual increase, have now announced a 6 per cent. cut in defence spending over the next three years. I have an increasing feeling, which some arms control experts have had for some time, that perhaps a series of leap-frogging unilateral cuts will be the way in which, in the end, some form of disarmament is finally achieved. It is vital that, as this process proceeds, the unilateral cuts which are made by the United States, Britain and the Soviet Union should not destabilise the balance between the two sides, especially in Europe. Again, that is where Britain's position is vital. Stability requires America's commitment to the defence of western Europe. Since the war NATO has always been an indispensable foundation for Britain's security. However, at the moment NATO is
1100
desperately one-sided and needs much more influence from Europe. I think that that is common ground between both sides of the House.
The key contribution which Europe can make towards NATO is in conventional weapons. That has been made clear again and again by American Administration spokesmen and by American Congressmen such as Senator Sam Nunn, who is threatening massive cuts in America's conventional contribution unless the Europeans improve their conventional contribution. There is no chance of Britain improving its conventional contribution if it goes ahead with the Trident programme. I am glad to see the Minister of State agree with that. Trident will be taking 40 per cent. of our budget for equipment in a couple of years. If that money was spent on improving the equipment of our reserve force, it is calculated that we could double our ready conventional forces in central Europe.
It is now more than 40 years since the end of the second world war. Enormous changes have taken place in every part of the world. Nobody, least of all the Government, who are chopping and changing their policies on all these issues from week to week, should be ashamed of confronting new situations with new policies. In 1945 many of us believed that George Orwell's prediction for 1984 was a realistic sketch of how the Communist countries might develop by that year. It has proved to be far from the reality. The Foreign Secretary, like me, went to Hungary recently. In many respects that country is more free than many countries in western Europe—certainly Greece under the colonels and Turkey. In many ways I think that Budapest has recreated the Austro-Hungarian empire in a far more effective form. Its relations with Austria are far closer than those with its Communist neighbour, Romania, as the Foreign Secretary knows very well. Immense changes have taken place in the Soviet Union even during the 25 years in which I have been a regular visitor.
In the United States power has shifted from the eastern seaboard, with its traditional and human concern with western Europe, to the southern and western states with increasing Hispanic and Asian populations which exert a growing influence on American policy. Whatever we do, American attention will be increasingly focused on Latin America and the western Pacific.
Those trends offer opportunities as well as some dangers for western Europe. In Britain we have every interest in seeking to build a new international security system based on co-operation between the two alliances and on co-operation, which I hope that the Foreign Secretary was attempting to suggest in one part of his speech, between eastern Europe and western Europe. I believe that in this new developing world, in which we in the West are groping in the dark no less than the Russians. Britain will play the central role which I believe it has the political and economic capacity to perform.
6.56 pm
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I am extremely flattered to be called this early in the debate, and it is an honour and pleasure to follow the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). I confirm what he said about the harmony of the recent delegation to the Soviet Union and I should like to pay a tribute to him, as he has paid tribute to the Lord President, for the way in

1101
which, in all the private meetings, he supported the Lord President and the delegation as a whole and our national position. We are much indebted to him for that.
I want to deal with these points in my own way during my speech, but, in a matter-of-fact way, I shall confirm what the right hon. Gentleman said about the four basic conclusions that came out of the Inter-Parliamentary Union visit to Moscow.
The first conclusion, with which I would agree— I shall confirm all four—is that Mr. Gorbachev sincerely wants disarmament. I would agree that there is a new approach to Soviet foreign policy, and I would endorse that rather telling quote from the speech at the Party Congress to the party. I would also confirm the third conclusion, that the structure of the making of foreign policy is very much Mr. Gorbachev's in the running thereof. That should not be forgotten. However, I would add that one gets the impression that he is running foreign policy with a relaxed and reasonably consulted and agreeable leadership. In other words, he is taking advice and is relaxed with those who advise him. I would agree with the fourth and final conclusion, that the Soviet Union is anxious to negotiate. I wanted to read all those into the record because they are important.
I shall make one preliminary point before I begin what I want to say. It is relevant to my own speech. It is nonsense, in terms of taking a grip and assessing approaches that come out of the Soviet Union, always to say that those approaches amount to propaganda, that their major motivation is one of propaganda and that anyone who happens to agree with any part of them is somehow being anti-American. I shall address the House frankly. I would say to the House, as has been said before —I have said it myself in previous debates on foreign affairs— that in the course of dealing with Americans and American policy one is only making the same points as many people in the United States are making themselves. There is grave concern in the United States, as we all know, over aspects of foreign policy. I shall deal with some of the specifics, although not at too great a length.
I should like to cover the current situation from both the Washington and the Moscow angle and then to concentrate a little on the position of Britain, the contribution that we can make, and how vigorously we should prosecute the options available to us.
It is impossible to ignore the United States in a foreign affairs debate, because our policy is rightly intertwined with that of our major ally. We are extremely dependent upon the Americans. Questions therefore arise as to how independent we can be in our approaches to them and our comments about them. I hope that the whole House also agrees that the NATO Alliance must be the backbone of any foreign policy that we may have. We are in the debt of the United States and we shall remain so. I approve of that and fully go along with it. Moreover, we are more dependent on the United States than most countries because, as a result of a decision taken in Nassau in 1961, we depend upon the Americans for our national nuclear deterrent. I fully agree with that policy and differ from the right hon. Member for Leeds, East and the Labour party on that aspect, although with the foreign policy aspects of the right hon. Gentleman's speech a large measure of agreement will emerge.
1102
My hon. Friends do not want to hear me go on about the special relationship with the United States, but it is important to acknowledge it. We are dealing with friends and with a democracy. We are dealing with people who differ among themselves and we can be reasonably vigorous in our approach to them. I believe that in the longer term we shall pay a price if we do not adopt such an approach.
At present the United States and Washington are under the domination—that is perhaps a rather extreme way of putting it—of a hard-line Right-wing Administration. There is no hiding that fact. They stood for election as such and were elected as such. Having attended the Republican convention in Dallas, President Reagan's inauguration, and so on. I confess that I had sincere hopes that President Reagan would want to go down as a man of peace in his second term of office. I have to tell the House, however, that I no longer believe that to be so, and I am not alone in that view. I shall refer to the Pentagon in less colourful terms than were used earlier, but aided by the newer appointments at the White House the Pentagon appears to all intents and purposes to be getting its way. Nevertheless, there are great divisions within the United States and in Washington. Congressional feeling is extremely strong. There are misgivings about SALT 2, about the rearmament programme and how on earth it is to be financed, about central America and even to a lesser extent about the middle east.
It is clear to anyone who visits Washington that there is also an clement, albeit not the predominant element, which firmly believes that the arms race and general policy can be conducted on the lines of stretching the Soviet economy because it is not strong enough to stand the competition and will eventually decline, if not collapse, with the possibility of a change in the system and the belief that in any event the capitalist system will eventually triumph. That is not the majority view, but it is a serious matter because anyone who tangles with Soviet patriotism or attempts to push the Soviet Union to the wall is adopting an extremely dangerous policy. The opposite is perhaps much better—the hope that Mr. Gorbachev's internal plans will be successful, leading to a more relaxed attitude to the outside world and progress on the important questions of human rights, contacts, transfers, visits, tourism and the rest. However, there seems little prospect of any change in the approach of the American Administration until the next presidential election in 1988.
My impression of Soviet policy is that the Soviet Union is playing it long and playing it patiently, but it will not go on doing so for ever and at some time we in the West may have to respond more positively. The views that I have expressed in previous foreign policy debates were unchanged by my visit to the Soviet Union. The last thing that I want is for the House to imagine that I have come back from the Soviet Union trumpeting out some great new view as a result of my visit. I am repeating the views that I have expressed before, but with the additional confirmation of a further visit to the Soviet Union and further contact with its leadership at the highest level.
I am absolutely convinced—this is most important—that the Soviet Union is genuine in its desire for peace and for dialogue. I do not say that naively. We are dealing with tough people who have a different system and the way ahead will not be easy. There will be hard negotiations ahead, but I believe that the desire of the Soviet leaders is genuine and will have to be met. They are not insane so

1103
they want peace, not war, but there are also practical reasons relating to the Soviet economy. They want to concentrate on their economy. With due respect to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) it goes a little further than the strategic defence initiative, although that is one element. The emphasis in the Soviet Union since the change in leadership has been to concentrate on internal change and the speed and extent of the changes have been remarkable by any standards, especially by conservative standards of conduct in the Soviet Union over many years under a system that tends to stagnate.
There is evidence that the Soviet leaders want progress in that direction and they know that they cannot afford the arms race as well. Nevertheless, they will afford it if they have to, because they are determined about it. The economy is the practical reason for their willingness to do business. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, we can do business with them, and I believe that we should get on with it as quickly as possible because the mood will not last forever. Even Communist leaders have to deliver to their people. Even Soviet leaders can stick out their necks only for so long before they suffer, hopefully not by being chopped off. A leadership that has been so dynamic in bringing about change cannot expect to be universally loved by all those who have been moved or dismissed. The moves have been extensive throughout the system, and we saw evidence of that.
Mr. David Crouch: As my hon. Friend knows, I also visited the Soviet Union. On the important question of the economic problems facing the Soviet Union, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is the need to earn hard currency to buy grain to make up its agricultural deficiency? The cost of that grain is between $6 billion and $7 billion per year and total earnings in hard currency are no more than that due to the collapse of oil prices and the halving of the 60 per cent. of hard currency earnings attributable to oil.
Mr. Temple-Morris: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is an important aspect. It was clear that the Soviet Union wished to trade with us to gain more hard currency rather than relying on the prices of raw materials such as oil. There are undoubted possibilities for British business. That point should be made loud and clear. Companies should get out there and see what they can do by way of joint enterprises, and so on.
By way of illustration of the difficulties that face bridge builders, when we were in the Soviet Union at one moment we were talking about the summit and the very next moment we heard on the news the United States pronouncement threatening abrogation of the SALT 2 treaty. That did not make life easy. At that moment I was not exactly proud of the Western Alliance.
In regard to the summit, I want to emphasise what has been said. I am sure that the Soviet Union wants the summit, but it must be able to deliver. Leaders of all systems have to deliver. That was put graphically to us by Mr. Gorbachev when he said that to go on any basis other than the agreement of something that was carefully prepared would be to deceive the people. It would deceive the people to talk agreeably for five and a half hours and come out smiling, as applied to only one summit. More has to be achieved at the next summit.
I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to bring what influence they can to bear upon the
1104
United States not to miss the opportunity of another summit, because the Soviet Union is willing to participate. The British people want and expect that. If things get difficult in East-West and international relations, commensurate with that difficulty will be a mounting electoral relevance of that aspect of foreign affairs. At the next election I do not think that any of us can expect not to mention foreign affairs. The worse things get, the more we will have to talk about it. I do not want us or our Government to be on the defensive.
In regard to the United Kingdom position, I have dealt with the need for a slightly more vigorous approach and greater independence. I appreciate the background of the United States and NATO, the fear of American isolationism and all the rest of it. Nevertheless, there is a duty to speak out on such topics as SDI and star wars, but I do not propose to go into detail because I have already done so in a previous debate. On SALT 2, I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government for doing their utmost to save the day.
Progress can be made, and we should speak out to achieve it, on chemical weapons, accompanied by verification, and on nuclear testing. The whole Soviet attitude on verification was simple. It was, "Just come on, try us and see." I do not see why we should not do that. If it did not work out, it would be simple to dispense with all that had been said as propaganda. In other words, the gauntlet was thrown down firmly and I think that it should be picked up.
As for the future, one deals very much with the United States and the Western Alliance in debates on East-West relations, but we must not forget our European links and our eventual future with Europe. Because of the dependence on the United States that I have been talking about, the British voice is regrettably getting weaker rather than stronger. That voice represents a considerable force for good in the world, but it can be exercised more powerfully if it is concerted with a policy that recognises our future as being within Europe.
There is a fundamental choice that has not yet been made. I say that advisedly and deliberately. People who try to have it all ways often end up with nothing. Our voice should always he fielded in these matters to the maximum effect. The world expects it. I am confident enough to feel that the world would like it too.
7.13 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) in the debate, because he and I shared a car in the wanderings in the Soviet Union that have been described extensively. If the executive of the Leominster Conservative association and the executive of Leominster Liberal association knew the degree of political co-operation that we were able to develop as we discussed these issues, he and I might both be in trouble. Today he has spoken clearly, frankly and with much the same emphasis as so many members of that delegation shared in their reaction to the visit to the Soviet Union. The Minister of State should be aware that the hon. Gentleman gave a true reflection of reactions on all sides. Even though we may draw some different conclusions, our assessments were similar.
If there is one depressing thought that hangs over a foreign affairs debate in present circumstances, it is that to many of us there is no apparent distinctive British

1105
foreign policy, at least on the part of the Prime Minister. That impression was brought vividly home by her support of and direct complicity in the United States bombing of Libya, an act so misguided that it is now being openly questioned at the most senior level in the White House. The Prime Minister is President Reagan's most reliable and compliant friend, but it is of no value in a friendship not to be a candid friend and not to be prepared to take a clearly different view at times. That the right hon. Lady has failed to do. I say that as a dedicated supporter of NATO and our alliance with the United States.
I am strongly opposed to those who rank the United States and the USSR as two equivalent super-powers and two equivalent societies which pose the same threats and the same dangers to us and who are equally hostile to us. They cannot be viewed in that light by anyone who values democracy and the extent to which the United States exemplifies that democracy, but at present it happens to be the case that the foreign policy of the Soviet Union is moving marginally in directions of which I and my right hon. and hon. Friends approve, while the foreign policy of the United States has been moving steadily away from those directions over the last few years. That view is shared by a great many people within the United States of America.
I believe that many of President Reagan's foreign policies add up to a recipe for disaster. That is why I wish to see a stronger British challenge to many of those policies, including those on East-West relations and arms control. That is why I wish to see a stronger British effort to end United States support for authoritarian regimes like that in Chile, and of American attempts to overthrow the Government of Nicaragua. That is why I want to see a stronger British effort in other areas of United States foreign policy where the United States is exercising a damaging influence.
To take a specific example, let us consider Namibia, which we did not discuss yesterday in the extensive and good debate on South Africa. I hope that the British Government will seek to use their influence to keep Namibia on the agenda and to stop the current American attempt to link Namibia with the ending of Cuban involvement in Angola. I am in favour of the ending of Cuban involvement, but it is not relevant to the solution of the Namibian problem, nor is it reasonable to visit upon those fighting for the genuine independence of Namibia responsibility for Cuban actions in that other territory.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: How can the hon. Gentleman possibly express that sentiment in the light of the fact that South African policy on Namibia is significantly motivated by the Cuban presence in Angola?
Mr. Beith: South Africa involvement in Namibia has been to defy the United Nations, to defy the international community and to deny democracy and self-determination to the people of that country over a long period. Currently, the fears of the South African Government arc indeed exacerbated by their relationship to Angola, in which they have a substantial military involvement in backing the UNITA forces. In any objective assessment of the rights of the people of Namibia, it is irrelevant to seek to apply the criterion of Cuban disengagement.
On the issue of East-West relations, which has dominated the debate so far, all of us who took part in the
1106
recent visit to Moscow were impressed by the shrewdness and relative open-mindedness of General Secretary Gorbachev. We reached perhaps three similar conclusions. The first is that Gorbachev is serious about what he has to do to make changes in the Soviet economy and to raise the standard of living of the people. He is applying himself to that task. I see his recent visit to Hungary as part of the process by which he learns from other states and compares other relevant experience. There are great opportunities for British trade in the longer term as that process goes on. That will require some revision of our present COCOM rules and the extent to which we restrict technological imports of things that the Soviet Union can buy as single items freely on the open market in other parts of the world.
We all gained the impression that the Soviet Union means business about arms control. That impression is confirmed by more recent statements and by what Mr. Gorbachev said about SDI. That statement went much further than earlier ones. I believe that the US signals on SALT 2 are the wrong signals. They are symptomatic of the fact that around President Reagan are several people who simply do not believe in arms control. I acquit the British Government of holding that view, but there are among the President's advisers some people who do not believe in arms control and do not want it. They want a substantial arms build-up. They see a commercial advantage for a lot of people in the United States in that, and they are rushing like mad to get as many SDI contracts as possible in place before the end of President Reagan's term of office.
Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman will recall that Mr. Gorbachev raised all these issues when he talked to us, but that President Gromyko spoke at greater length. He said that the American Establishment had dealt blow after blow against SALT 2 and had finally put a high explosive charge under it, but that he did not think the American people wanted to bury it. He made some distinction between certain politicians and the wishes of the American people. He made it quite clear that they wanted SALT 2 and that he hoped that we would help to do something about that.
Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman faithfully records what was said in answer to a question. It is rather interesting that President Gromyko did not himself raise complaints about SALT 2—his comments came in answer to a question raised by our delegation.
I must differentiate between my view and that of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). In some of his public responses he seemed almost to be eating out of the hand of General Secretary Gorbachev when he suggested arrangements that a British Government could come to with the Soviet Government. The Foreign Secretary made much of the incongruity of the proposition that we could achieve a great deal by reducing the number of Soviet missiles in exchange for removing British deterrent. That is not a useful calculation, for the reasons that the Foreign Secretary gave. The arguments for and against the British deterrent concern whether it has a real defence utility. That argument should be taking place rather more widely than in the confines of the alliance to which I happen to belong. It is a significant argument.
The Foreign Secretary did not refer to the other aspects of what the right hon. Member for Leeds, East said concerning the possibility that, in exchange for the

1107
removal of United States nuclear bases in Britain, the Soviet Union would agree not to target its weapons on the United Kingdom. That proposition is so valueless that I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman attached any credibility to it. It seemed to me to be a way of getting some return for a decision, which has already been taken in the Labour party, to remove what I believe is the central feature of our nuclear defence.
Even those who are firmly wedded to the desirability, on wider political or strategic grounds, of having a British nuclear deterrent must concede that central to the defence of the United Kingdom is the presence of the NATO nuclear deterent on British soil. If that is removed, our fundamental defence stance is, to use the right hon. Gentleman's words, destabilised. It is the basis of our current defence. The British deterent poses a quite separate question, which is whether we could conceive of launching a nuclear response when the NATO deterrent was not brought to bear because the United States did not regard it as right to launch it. On that, as with the quite separate issue of whether there should be a direct exchange between the Soviet Union and Britain on the British deterrent, I do not believe that we should do side deals with the Soviet Union. Our role is to seek a wider settlement and an arms agreement which involves the two super-powers and us alongside, not to do a side deal, because that would not achieve general disarmament.
I should like to mention a third impression which many of us got but which has not been mentioned so far. I do not believe that General Secretary Gorbachev has addressed himself to the civil rights problems in his country or to the implications of changes in the style of the Soviet economy for what people will want in terms of civil rights and freedom. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) raised these issues on our behalf. I see no sign of any improvement in civil rights in regard to political dissidents or religious groups. There are many professing Christians who are imprisoned, and there are many Jews who want to emigrate.
We hope that we will get a positive response to some of our suggestions and the cases that we took up, but I see no positive sign yet of a crack in the basic Soviet attitude. The Soviet Union's efforts to win friends in the West would be enormously strengthened if it made changes in regard to civil rights. Moreover, it would greatly assist General Secretary Gorbachev's domestic policies if he ceased to make enemies of a great many people who would make perfectly good Soviet citizens if only he gave them a chance to be. Nobody should have any illusions that the significant changes in Soviet foreign policy or in how its economy is run signal, as yet, any change in basic civil rights—the position in that respect remains as worrying and unsatisfactory as I believe it has been for a long time.
Mr. Crouch: The hon. Gentleman referred to my raising human rights with General Secretary Gorbachev and the President. Does the hon. Gentleman remember that when I raised the matter with Mr. Gorbachev he smiled and said, "I know what is coming."? I think that I dared to respond, "This is no laughing matter." I told him and the President that this was an issue that clouded public opinion in the West and was taken serously here, that no matter how seriously we discuss disarmament, verification, SALT 2 and the like, human rights were of prime importance to us.
Mr. Beith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We tried, and continue to try, as I hope do the Government, to get
1108
it across to the Soviet leadership that this is not some propaganda exercise. We do not raise these matters to belittle the Soviet Union; we raise them because they are of the deepest concern to our constituents and a great many other people in the West.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Beith: Much as I should like to give way, I shall not do so as I shall be in trouble with the Chair, because I have a number of other matters to raise.
I should now like to consider the middle east. I am glad that the Prime Minister visited Israel. I am glad that she was moved, as she clearly was, by her visit to Yad Vashern—a reminder of the horrific experience of the Jewish people. I am also glad that she found so much warmth towards Britain among so many Israelis. Those were welcome features of the visit. I am also glad that she made an effort to talk to some people from the Palestinian community, despite the difficulties attendant upon arranging that. I am deeply sorry, however, that the visit was able to achieve so little in advancing their cause or in advancing a general resolution of middle east problems.
There is no escaping the role and responsibility of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in the solution of that problem, and it is no use trying to bypass it or assuming that other leaders can be found to replace the PLO in that capacity. There is a lesson there for Israel, Jordan, Britain and the United States, which keeps looking around for means of avoiding talking to the PLO. There are also lessons there for Syria, which has been trying systematically to undermine the leadership of the PLO.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Beith: I have just said that I shall not. I will be in trouble with the Chair if I give way much more.
In a debate such as this, we must also pay attention to some of the forgotten or nearly forgotten conflicts of the world. I refer, for example, to Afghanistan, where the Soviet Union is still present in large numbers and increasingly embarrassed about it. It is looking for ways of reducing its commitment. We must keep up the diplomatic pressure to make the Soviet leaders recognise that the West cannot stand by and watch a country such as Afghanistan invaded and make no complaint or fail to raise the issue. I was struck, during the visit of Hu Yaobang of the People's Republic of China, by how strongly China still feels about the Russian presence in Afghanistan. That was a very successful visit, and Hu Yaobang brought life and sparkle to the diplomatic scene when he was over here. There is no doubt about the strength of Chinese feeling about the continued Soviet involvement in Afghanistan, and we should be as ready as the Chinese are to continue the pressure on that issue.
In Eritrea, there is still massive Soviet involvement in backing the Ethiopian regime with its denial of self-determination to the Eritreans. That battle is increasing, and civil war in that country makes a solution to the famine problems impossible. It greatly worsens the problems about which so many British people care deeply and in respect of which so many of them have tried to help and contribute.
Moroccan occupation continues in the western Sahara, and the people of that country continue to be denied their

1109
rights, despite OAU approval and the approval of about half the nations of the world for the recovery of their statehood and status, to which they are clearly entitled on any assessment of international law. I hope that the British Government will not rest on the rather cosy relationship that they have sometimes had with Morocco and that they will continue to press that case.
Earlier I mentioned the situation in Sri Lanka, and the Foreign Secretary kindly said that he would continue to press that point with the Indian Foreign Minister during his visit to see whether there are ways in which we can help to secure resolutions to a problem to which there is no military solution. Unless there is some constitutional development there, there cannot be a military solution.
Miss Betty Boothroyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Beith: The hon. Lady makes it impossible for me to say no.
Miss Boothroyd: I understand that in the last 48 hours the Sri Lankan Cabinet has agreed proposals to put to the all-party conference to be held next month in Sri Lanka, which will create provisional councils in that country with a considerable measure of devolution and opportunities for co-ordination between the regions. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to welcome those proposals and to wish them well, while at the same time wishing for a cessation of hostilities on the part of the security forces and the Tamil extremists.
Mr. Beith: I know that the hon. Lady takes a close interest in what goes on in Sri Lanka. I have not studied the proposals that she described, but I hope that she will use all her influence to ensure that the Government of Sri Lanka recognise that they must make significant constitutional moves if they are to avoid a continued, insoluble problem in that country.
Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Beith: This will be my last occasion.
Mr. Corbyn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he reflect that one of the problems in Sri Lanka has been the systematic exclusion of the Tamil people from the constitutional process? I believe that to be at the root of the problem, and it is compounded by the large number of arms sales by a number of western European countries to the Government of Sri Lanka, as a result of which the civil war is now raging. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one part of the peace process would be the cessation of arms sales to the Government of Sri Lanka?
Mr. Beith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about arms sales. I am glad that I have allowed two balanced interventions on Sri Lanka.
We must be given back our self-respect in relation to foreign policy and should be given the right to an independent British foreign policy. On several occasions, it has seemed as if the Foreign Secretary has been on the point of doing precisely that. I felt so when he made his notable speech on the strategic defence initiative. There is no better critique in existence of the SDI programme than the 18-point summary of its weaknesses and drawbacks that was delivered by the Foreign Secretary, but scarcely
1110
had he made it than the Prime Minister came to the House effectively to dismiss it. She made it very clear, very quickly, that she would back SDI all the way.
When the Foreign Secretary spoke in Halifax, Nova Scotia and gave some indication of Western and European concern about the American attitude to SALT 2, he was beginning to show the signs of an independent British foreign policy, but it only needed the Prime Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and that independence quickly disappeared from the Government's stance.
Even today, I felt that there was a coded criticism of the United States in what the Foreign Secretary said about his hopes that the United States would feel the need not to breach SALT 2. I wonder whether the Prime Minister will come to the Dispatch Box tomorrow and find words to disagree with that as well and to make it clear that such independence is not to be tolerated.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tim Renton): I remind the hon. Gentleman that in answering questions about SALT 2 the Prime Minister has already used almost exactly similar language and pointed out that she hopes strongly that SALT 2 will be observed by both sides.
Mr. Beith: What is it about our Prime Minister that makes even her choice of the same phrases as the Foreign Secretary sound totally different in flavour and meaning? There is something about our Prime Minister that makes her able to convince large sections of Right-wing Republican opinion in the United States that she is totally with them, while convincing many people both in America and this country who hold rather different views that she is very much against them. The Foreign Secretary evokes a rather different response.
Indeed, I think that the Prime Minister could win the Republican primary in California outright, but the stance that would make it easy for her to do so will help to make it impossible for her to win the next general election in this country. I believe that the lack of independence and self-respect in foreign policy is something with which the British people are becoming increasingly impatient.
7.35 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter: Fate sometimes smiles on Back Benchers, and, having failed to catch your eye in last night's debate on South Africa, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of returning to that theme without apology, sure in the knowledge that I have on my side the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) who declared yesterday that the South Africa debate
"is one of the most important issues which the House has ever debated".—[Official Report, 17 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 901.]
I do not dissent from that view. The passing of about 24 hours has allowed a few particles of dust to settle. It has given us some time for limited reflection. It gives us time to be selective and to extract from yesterday's debate points of commission, so to speak, of particular significance and points of omission of similar significance.
A debate on South Africa may to some observers be seen as the chosen battlefield for a cavalry charge by the Right wing of the Conservative party which is met by a counter-charge from the Left wing of the Labour party. That leaves quite a number of us as innocent bystanders, increasingly confused as the exchange becomes more heated.

1111
During much of last night's debate I felt that all too often the fundamental objective was overlooked. What in the de-imperialist and de-colonial era can we possibly do about South Africa? The objective of what we do and say must surely be to try to encourage those people who can create a fairer and more equitable society in South Africa to do so and to discourage those people who do not want that objective from pursuing their aims. During much of last night's debate, that fundamental simplistic objective was lost sight of.
I have chosen three themes, and I shall be selective and somewhat disjointed in my comments because I am aware that I am pursuing a debate that has passed. I want to talk first about the changes that have happened in South Africa. I want to look again at selected aspects of the debate on sanctions and then, in more detail, and perhaps more controversially, at what by implication we appear to be demanding from South Africa.
The hours of debate yesterday in my judgment produced insufficient and inadequate acknowledgement and recognition of the changes that have taken place in South Africa. I was in Pretoria in January 1985 and spent the best part of a week in discussion with what for convenience one can call the Pretoria establishment. That was 18 months ago. I listened to what they said and drew my conclusions.
In January 1985 I concluded that the Pretoria establishment did not want fundamental change. It was playing with words and would adapt superficially and insignificantly to preserve the status quo. Just over a year later, in February 1986, I returned to Pretoria and had almost identical discussions with the same people. I detected a fundamental difference. Within those 12 months the Pretoria establishment had changed its tune. It was no longer playing around for a superficial representation of apartheid. It was talking of fundamental change.
I shall not go much further than that because the next dimension of my analysis is that the Pretoria establishment did not know its goal or objective and, therefore, the route it should follow and, therefore, the speed at which it should go. Nevertheless, a vital change had happened in 12 months, which was that the heart of Afrikanerdom had realised that things could not continue as they had been doing and as, perhaps, in its heart of hearts it would like them to continue. Yesterday, Opposition Members debased, devalued and weakened their case. Obviously, there are strong arguments for the imposition of sanctions, but Opposition Members did not give due acknowledgement to a significant change that has taken place in the thinking of the Afrikaner.
I have now seen the video of last Monday's TV-am programme, which included an exchange between a spokesman from the South African embassy and the Leader of the Opposition. The embassy official argued that the South African Government had taken a number of significant steps towards dismantling and removing apartheid. The Leader of the Opposition dismissed him as a "fibber". We could spend a long time arguing about the delineation between grand apartheid, petty apartheid and the whole area in between, but during the past two years or more there have been most significant changes in South African society. I ask the House to consider the removal of job reservations; the repealing of the Mixed Marriages Act; of the Immorality Act; and of influx control; from the perspective of the Afrikaner, what amounts to the
1112
constitutional revolution of the establishment of the tricameral Parliament. There is also the extension of freehold rights for blacks and the declared objectives of education parity for all population groups. That is just a selection. Five or 10 years ago none of that was remotely conceivable in the history of the development of the South African nation.
The embassy official, whom I happen to know and respect, was not telling fibs when he said that Pretoria was no longer defending apartheid, but he did not go the whole way. The greater truth, which he neither contradicted nor asserted, is that Pretoria does not know what it is defending. That is an essential dimension of the crisis that is too often too little perceived by many people who presume to participate in the debate on South Africa. Pretoria does not know where it is going, the route it should take, or the speed at which it should travel. So much for the changes which have happened.
I now turn to the central issue of sanctions and the degree to which we should or should not impose further "effective economic measures" as the Opposition would' have us do. Last night the House dismissed that proposition, and it was utterly right to do so. However, I agree with Opposition Members on one essential point. The Government's amendment substituted for "effective economic measures" the phraseology "effective measures". I listened to virtually all the debate and left completely confused about what the Government meant by "effective measures". If the debate demonstrated, anything, it demonstrated the meaninglessness of that expression. There are no effective measures other than the wholesale economic measures which Opposition Members wish to see implemented. I was further struck forcefully by the Government's inability to attach any meaning to that expression.
For my part, I would neither support nor refuse to support the concept of "effective measures", unless it could be explained to me what those measures were. At present I am none the wiser.
Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend accept that there are considerable difficulties in setting out precisely what is to be done in this context at this juncture, and that we have several weeks in which to get things right? Furthermore., does he accept that it is absolutely essential to bear in mind that, although some people would like to see apartheid dismantled, as I would, others would indulge their moral consciences at the expense of the carnage of black people, if things went wrong.
Mr. Hunter: Once again, on this topic as on many others, I find myself embracing the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. That is an added dimension to the complexity of the debate which we had last night and which will continue. I would prefer the debate to have been postponed until the Government had pursued negotiations with Commonwealth Heads of State, the European Community, the seven industrial nations and so on
Mr. Donald Anderson: Is not the hon. Gentleman being a little unfair? If he had listened carefully to the speeches of the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, he would have seen at least some attempt to give signals, but one which could not be taken further because it was constrained by the complete intransigence of the Prime Minister in this area.
Mr. Hunter: No. Until the last sentiment I could agree with much of that. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, I shall develop an answer to that point.
In our debate last October I declared my opposition to further economic measures against South Africa. During the intervening months the position has demonstrably and irrefutably deteriorated. This has led some of my hon. Friends to change the emphasis in their thinking and to believe that, perhaps, we should reconsider the position. Indeed, we should always reassess. However, I have confirmed and consolidated my opinion of last October that the imposition of further economic sanctions against South Africa would be highly undesirable. The arguments against sanctions were well rehearsed last night, so I will accelerate through them.
The first essential question is how effectively sanctions can be implemented. In a sense it is a peripheral point: I am arguing not about their merits or otherwise, but about the practical course of action to follow. If sanctions were not implemented universally, we would merely lose our commercial interests and hand over a free market to our competitors—the sanctions busters. That is peripheral. Let us assume, however, that sanctions can be implemented effectively.
There was one omission from last night's debate. I apologise if I am mistaken in saying that not one hon. Member pointed out that the first casualties of effective economic sanctions against South Africa would be.1·5million black immigrant workers in South Africa.
Mr. Budgen: They did.
Mr. Hunter: I apologise if I missed that point. I do not recall it being made. It would be a long and arduous march home for 1·5 million people. Perhaps some would be herded on to cattle wagons and sent back by railroads. Many would not survive physically. None would survive financially. One and a half million is a lot of human lives.
The second victims would be the blacks in South Africa whose jobs, lifestyles, and financial expectations would be hit. More to the point, those to whom social spending and Government programmes are directed would be casualties.
The economies of the front-line states—the border states—would be savaged by effective economic sanctions.
A further dimension was not stressed sufficiently in yesterday's debate. The debate more or less assumed that, in the event of the implementation of sanctions, the South African Government would sit idly by and endure whatever had to be endured. There is a further dimension—that of counter-sanctions. Peter Younghusband, a South African journalist, in an article in the Daily Mail, of all newspapers, a week or so ago, said that counter-sanctions would wreak havoc on the economy of the entire African continent.
Each year, $200 million-worth of goods go from South Africa to the rest of the African continent. An amount of $1 million goes back to South Africa. If that $200 million were cut off, what would happen? Ninety-nine per cent. of Lesotho's imports are from South Africa. The figure for Swaziland is 91 per cent. and for Botswana 88 per cent. The President of Zimbabwe acknowledged that his country would last three weeks without its supply routes from South Africa. If we implement wholesale economic sanctions against South Africa, and if the South Africans
1114
indulge in counter-sanctions, within two months we would have to call off the effort because we could not finance the crippling burden which our policy would inflict on other countries, some of whom are independent Commonwealth countries.
There are two further misconceptions which, in my judgment, ultimately destroy the validity of the arguments for sanctions. The misconception of lesser importance is the proposition that sanctions are a nice, cosy, remote and non-violent means of creating change in South African society. They are not. Deliberately to impoverish and starve is to promote and provoke violence. Deliberately to promote and provoke violence cannot be right. To believe that by promoting and provoking violence in South Africa one can create a more just and equitable society is self-delusion, pure and simple.
A greater misconception is the ultimate fallacy in the argument in favour of the imposition of sanctions. Suppose they work. Suppose we irrevocably destroy South Africa financially. What then? Do hon. Members believe that by cornering an Afrikaner and destroying his economic well-being they will turn him, overnight, into a western enlightened liberal? They would achieve nothing of the sort.
We talk about the laager mentality of the Afrikaner. Once upon a time, the Afrikaner nation, in its embryonic state, was forced into an inner laager. On 15 December 1838, 10,000 black men attacked that inner laager. Six hours later, 3,000 were dead. The forces of law and order in South Africa have not yet started to deliver their goods. If we push the Afrikaner into a position of no hope and no retreat, we shall not achieve our objective of creating a fairer and more equitable society in that country.
Economic sanctions have worked—not economic sanctions imposed by politicians but economic sanctions which are the result of that indefinable quality, business confidence. There is no significant new investment in South Africa. Whatever disinvestment can take place under the law of the land is taking place. What Oppostion hon. Members seek to achieve, through advocating a policy for the future, is already the reality. Business confidence has gone. There is a remarkable naivety in the cry for effective economic measures. They have already been taken by the international business community, not by the politician. That is the tragedy. How is progress financed? How are social programmes financed outside a flourishing national economy?
Last night Opposition Members referred to education in South Africa. They pointed out the disparity in spending on a white child as compared with a black child. This year, the public expenditure programme in South Africa is running at 41 billion rands. If there were to be equality of spending on education for black children and white children, that amount must be doubled. If there is no economic base on which to finance that spending, where will it come from?
What do we expect of South Africa? The Government have said frequently that they do not seek to impose a form of government on South Africa. Rather, they seek the creation of a form of government acceptable to all races. I think that Opposition Members would broadly accept that. Perhaps they would prefer the expression "acceptable to the majority". In the debate yesterday, words such as "democracy", "freedom", "unitary state", and so on, were used. What do they mean in reality? If a President of Tanzania says that he does not believe in democracy and

1115
a President of Zimbabwe says that he does not believe in democracy—I ask the question only because I want to know the answer—why should a President of South Africa believe in democracy? Why do we demand of South Africa more than we demand of the rest of the African continent, Commonwealth countries included?
The forces of evolution are at work in South Africa. There have been significant achievements in the past two years. My belief still is that the forces of evolution in South Africa need help and encouragement, not discouragement, and that the House was right last night to reject the proposition of wholesale economic measures.
8 pm
Mr. Leo Abse: The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) has clearly learnt what most parliamentarians learn—never throw away the notes of an undelivered speech. I advise him that, if he is not to cause dissonances in House of Commons debates, he should put his notes in the drawer for longer than 24 hours.
All of us are concerned that the summit talks may be again at risk. It is inevitable when such an awesome possibility arises that people of my generation are bound to look back to the end of the war. How did it come about that all the high hopes of co-operation held by my generation during the immediate post-way years—that the West would work with the Soviet Union—were so speedily dashed? NATO was established and the long cold war began.
Our husbandry of our atomic know-how, for the sake of what proved, inevitably, to be a short-term advantage, was undoubtedly one of the main reasons. But there were good reasons for the Soviet Union, after the long appeasement years, to be fearful again. Even more important reasons were clearly shaping Russia's attitude. I recalled them vividly a few weeks ago when, for the first time in 40 years, I was in Vienna, observing the obscene election of Waldheim and witnessing the appalling manner in which the Austrians. unlike the Germans, seek to exculpate themselves from their own terrible guilt. I naturally thought of the immediate post-war years. By the accident of war, I had found myself awaiting demobilisation in a small RAF unit—the only one in Vienna—surrounded by a sea of Russian troops. That was my first contact with them. Some of their political commissars were Jewish and I was able to speak to them in my sort of Yiddish.
Mr. Winnick: Welsh.
Mr. Abse: I may have spoken Yiddish with a Welsh accent, but those commissars were able to understand me. I dare say that those poor fellows were killed off in Stalin's paranoic years. The bulk of the troops however were kids, and I thought of them as such even then when I was a young man. They were simple, untutored men scraped up from the fringes of the Soviet empire. The depletion of the Soviet Union's manpower was tragically visible to us. That impress—the reminder of the 20 million Russians who had lost their lives—has always been with me and, more importantly and more relevantly, it has always been with the Soviet leadership who, until recently, were men of my age, or, indeed, usually older. A failure of imagination by the West to appreciate that those losses prompted the compulsive, often seemingly irrational, security needs of
1116
Russia led to the speedy contretemps and misunderstandings that, within two years of the end of the war, were to bring about the great and dangerous division that has extended, as has been emphasised, for almost 40 years.
Now, when I listen to the interesting contributions by hon. Members who had the privilege of visiting Russia with the delegation, it is clear that a new generation of Soviet leaders is emerging, less shaped, perhaps less distorted, by wartime memories. There is, too, a new awareness in Western Europe of the need to rethink policies towards Russia. I emphasise that that is not how the United States of America sees it. During an academic sojourn of four or five weeks in the United States during its pre-election period, I saw people who pressed home to me that the gulf between European and Reagan thinking was wider than the Atlantic ocean. Doubtless, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said, there has been a shift from the more sophisticated east to the south and west of America which has played its part, but it is unhappily true that the British Government are colluding in widening the gap between the United States and Europe, as evidenced by the Libyan adventure. Constant apologies for our subjugation to American policies come from the Prime Minister and from the leader of the Social Democratic Party, who in the past few weeks has lectured us about the dangers of anti-Americanism. That constant refrain, which we heard again from the Foreign Secretary, is based on their belief that our defence security wholly depends upon America.
If we act on such an assumption, we are on the road to Armageddon. The aeroplanes from American bases here could one day carry H-bombs inviting our obliteration. It is nonsense to believe that military necessity leaves us with no alternative but to condone Reagan's self-indulgent caprices. The Libyan intervention shows how important it is that we free ourselves from our thraldom to the United States.
There are more than 250 million people in Western Europe with tremendous industrial resources and long military and diplomatic experience, who are potentially able to defend themselves militarily and diplomatically against some 200 million Russians who are contending at the same time with 1 billion Chinese on their borders, with the rising dangers of Islamic fundamentalism in eastern Russia and with all the disgruntled peoples of eastern Europe. If we had a Government who genuinely placed upon their agenda the Europeanisation of west European security, instead of attempting to sabotage it—as occurred with the Anglo-American attack on Libya—we might avoid the final disaster.
Those who accuse people who speak like me, British people, of anti-Americanism and those whose emotional attachment to the United States is similar to that of the Leader of the SDP or the Prime Minister—who complain that the British seem to have been seized with an anti-American mood—are mocking the realism which they lack. It is no use us pretending that Reagan's America is that of Roosevelt or of Kennedy. There is abroad in the United States a dangerous politicised fundamentalism, an unhappy form of Christianity, that is soaked in gnosticism, a belief that this world is so sunk in evil that rescue is necessary. Such gnostic beliefs lead to the conclusion that there is a demiurge, or a limited evil power. That power is said to be the satanic representative of cosmic evil. It can then be speedily identified as the Russians and, therefore, must at all costs he overcome.

1117
United States policies are ambiguous because they are worked out within the ambience of President Reagan's provocative "evil empire" speeches. Those who, out of old affections, plead, as I suspect the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) pleaded in his interesting contribution, that Reagan is a mere blink in the history of American Presidents, should stop deceiving themselves and those whom they seek to influence.
Last week, we saw Vice-President Bush's setback against a fundamentalist contender for the presidency. We are speaking not of a wild fringe movement but of a movement in the main-stream of American politics. Europe could, if we permitted it, become the victim of that primitive mythology. It is almost impossible to open a newspaper without encountering corroboration of that new mood. The last bastion in the United States of America—the Supreme Court—has been breached with the President nominating Judge Scalia and making William Rehnquist the Chief Justice. That was, of course, applauded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the Rev. Pat Robertson, the fundamentalists who are having such an inimical influence upon America and upon American foreign policy.
The worst insanity that emerges from America's contemporary sick culture is Reagan's yearning for the fulfilment of what he has called his dream. That is the misshapen dream of star wars defence. Every depth psychologist would insist that what none of us can tolerate, and what we fear most, is to be reduced to utter helplessness—the utter helplessness of a babe. The goal of star wars is to be enabled to launch nuclear attacks upon an enemy without fear of retaliation. To aim to reduce the Soviet Union to helplessness is to invite pre-emptive retaliation. For Britain blithely to co-operate in such an adventure would be to co-operate in our suicide. Narcissistic rage, as the psychoanalysts describe it, can move groups as well as individuals. Such deep-seated rage, which has been provoked by concepts such as star wars, is relieved only by violence. But we should not be disengaging from American adventurism merely out of self-interest.
Last month, I wandered round Czechoslovakia. These days, in Britain, it is an almost forgotten country. No people in Europe have less deserved their fate. Betrayed at Munich by Britain, brutally ruled by Nazi Germany and then invaded by Russia, the Czechs nevertheless show extraordinary resilience, surviving the Russian occupation with wondrous ingenuity and pressing to their limits the parameters imposed upon them by the Soviet Union, yet never allowing their personal integrity to be eroded by the evasions that they are daily compelled to make. We owe it to such people to do everything possible to assist them. But so long as Britain and Europe remain locked into American policies, so long will the Russians wish to throw out their defensive perimeters to produce the greatest possible area within which they believe they have freedom to manoeuvre. That is why the hapless Russian service men, to whom no Czech will speak, remain in Czechoslovakia.
It is becoming increasingly clear that to assist such lands and ourselves, we need a considerable lurch in our foreign and defence policies. Fortunately, with the British people now taking an unusual interest in non-domestic affairs, there is every hope that, come the election, they will
1118
not be debauched by tax concessions and other bribes. I trust that, ere long, we shall have a Government more conscious of the fact that peace cannot be assured, as this Government believe, by deferring on almost every issue to dangerous American backwoodsmen.
8.15 pm
Sir Anthony Grant: Listening to the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse) and remembering what great campaigners both he and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) have been in the cause of Soviet jewry caused me to reflect that there must be a big improvement in the lot of those unhappy people before some of the euphoria that we heard from the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) is entirely justified.
As the debate started unnecessarily late, I shall not make a great tour d'horizon. I shall confine myself to the Western European Union.
The debate has prompted me to make two rather cynical observations. Listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) describing the oppressive South African measures that have been lifted from the backs of the unhappy black people—the marriage laws, the sexual repressions and others —reminded me that for many years successive Governments—the Conservative Government of which I was a member, and Labour Governments—so far from seeking to impose sanctions when all those oppressive
measures were still in force in South Africa, tried to encourage civil trade with South Africa. I make no comment, but merely make that observation.
I was inspired to make a second cynical observation after listening with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who mentioned Afghanistan. It was right that he should remind us—and it caused me to reflect—that about a third of the population of Afghanistan have become refugees. Those who have been killed in Afghanistan can be numbered not in tens, or hundreds, or thousands, but in hundreds of thousands. The amount of coverage of Afghanistan by our media has been about two or three hours. The coverage of South Africa must run into hundreds of hours. I merely make those observations without comment.
I shall confine my remarks to the Western European Union, of which I have been a member for nine years, serving on the defence committee and on the General Affairs Committee. We participate in the Western European Union because we believe that it is a vital political forum concerned with the defence of the West, because it is the political arm of NATO—the Atlantic Alliance—and because it involves the important contribution of France outside NATO. The seven European countries which shared views on Europe formed the Western European Union by treaty, animated by a desire for collective defence and committed to the Atlantic Alliance and the European Community.
The cornerstone of the treaty is article 5, which states:
"If any of the high contracting parties should be the object of an armed attack in Europe, the other high contracting parties will, in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, afford the party so attacked all the military and other aid and assistance in their power."
I quote that to demonstrate the importance of the Western European Union. The wording of the treaty is in some

1119
ways more powerful than that of NATO. In addition, in an age of highly technical defence, often cloaked in great secrecy, it is essential that there should be an instrument which is an effective communication between the military authorities and European public opinion.
The Western European Union is also a forum for discussion of civil, military, technical, technological and scientific co-operation. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who is chairman of the Committee on Scientific, Technological and Aerospace Questions, plays a notable and distinguished part in the Western European Union. That should he recorded by colleagues here who are not aware of the good work being done.
No organisation remains stable. It either grows and adapts to change or it dies. Over the nine years that I have been a member of the WEU, I have observed a steady decline in its effectiveness. Therefore, I rejoiced in the move to reactivate it at the Rome meeting in 1984. I thought that the WEU would play an enhanced role and that other nations would be encouraged to participate. I thought that the Council of Ministers and our own Ministers would share that view.
Alas, at the WEU meeting in Venice this year, Ministers showed little intention of achieving this. They poured cold water on the whole idea. I know that recently in Paris the secretary-general announced some initiatives and set up agencies of a relatively minor nature, but no real assurance was given that the WEU was to play an enhanced role.
The hopes of many members were dashed. As so often happens in European matters, initiatives and enthusiasms sink in the bureaucratic and diplomatic sludge. The WEU Assembly is often treated by the Council of Ministers perfunctorily and with little more than contempt on some occasions.
It suits the Council of Ministers to have the Assembly as a cosmetic front, but it seems determined to avoid anything being done, any change being made or any proposal being accepted that would result in Ministers and their officials being shaken out of their cosy, comfortable nest. I regret that in the nine years that I have been in the WEU I cannot recall a British Defence Minister coming to address the WEU. We are always pleased to see Foreign Office Ministers, and we were delighted to see the noble Lady, Baroness Young, at our last meeting. Defence is a fundamental subject. Other nations manage to field their top Defence Ministers. Why do we not do so as well?
My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, in a rather colourful phrase, described the dilemma faced by the Liberal and SDP Members on defence as meaning that they were likely to suffer obsolescence through inertia. I shall not burst a blood vessel if that happens to the alliance, but I do not want it to happen to the WEU.
I can give two recent examples of ministerial inertia. First, the President of the WEU, Mr. Caro, of France, proposed a powerful initiative for the WEU to help in the battle against terrorism.
In the Assembly of the WEU we spend hours debating this subject, condemning it, regretting it and deploring it, but nothing happens in the way of practical results. President Caro produced helpful ideas for the seven nations to co-ordinate their actions against this beastly modern scourge, but once again buckets of cold water were immediately poured on his idea by the Ministers. They said that they preferred to deal through the EEC,
1120
despite the fact that the EEC has shown remarkably little enterprise in this respect and, in the case of Greece, positive negligence.
Secondly, there is the problem of enlargement. The WEU either grows or it dies. I should have thought it was obvious that the inclusion of Portugal, which is keen to join and is a member of NATO, and later that of Spain, would enhance the interests of the WEU. It was most creditable of the Spanish people, so wisely led by the moderate Labour Government, to decide quite firmly that they wish to remain in NATO, despite the clamourings and squawkings of the lunatic Left. In addition, Denmark, Norway and even Turkey, if they so wished, could make a contribution to the WEU.
Such an enlargement is opposed by Ministers on the astonishing ground that in some way the political will of the Seven might be jeopardised by the accession of new candidates. What nonsense. What great political will does the WEU exercise now that would be disturbed by the presence of our oldest ally, Portugal? All that will be disturbed is the comfortable lethargy of the Council of Ministers.
Mr. Tindemans, the Belgian Foreign Minister, described what, in his view, were the three main obstacles to the enlargement or revitalisation of the WEU, all of which were completely inexplicable. The first was:
"the instinctive feelings of national and cultural identity that had to he overcome."
What does that mean? The second obstacle was:
"The post-war political concensus in many European countries was in danger of breaking down."
How will that be made worse by other nations joining the WEU?
Thirdly, he said:
"Matters relating to security have to be dealt with in a discreet way, and should not be shouted from the rooftops."
We all know that from our own Parliaments. At least he went on to say:
"The WEU could make a significant contribution to the cause of European unity, especially as its expertise encompasses the vital field of defence policy."
So it can.
Ministers of the WEU, and that includes ours, must show a great deal more drive and determination to make this organisation work in the interests of the defence of the West. I have no doubt about the commitment of my right hon. and learned Friends to the European cause or to the defence of our nation and of the West. However, I should like my hon. Friend the Minister of State to give an absolute assurance that the Government wholly support the WEU and its revitalisation and will do all that they can to encourage the lethargic other Ministers in the WEU to secure its advancement as rapidly as possible.
8.26 pm
Mr. Greville Janner: Like the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant), I shall in due course settle into my own corner of interest, but I shall first make a few detours, in view of what has so far been said.
It was sad to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) about South Africa, particularly the part that referred to the need to defer and avoid sanctions for the sake of the black people. Sometimes we should listen to the voices of those who are being persecuted when considering what should be done to prevent that persecution. I proclaim my own sad

1121
conclusion that there is no alternative to firm sanctions, and my great regret that they have not been imposed and will not be imposed by the Prime Minister.
Mr. Lawrence: Is not the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that those of us who share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) are listening? We are listening to Chief Buthelezi, who represents the largest tribal grouping of black Africans and to Bishop Mokoena, who represents 4·5 million black Anglicans. They are both leaders of oppressed black groups who are asking us not to introduce economic sanctions.
Mr. Janner: There are matters about which the hon. and learned Gentleman and I agree. This is not one of them. His selective listening is, alas, in this case leading him to a false conclusion. The vast majority of black people in that country wish nothing more than an end to the vicious apartheid regime under which they are forced to live, and believe that it is only real and effective pressure from other lands that can bring that about. They further believe that they will not get it from our Government.
I listened with concern to the speeches about the United States. I share the prevalent distaste for its foreign policy, but I do not share the anti-American feeling that is pervading the House and entering too many debates in this country. I wholly abhor and hate many of the policies of our own Government, but I proclaim the freedom that we have to attack those policies. We do not attack our own country because we loathe the policies of this Government. We take steps to get rid of that Government.
We should apply precisely the same principles in our approach to the United States—a great and vibrant democracy in which huge numbers of its citizens not only loathe the policies of their Government but have the freedom to say so openly, clearly and vehemently. The pendulum, which today has unfortunately swung in the direction of the far Right in the United States Supreme Court, will, I trust, swing back as swiftly as possible. Meanwhile, let those who go to the United States, as well as to countries where people cannot speak their mind, never forget the difference between the freedom that is enjoyed in the United States and the West to attack the Governments and policies of the day as opposed to the lack of freedom that is to be found in totalitarian regimes, especially in the East but also in the middle east.
That leads me to my next point. I so greatly wish that hon. Members, not least my hon. Friends, would understand the difference between democratic lands, such as Israel, with all its failings, in which its citizens may attack its Government—Israel has a Government created by a curious form of democracy, as real as anyone can achieve— and the totalitarian dictatorships in, for example, Syria, which was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), and feudal monarchies: oppressive and wicked lands where there is no right to speak without being shot, unless one happens to agree with those who are in command. Any Arab who speaks against the Palestine Liberation Organisation is not only liable to be shot but too often is. That is the problem.
I do not see how my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East can be right about negotiations with the PLO, when the PLO is not prepared to recognise the right of
1122
those with whom it is asked to negotiate, to exist as a country and as a secure land; the PLO is not prepared to give up terrorism in any land, including this one in which we are so free to speak. We have the right to speak without the fear of being shot. All civilians should have the right, in any land, to speak their minds without being terrorised.
I congratulate the Prime Minister on her visit to Israel. I was glad that she went. I was there shortly afterwards. She is a Tory Prime Minister. Israel has a Labour Prime Minister who is a close friend of mine. The two of them got on and emerged after their talks saying that it would be boring if there was nothing to disagree about. Neither of them was bored. That is the civilised way in which people ought to do business. I was also glad that at the end of her visit the Prime Minister said that one could not look just to the PLO when negotiating for peace in the middle east. She pronounced openly and clearly that others must be involved in the search for peace in that area.
I cannot spend the time that I would wish in commenting about India, but what a marvellous and magnificent land that is. How it can be governed by anybody is beyond the belief of those who visit and who love it.
I am glad that India's Foreign Minister is to visit this country. Those of us who rejoice in democracy and in the freedom to speak, take pride in a land where 780 million people enjoy democracy. Democracy does not exist in any country next to it. Indeed, it does not exist almost anywhere else in that part of the world. Certainly democracy does not exist, other than in Israel, anywhere in the middle east.
The position in Sri Lanka is not as simple as many of my hon. Friends would suggest. I have been there. The Government of Sri Lanka have tried very hard to create conditions of peace with the Tamils. They have failed. We have failed in Ireland. We in this Chamber are not in a particularly marvellous position to criticise others for their failures. Ours stand before us in all the brutality of death.
I express appreciation to all those colleagues, on both sides of the House, who took the opportunity of their visit to Moscow to raise matters relating to human rights in general, with the Soviet authorities, and who also raised a matter that is very dear to me. All my grandparents were fortunate enough to emerge from the Soviet Union. I want others, not least Jewish people, to have the right to do the same.
I shall never forget that the Red Army was our ally in war. Those who are most hurt today by the Soviet Union's behaviour over human rights are its friends.
I hope that one day those who have won the award of the all-party Parliamentary Committee for the release of Soviet Jewry—people like Vladimir Slepak, Ida Nudel, Alexander Lerner—as well as Alexei Levin and others less known—will come to this House and be received in freedom. I hope that Shcharansky, whose freedom we celebrate, will come here one day and will receive the Bible that so many of us signed, in the hope but never in the belief that he would be free to receive it from us.
That leaves one matter upon which I shall spend a little time. On almost every occasion that I have sought to raise it I have been ruled out of order. I was invited to raise it on another hon. Member's Adjournment debate last Friday, but that debate did not take place.
It is right that we should look at the past in order to light our way into the future. We should look at what happened to British soldiers who were murdered after they

1123
were taken prisoner in order that we may see who did it, and why. We must try to ensure that the kind of people who followed the Fuehrer never achieve power here, as they have done, alas, in other lands, very recently. I refer to the Waldheim matter.
I wish to place before the House information that has not been placed before it ill the past. A number of British military personnel were arrested in Greece by German Army Group E. Lieutenant Kurt Waldheim was in charge of all interrogations. I have here a copy of a document that I have passed to the Secretary of State for Defence, which shows that in December 1943 Waldheim was in total charge of all interrogations by that unit.
In April 1944—at a time when, at one stage, Waldheim said that he was out of the army but when clear records show that this was a lie—a team of seven British commandos and three Greek partisans set out on a raid. They were captured. All of them were interrogated by Waldheim's unit, and probably by Waldheim himself. Only one of them survived, Captain William Blythe. He died several years ago. The rest, so far as we know, were sent for what was called "sonderbehandlung." I served as a war crimes investigator in the British Army of the Rhine. "Sonderbehandlung" was a hideous word which we all got to know. It means, very simply, elimination—the murder of prisoners and civilians.
All these British prisoners of war other than Bill Blythe were eliminated. I even have a telegram in German, which I shall translate. It referred to certain people, including a man called Carpenter, a radio operator, and a Greek sailor called Ligaris. The telegram was sent after Waldheim had asked what was to be done with these people after their interrogation was over.
"They are no longer required".
said his opposite number,
"and they should be sent for 'sonderbehandlung' in accordance with the Fuehrer's order."
They died. They were murdered.
I have managed to trace some of the brave commandos, in this country. Details have been provided to the Defence Secretary, along with another four names which came to light last week. Finally, a letter was received by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), who was kind enough to send a copy to me. He is with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation in Gibraltar, and I thank him for his agreement that I should raise this case here. I thank my research assistant, Steven Cohen, who visited a man called Frank Notley, who kindly gave permission for his name to be used and who lives in Warrington. I shall read only two paragraphs from his extremely moving letter. He said:
"I was a regular soldier and after completing 23 years in the Army I retired in 1957. I was taken prisoner in North Africa and escaped on two occasions from camps in Italy and Germany. I know a little about this swine Waldheim. I first saw him at Camp 182 in Italy. He was present when approximately 30 British soldiers who had been shot dead were returned to Camp 182 for burial. The poor lads were slung out of the back of German lorries as if they were sacks of garbage. You may draw your own conclusion what hand he had in this matter. I again saw him at the Interrogation Centre where I was held."
I hope that other British prisoners who saw this man Waldheim involved with the death of British troops will come forward and let it be known.
Waldheim was not brought to justice. I have a United Nations War Crimes Commission document which puts him in category A—the top category—of war criminals.
1124
He was accused by the Yugoslavs for putting hostages to death and for murder. He was never tried. Instead, he became Secretary-General of the United Nations. The first time around, the United Kingdom vetoed his appointment. The second time, we approved it. I hope that the Minister of State will explain why the veto was applied and why it was lifted on the second occasion. If he tells us that that was because of suspected inefficiency, no one in his right mind will believe it. Waldheim was an efficient senior staff officer in charge of interrogations and the veto was applied because we knew precisely what he had been up to during the war, including his part in the killing of Yugoslavs, Greeks, Italians and Jews. Perhaps we did not know about the British prisoners, but we know about them now.
When I first inquired about the British prisoners at business questions, the Leader of the House said:
"I see no particular profit in having a debate … or getting involved in the controversies that now rage between the World Jewish Congress and the supporters of Dr. Waldheim". [Official Report, 1 May 1986; Vol. 96, c. 1108.]
That was a disgraceful statement which, I am pleased to say, he was good enough effectively to withdraw. He personally asked the Ministry of Defence to conduct an inquiry into these matters. We have not had the result yet.
Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. and learned Friend accept that many of us gentiles—if I can put it that way—non-Jewish people, are becoming increasingly concerned by what we are learning and particularly at the idea that a man could in any way be category A? What on earth were the United Nations and the British vetting systems up to?
Mr. Janner: I thank my hon. Friend. This is not a matter of Jewish concern; it is a matter of human rights concern, for everybody. It is true that Waldheim was in Greece at the time when almost the entire Jewish communities of Salonika and Rhodes were wiped out, but far more Yugoslavs, Italians and Greeks were killed by his unit and, directly or indirectly, not a few British.
Why that happened is a curious story. I have a feeling, which I hope one day to be able to prove, that when the war with the Germans was over we, and the Americans in particular, had only one main concern, and that was now to deal with the Russians. Therefore, thousands of Nazi war criminals were allowed to go free.
If one then asks why the Russians approved of Waldheim's appointment that is another question. They well knew what he was up to. The answer was probably that they were blocking a Finn whom they did not want as Secretary-General, partly because he was a Finn, partly, I fear, for other reasons, and perhaps partly because people sometimes like to have others in positions of authority over whom they believe that they have some hold.
What is now coming out is that all over the world there has been a cover-up operation, and I regret to say that it appears to extend to Britain. Researchers went to the Public Record Office to look for files about British prisioners of war and about Waldheim. Among the files, they found that a series was missing.
I asked the Prime Minister why those files were missing and whether we could see them. She replied that we could not see them because they were of military or security intelligence importance. I then asked what they were about. How, after 40 years, can that be? She replied that it was not customary to give details of the contents of files

1125
of that sort. I have written again and told her that I would not ask for anything to be revealed which could affect Britain's security in any way. No self-respecting Member of the House would do so. But I cannot believe that after 40 years there could be anything that could today affect Britian's security by one iota; that there could be anything from that time which could affect what happens today in the military or other intelligence sphere affect this land.
I believe that this concealment is part of a cover-up operation which applies to Yugoslavia, to the United States, the United Nations and certainly to the Soviet Union. I should like to think that Britain was not involved in it. When those missing files are opened up we will know. If they do not show complicity, let us see them. They cannot have military significance after all these years. If they conceal guilt and they are covered up, there will be a swell of feeling on both sides of the House. Hon. Members will demand that they be produced.
Mr. Dalyell: Ought there not then to be a Government statement on the operation of the weeding system?
Mr. Janner: I agree.
I have been trying hard to obtain a statement from the Government and have failed. Perhaps if there is enough pressure—many hon. Members on both sides of the House feel strongly about this—we shall get the documents and people will see that this is not a vendetta against a man for what he did years ago. He has lied yesterday and today about the matter. He has been elected President of Austria and our Government have sent congratulations to him while we are holding an inquiry into his involvement in the killing of British prisoners of war. How could we do that?
When Waldheim is seated on the presidential throne, are we to send representatives to clap and to cheer? I fear that we shall and that we shall say that it is normal protocol because he was elected.
If that happens I remind the House that it will be a direct repetition of what we did, not in 1933 when Hitler was elected, but in 1934 when he became head of state. A reception was held at which British people were present along with the rest. We as a nation regretted that for many years thereafter.
There are standards of decency of which we in Britain can be hugely proud; standards without which some of us would not be in the House, proclaiming our freedom to speak our minds. But that freedom must be watched over and preserved. The Waldheim case is of great importance, as a touchstone of decency. There will be many in the House who will pursue it until we reach the truth.
8.47 pm
Mr. William Shelton: I am glad to follow the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), whose work I admire very much. He is a great fighter for justice and truth. I hope that what he has said under privilege this evening is well substantiated. Knowing him, I am sure that it is.
I envied the certainty with which he spoke in the first part of his speech for several million blacks in South Africa and the certainty with which he spoke for several million whites in the United States. I wish that I could be as certain about the feelings of those in other countries as he is.
1126
It is on southern Africa that I want to spend a few minutes this evening, not South Africa, but a major country of great importance in south-west Africa —Namibia. I was there a few months ago with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir J. Osborn), who led our delegation.
I am speaking about Namibia because it is an important country for three reasons. They are little known but nevertheless they are important. First, it has enormous untapped mineral wealth and is one of the wealthiest countries in minerals that are least developed. The Rossing uranium mine in Namibia provides, I think, about 45 per cent. of all the uranium used in western Europe. That fact alone must give cause for thought.
The second reason for its importance is that it lies between Angola to the north and South Africa, which occupied many hours of parliamentary time recently, to the south. What happens in Namibia in the next year or two will have an impact on South Africa. Thirdly, the changes that are taking place in Namibia could be a lesson to us as to what, perhaps, could or should happen in South Africa.
Namibia is undergoing profound constitutional change. In June last year the new transitional Government was inaugurated and power was genuinely transferred from South Africa to this new Government. The Government have complete power and authority, except, at the moment, in foreign affairs and external defence. The Government are genuinely democratic and pluralist and there is no apartheid in Namibia, except in certain schools, and the new Government are in the process of legislating to remove that.
The Government are transitional because the leaders in the Cabinet, which contains only one white member, the rest being black, are not elected—they are party leaders. The House will know about the problem of the South West Africa People's Organisation. It is based in Angola and is leading guerrilla raids into the north of Namibia. It has refused to take part in this transitional Government.
Mr. Harry Cohen: The Government are illegal.
Mr. Shelton: As the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) says, they do not have international recognition. That is why I say that they are transitional. That Government lost their case in the European Court of Justice, but their purpose, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would support in general terms, if not in particular, is to form a new constitution which they will put to a referendum. If and when it is approved, they will hold internationally supervised elections which they hope will lead to international recognition.
Namibia stands at a crossroads and that is why I am drawing it to the attention of the House. One road could well lead to a Marxist-style unitary state, a closed state as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, along the lines of its northern neighbour Angola, or along the lines of Mozambique. Such a state would be hostile to our interests and probably wretched for the people of Namibia. The other road could just possibly lead in the opposite direction, to a free, prosperous, democratic, westward—looking open state. The road which Namibia follows may well depend upon the outcome of the offensive taking place in Angola against UNITA, and waged by Angolan troops led by Cubans, advised by

1127
Russians and East Germans and using jets that are piloted, I am advised, by Cubans and East Germans. That gives the House an idea of the state of play in that offensive.
The offensive has now started and its purpose is to crush UNITA and to drive Dr. Savimbi out of Jamba where he has his headquarters. If UNITA survives it will he because it has received help from South Africa. More important, it will also have received help from our friend and colleague, the United States. If UNITA survives it will be because of the Stinger anti-aircraft missiles that have been supplied by the United States to the UNITA movement. One might say that South Africa should not help UNITA, but I say that it should, and the United States has also lent a helping hand.
Let us examine what would flow from the crushing of UNITA by Angolan forces. The Cubans would then be able to withdraw from the north of Angola. If that happened, the South Africans would, willy-nilly, have to implement their undertaking on resolution 435 of the United Nations, which I am sure the House knows about. South Africa has said it will implement that resolution if the Cubans have withdrawn by 1 August. That would lead to the abolition of the present transitional Government and, until the elections took place, Namibia would be ruled by a South African director general and by a representative of the United Nations. There would be elections, perhaps a year later, supervised by the United Nations.
In general, the Namibian people believe that the United Nations supports SWAPO. Why should they? In 1973 the United Nations said that SWAPO was the
"authentic representative of the Namibian people."
The House will know that it was the United Nations Assembly that said that and not the Security Council. However, such a distinction would pass unnoticed by the average Namibian voter. Secondly, the United Nations gives financial support only to SWAPO among the Namibian political parties. Thirdly, only SWAPO has the right to address the United Nations Security Council and the General Assembly. Finally, only SWAPO has permanent observer status at the United Nations. Of course, United Nations observers would be neutral, but the result would be likely to be an overwhelming SWAPO victory and that would be due to the bandwagon effect often seen in Africa, because the Namibian voter would believe that SWAPO had the official backing of the United Nations and was therefore most likely to win. [Interruption.] If Opposition hon. Members will stop speaking for a moment perhaps other hon. Members might be able to hear what I am trying to say.
The implementation of resolution 435 would load the dice in favour of SWAPO. If UNITA is crushed and the Cubans go and if resolution 435 is implemented by South Africa by 1 August the elections that follow will he supervised by the United Nations. If the people of Namibia think that SWAPO is supported by the United Nations that would load the dice in favour of a SWAPO victory. An overwhelming SWAPO victory would not be in the best interests of Britain or of the people of Namibia.
Let me remind the House that in its 1976 political programme SWAPO said that it wanted to impose scientific Socialism, introduce the social ownership of all the resources of the country. and foster anti-imperialist international solidarity with Socialist countries. The Opposition may say that that is a good idea, but I do not, nor do I think it would be in our best interests.
Mr. George Robertson: The hon. Gentleman specifically wanted my attention. Is he saying that we should load the dice against an organisation in the unlikely event, at least in the short term, that there are free elections in that country? Are we going to choose who the new Government will be, or are we going to take a chance, as we did in the Zimbabwe settlement'?
Mr. Shelton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interest. It is possible to have elections in which the dice are not loaded. I am sure that he would favour that just as much as I would. But if elections were held against the background that I have described, the dice would be loaded in favour of SWAPO. Like, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman, I should prefer to see free elections.
If UNITA survives, the Cubans will not be withdrawn, because the Angolan Government will need them in order to defend themselves against it. Consequently, resolution 435 will not be implemented, which will give the new Government time to put the constitution to a referendum, to implement their legislative programme, which I hope will gain support, and to call elections by the end of next year. There could be independent observers, perhaps from the Contact Group or the Common Market, and SWAPO could be invited to take part in the elections. So far, SWAPO has always refused — [Interruption.] I am afraid that the interest shown by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) was very fleeting.
Mr. George Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman needs a brief.
Mr. Shelton: On the contrary, it is the hon. Gentleman who needs a brief. If he listens to me instead of to his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, he will get one.
If the transitional Government call elections before the end of next year and invite SWAPO to take part, SWAPO may well do so. Its base in Angola will be in some difficulty, because UNITA has not been crushed, and the Government may be achieving their programme in Namibia. Thus, SWAPO may take part in free independent elections. However, I very much doubt whether SWAPO will have an overwhelming victory.
So I say to the House and to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench, who no doubt are paying much more attention than those on the Opposition Front Bench, that if resolution 435 stacks the dice in favour of SWAPO, which could then form a Marxist Government hostile to our interests, our own Government should reconsider our unquestioning support of it. That is especially so if there is on the horizon an alternative road to genuine independence, which is more likely to lead to democratic government.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has told me that resolution 435 is the only option with which everyone agrees. But that is not so. In Namibia SWAPO's supporters may total 30 or even 50 per cent., but in general terms, no one else supports that resolution. I should like to see equal recognition of all Namibian parties by the United Nations and an extension of equal rights to them all.
The United Nations should stop paying funds to only one party, which probably represents a minority, albeit a large minority. Our Government should do all that they can to get SWAPO to talk to the transitional Government. Lessons can be drawn for South Africa from events in that neighbouring country.

1129
All the political parties, bar two, in Namibia, are co-operating with the white people, in order to move towards free elections and democratic government. That move forward does not spring from the men of violence. It is not SWAPO, but the moderate black peoples, through their political organisations, who have achieved that. Of course, they are accused of being puppets of South Africa. I do not believe that they are, but even if they were, it would not matter as long as they gained genuine freedom and democracy. Surely a peaceful process is better than a violent process.
That road forward must be right, and I urge the Government to support those endeavours.
9.3 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: A full-scale foreign affairs debate is almost as unlikely as a knighthood for Arthur Scargill. But this week we have had two opportunities, because there was a debate yesterday on South Africa and we now have this sprawling and wide-ranging debate. It is ridiculous that there should be inadequate opportunity for full-scale debates on individual international issues. I should like to contribute to a full-scale debate, for example, on arms control. Perhaps I should have said "the arms race", because there is precious little control at present. That is a subject on which the House has failed to make its voice clear. At the same time, the Prime Minister lamely defends virtually every act of the United States Administration in nuclear expansion.
We have not had a debate on the need for a chemical weapons ban, an issue which I raised yesterday in Defence questions and upon which the Government need full-scale chivvying if they are to show the will to come to an agreement.
I do not recall a full-scale debate on the middle east since the 1983 general election, despite the fundamental nature of the injustice and conflict in the area. It has a continuing potential to spread violence and to bring the world to the brink of war. I am one of the sponsors of early-day motion No. 948, which supports the
"rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination within an independent sovereign state"
and
"recognises the Palestine Liberation Organisation as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people"
There is a need for a debate on Afghanistan. A few cursory references have been made to it during the debate but that is all. I visited Afghanistan recently. Indeed, I was the first western politician to meet the new leader, Dr. Majeeb. There is a need for an informed debate in the House on Afghanistan. Instead, in the Foreign Secretary's contribution, we had a succession of slurs and remarks of undiluted hostility. That is no way to create the conditions that will lead to the Russian troops leaving that country and enable Dr. Majeeb to emerge with his country from feudalism.
Those debates and my contribution to them will have to wait for future opportunities to arise. I wish to address my remarks to the crisis in South Africa, on which there was a debate yesterday. I make no apology for directing my contribution to South Africa despite yesterday's debate because there was not an opportunity for me to participate in that debate. The pressure must be maintained upon the Prime Minister and her Government
1130
from inside and outside the House to end her deliberate intransigence, which so helps the current regime in South Africa. I understand that there will be a Cabinet meeting tomorrow, which means that this debate is a suitable occasion on which to point to the action that it is necessary to take.
British capitalism is the main support of apartheid. British companies are the main investors in South Africa. About 40 per cent. of direct investment comes from British companies, and that amounts to £5 billion. Over half the foreign companies operating in South Africa are controlled from the United Kingdom and British banks raised over a quarter of all the capital raised for South Africa. Barclays bank is one of the prime banking houses involved in South Africa. Incidentally, the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth), the SDP spokesman on economic affairs, is a paid adviser to Barclays bank.
It is the Conservative party, and especially the Prime Minister, which is the apologist for South Africa everywhere. It is the right hon. Lady and her Government who have been stonewalling and blocking sanctions at every opportunity in the Commonwealth, in the Common Market and at the United Nations. I have a copy of the memorandum that was presented to the Foreign Secretary today by the Anti-Apartheid Movement. It states:
"Britain has lamentably performed the role of protecting South Africa from international action. As worldwide opposition to apartheid has mounted, Britain has chosen to play the prime role in developing and sustaining this evil system. For example, British oil companies arc the main suppliers of fuel to the apartheid war machine. British banks dominate the apartheid economy. British electronic companies equip much of the South African police and military and British chemical companies sustain its explosives industries."
What an indictment that is. The Government will not speak to the African National Congress but they disgustedly welcomed President Botha here in June 1984. They are prepared to sacrifice the Commonwealth in subservience to apartheid protectionist policy.
Let us dwell on how the Government have effectively put the boot into the Commonwealth. In October last year a Commonwealth accord was adopted at Nassau dealing with a mandatory arms embargo and economic measures. What is the Government's record on that accord in detail? One of the agreements in the accord was:
"A readiness to take unilaterally what action might be possible to preclude the imports of Krugerrands"
The Government waited seven months before they took any action on that score. That can be contrasted with the United States who took action within a few days of declaring its intention to do so. Another part of the accord stated:
"No government funding for trade missions to South Africa, or for participating in exhibitions and fairs in South Africa".
The Leeds chamber of commerce visited South Africa with Government funding after the adoption of the accord. Trade with South Africa is encouraged by the United Kingdom South Africa Trade Association which enjoys the support of the British Overseas Trade Board. Government funds are still expended in the promotion of trade with South Africa through the presence of commercial attaches in the British embassy in South Africa.
Another agreement was:

1131
"A ban on the sale and export of computer equipment capabale of use by South African military forces, police or security forces".
Such computer equipment can still be exported without a licence from this country to South Africa. The Export of Goods (Control) Order 1985 provides a massive loophole because it effectively removes control over the export of computers other than those specifically categorised in that order. Therefore, there is a great loophole of which the South African military can take advantage.
Another part of the accord provides for:
"A ban on new contracts for the sale and export of nuclear goods, materials and technology to South Africa."
The British Government refuse to disclose information about the sale and export of nuclear goods. However, a formal agreement exists between the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and the Nuclear Corporation of South Africa. The agreement provides for access by South Africa to British nuclear technology and know-how.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton rose—
Mr. Cohen: I shall give way when I finish dealing with the accord.
The accord also states that there should be
"A ban on the sale and export of oil to South Africa".
No such ban exists. It also states:
"A strict and rigorously controlled embargo on imports on arms and ammunition, military vehicles and para-military equipment from South Africa."
No
"strict and rigorously controlled embargo"
exists.
It also states that there should be
"An embargo on all military cooperation with South Africa".
No such embargo exists. It goes on:
"Discouragement of all cultural and scientific events except where these contribute towards the ending of apartheid or have no possible role in promoting it".
Britain is not enforcing that measure. Funds are still provided through the British Council for visits and activities in South Africa which are not to do with the ending of apartheid.
What a dismal record the Government have on the Nassau accord.
Mr. Winterton: I am not sure who prepared the hon. Gentleman's brief for this important debate, but is he aware that the United Kingdom has honoured the arms embargo against South Africa in a unique fashion, unlike most other countries and particularly France, which stepped in to supply arms when the United Kingdom introduced the embargo?
With regard to the nuclear situation, is the hon. Gentleman aware that Israel—a country that he often supports in the House—is probably responsible for providing the nuclear technology now possessed by South Africa?
Mr. Cohen: I condemn all countries which provide support, especially military support, to the apartheid regime. The hon. Gentleman referred to Britain's unique role in this matter. It is certainly unique because it is full of holes and has been breached in all the ways that I have described.
Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has often spoken of South Africa in glowing and admiring terms. His claim that Britain has adhered to the arms embargo is nonsense in view of the sale of
1132
computer equipment, chemicals and other back-up technologies for the assistance of the police state in South Africa. In that respect, the British Government are defying their own embargo.
Mr. Cohen: I agree entirely. I cannot recall the full details, but in a case last year it was the trade unions who managed to prevent the export of military equipment to South Africa by stopping it at the port.
The Government have treated the Commonwealth in a disgraceful fashion and seem prepared to sacrifice it altogether. In the past, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs spoke of sending a signal to the South African regime, but the only signal from the Conservative Government has been that they will appease and apologise for the South African regime at all times. There has certainly been no signal of any effective action to say that apartheid must end.
One of the reasons for that attitude is the Conservative party's ties with companies with investments in South Africa. More than 30 per cent. of donations to the Conservative party come from companies with assets in South Africa. Despite that, however, the Conservative party is split on this issue. On the one hand, there are the out-and-out racists who have crept into the party by the back door and those who have vested interests in South Africa.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Name them.
Mr. Cohen: It is clear from the Register of Members' Interests which Members go on trips paid for by the South African Government and are directors of companies with investments in South Africa.
On the other hand, some Conservatives rightly regard apartheid as morally abhorrent. Others fear Britain's isolation in the world. Others rightly regard support for the South African regime as had for business with black Africa arid in the long term with South Africa itself.
The racist regime in South Africa is a vicious and murderous regime. In the last state of emergency there were well over 1,000 deaths and it has started again on a large scale. We know from our television screens how the news blackout has been imposed, and the official propaganda is blatant lies.
Mr. Corbyn: On the first day of the news black out—Soweto day — a whole congregation was arrested in church, but that could not be reported by any of the international press there. Is it not incumbent on all Western countries which maintain relations with South Africa to take on the role of telling people what is happening in Soweto and other townships in the hands of the South African military?
Mr. Cohen: I agree with that comment. Conservative Members who hear their hon. Friends supporting and justifying a Government who arrest a whole church congregation must surely think twice about having such people as party colleagues. Part of the nonsense we hear is that black is killing black. The main violence is carried out by the security forces of the regime and by the vigilantes who have been set up, sponsored and supported by it. Then there is the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela and the harassment of Winnie Mandela and countless others who are struggling for freedom.
The regime also exports its apartheid to Namibia. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has just.

1133
made a speech about that, but he did not tell the House that more than 100,000 South African-controlled troops are in illegal occupation of that country and that the transitional Government is a puppet of South Africa. No wonder that Government do not have control over foreign affairs and other issues; SWAPO is the legitimate voice of the people.
The South African regime is also a threat to the whole region, as the attacks on the three neighbouring capitals during the visit of the Eminent Persons Group showed. Direct raids, destabilisation and subversion of neighbouring countries has cost billions of pounds and thousands of lives. Yet the British Government defend that regime.
The Government's excuses for not imposing sanctions are feeble. The first main excuse is the argument about jobs in Britain being at risk. What crocodile tears. The Government have not cared about jobs in this country during their seven years in office. They ignore also the opportunity for expanding trade with independent black Africa and the jobs that that would create. They ignore too the prospects for the security of those assets and investments and for trade with South Africa which will be so important for jobs when the inevitable change to black majority rule occurs. If we are frozen out then because Britain supported the racists, the prospects for jobs in Britain will be much worse.
The Anti-Apartheid Movement memorandum summarised the argument on jobs:
"At best it reflects a failure to grasp the dimensions of the crisis now facing Southern Africa and the possible consequences and costs for human life. At worst, they are a cynical justification for maintaining existing trade and investment patterns and the profits which flow from them. Those profits are from racist and murderous oppression."
That is a very good summary.
The second main argument of the Government against the imposition of effective sanctions is that they will hurt the blacks. They should tell that to the families of the blacks who have already been murdered. The blacks want sanctions so much that they are imposing them themselves via strikes and boycotts. When Sam Nujoma, the president of SWAPO, addressed a Labour party meeting here he summed up the argument succinctly. He said that the Africans are a dispossessed people and that sanctions hurt the whites, not the blacks. The front-line states have been prepared to make substantial sacrifices to impose sanctions.
Let me give Bishop Tutu the last word on the erroneous and phoney argument of the Government about sanctions hurting the blacks. In a statement today he said:
"I cannot accept Mrs. Thatcher's argument that South Africa's black people would suffer most if sanctions were applied. Blacks are suffering now. We have prayed. We have pleaded for decades with the western Governments in the name of humanity to help end apartheid. Instead we keep being reminded of reforms. We do not want the chains around our necks to he loosened. We want them removed. Apartheid must be dismantled. Our suffering must end. If we do not have sanctions soon then Heaven help us. If sanctions are not applied soon then the future will be catastrophic."
We should support those who argue for sanctions and those who are struggling for change with effective sanctions now.
We should take up the Anti-Apartheid Movement's call to break off diplomatic relations with the South African
1134
regime. We should support those who are fighting for a non-racist, democratic, majority rule South Africa. That will happen anyway. We should be supporting it, not because it is inevitable but because it is right.
9.25 pm
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Before he became hysterical and beside himself with plastic indignation, the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) made a good point. It is often made and seldom reacted to by the usual channels. It is that we do not have enough foreign affairs debates. I believe that more hon. Members would be present if we had more debates on specific foreign affairs topics. If the hon. Member for Leyton had confined himself to making sensible points such as that, we could all have applauded his speech.
A little before him, the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) made what I think all of us would regard as startling and horrific revelations about the alleged activities of President Waldheim. They would shock us all, and further investigation is obviously vital. The Government must respond positively. I hope that there will not be any in this House who think that such revelations should be swept under the carpet because bygones should remain bygones. If the generation that has been born since the Nazi atrocities should ever be protected from such knowledge, is it not that much more likely that those atrocities could happen again?
My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made a wise and witty speech. It was witty in that the so-called dead sheep actually did savage the bruiser from Leeds. It was wise because it is wise for the Government to undertake no new initiatives in the middle east. Although they pay lip service to the Venice declaration, I am pleased that it now seems to be dead. Although they pay no lip service to Camp David, it sounds as though the Camp David agreement is being allowed to revive.
My right hon. and learned Friend's speech was wise because he spoke of the importance of the Atlantic Alliance, which is under strain, not least as a result of the behaviour of our friends who appear to have rewarded our brand of loyalty to them in a rather less than responsive way.
There is also the wisdom of our commitment to improvement of the world food supply to famine-prone nations. I am delighted to see that the Government Front Bench is now occupied by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, who has done much to help guide British foreign policy in Europe and in the Commonwealth to provide a better distribution of food supplues and resources that will help peasant farmers to provide more food of higher quality themselves. Many of my constituents and others will welcome the accolade of an award for Bob Geldof for the wonderful work that he has done to alert all of us to the pressing needs of the African sub-continent.
It was a wise speech because it referred to the need for nuclear strength as the strongest bastion of world peace and to human rights as the strongest bastion there is of a humane and happy society.
There is sanity from the Government over economic sanctions. I have been here for all the speeches, and it is ridiculous for some hon. Members to sound off as though in our resistence of economic sanctions we are demanding something that is contrary to the interests of the black majority in South Africa. To relieve our own feelings of

1135
guilt and the emotional hatred of apartheid which we all have, we are being pressed to cause economic collapse, because that is the object of the exercise. If we take away the jobs that are now being filled by 1 million or 2 million blacks in South Africa, they will go on to the streets and will be driven by leaders into revolution. They will therefore spark off repression, and there will be infinitely more bloodshed, infinitely more quickly, than if by negotiation we try to sort out the mess and confusion of South Africa.
I am told that this is against the wishes of the blacks, but Labour Members have a terrible hang-up about going to South Africa and meeting South Africans. They should meet those people, because when the leader of 6 million Zulus says, "No sanctions," and when the leader of 4·5 million blacks Anglicans says, "No sanctions," we are indeed listening when we say that economic sanctions are not the best way of getting South Africa out of this problem.
Mr. George Robertson: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman makes such statements, perhaps he will check the facts. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (M r. Anderson) are both going to South Africa next week with that precise purpose in mind. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East, who is our spokesman on South Africa, spent nearly a fortnight there last year consulting precisely that opinion to ensure that the opinions that we hold are as authoritative as possible.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: He met a very narrow group of people—the UDF.
Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is a paid apologist and a Fascist.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) made a remark from a sedentary position which I am sure he will want to withdraw. We ought not to allege lack of integrity and honour against any hon. Member.
Mr. Foulkes: I withdraw the second part of what I said. The hon. Gentleman is a paid apologist of the regime.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman accused me of being a Fascist. I ask him to withdraw. It is unjustified, and he says it without proof.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must say that I did not hear that remark.
Mr. Foulkes: I withdrew that remark, but sustained my remark about the hon. Gentleman being a paid apologist of the apartheid regime.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am certainly not a paid apologist. If the hon. Gentleman can prove that I have received any money from the South African Government—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley again knows that that is an allegation of dishonour against an hon. Member that is not allowed, and he must withdraw it.
Mr. Foulkes: If you insist, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I withdraw.
Mr. Lawrence: I was rather hoping that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) would repeat that outside the House so that I could offer my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) legal assistance, for which I would be paid.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: And I would accept.
Mr. Lawrence: Having praised the Government, I must also say that there are one or two inconsistent features of our policy. If we are determined, as the Foreign Secretary said we were—and I am sure we are—to take a stand against terrorism and violence, which we would all applaud — and to that extent we sent packing two representatives of the PLO who refused to renounce violence—why then do we call for the release of Nelson Mandela before he renounces terrorism and violence? That is an inconsistency.
On a less violent and more ideological level, the determination to enhance Britain's reputation and to foster adherence to principles of democracy and freedom under the law, which we all embrace and would like to see advanced, clashes somewhat with our reluctance to spend adequately on teaching overseas students in this country and bringing our system of education and the British way of life more closely into their lives. I sometimes think that the same is true of our reluctance to fund BBC overseas services properly, which would do more than anything to spread abroad the good name of Britain's democracy and our way of life and rule of law.
Perhaps I should tell my hon. Friend the Minister of State that a famous refusenik—I am sure he will not mind my naming him—Victor Brailovsky in Moscow told me that he thought the reason why the Soviet Union did not jam the BBC overseas services in English was that the authorities had some respect for the quality of the broadcasts, which were balanced, and contrasted with some of the other English language broadcasts from other nations, which will remain nameless. That is my tour d'horizon.
I now turn to the central issue of both Front-Bench speeches — United Kingdom-Soviet relations. Soviet leaders listening to the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and to a lesser extent to speeches of other Opposition Members, will have reason to pat themselves on the back for having taken in some important Members of Parliament. Obviously, Mr. Gorbachev is a new leader with a more presentable arid attractive face, and so has his wife. Surely it is far too premature to conclude on that evidence that this is a new Soviet Union with a new approach to the United States and Western Europe?
Hon. Members should ask themselves some questions. Would Mr. Gorbachev have come so far so quickly if he had not had the backing of the old guard, which means that he was endorsing their policies? Is there any reason to think that the international department of the Supreme Soviet, which inspired the invasion of Afghanistan, has changed its attitudes or policies? Does not the appointment of a Soviet Foreign Minister with little experience of foreign affairs—the right hon. Member for Leeds, East used that fact in support of his argument—mean that foreign policy is more likely, not less likely, to

1137
be guided by party officials—the apparatchiks? When we have weak leadership, Ministers or councillors, who takes power? It is the civil servants and local government officials. Is there any reason to think that the KGB or the GRU are to be wound down, or that subversion will be any less in the world than it has been in the past? What evidence is there that the Soviet Union has changed its ideological and opportunistic spots? It has not withdrawn from Afghanistan. It has not stopped banning Russian-speaking broadcasts. It has not improved the free flow of ideas. It has not done much to improve trade between our nations, and it has not made any noticeable concessions on human rights.
As the Foreign Affairs Select Committee stated in paragraphs 2.10 and 2.11 of its third report on United Kingdom-Soviet relations, which was published at the end of May:
"No one who has had direct discussions with contemporary Soviet leaders can fail to have observed their implacable ideological opposition to Western capitalism, their attribution to the United States and its allies of responsibility for the current causes of international tension, their belief (though declining) in capitalism's 'inevitable' demise, and their professed faith in the inevitable victory of world socialism…
There was no sign of a shift away from these fundamental, ideologically-based perspectives in Mr. Gorbachev's recent report to the 27th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party, nor could such a shift be expected."
To conclude that the Russian bear after Mr. Gorbachev's accession is a different animal, or that the fresh mind referred to by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East is necessarily a different mind, is wishful thinking of the kind in which the right hon. Gentleman usually indulges to great excess.
Lest I sound despairing, I tell my hon. Friend the Minister that I am not. It is quite clear that a change of attitude is emerging in the Soviet Union from which the world could benefit. It is important to appreciate that we are dealing with a new position. We should not be deluded into thinking that we are dealing with a different adversary.
The change of attitude has come about because the Soviet Union is desperately anxious for nuclear disarmament. I think that all hon. Members welcome that and agree with it. The main reason for that change is that the Soviet Union has now to face the problem of a total lack of resources in the face of the strategic defence initiative. The problems facing the Soviet Union are many. It has difficulty feeding itself. It has difficulty running its economy efficiently. It has difficulty, in a world of mass communication, keeping its consumers happy. Its consumers will shortly, if they do not already, be able to see more clearly on their television screens the pleasures enjoyed by citizens of other countries. The Soviet Union has difficulty funding its satellite countries.
The Foreign Affairs Select Committee recently visited Vietnam. It was clear to us that the Russians have put a limit on the amount of money that they are able to pour into Vietnam and the army in Kampuchea. I think that that is why a date of 1990 has been set for their withdrawal, although that seems to me to be contrary to what one would expect to happen in the far east. If the Russians do not withdraw in 1990, there will be a loss of face.
The Soviets have difficulty funding Cuba, Central America, and all their activities throughout the world.
1138
They have difficulties within their own empire. One of those is the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, which is beginning to worry them greatly. They have problems of defence against China, ideologically as well as militarily, on their borders. They have difficulty controlling the far-flung provinces of the Soviet Union. Vladivostok is almost a million miles away from Moscow. One can see, when the Soviets have to deal with the leaders of those countries, how difficult it is for them to exercise control.
I do not know whether the stories from Chernobyl are true. Stories are coming out of Chernobyl that the extent of the medical disaster is more considerable than we would like to think. If that is so, the Soviet Union will shortly be trying, throughout the world, to gain access to medical equipment and supplies which it cannot provide.
As a result of all those problems and the strain on the resources of the Soviet Union, the new man with the new look has come in. He visited the United Kingdom in November 1984 as the guest of the IPU and the Select Committee. He came with his Foreign Affairs Committee. The Foreign Affairs Committee of this Parliament and the IPU visited the Soviet Union. The Soviet Foreign Affairs Committee is, we hope, to visit Britain again. The Soviet Foreign Minister is coming here in July. There is a greater exchange between the Soviet Union and Britain. I have no reason to think that the same thing is not happening with other countries.
The Soviets are wooing the United Kingdom in particular. That is not just because they have a certain admiration for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister which I think was manifest to us when we were in the Soviet Union. They have a certain respect for the prompt action that we took in the Falklands. They think that we are capable of putting a restraining hand on the United States of America. They hope that they can drive a wedge between the Atlantic Alliance and either Britain or Europe and stop the United States developing the strategic defence initiative. They are afraid of matching the expense of that programme. I cannot help but feel that those in Britain who press strongly for the reversal of that programme and for Britain to stop its support of it are playing the Soviet game.
In the face of such an objective, we should be strengthening the Atlantic Alliance, not weakening it, and backing the strategic defence initiative, not trying to kill it. When we were in Russia, it was clear that the Supreme Soviet was paranoid about SDI—as paranoid as some of those hon. Members who have spoken against SDI. If that is a fair assessment, that feeling provides the best hope of bringing the Soviet Union to the negotiating table, which it did, and keeping it there, which it is doing. We hope that the Soviet Union will come forward with more genuine, meaningful, and acceptable proposals for nuclear and conventional arms reductions. The card of the SDI is a strong one in Western hands.
Mr. Corbyn: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not deeply regret President Reagan's decision to abandon the latest SALT negotiations? Will he confirm that, in recent years, there has been no occasion on which the Soviet Union has walked away from negotiations? The Gorbachev plan is to enhance negotiations rather than to walk away from them. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman not do better addressing his remarks to President Reagan?
Mr. Lawrence: The United States did walk away in Geneva. It was showing a more solid face against the negotiating procedures in a number of other fora than we have seen since the SDI was launched. I agree with the Government's view, which, strangely enough, is shared by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), that we should try to persuade the United States to think again about its proposals on the SALT relationship.
Human rights — the release of Soviet Jewry, the honouring of religious freedom for Christians, Jews and those of any other religious sect and cultural freedom—are important to us. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) said to Mr. Gorbachev that the human rights issue was not a laughing matter because for us in the West it was important for its own sake. That point has been endorsed by a number of hon. Members.
But it is even more important than that. The Soviet attitude to human rights is an indication of how much we can trust the Soviet Union in a world in which the absence of trust is what separates the West from the East. If the Soviet Union fails to honour its undertakings to its own people, how reliable are its undertakings to other people? Paragraph 6·11 of the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs states:
"We would add that whoever those commitments may benefit, the fact that an internationally binding agreement, given in the glare of world publicity, fails to be honoured, can only undermine confidence that subsequent internationally binding undertakings may not meet the same fate. Lack of progress on human rights therefore remains a serious obstacle to public perceptions of the Soviet Union and its reliability and integrity. That is why the honouring of such an international undertaking as the Helsinki Accord is considered by other governments to be so important a test of the likely reliability of the Soviet Union in any other international undertakings which it may seek to make, particularly on arms control."
The message that we have to get across to Mr. Gorbachev is that if the Russians want us to trust them when they promise to enter into binding undertakings on arms control, they must first honour their international binding obligations on human rights. When they do that, we can trust them and we shall be a united House in rejoicing when that end is achieved.
9.50 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I associate myself with what the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said about cuts in the BBC overseas service. The speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) was important, and many gentile Members would like to know about past British Governments and military personnel.
I shall concentrate on one subject. It is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) referred to as serious deceit over Libyan bombing, particularly that shown to European colleagues. This is a live issue. The "World in Action" programme on Monday, done by Ray Fitzwalter, David Mills and Eammon O'Connor, was a remarkable programme that posed questions that have to be answered. The programme said:
"As more terrorism threatens, some Americans argue the whole crisis is unnecessary and has been manufactured by President Reagan…Some prominent Americans believe the Reagan Administration has exaggerated the threat of terrorism and deliberately forced a confrontation with Gadaffi."
Rear-Admiral Eugene Carroll, admittedly one of the critics of the Administration, said:
1140
"This has been very adroitly done. We have made Gadaffi an enemy, a symbol of terrorism."
The programme continued:
"Tonight some of President Reagan's own advisers admit that the attack on Libya had less to do with terrorism and more to do with reversing years of humiliation that began with Vietnam."
A clip was then shown of President Reagan, and the commentary said:
"In 1981 these past humiliations swept President Reagan to power. He promised things would be different in future."
The programme continued:
"The obvious targets were either Syria or Iran…both had been deeply involved in many terrorist attacks on America.
But both have powerful defences and are close to the Soviet Union.
So the Americans turned instead to Gadaffi and Libya, a country with a tiny army and population half that of London."
It then showed a clip of Gadaffi and said:
"Gadaffi was chosen not so much for organising terror but for taunting America. He became the perfect target for President Reagan."
Mr. Jenkins, an adviser to the Reagan Administration, then said:
"you know the United States is brought up on stories that have good guys and had guys…heroes and villains."
The programme then showed a clip of President Reagan saying:
"We have evidence which links Libyan agents or surrogates to at least twenty-five incidents."
The programme said:
"Despite the rhetoric, incidents last year like this hijacking of a TWA jet were never proven to be directly linked to Gadaffi."
Nor was the tragedy of the Achille Lauro.
Dr. Kupperman then said:
"The whole notion of bringing thirty capital ships well before we attacked Libya…to bait them, to cross this ridiculous line of death…our intention was to bait them "
The programme then went on to comment about the next incident:
"That came in April with the bombing of this West Berlin disco and the death of an American GI. As with some of the earlier incidents there is now evidence that Syria rather than Libya was primarily responsible."
On 12 June, I tabled a question to the Prime Minister asking her
"what information Her Majesty's Government received from the German authorities both before and after the decision by Her Majesty's Government to grant approval for the use of United Kingdom bases for the United States attack on Libya, regarding the evidence available to the relevant authorities in Germany of any alleged involvement by Libya in the recent bombing of a nightclub in Berlin."
The Prime Minister replied:
"We have kept closely in touch with the German authorities on this matter. There is clear evidence that Libya was involved in the bombing of La Belle discotheque in Berlin on 5 April."—[Official Report, 12 June 1986; Vol. 99, c.287.]
It is about time that this clear evidence was produced, because some of us have been deeply unhappy, from an early stage, about the whole episode.
I go back to 14 April. For the sake of time, I shall refer only to column 579 of the Official Report for 14 April 1986. On a point of order, I regretted that the private notice question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East—this was before the bombing—was never granted. Although I believe that Mr. Speaker's motives were wholly honourable—
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Mr. Dalyell: No, not until I have finished my sentence.
It was deemed a great pity that the private notice question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East was not granted, as the obvious question about the use of British bases would have been asked. The House of Commons would then have had some input into events and the bombing of Tripoli before they took place rather than simply holding a post mortem. I now give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Faulds: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Is it not a fact that on that unfortunate Monday when the House was not allowed to express its views about the impending attack on Libya the Foriegn Office was apparently prepared to make a statement, that it was overruled by No. 10 and that, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker felt unable to allow questions on the matter? The significance is that, had the House uttered on that day, the Prime Minister's exercise in allowing the Americans to use bases in Britain might have been a little more difficult to project as something that was acceptable to the British public.
Mr. Dalyell: I have no proof of that. I am extremely careful to say what I know and what I guess to be the truth. I guess that to be the truth. My only comment is that when the House of Commons is in any way deprived of its say, it is not to the advantage of our country.
However, I suppose that one can understand the Prime Minister's decision not to reveal the use of British bases before an attack. What the House of Commons desires to know is to what extent the Prime Minister's senior colleagues were consulted. For example, the Secretary of State for Defence said on Radio Ayr:
"Something has got to be done. I think that my colleagues and I are very dubious as to whether a military strike is the best way of doing this. It is liable to hit the wrong people, it creates other tensions in the area. There are a lot of other things that can he done which my colleagues are certainly looking at very hard—further withdrawals of permission for diplomats from offending countries, action like reducing trade and reducing contacts of one sort or another, with those who refuse to outlaw terrorism."
Those are not the words of a man who expected this action to take place.
I refer to Malcolm Spaven's chapter in Pluto's quickly produced hook "Mad Dogs". On the permission to use F111is and tanker aircraft from British bases, he said that British military forces were also involved and that
"The Ministry of Defence admitted on 17 April that RAF Nimrods at St. Mawgan, and possibly Gibraltar, were put on standby to provide search and rescue cover for the F-111s returning from the raid."
If that is true, at least the Secretary of State for Defence
should surely have known about it. I quote again from "Mad Dogs". Mr. Spaven said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr.Callaghan) told the House on 17 April 1986:
"it 'never occurred to anyone' when US bombers arrived in the UK in 1950 that these aircraft would be used for non-NATO purposes."
So much for the Secretary of State for Defence. I ask, when was the Foreign Secretary consulted? Was it after or was it before anything could usefully be done to act on the considered advice of the Foreign Office? The Foreign Secretary said:
"No evidence emerged during the discussion that any Foreign Minister was aware during the meeting of a final
1142
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.]
These questions are not simply Opposition mischief-making. In his remarkable speech in the other place on 18 April, Field Marshal Lord Carver recalled at column 894 that the Prime Minister had said that discussions with the President covered a week. The Field Marshal asked Lady Young to tell the House who was consulted and who agreed. To date, the Field Marshal's questions have gone unanswered. The House of Commons deserves an answer.
The House of Commons is also entitled to press the Prime Minister as to her real motives for agreeing to the use of British bases. On 15 April, in answer to the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), the Prime Minister said:
"That was a factor in the decision to use our bases and why those aircraft were especially right for the action that was undertaken."
The hon. Member for Thanet has asked:
"Was she influenced not only by loyalty to an ally with a just cause, but by a much more practical consideration: that fewer risks were likely to be caused to Libyan civilians and to United States military personnel if the United States used the much more precise equipment, the F111, rather than carrier-based aircraft?"
To my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), the Prime Minister replied:
"the F111s were required because they are more accurate on particular targets"—[Official Report, 15 April 1986; Vol. 95, c. 726.]
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Twelve o'clock.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

  Foreign Affairs
  Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
  Mr. Dalyell: Yet from the Pentagon come very different reasons. First, the attack on Libya provided a proving ground for weapons. US News and World Report carries an article by William Broyles, Junior, on 12 May 1986, on the politics of war, in which he writes:
  "The budget, in short, is the mission. 'It all comes back to the budget', says one ex-Pentagon analyst. For years we've been saying that radar, infra red and smart bombs are the way to go. We've spent billions on night-mission avionics, so we had to try to use them, even if a daylight strike would have been better."
  Equally bluntly, Aviation Week of 21 April asserted that the attack on Libya:
  "provided a good proving ground for the F111s to be flown into the Mediterranean, and gave the Air Force a chance to demonstrate its capabilities."
  A raid of this kind was deemed to have great value in the presentation to Congress of the case for greater spending on the United States Navy and Air Force. But it was not a reason given by our Prime Minister to our House of Commons.
  Secondly, there was inter-service rivalry between the United States Navy and Air Force. As a senior official of the Pentagon artlessly put it to Aviation Week, page 19, 21 April:

  1143
  "Understandably, after the all-Navy action in Libya last month, the Air Force wanted a piece of the action."
  Again, that was not a reason given by our Prime Minister to our House of Commons for the use of territory in Britain as a base for non-NATO operations.
  I refer again to Spaven, page 23, who says:
  "Libya has large numbers of Soviet-built weapons; engaging them in limited combat would give US forces experience in employing electronic countermeasures and untested new weapons, and assessing the performance of Soviet weaponry."
  Thirdly, there has been the formidable lobby in the Pentagon which has been championing the idea of joint service operations, particularly the land-based aircraft in support of naval operations. When the joint chiefs of staff sat down in December 1985 to consider the military options against Libya, Admiral James Watkins, and others—Watkins was chief of naval operations—saw a useful opportunity for a joint naval-air force operation to demonstrate the value of their concept to doubters in Congress and the Pentagon. Again, that was not a reason hinted at by our Prime Minister to our House of Commons.
  We are dealing with what is referred to as the best all-weather precision aircraft in the world. Spaven said:
  "The main night-attack capability on US Navy aircraft carriers is the A-6E. in 1984, US Secretary of the Navy John Lehman described this aircraft as 'the best all-weather precision bomber in the world'".
  Why could not they do the job? Why could it not be done by the Coral Sea or the United States sixth fleet? It is simply not true that the bomb-aiming equipment of the F111s was superior to the bomb-aiming equipment of the carrier-borne A-7s. They both had the same TRAM system, or its equivalent.
  Fourthly, and possibly most important of all from the point of view of the House of Commons, whereas certainly the internal politics of the United States military were an important reason for the attacks on Libya, the nature and timing of the raid had much wider political implications.
  I quote from the April 1986 issue of Sanity. On page 18, Dan Pleasch asked Rear-Admiral Carroll of the Center for Defence Information in Washington:
  "In your experience, would it have been practical to use the F111s, and ask the British afterwards?"
  Rear-Admiral Carroll replied:
  "That was the basis on which the plan was prepared."
  The implications are chilling. A major reason for including the F111s in the operation was to tie in Britain as one European country seen to be supporting the United States. Again, this was not a reason that the Prime Minister offered to the House.
  On 3 June I put to the Prime Minister a question about the characteristics of the F111 aircraft based in the United Kingdom which rendered their use essential for the United States' attack on Libya. The Prime Minister replied:
  "The F111 aircraft based in the United Kingdom provided the best equipped means of carrying out the United States operation against specific terrorist targets in Libya, with the lowest possible risk of Libyan civilian and United States service casualties. As the United States has indicated, the F111 possesses advanced avionics and other capabilities which made it particularly suitable for such a mission."
  I then asked the Prime Minister to:
  "name the senior American, or Americans, who told her that the F111s were more precise than the carrier-based aircraft."
  The Prime Minister replied:
  "That was the advice that we received both from across the Atlantic and from home."—[Official Report, 3 June 1986; Vol. 98, c. 730–1.]
  1144
  When pressed on that occasion and later by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) the Prime Minister becomes uncharacteristically vague about the question of what she was told by the Americans. In The Scotsman Martin Dowle asserts that President Reagan did not talk personally to the Prime Minister in the week before the Libyan raid. What senior American speaking to our Prime Minister implied that the expensive carrier-borne A6s and A7s were so inferior to the F111s that they could not carry out the Libyan mission? Any American who said that would have been asked some awkward questions by the United States Navy and by United States taxpayers back in Washington. I ask the Prime Minister to let us know who exactly did tell her, if anyone did, about the F111s being more precise, avoiding collateral damage, and cutting down civilian casualties? The Prime Minister has got to the stage where she will invent any cock and hull story that will get her out of a jam.
  On page 63 of Aviation Week of 2 June we read:
  "In the Libyan Raid the 6th Fleet Commander was given the time frame to attack, and he had the responsibility of putting it all together,"
  The implication is that it was the sixth fleet commander, down in the Mediterranean, who planned and organised the raid, and for that reason the House should be told how the Prime Minister could possible know how the raid would be conducted. The sixth fleet commander had full responsibility. Command and. control of the operation was given to the on-scene commander. How does the Prime Minister make out that she had any kind of a British veto?
  The Minister may switch ground, and claim, as the Prime Minister claimed, in answer to the hon. Member for Thanet, South on 15 April when she said:
  "We were also influenced by the fact that the United States has hundreds of thousands of forces in Europe to defend the liberty of Europe. In that capacity they have been subject to terrorist attack."—[Official Report, 15 April 1986; Vol. 95, c. 726]
  If this is a reference to the bombing in West Berlin. Could the House of Commons be told why the Bundeskriminalamt, the Federal Police in West Germany, have even now refused to confirm the Libyan connection and why Herr Lochte, the chief of the Verfassungschutz, the bureau for the protection of the constitution, has said that he excludes any Libyan connection, and why the German intelligence, the Bundesnachrichtendienst, differs substantially for the Americans about the interpretation of Libyan messages?
  The Parliamentary Questions that I put down for the Prime Minister and the Foreign Office have got me nowhere and the answers are misleading. For example, on 3 June the Under-Secretary replied:
  No. Berlin is not part of the Federal Republic of Germany and is not governed by it. The allies, who have supreme authority in Berlin, remain in close touch with the German authorities in the city. [Official Report, 3 June 1986, Vol. 98, c. 414.]
  I ask the Government to be a little more candid about the advice that they are receiving from Germany about the connectionss between the tragedy in West Berlin and Libya. Before someone launches an attack on Benghazi or Tripoli, he had better be very clear about the basis for doing so.
  I am no admirer of Mr. Botha, but he was quite justified in drawing comparisons between what our Prime Minister and President Reagan did, and the attacks so universally deplored on Zimbabwe, Zambia and Botswana. It is not just the Prime Minister's critics who think along those

  1145
  lines. Ferdinand Mount, writing in the Spectator—not exactly the house journal of the Labour party—on 24
  May 1986, says on page 6:
  "For the comparison does throw a fascinating if rather eerie light on our confused and conradictory attitudes towards terrorism and the response to terrorism. The two raids are as nearly alike as any two events in an untidy world. The Governments of Zambia, Botswana, and Zimbabwe may not sponsor terrorism in quite the same way as Colonel Gaddafi does; but the distinction is not a crucial one."
  But what is crucial is the whole question of the control of operations. I shall refer briefly once again to the excellent case deployed by Michael Spaven in the book entitled "Mad Dogs". I shall quote three extracts. The first states:
  "What Mrs. Thatcher's words do not indicate is whether there are any circumstances in which Alliance solidarity would not operate, making refusal possible. Nor do they give any indication of whether such a refusal would be accepted by the United States; in other words, whether Britain actually has the power to control the activities of US military forces stationed here."
  The second extract states:
  "Early in 1986, Mrs. Thatcher could say only that she `would expect to be informed, when US nuclear forces in Britain were placed on alert."
  Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on this important point. Will he confirm that under the 1953 war plan made by the then United States President Eisenhower, when the United States considers itself to be
  1146
  in a state of war or readiness for war, it does not necessarily consult any of its western European allies before attacking a third country?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) resumes his speech I remind the House that five Back-Bench speeches have lasted for more than 20 minutes. The debate started late, and some hon. Members who have sat in the Chamber throughout the debate will not have an opportunity to speak unless hon. Members speak briefly.
  Mr. Dalyell: I reply to my hon. Friend by saying that the Foreign Secretary said that
  "it is not a question of a publishable agreement".
  Mr. Spaven adds:
  "Nor is there any way in which the British air traffic control authorities could stop US aircraft from taking off; they have no right to question the purpose of US military flights, which in any case are under no obligation to file flight plans with the authorities unless they are intending to fly through what is termed `controlled airspace'."
  Finally, Mr. Spaven says:
  "The danger is that the US will not sign any deal on control of its bases which does not contain a get-out clause of that sort — which would bring a future British government right back to the square one of 'joint decision in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time'."
  That is a real problem for the Alliance. However, in view of the time factor, I shall leave it at that. Nevertheless, the question of controls is a very important issue. I ask for a considered reply by letter.

  Foreign Affairs
  10.13 pm
  Mr. David Atkinson: The theme throughout yesterday's debate was political and human rights in one country, South Africa. This evening, as well as referring to the situation in South Africa, I shall discuss our approach to human rights generally.
  There is no doubt that Britain, perhaps more than any other country, stands for the maintenance of freedom. One can argue that the House is a symbol of that freedom, as was certainly the case during the last war. In every country, without exception that I have visited since 1979, the reputation of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has stood as high as Churchill's ever did in support of freedom.
  Mr. Foulkes: Come off it.
  Mr. Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman has obviously never been abroad, or, if he has, he has not listened to what people say.
  There is no doubt that the denial of human rights remains the major obstacle to world peace and security, and to trust and confidence between nations. As the world knows, we as a nation have always accepted a major responsibility in attempting to make the international treaties and institutions concerned with human rights succeed, and one such is the Helsinki Final Act. There have been many times when I have questioned the continuation of the Helsinki process because of the continued failure of the Soviet Union and its allies to implement the provisions which they have approved and supported, but I accept that we must persevere.
  The Helsinki process provides too valuable an opportunity for violations by participating states to be raised. It keeps them in the dock of world opinion and enables us to raise specific outrages, such as the current persecution of the Turkish ethnic minority in Bulgaria. That issue was raised at Ottawa last year, but the fate of the Turkish minority has not, in my view, been sufficiently appreciated by the free world, with the result that Bulgaria continues to force its Turkish citizens—about 10 per cent. of the population—to change their names, to close their schools, and to abandon their language and customs.
  All this is highlighted in a report of the Council of Europe last year. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is to reply, for raising this matter in Sofia last month. I look forward to his comments later.
  Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman condemns the persecution that is taking place in Bulgaria, but will he condemn the Turkish Government for their denial of the liberty and identity of Kurdish people within the national boundaries of Turkey?
  Mr. Atkinson: I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing the attitude of the present democratically elected Turkish Government with that of their predecessors, when there was no democracy. Instead, there was chaos and anarchy and the military Government took over the running of the country to try to put matters right and to restore democracy to Turkey.
  The Helsinki process enables the cases of individuals to be raised. These include those who are harassed or discriminated against, persecuted or imprisoned for
  1148
  courageously compaigning in their own countries for rights and freedoms which we take for granted. These include Rostislav Evdokimov, who is serving five years' imprisonment and five years internal exile for campaigning for free trade unions in the Soviet Union, and Father Gleb Yakunin, who is serving seven years' imprisonment and seven years internal exile for advocating the end of state control of religion. I had the privilege of meeting both these people in Leningrad and Moscow when I was gathering material as the Council of Europe's rapporteur on these matters.
  I pay tribute to the work of Amnesty International, which is now 25 years old, and to other organisations, such as Christian Solidarity International, of which I am the United Kingdom president. I must say, however, that I continue to be disappointed that we as Members of Parliament receive so little lobbying on behalf of people such as those to whom I have referred from our own free trade unions and from our churches. In my view, they are put to shame by the Jewish communities in Britain, who so frequently and efficiently supply Members with the facts about refusniks. I was pleased when I heard that their cause was presented to Mr. Gorbachev by members of the recent IPU delegation to the Soviet Union.
  As we know, such perseverance pays off. Shcharansky, Solzhenitzyn, Bukovski, Ginsberg, the Siberian Seven, Georgie Vins and more recently Father Calcui from Romania, and others are all living proof of that. They are now enjoying freedom in the West. Worldwide campaigns on their behalf made them an embarrassment to the Kremlin, and so they were released. But so many remain. These include Sakharov, Irina Ratushinskaya, the Russian Catholic poetess whose state of health is giving so much cause for concern, and Valeri Barinov, the rock gospel singer, who are others known to us. We must raise their case at every opportunity, not so much for them to be released to the West, because they do not want to come to it. They wish merely to be able to go home and to see an end to persecution. There are many thousands more whose names we do not know.
  We should most certainly consider the withdrawal of any support that we might give by the way of aid to those countries where we learn that their citizens are being persecuted for being Christian or Jewish, for example, as is the position in Nepal at present. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary knows this as a result of my fact-finding visit earlier this year and from his visit later in February. As a policy of human rights that is not enough.
  We know from our own experience and that of the 35 countries which enjoy the same freedoms as we do that it is democracy which represents the best guarantee of human rights and the best protection for minorities. Moreover, it remains the best force for peace. In recent times, I doubt whether a democratically elected Argentina would have occupied the Falklands or whether a democratically elected Soviet Union would have invaded Afghanistan. We need no reminding that two world wars were started by dictatorships and won by democracies.
  The central theme running through British foreign policy should be the promotion of democracy to those 100 or so remaining countries which are neither democratic nor Communist. They must understand that they must make a choice before a choice is made for them. Unfortunately, that is a battle of ideas which democracy is not winning. More countries have had Communism

  1149
  foisted upon them since the last war than have opted for democracy. That has partially been because for too long democracy has been on the defensive. We have been too negative in advocating it for others. We have been too apologetic in defending our own colonial past, which has left behind throughout the world parliamentary systems and freedom under the law which we had attempted to introduce in good faith. In so doing, we sowed the seeds of freedom which led to independence. That is a record to be proud of and which we should defend at every opportunity in the United Nations and elsewhere. I wonder whether we do that enough.
  I accept that we should not assume that parliamentary systems which work in our countries will always survive being foisted upon others. Our European systems have taken centuries to evolve. In most of black Africa, pluralism has already reverted to tribalism and we have to accept that. What we cannot accept is the end to the independent judiciary and the dismantling of those constitutional restraints on arbitrary power which guarantee human rights for all people. That is the true test of a free society.
  The alternative is a regime where there is no justice because the judiciary and legislature are one, usually one party. Regrettably, that appears to be the direction in which Zimbabwe is now moving and that is the situation which already applies to almost one third of the states which make up the Commonwealth. In my view, it ill behoves the Commonwealth to seek to destroy the economy of one of its former members, South Africa, when millions of its own citizens enjoy far fewer rights and freedoms than South Africa's black citizens do.
  I want to record my opposition to economic sanctions against South Africa, not just for all the good reasons given to the House yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary but for one other very good reason. Either we apply sanctions against all the regimes we object to or we do not apply any at all. If we are not prepared to take meaningful action against the Soviet Union for continuing to occupy Afghanistan or for applying far worse apartheid against Christians, Jews and others within its own country, we should forget any further economic sanctions against South Africa.
  In my view, we should not underestimate the effect of what is already happening in South Africa — the damaged economy, the pressure for change from business, the effect of the present violence, the political reforms already undertaken, the negotiations going on behind the scenes with black leaders and the whole experience of the Eminent Persons Group
  Even though the Nationalist Government may not admit to being shaken by those factors, I believe that they will be influenced by them and that further reforms will be forthcoming. South Africa needs a period of calm to work things out for itself. The Eminent Persons Group, the Community and the Commonwealth have not been helpful in suggesting how reforms should be implemented—reforms which will guarantee the protection of all 14 groups which make up South African society—bearing in mind that every group in South Africa constitutes a minority.
  We in the West should continue to make our good offices available for that process to succeed, with the promise of aid if necessary. President Reagan's National
  1150
  Endowment for Democracy for leadership training, education and the strengthening of democratic institutions could also be applicable here. What we must not do is to contribute further to an economic desert with even higher unemployment in South Africa and in neighbouring states, which will serve only to encourage anarchy and civil war. That wouuld accord exactly with the highest expectations of the Kremlin.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his brevity. The first Front Bench spokesman is hoping to catch my eye at 11 o'clock, so further restraint is needed.
  10.25 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I, too, welcome this debate on foreign affairs, although it is difficult to concentrate on a particular part of the world when other hon. Members understandably wish to cover other issues. I welcome the fact that there is now far greater public interest in foreign affairs debates than there has been for many years. I believe that that interest is occasioned partly by the actions of the Government and the opposition of so many people to those actions.
  We had a full debate on the problems of southern Africa yesterday, so I shall not repeat those arguments, save to say that the issue of sanctions against South Africa has activated and united more people in this country in the past few months than, tragically, in the 26 years since Sharpeville and the consignment to prison of Nelson Mandela and others. I hope that we shall soon see the release of those people and a genuine democratic majority Government in South Africa, because until then there will be bloodshed, poverty and hunger in South Africa.
  I have here a copy of the United Nations report on the adverse consequences for the enjoyment of human rights of political, economic and other forms of assistance given to the racist and colonial regime in South Africa. The report lists the international companies which have been and still are trading with South Africa and making a great deal of money out of it. There are also 42 pages of British firms, listing their military, economic and financial interests in southern Africa. I believe that that is why the House yesterday rejected the opportunity to impose economic sanctions against South Africa, although I believe that the time will come when this country will become party to an economic embargo against South Africa.
  I wish today to deal with issues other than South Africa, because the atmosphere surrounding international affairs has changed a great deal in the past few months. When American planes took off from British bases for their bombing raid on Libya, we received a large number of letters from constituents complaining of the danger to this country following the use of those bases and the attack on defenceless people in Tripoli. I quote one typical example. My constituent, Ms. Jane Rollason, writes:
  "I write simply to register my horror at Mrs. Thatcher's action on 15 April in allowing Reagan to launch his attack on Tripoli from British bases. Her arrogance in endangering the lives of British people at home and particularly in Libya is quite incredible, and she has surely made a considerable contribution to the escalation of terrorist activity throughout Europe."
  She goes on to applaud the response of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and concludes:
  "roll on the day when we are no longer led by a Reagan acolyte, should we be fortunate enough to live that long."
  That is typical of the view expressed by many people.

  1151
  There has been much analysis, particularly by my lion. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), of the motives behind the use of British bases for the attack on Libya. Clearly there was no military need to use British bases, but it was pushed by the United States military high command to prove that those bases could be used and that they could fly F111 aircraft around the coast of Europe to bomb Libya. Aviation Week, which my hon. Friend mentioned, analysed this well and pointed out that the attack on Libya was partly a proving ground for the ability of the F111s to fly to Libya without going over the European mainland, to deliver their bomb loads and to return to this country.
  We must remember that the motive behind all this and behind so much of British foreign policy has been a furious hatred, promulgated by the Government through the media, of the Soviet Union and of everything that the Soviet Union does. It is also motivated by a slavish following of everything that the United States does. We do not have an independent foreign policy, but a foreign policy that is essentially directed by the interests of the Government and of the military establishment of the United States.
  Not so long ago, when this country did not consider itself to be half at war with the Soviet Union, Britain and the Soviet Union considered that they had many mutual interests and many British soldiers died fighting Nazi-ism, as did many more Soviet soldiers. What I complain about is the way in which we are constantly fed a diet of pro-American propaganda from the Government, through the newspapers, and a diet of anti-Soviet propaganda.
  The influence of the United States on our foreign policy leads us into the most extraordinary positions. It has led us into NATO and into supporting United States policy in many places. We supported the raid on Libya solely because of our subservience to the United States. We are supporting the United States' attempt to destroy the democratic and independent Government of the people of Nicaragua for exactly the same reason. We have stood by and allowed the people of Chile to be trodden underfoot because we are dominated by the interests of the United States.
  Central America is the classic example of poor countries trying to drag themselves out of the cycle of poverty, debt and deprivation by their own communal activities and by the development of a collectivist economy. Because such an economy is seen as a threat to the interests of United States multinationals, the United States has imposed sanctions against Nicaragua and the British Government have followed suit. There are many other examples in other parts of the world where we have dragged ourselves wrongly into the United States foreign policy domain because of our links with the United States.
  More recently there have been huge demonstrations throughout western Europe and throughout this country against the siting of cruise and Trident missiles, the effect that such siting has had on national defence policies and the cost being imposed on European defence budgets. We are members of NATO, which controls about 90 per cent. of our armed forces. It has an enormous bearing on our defence expenditure. When hon. Members talk about democracy, they should remember that half the decisions relating to our defence expenditure are made, not in Whitehall, in the British Cabinet or in the House of Commons, but in the NATO Council of Ministers, which in turn takes its advice from the high command and the
  1152
  generals who have consistently argued for a higher and higher level of national defence spending by NATO members. That threat to democracy concerns me greatly.
  When NATO was set up in 1948, the commander of the United States air force who arrived in Britain with the advance guard of the American forces to be stationed here said:
  "Never before in history has one first-class power gone into another first-class power's country without any agreement. We were just told to come over and 'We shall he pleased to have you'."
  Since that time the growth of American bases in this country and the effect of those bases on our national life has got worse and worse.
  There are now 21 United States bases, 150 F111 aircraft and some 50,000 members of American forces here. Hiroshima could happen dozens of times over with the nuclear weaponry that is based in Britain. That is why I seriously call into question a defence strategy which relies solely on the interests of the United States, which drags us into a military alliance which is not defensive but aggressive, which controls the national budgets of so many countries and which imposes nuclear weapons on every country in western Europe, in almost all of which there has been mammoth opposition to the siting of those weapons. That opposition will continue and grow.
  Although the Spanish people undeniably voted to remain in the North Atlantic Alliance in the referendum, they were denied a vote on NATO membership. There was never a referendum on that, as the wording of the ballot papers concerned the nebulous subject of the North Atlantic Alliance rather than NATO membership. I believe that the opposition to NATO membership in Spain would be repeated in many other countries if people were given the opportunity to say so. The long-term future of NATO is in serious doubt. I hope that, in the long run, NATO and other military alliances will be broken up, because they destroy national economic interests and pose the danger of a further world war.
  I have mentioned the effect of United States influence on us and its control of our armed forces. Our massive defence expenditure is a direct result of NATO membership. Because we are so tied to United States foreign policy, we are also tied to the United States in all other spheres of international relations. Thinking is centred on Europe or on North America. Because of that, we tend to shut our eyes to what is going on in the rest of the world. We tend to shut our eyes to the growing impoverishment of the rest of the world because of the Atlantic-centric, Eurocentric view. We put our hands in our pockets to give overseas aid, while bleeding the poorest countries of the world dry through debt repayments and low commodity prices.
  War on Want was founded by hon. Members and others in 1951 because they recognised the poverty that was occurring in immediately post-colonial countries and the danger of a new form of colonialism through lack of development. It recently published a booklet entitled, "Profits out of Poverty?" in which it describes the debt burden as a percentage of exports in several Latin American countries. Latin American countries are not the only ones with such problems. Argentina's debts amount to $50 billion, and debt repayments represent 80 per cent. of exports. That is the highest, but other countries are in serious difficulties.

  1153
  The booklet also describes the involvement of British banks in the debt burden of Latin American and other countries. It mentions the exposure of big British banks to the big debtors. For example, 84 per cent. of the National Westminster bank's notional capital is tied up in debts in Latin America. The same is true for 202 per cent. of the notional capital of Lloyd's bank and for 274 per cent. of the Midland bank's notional capital. All those banks have registered record and growing profits.
  Many Third world countries are asked to borrow money against the sale of commodities to finance development. Neither commodity prices nor debt interest payments are in their control, so the loans do not benefit the Third world countries. Rather, by a process of low commodity prices and high interest rates, western European and North American banks have been subsidised by the poorest people in the poorest countries in the world—to the tune of $25 billion a year from Latin America alone.
  Many other examples could be quoted. I merely refer to the publication that has recently been issued by the Third World Foundation, which also produces the well-respected "South" magazine, which chronicles the debt burden of sub-Saharan Africa. This is an area that has been debated many times in the House, and many people have correctly and generously given large amounts of their own money and resources to try to overcome the terrible problems of poverty in sub-Saharan Africa.
  Frankly, the debt burden is enormous. It has grown from $18·6 billion in 1975 to $88·1 billion in 1984. As a proportion to export earnings, it was 120 per cent. in 1975 and it is now 230·9 per cent. That absolutely crippling burden is being placed on the people of sub-Saharan Africa and similarly on Latin America. It is hardly surprising that there is a political process of opposition to this debt burden from those who demand a moratorium on debt repayments and a limit on debt repayments to no more than 10 per cent. of export earnings.
  Because the American Administration realised the danger to their own supporters and banks, the Baker plan was put forward as a solution, but that plan does not provide an adequate solution, because it suggests more lending and a different form of economic development in those countries. The poorest people in the poorest countries of the world are fed up with being told how to run their economies and to reduce public expenditure in order to increase export earnings in order to increase their own poverty to assuage the appetites of the big banks. Unless the British and other Governments face this problem, there will he collapses of major banks and serious problems for the Third world countries.
  In December 1985 the International Currency Review produced a report on the problems of commodity prices. It includes an index in which 1980 is taken as 100. For all commodities, the figure in 1970 was 34·8 and by 1985 it had reached 70·1. However, in real terms the price of coffee has fallen from 100 in 1980 to 79·6 now. and sugar has fallen from 100 to 14·8—a massive reduction in earnings for these key crops and commodities that are produced by these countries.
  When Band Aid, Sport Aid, Live Aid and similar campaigns are mounted, many people rightly take part and give money, but they are also calling for a change in
  1154
  an economic system and relationship that automatically impoverishes so much of the rest of the world. That is the campaign that we are mounting.
  I hope that in future debates on overseas aid and world poverty we shall look seriously at the problems of commodity prices and impoverishment of the Third world. If we do not, and if we become obsessed with the cost of the militaristic fervour imposed on us by the United States, we shall be turning our backs on the poorest people in the poorest countries and on the prospect of economic regeneration for them and ourselves.
  In the future, I look forward to a British foreign policy which is genuinely independent, which is not dominated by the military and financial interests of western Europe and the United States, and which is genuinely part of an international effort to eliminate poverty throughout the world.
  10.43 pm
  Mr. Bowen Wells: I wish to cover three topics, but I shall cut my remarks as much as possible in view of the time. I shall speak first about the position in South Africa; secondly, about the deterioration in Soviet-United States relations and the role of Britain and Europe; and, thirdly, the implications for our aid budget of the debt crisis in Africa.
  I hope that the House, if not the press, will forgive me for continuing yesterday's debate, and therefore yesterday's news, on the future of South Africa. As The Daily Telegraph accurately observed, I did not vote against the motion proposed by the Opposition which called for "effective economic measures" compared with the Government's motion calling for "effective measures". I am grateful for the opportunity to explain and, perhaps, convince others of, my position.
  As I see it, we believe that the internal policies of another sovereign independent state offend against our belief in natural justice, and deprive the majority of its citizens of the normal human rights of freedom, justice before the law, to be consulted and make representations on policies which effect their everyday life, to own property, and not to be discriminated against on the grounds of race, colour or creed. The black population of South Africa are denied many other matters against which I rail and which deeply offend the Conservative party and the House.
  In the past we would have taken up arms against such a state, as we did at the beginning of the century in the Boer war and later against Nazi Germany in the name of freedom and justice, and as the north of the United States did in different circumstances against the south in the American civil war. In many ways the motivations then and now are similar.
  No one is suggesting that we overthrow the South African regime by force or even use a United Nations force to do so, although in the past we would have done so and this House would have agreed to do so. Given that that is so and we are not prepared to use outside force, we must use the tools that Wilberforce used in his crusade to end slavery—the tools of argument, persuasion and patience, reinforced by economic forces, many of which are already at work in South Africa, and the moral condemnation of our nation and churches. There is no other course available to us.
  We must take up the task of persuading the South African Government and the electorate who support them

  1155
  —it is important to remember that they are responsive to a limited white electorate—that it is in their interests to change their policy. Let us be clear that we are asking them to share power with the black majority, so we must analyse the political and economic factors which are most likely to affect that white electorate in influencing that white Government.
  There is a great deal of evidence to show that there is a growing willingness within the electorate to consider making progress in that direction. The Eminent Persons Group recognised that when it stated that it believed that public opinion in South Africa, which is reasonably unfettered, is ahead of the Government in that respect. The Nationalist Government also have a Right-wing constituency which forbids and bans any progress in that direction. That probably explains why the Government are working behind public opinion.
  If that analysis is correct, we must encourage those in government and opposition to combine together to begin the process of freeing Nelson Mandela and opening a dialogue with all sections of the black community. If we were to adopt mandatory economic sanctions which would impoverish and punish the black community still further, we would encourage the forces of revolution and combine the white electorate against making progress towards a political settlement with the black community.
  I agree with and support the Government's view, put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, my hon. Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. My only disagreement is that they must be prepared to consider all options, even those of an economic character, if we are to identify the measures which will reinforce the determination of those in government and in opposition and of the wider electorate in South Africa to open negotiations without preconditions, but on the understanding that violence will be discouraged by both sides.
  The identification of such measures must be given urgent and detailed consideration and they must be decided on at the next meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government in consultation with the United States and the European Economic Community, with special reference to West Germany, Holland, Japan and the United Nations. Although we must maintain and enforce diplomatic pressure where possible, experience has shown that such pressure has made only limited and too-slow progress. I believe that the most effective form of pressure — as the right hon. Lady the Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart) and her co-authors of the report accepted by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations in April said—can be exercised by the South African private sector and by those who have invested their money in South Africa.
  The lack of confidence in South Africa has already resulted in a dramatic fall in the rand and there is a disinvestment programme. Such action affects the value of property owned by white South Africans and results in a loss of income enjoyed by white people who have a vote and the ability to influence Government policy. We must draw the private sector into Government discussions, led in this country by Sir Leslie Smith, a former chairman of the British Oxygen Company, with the American, German, French and Italian private sectors, to hammer out policies which will have the most effective influence on the South African Government and encourage them to change course.
  1156
  I hope that the Government will leave no stone unturned, including measures of an economic nature, in their determination to find measures which will encourage and enable, politically, the South African Government to alter their policies so that the South African economy can grow and prosper and thereby make the massive investment in black African housing, health and education which is badly needed to redress the balance which is the heritage of the years of apartheid and racial government.
  The Soviet Union's relations with this country and the United States have been well covered during the debate. We should not forget, in our enthusiasm, to take advantage of what I believe is a window of opportunity offered by the accession of Mr. Gorbachev to the secretaryship of the Communist party in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. We must not forget that the Soviet Union has not abandoned its expansionist policies outside the boundaries of the Soviet Union.
  Afghanistan has been mentioned. I add to that the commanding position that the Russians have gained in south-east Asia by their support of the Vietnam regime and their domination and use of Cam Ran Bay and Da Nang which are massive installations—built, ironically, by the Americans—and which enable them to threathen, by their expanded navy and air force, the northern parts of Australia and the whole or the south Pacific basin. It is not just a threat. The Russians are operating in the islands of the south Pacific. They are doing the same seduction job that they did in Grenada.
  The Russians are responsible for finding the money for Vietnam to occupy Kampuchea and for maintaining the wretched regime in that country. Soviet expansionism can be seen in Ethiopia, Mozambique, Angola, Cuba, Nicaragua and Europe.
  If there is to be an easement of tension between the Soviet Union and the West, we must build up trust. The Soviet Union must begin to show that it is willing to enter into such discussions and to reduce tension if we are to make progress on the serious issues of nuclear and conventional disarmament.
  Africa's debt problems are residual problems which will affect the world well after the time when the debt problems of the larger countries have been settled or at least a means of living with them has been found. The World Bank estimates that, by 1990, all African countries presently in debt will be much further in debt. One can see no way of solving that problem, except by increasing concessional flows through aid budgets to those countries. The Government will have to deal with the replenishment of the International Development Association and the World Bank in the next two or three months.
  I understand your impatience, Mr. Speaker, because. I, too, have been sitting listening to this debate for two days. I should like to make this point. It is essential for the Government to recognise the necessity of ensuring that Britain plays its part in expanding the resources—properly focused on economic development—which will enable those countries to begin to pay back what they owe, pay their interest, and produce an economy that will enable them to provide a better standard of living and to avoid starvation.
  Without further ceremony, and thanking you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me and the House for listening to me, I shall sit down.
  10.55 pm
  Mr. John Browne: In the few minutes available to me I should like to talk about South Africa. I am completely opposed to apartheid, but, like most people in this country, I do not think that that implies that I am anti-South African.
  Obviously, the situation is complex and time is running out. In fact, after my visit there, I would say that the time has already passed for a peaceful, internally generated solution to the problem facing the South Africans. In short, South Africa needs help. Two countries can offer some help—the United States and the United Kingdom, both of which have large economic and political interests in South Africa—for example militarily and with respect to raw materials. In a way, they have a historic as well as a present responsibility to work towards a peaceful solution.
  I should like in the closing minutes of the debate humbly to offer one solution that should be considered seriously by the United States and the United Kingdom. President Reagan and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should at least get together specifically to talk about the problem facing South Africa. It is not just a South African problem, but a free world one.
  President Reagan and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should call a meeting between themselves and State President Botha at which they should face him with the reality of the threat that faces South Africa and the West, outline their plans and offer incentives for working and co-operating. They will have to offer the stick, which basically is not sanctions—I wholly disapprove of them, for the reasons outlined in the debate—but disinvestment which would disproportionately hit white employment as opposed to black employment.
  This should be the plan. A conference should be called by the South African Government and sponsored by the United States and the United Kingdom as the honest brokers. I believe that they are second to none in the world as brokers for peace. That conference, which should comprise the President of the United States and the British Prime Minister, should be chaired by the South African State President. The 15 or more parties who represent the various interest groups in South Africa should be called to the conference. The South African Government should negotiate away all the vestiges of apartheid, save the vote and the constitution. The parts of apartheid that would be destroyed would then have been negotiated with the moderate blacks and moderate leaders from all parties that turned up at the conference. The ANC might resist going to this first conference because it might not renounce violence.
  There should then be a pause during which the dissolution of apartheid should be put into legislative form to convince people to create the necessary credibility. A second conference should then be called to discuss South Africa's future constitution. Even the ANC could do nothing other than attend, and would perhaps be forced to eschew violence to qualify to attend. The second conference, in discussing the constitution, would discuss voting. We are not after giving one man, one vote once, but one man, one vote for ever after. We have to design a constitution that will allay the fears inherent in South Africa, and felt by many more than whites, of being swamped by the majority.
  1158
  A solution might be along the lines of that found by the Swiss many years ago when they were faced with people of three different nations and four different languages, all fighting. The big fear was that when they combined, the German-speaking majority would run the country. Their solution was based on the canton system — keeping power all the way down the ladder at the lowest, canton, level and not at the national level. The national Government of Switzerland have only two powers. One is their control over the currency, and the second is their power to make war or peace on behalf of the country.
  In South Africa, there are already in place about 360 magistrates districts, each about the size of the smaller Swiss cantons. A canton solution could work in South Africa if it were well studied, and if people had a wish to make it work. Switzerland is not the same as South Africa, but it has similar problems. All the people in the western world who have interests in South Africa and all the blacks and whites there have as an overriding interest peace, and finding a peaceful solution.
  I shall not take any more time from the speech of the Front Bench spokesman for the Opposition, upon which I know that I am encroaching. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Mr. Reagan will talk over this solution because if it worked, it would bring something valuable to South Africa — a peace that would allay the fears of the minorities and protect them, and would offer one person one vote, and often.
  11.2 pm
  Mr. George Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) for curtailing his speech. I know that some hon. Members have had to exercise the self-denying ordinance requested by the Chair, despite the late hour at which the debate is being concluded.
  There is no doubt that, across the wide range of subjects that have been discussed in the debate, what dominates world affairs in 1986 is the relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States of America. There have been many changes. In Washington we have had a new unilateralist style of foreign policy, with all the attendant electric shocks to NATO that go along with abandoning SALT 2, the raid on Libya, the deployment of chemical weapons and the gearing up of the strategic defence initiative planning has come in. In the Kremlin, a new leadership is promoting almost every week new initiatives and proposals, ranging from conventional troop cuts to test ban verification, even to the elimination of all nuclear weapons by the end of the century. Even without these new dimensions, the superpower relationship would dominate world events, as it has for the past 30 to 40 years.
  The genuine difficulty that faces the non-superpowers in both the West and the East is to know how at a time of almost unique danger, when new breeds of weapons systems could open up vastly more dangerous scenarios, to assist the superpowers to live with each other, to talk to each other and to reach decisions together in this increasingly constricted world.
  During the last two years there has been a transformation of our view of world problems. Whatever the ideological divide, which is still very deep, and whatever the potential for escalation and proliferation, which remains staggeringly great, both sides seem to be more willing than they have been for many years to talk

  1159
  to each other and to compete for the command of world opinion rather than to rattle sabres and command military superiority. For that we must be grateful.
  Last year's Reagan-Gorbachev summit was an enormous boost to the hope that agreement might be possible. The underlying relationship that was forged there seems to have prevented the worst of the misunderstandings that have characterised superpower relations in the last 15 years. It was good that this afternoon the Foreign Secretary was able to announce that the much-postponed visit of the Soviet Foreign Minister is to take place at an early date.
  For many years the superpower dialogue on arms control has been bogged down in the capitals of Europe and we have grown used to inactivity. There were 13 years of mutual and balanced force reduction talks in Vienna, and there have been endless years of talks at the disarmament conference in Geneva. None of them has produced concrete results. Now there appears to be a flicker of hope, as new suggestions are made and as old objections seem to be of less consequence. Slowly, in all the different forums in which these matters are discussed, there seems to be a spluttering into life of one sort or another. However, there is a proliferation problem. Because so many talks are taking place on so many subjects and on so many overlapping areas, the result is that, in such a complex area, fine words and sentiments from the top people take far too long to be translated into detail and to reach the negotiating table.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and the hon. Members for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) told us this afternoon about their visit to the Soviet Union as members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. They underlined very clearly the fact that at the top of the negotiating ladder there are clear ideas about the direction in which the superpowers wish to go, but we have yet to see concrete results in terms of rhetoric and those fine intentions at the negotiating table. Indeed, the enthusiasm of Mr. Gorbachev for more and more initiatives has had the effect of confusing both the United States of America and his own negotiators. Both of them seem to be incapable of keeping track of his latest initiatives.
  The new Soviet obsession with public relations and its desire, perhaps, to out-act the old actor in the White House tends to devalue the merit of some of the suggestions. For example, it was suggested after Chernobyl that there should be yet another summit. It was Mr. Gorbachev's third summit suggestion this year. The fact that agreement on the main summit meeting had not been reached meant that this suggestion looked like a diversionary gimmick. This impression was reinforced by the suggestion that this particular summit meeting should be held in Hiroshima. Glosses such as these detracted from the sensible points about co-operation on civil nuclear power that were made at the same time.
  The shocks that were administered to us by the United States' raid on Libya and by its more recent decision to abondon SALT 2 betray a deep division among the allies and disarray in the United States and in the Administration of that country. As my right hon. Friend so ably said, it is not to be percieved as being anti-American to express a view in Britain that is being openly and in increasing volume expressed in the United States.
  There is a crisis in the Atlantic Alliance and it is not neutralist or anti-American to note it and to regret it. The
  1160
  crisis arises partly from the distance from the last war, whose ruinous tragedies hound together the NATO countries after it. Our electorates in the West are now, like myself and many other Members of the House, of the majority of our population who were born after the end of the second world war. There is, whether we like it or not, a declining interest in and consciousness of the seeds of that conflict and the adhesive that was invented in the late 1940s to prevent it happening, again.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) made an impassioned speech thus evening about the election of Dr. Kurt Waldheim to the presidency of Austria. He made points which deserve answering, not just in the international context where President Waldheim will find himself, and possibly find himself profoundly uncomfortable, but about the British Government providing access to documents which should now be within the public domain but which apparently are being denied to us for reasons that cannot readily be understood. I hope that those Ministers who listened to his speech this evening, a speech of great power, will take on board the points that he made and will come forward with the answers which the House would expect.
  I do not necessarily see the election of Dr. Waldheim, in a country which has more than due cause to be grateful for the post-war settlement, as a step into the past or a rejection of world criticism. It is perhaps a reflection of the same trends that we see in the West, of a rejection of the values and standards and memories of the second world war. Although we may regret the decision of the Austrian people, it was a decision taken within a democracy and is therefore one which we in the outside world will have to accept.
  There is also a crisis in our Alliance because interests here have changed. The political activist in the West is more interested in world famine than in any possible Soviet invasion; more concerned about Chernobyl than the Krasnoyarsk phased array radar, and far more worked up about famine in Africa, which exists a plane journey away from all the wealth of our countries, than in the size of Russia's tank battalions.
  Even in the Federal Republic of Germany a couple of weeks ago a respected opinion poll for a newspaper there showed that there was a greater measured concern in the population over the Chernobyl nuclear accident than there was in 1961 at the building of the Berlin wall.
  Opinions, and values are changing, and recently the new American ambassador to Bonn expressed views about the possibility of the Americans going home and the reunification of the continent that would have been heresy had they been expressed only a few years ago.
  There is also a crisis in the Alliance because of the behaviour, so often seen as inexplicable, and emotional and reckless, in our western European countries of the major and dominant partner in the Alliance, the United States. Indeed, as has been said by a number of hon. Members in the debate, there is a genuine concern about the way in which the present Administration of the United States conduct their foreign policy, which seems to fail to take into account the sincerely held views of their allies and supporters.
  Anti-Americanism is rife in Europe and it is being fuelled by the Reagan administration's often open contempt for the opinion of its all too often—far too often in some cases—loyal allies. That must be a matter of concern for all of us who have had the good fortune to

  1161
  grow up in a Europe mercifully spared the civil wars of almost every other previous generation. Before it is too late, we in western Europe must find new ingredients for the glue that keeps the Alliance together, to ensure that for the next 40 years it will be as successful in holding together our continent and its peoples as it has been for the last 40 years.
  It is clear from the debate that superpower relationships dominate not only their own traditional spheres of influence. The waves of tension spread far beyond the areas of the Warsaw pact and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It is outwith these areas that some of the worst dangers to peace exist for all of us. There is no doubt that the raid by the United States on Libya in April did much to fuel anti-Americanism within the NATO countries. The effect of what was seen by the allies of the United States as a provocative, disproportionate and questionable legal military adventure will be considerable.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) articulated a view and asked again, with his usual skill, the uncomfortable questions for which he is now famous or notorious. I hope that the Government and Government hon. Members listened to him with great care, and that the Government will he able to provide the answers to his questions.
  I was in East Berlin the day after that raid and with Mr. Gorbachev I was attending as an observer at the East German Communist party congress. Despite what the Americans did to Libya, few of the normally predictable reactions manifested themselves at that time. Of course, we had the expected rhetoric, but it was not overplayed.
  East Berlin is known as a barometer of world tension. It is often said that if the temperature of the world goes up, Berlin reaches boiling point. The interest that day in East Berlin was less in world war 3 than in the 58-car cavalcade that Mr. Gorbachev used to visit the tourist sites of the city. Whatever the private anger at the Americans, and it must have been profound, the Soviet Union did not over-react, and instead of retaliation for an attack on a Soviet ally, Mr. Gorbachev used his East Berlin speech, delivered only two days after the bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi, to make yet another proposal for arms control, this time on conventional troop reductions.
  Some hon. Members make the point that instead of superpower relations being permanently confined to nuclear weapons, even though they are of supreme importance to us all, more progress in establishing the trust and understanding that is required for any long-term agreement between the superpowers might be accomplished by looking at other areas of common interest.
  The middle east, with its instability and unpredictability and its potential for spilling over on to the world stage, is a headache for both the Soviet Union and the United States. It is the very instability and unpredictability of President Gaddafi that denied him greater Soviet support after the attack on Tripoli. That still prevents the Soviet Union from signing a defence agreement with the Libyans—an agreement for which there is considerable pressure. We should bear in mind that Mr. Gorbachev has scarely more affection for the schizophrenic colonel than has Washington.
  Both the superpowers have influence and interest in the middle east, and their common interest is to see greater stability in the area. Soviet influence in Syria is not
  1162
  decisive, but its military links give the Soviet Union some edge in influencing opinion. The United States does not pull the strings in Israel's Administration, but without the United States Israel would be very lonely in that part of the world. Both of the superpowers have worries and concerns, and both need to control and minimise them. Both know that no settlement in the middle east is possible without them both being involved, and both know that international security is not possible without a settlement in the middle east. It is, therefore, a tailor-made situation for genuine superpower co-operation, not just for the hell of it or as an experiment, but in their own naked self-interest.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East mentioned the Gulf war, with all the mind boggling casualty figures that have been cited and the constant escalation. That is another area in which talks are necessary and could produce results. Why not a superpower dialogue on other hot spots in the world, so many of which have already been discussed by hon. Members — I think, for example, of South Africa, Central America, Angola, Kampuchea, or Afghanistan—or even on something that the Foreign Secretary mentioned, terrorism? That is a problem for both East and West, and there is a common interest. Or why not a dialogue on keeping the sea lanes open?
  I have referred to areas of considerable danger and damage, which pose a much more potent threat to world peace than any possible invasions across the German plains. They could provide a much more fruitful prospect for building confidence between the two great powers. As the Foreign Affairs Committee said in the very important and thoughtful report published a couple of months ago entitled, "UK-Soviet Relations",
  "Perhaps the most constructive response which can be made by the individual countries of the west (and by the United Kingdom in particular) is to take seriously, and at face value, the Soviet leadership's new readiness to discuss issues of common concern and to seek Western cooperation in the resolution of these issues."
  Those hon. Members who have just returned from Moscow, and those who, like me, were there earlier this year, would say that that was a very perceptive viewpoint, which could well be adopted by this Government, especially when the Soviet Foreign Minister comes to London in the near future.
  Several other questions were raised by hon. Members, and I shall comment on some of them. I know that the House may have a considerable period of reflection on the issues relating to the EC, but the Foreign Secretary chose to raise the issue of Britain's imminent presidency. Just a small elite regularly attend EC debates. I often feel that we should be either certified or given a medal. But we have tried desperately hard during the past few years to get the Government to recognise the importance to both Britain and Europe of the unemployment afflicting this, and many other countries in the Community.
  We have regularly failed to obtain any commitment, or even interest, from the Government, but I am glad to say that with only a couple of weeks to go before Britain takes over the presidency of the Community our arguments appear to have borne fruit. Last week, in The Hague, the Foreign Secretary said:
  "Unemployment is a scourge in all our countries. It is our greatest and most urgent challenge and one that can only be met with common policies and common determination."

  1163
  At this late stage, it is nice to welcome the conversion of the Foreign Secretary and the Government to that view, and to the belief that that is the priority that should be at the forefront of the EC's deliberations, whoever happens to be in the chair.
  It is profoundly depressing that we can expect the prescription for Europe to be the same miserable prescription that has been applied to the British economy. More of the same will become a Euro-Thatcherism that is laid on the table for the European Council. If that is what the new frontierless internal market is all about, it is an undistinguished contribution to solving Europe's undoubted and massive problems.
  We must hope that in future there is more that the Government can do to rise to the challenge of a budget crisis in Europe and an uncontrollable agriculture policy with all the potential that exists in the 12 nations that make up the Community.
  A number of hon. Members, including the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), in a speech that was otherwise entirely undistinguished, referred to an area of alternative diplomacy which is extremely important, especially in the context of the present preoccupation with South Africa. He congratulated the BBC external services in glowing terms, with which I concur. In the BBC external services we have a valued advert for Britain and the way in which we conduct debates. The external services need to be expanded and not contracted. Nowhere and at no time is this better illustrated than here at the present, where there is so much concern on both sides of the House about South Africa.
  I note that the hon. and learned Member for Burton has returned to the Chamber. Perhaps that is because he is so unused to hearing any praise from me of any contribution that he has made to a debate in the Chamber. This is an ideal opportunity for the voice of Britain and for British public opinion to be turned on the Republic of South Africa. The broadcasting stations, for geographical and topographical reasons, beam an inadequate signal into South Africa, and now that that country has been sealed off from all opinions other than those officially stated by its Government, this is the ideal opportunity for us to beam our voice into it. I pay tribute to the BBC external services as the instrument and arm of Britain's diplomacy.
  Similarly, I pay tribute to the British Council. I declare an interest, as I am vice-chairman of the council. I believe, however, that the work that is done by the council on behalf of Britain is something that we cannot repay in words alone. That work should be expanded and the council should be given resources to enable it to promote Britain as a whole.
  This debate and world events in general have been dominated by East-West relations, and that is not surprising. In this context, however, the world is changing as both East and West adjust to the changing circumstances in which they find themselves. There is a genuine debate in the West, and we are right to cherish our right to be self-critical and to have a free voice in declaring opinions. But society is changing in the East and its populations will not for ever be content to be sold an incredible threat of possible western attack, or even to be dragooned by the rattle of Adolf Hitler's bones. There is a new climate in the East. There are demands for consumer goods. There is a desire on the part of the people to have their voice heard if growth is to be achieved. There is a need for prices and production to reflect demand.
  1164
  Hungary and China tell us that, when people taste the flavour of being listened to, that taste is not easily removed from their palate. There is nothing soft, neutralist or appeasing in recognising the process of change that is taking place in eastern Europe. We can encourage it through dialogue and co-operation, and in the process loosen the chains of ideology and repression that we rightly condemn; or we can challenge the East militarily, with an increasingly suicidal armoury. In the process we would probably drive it hack into the past.
  Members of the IPU delegation who visited the Soviet Union and who have spoken in the debate seem to have come home with one clear message — that the new leadership means business. And it was the Prime Minister who told us that we can do business with it. Why do we not rise to the challenge and call its bluff? From our position of strength and freedom in our voluntary alliance, we could make the great step forward to secure freedom for the next generation as well as its survival.
  11.29 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tim Renton): This has been a wide-ranging and thought-provoking debate and I would like to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for the quality of their speeches. I have no time to comment on them all but I shall try to comment on as many as possible. As the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said, many of those who took part in the recent IPU delegation have also spoken in the debate. It has, if anything, been something of a speech fest for them.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey)—I should like to join those who have thanked him for the part that he played in the delegation — my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) are all members of the IPU delegation who have spoken in the debate. Clearly they had a stimulating, thought-provoking and worthwhile trip.
  I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury spoke about his intervention on the question of human rights while he was in Moscow and that was referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson). I propose to return to the important question of human rights, or their absence, in the Soviet Union.
  I have thought before that the IPU reaches the parts that other envoys do not reach. That will be particularly true in the days and months ahead since I understand that the IPU is to hold its next annual conference in Buenos Aires. Where more appropriate than a foreign affairs debate to congratulate an English team on beating Paraguay in Mexico and what with the exciting football match next Sunday there will be plenty of opportunities for bilateral contact between us and Argentina in the near future.
  Mr. Foulkes: We also shall support England on Sunday.
  Mr. Renton: That is a very good tribute from the Scots. I am sorry that Scotland has not also moved on to the next stage of the world cup.

  1165
  I should like to deal with a few free-standing matters raised during the debate. I shall deal first with Namibia. I listened carefully to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton). The fact is that we, together with out contact group partners, the United States, Canada, France and Germany, consider that Security Council Resolution 435, which provides for free and fair elections for the people of Namibia, is still the best available basis for the independence of Namibia. It is the only internationally recognised plan for bringing about independence and it has been agreed by the South African Government. We believe that the best hope for progress is to press for implementation of that plan.
  The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West—and here I agree with the hon. Member for Hamilton—in eloquent words raised the question of President Waldheim. As the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, he has written to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Lord Privy Seal on this matter. I understand that he has raised a number of questions with the Ministry of Defence. He has apologised for the fact that he was not able to stay for the replies to the debate, but he said that he would read the record. Therefore, through the record I have to say that the Ministry of Defence's search of its records, which he requested, is still continuing. A matter as serious as that which he has raised, inevitably takes a long time to investigate and requires careful scrutiny. Therefore, I cannot comment further, other then to say that the Ministry's search of its records continues, and no doubt it will be in touch with the hon. and learned Gentleman as soon as the search is finished.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant), who also apologised for his absence from the end of the debate, mentioned the Western European Union and the potential contribution that it could make to the development of a common European defence policy. As hon. Members on both sides of the House acknowledge, Europe must pull its weight in East-West affairs generally and in the Western defence effort in particular. The WEU helps in that process. The Government took a leading part in the reactivation of the WEU, and we regard it as a significant forum for European political contributions to security. We have endeavoured consistently to ensure that Foreign and Defence Ministers attend WEU meetings and Assembly sessions.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, East mentioned the middle east. Anyone who is involved in the problems of the middle east at times reaches a sense of despair—of wondering whether a solution to the conflicts in the area will ever be achieved. But all of us would agree that the interested countries simply cannot walk away from the problems of the middle east. We must try to address the underlying problems, for stagnation in the middle east breeds despair, and that in turn encourages terrorism.
  The balanced British approach to the Arab-Israel problem is unchanged. The 1980 Venice declaration remains the basis of our policy — the right of Palestinians to self-determination and of Israelis to security. The United Kingdom and the other EC countries are ready to help, but they cannot be a substitute for a regional initiative. I am glad that the Prime Minister's recent visit to Israel was welcomed by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and by the hon. and learned
  1166
  Member for Leicester, West. That visit demonstrated our ability to speak frankly to Palestinians and Israelis without causing offence, but it would be wrong—
  Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister said that the Prime Minister's visit did not cause offence. Can he explain why the Palestinian leaders who met the Prime Minister in the consulate in Jerusalem made it clear to her that the only organisation that they recognised as their representatives was the Palestine Liberation Organisation? But she still insists that another group might represent the Palestinians. Which other group does she believe could do that?
  Mr. Renton: I shall deal with Palestinian representation, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that from all the records that I have seen it appears that the leading Palestinians who met the Prime Minister at the consul-general's house in Jerusalem believed it to be a satisfactory meeting and a good exchange of views.
  We do not expect an early breakthrough in the Arab-Israel process. There are several reasons for that: first, the breakdown of King Hussein's efforts to co-ordinate his negotiating position with the PLO; secondly, the rotation of Government in Israel; and, thirdly, the United States mid-term elections. We shall do our best to continue, through quiet diplomacy, to encourage clear thinking. Yesterday, King Hussein had useful discussions with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
  We recognise that Palestinian representation is a key issue. It is unrealistic for Israelis to hope for peace without talking to authentic Palestinian representatives. One makes peace with one's enemies, not with one's friends. It is equally unrealistic for Palestinians to expect to take part in negotiations unless they renounce violence and accept the Israeli right to a secure existence. Against that background we consider that it is up to the Palestinians to choose their own representatives.
  During the Prime Minister's visit she focused attention particularly on the occupied territories. When I visited Gaza in December I was extremely depressed by the economic conditions in that part of the territories. There is no doubt that there is an urgent need for improvements in conditions there, but as a prelude to, not a substitution for, peace negotiations. We believe that the Palestinians should be allowed more freedom to run their own affairs, to engage in political activity and to develop the economy of the territories.
  The other tragic conflict in the middle east is that between Iran and Iraq. We often tend to forget it because, rather like the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, it has been going on for so long—nearly six years. There is a tendency to overlook the fact that it is the most bloody armed conflict in the world with, we estimate, 500,000 killed so far. There is still stalemate at the front, particularly around the port of Fao that was occupied by the Iranians some months ago. Large numbers of men are being killed and maimed in continuing fighting. As many as 450,000 young Iranians reach draft age each year, thus giving the Iranians an ample supply of young men on which to continue to draw.
  We are very concerned at the continuing suffering and the danger that the conflict poses for other states in the region, notably for the states in the northern part of the Gulf. The international community is now directly involved too. Attacks on neutral shipping in the first half

  1167
  of 1986 were more than those for the whole of 1985. This conflict has seen the use of chemical weapons by Iraq, which we unreservedly condemn, together with other members of the Security Council. The use of chemical weapons in the conflict underlines the need for a global ban, to which I shall return.
  Efforts must continue to seek a negotiated settlement. But the sad fact is that many mediators have in the past attempted to intervene but have not succeeded—Olof Palme, the representative of the United Nations Secretary-General, whom we shall always remember for the part that he tried to play in the peace process, the Gulf Co-operation Council, the Japanese, the Pakistanis, the Algerians, the Australians, to name only some. In my judgment the prospects remain bleak. Only the United Nations Secretary-General remains active. My right hon. and learned Friend discussed the conflict with him last month. He offers the best hope of progress in mediation between the parties and we support his efforts.
  Mr. Dalyell: May I have a comment later or by letter on any factual inaccuracies in my speech, in Malcolm Spaven's chapter in the book "Mad Dogs" by Pluto Press, or in the "World in Action" programme on Colonel Gaddafi? If there is anything that the Foreign Office thinks is factually wrong, may we be told?
  Mr. Renton: I do not think that it is appropriate for the Foreign Office to comment on factual inaccuracies in the book to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I regret that I was out of the Chamber for his speech, but even Ministers have occasionally to eat. I shall read his speech. If I see any factual inaccuracies of considerable importance in it I shall write to him about them.
  Mr. Cohen rose—
  Mr. Renton: No, I must continue because I have many points to make on other subjects
  Anglo-American relations were raised in several speeches and particularly by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse) who, in what I regarded as a bitter and misguided speech, referred to Britain's thraldom to the United States and to the sick culture of the United States. I am sorry that he is not in his seat. He was supported by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) in a sad little speech. They gave a ridiculous portrayal of the United States. I must ask them which country opens its arms to take in refugees from all over the world? Which country still tries to follow the lines of the poem that are engraved on the Statue of Liberty which run:
  "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.'?
  Which is the country that has taken so many more refugees from the Thai-Cambodian camps about which we are so worried? It is, of course, the United States, which has so far taken 365,000 Indo-Chinese refugees. France is next, with about one fifth of that number. Which is the country that gives comfort to Jewish refugees? Which is the country that is always opening its doors to those who are leaving the Soviet Union? Again, it is the United States.
  I find it absolutely astonishing that Opposition Members, who get so lyrical in their defence of human rights and who write to me so frequently about Irina Ratsushinskaya, whose book of poetry I was sent in translation today—this sad, ill poetess is forbidden to
  1168
  leave the USSR for the moment—turn so much of their venom on the United States without ever looking at the mote in the eye of the USSR.
  Mr. Foulkes: Rubbish.
  Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman has only to listen to the speeches that have been made today to learn how tragically true what I have said is.
  Of course the Government have close contact with the United States Administration on a variety of world issues. I am glad that we do. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary saw Secretary Shultz on 22 May. He had useful talks, and they will be continued regularly at a high level. The United States Government listen to our views.
  Mr. George Robertson: When?
  Mr. Renton: That does not mean that they do what we say all of the time, but should we give up every opportunity to influence them? I can tell the hon. Gentleman when. The Camp David four points on SDI were agreed between the President and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in December 1984. They have gained wide acceptance in the Alliance as fundamental elements in the approach to SDI. It is absurd to say that we follow the United States slavishly. Opposition Members who accuse my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister one moment of being a poodle and the next of being an iron lady, entrust her with a quality of metamorphosis of which even she, with all of her undoubted qualities, is not capable.
  The greater part of the debate was taken up with arms control. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster, in a thoughtful and sensible speech with much of which I agreed, said how important it is that we should work in every way we can to help to maintain the momentum of the talks that have started in Geneva. I entirely agree. We are not party to the Geneva talks between the United States and the Soviets on strategic arms and intermediate forces, but we attach the highest priority to them. We believe, however, that we should never sacrifice our long-term aims for short-term gains. The agreed aim of the talks is to work out effective agreements to prevent the arms race in space and to terminate it on earth, to limit and reduce nuclear arms and to strengthen strategic stability It is the Americans who have made most of the running to turn those objectives into reality by tabling concrete proposals in Geneva.
  It was they who in November proposed a 50 per cent. reduction in nuclear weapons and in February a global elimination of all intermediate nuclear zones. These are radical proposals to achieve deep cuts in nuclear arsenals. If implemented, they would provide a basis for lessening East-West tensions.
  But until very recently, these proposals of November and February have been without specific Soviet response. Finally, in the last few days—and my right hon. and learned Friend referred to these proposals — the Russians have come back with a specific counter-proposal strategic weapons to be limited by equal ceilings, 1,600 launchers on each side, nuclear warheads not to exceed 8,000, and separate negotiation on long range intermediate nuclear forces. They have also proposed a commitment to give at least 15 years' notice of withdrawal from the ABM treaty and to restrict work on SDI to laboratory research.
  Full details are not yet available to us, and the detail is obviously of fundamental importance. But I agree with

  1169
  the right hon. Member for Leeds, East when he described these proposals as important. They will require very careful study by the United States. I very much hope that they mark a shift away from the former negative Soviet approach and that they will bring closer the prospect of a balanced and fair agreement. Our initial reaction would be that there seems to be an element of flexibility and an opportunity for understanding in the proposals that the Soviets have now tabled.
  Much has been said about chemical weapons. This Government are wholly committed to the aim of ridding the world of chemical weapons. We have tabled no fewer than six detailed papers for consideration at the conference on disarmament in Geneva. This is an issue on which NATO is wholly united. But we abandoned chemical weapons in the 1950s and the United States has since 1969 imposed a unilateral moratorium on their manufacture. In other words, there have been 17 years of unilateral restraints.
  What matching restraint has there been from the Soviet Union? Its response has been relentlessly to build up stocks of chemical weapons—300,000 tonnes of nerve agents alone. I submit to the right hon. Member for Leeds, East that that is an eloquent example of the failure of unilateralism, even the leap-frogging type of unilateralism to which he referred.
  Mr. George Robertson: So the Government wish to do nothing?
  Mr. Renton: We do want to do something.
  The Soviet Union says that it wants a ban, so why has a ban not been agreed? The answer is simply verification. The only treaty worth having is one in which all sides have confidence. That means ensuring that there are adequate arrangements to prevent cheating.
  Both the right hon. Member for Leeds, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster asked for details about progress on verification. Among the crucial issues remaining to be determined are how to check that civil chemicals are not diverted for chemical weapons purposes, how to check on non-production, and, most important of all, how to agree a stringent challenge inspection regime.
  I welcomed the opportunity of discussing these matters today with Mr. Issraelyan, the chief Soviet negotiator at the chemical weapons talks in Geneva. I made it plain to him that we looked to the Soviet Union to show new flexibility in the negotiations if we are to believe that they are genuinely serious about a ban—if, in the words of the Prime Minister that have been frequently quoted, they are to show that Mr. Gorbachev is really a man with whom we can now do business.
  Iraq's use of chemical weapons in the Gulf has brought home sharply to all nations how accessible and terrible these weapons are. A comprehensive global ban must be agreed quickly to prevent proliferation. This dreadful genie must be put back in its bottle. Meanwhile the United States has decided to restore a deterrent capability if, and only if, negotiations on a global ban do not succeed between now and late 1987. This binary decision is not escalation, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East suggested, but an opportunity for negotiation of a total ban. The ball is in the Soviet court. It must decide whether negotiations can succeed. NATO has absolutely no wish to see the United States resume production of chemical
  1170
  weapons if the better option, a negotiated ban, can be achieved. We have a negotiating window now of 18 months. A chemical weapons ban is needed by the West, the East and the whole world.
  Three events of possible historic significance have already happened in 1986. The first is Chernobyl, to which the hon. Member for Hamilton referred. It could be as important as Nagasaki or Hiroshima in changing perceptions about the future nuclear world. The second is the American strike on Libyan bases. It is now clear that the effect was to administer a sharp shock to Mr. Gaddafi and to serve notice on other countries which might have considered indulging in state inspired terrorism. Since then the Tokyo and Luxembourg meetings have put together packages of non-military measures to deal with international terrorism. We greatly hope that this will have a growing effect. The third event has been the oil surprise. It is devastating for the Soviets, the Libyans and some friendly states, such as Mexico, but it presents an opportunity for Western and world growth as good as a tax cut, and it must give added impetus to the international discussions on world debt. But none of those events is as significant as the talks on arms control and whether there is progress in those talks.
  Mr. Healey: I asked the Minister to answer a specific question which was whether the answer given by the Secretary of State for Defence to questions on the Government's attitude to a comprehensive test ban and which contradicted itself in the same sentence represents a change in the Government's position? Or, are the Government prepared to seek a comprehensive test ban only if the verification problem can be solved?
  Mr. Renton: As both my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have said in answer to questions on a comprehensive test ban treaty, there has been no change in our position.
  The issue of arms control talks will certainly affect us, our children and our grandchildren because it reflects the capacity of human beings to inflict on one another virtually infinite harm. It asks the question whether we collectively have the ability to rein in that capacity. There is no doubt that we in the West, while seeing the propaganda, the shallowness and the public relations value of so many Russian proposals, must test to the full whether there is ground in their proposals on which we can build the future hopes of mankind. Today we have had discussions with ambassador Issraelyan, and shortly my right hon. and learned Friend will have important discussions with Foreign Minister, Mr. Shevardnadze.
  Yet, it is strange that while the issue of arms control is of such paramount importance, it is the issue on which our political opponents are at their most perverse. The Social Democrats and Liberals—[Interruption.] Indeed, where are they? They have given new meaning to the phrase dual track: one David going one way, the other David going the other. I listened to the comments of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed on nuclear deterrence, and I have no clearer idea of his policy now than I did previously.
  As to the Labour party and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East with his recent lessons in arithmetic, I shall first correct the right hon. Gentleman on the cost of the necessary replacement for Polaris in the 1990s which he said would cost 40 per cent. of the equipment budget. It

  1171
  will cost not 40 per cent. but an average of 3 per cent. of the total defence budget, and 6 per cent. of the equipment budget.
  Mr. Healey rose—
  Mr. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman reminds me of Max Beerbohm's character the happy hypocrite who was, as Max Beerbohm said, rather like Caligula with a dash of Sir John Falstaff. Hypocrisy is a dangerous trait for those who wish to lead political parties, let alone countries.
  The message is clear. The Conservative Government, and they alone, will pursue their path of careful negotiation with Moscow as a friend of the United States, and as a member of NATO and the European Community. Whenever it is appropriate, we shall do that independently and in our own right.
  It being Twelve o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to order [18 June]

  ESTIMATES
  Resolved,
  That this House agrees with the report [10th June] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

  Scottish Universities (Funding)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]
  12.1 am
  Mr. Ernie Ross: I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of universities in Scotland and students who will not have places in universities as a result of the University Grants Committee's decisions on funding. I take the opportunity to raise, on their behalf, some of the matters causing grave concern. I should like the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, in his response, to tell not only hon. Members but those who attend universities and those responsible for their adminstration what extra information the UGC used or called on. How did it calculate the resource factor when it decided on the funding of universities, especially those in Scotland?
  I welcome the stand taken by the principal of Dundee university, Adam Neville, against the funding cuts by the UGC. In the face of a wholesale attack on universities by the Government, the principal of Dundee has at last spoken out against the Government's policies. He is determined that there will be no redundancies in academic and non-academic staff. He is determined to hold on to all kinds of disciplines. He sees Dundee university as part of the city and part of the region. The university needs their support just as they need the university.
  In the local press recently, the principal called for a long-term funding strategy to safeguard the future of universities. He reminded the Government that universities are long-term providers of graduates, research and co-operation with industry. He reminded the Government that to achieve that they need long-term support and enough money to operate and develop.
  The UGC has recognised only the obvious areas of research excellence in Dundee — pharmacology, mathematics, biological sciences, biochemistry, anatomy and physiology, clinical medicine, psychology, civil engineering, mechanical engineering, law, and philosophy. Even though some of those were rated as outstanding by international standards, no extra funds are to be provided for research. Worse than that, in the UGC's rush, it has ignored many others. There are departments, research groups within departments and individuals with high national and international reputations who have been completely passed over.
  Worse still, the UGC has looked only to the past and not to the future. Research assessments were based on work that had its origins five, 10 or even 15 years ago. The UGC has not recognised new developments, many of which are at Dundee. University research is about change, innovation and development. The UGC, with its blinkered vision—forced on it by the Government—failed to see the obvious. It claimed to have carried out a peer review. Many would suggest that it resembled an "end of the pier" review.
  Dundee has a fine record of working with industry. That co-operation has gone on for many years. The traditional strengths are in medicine, science and engineering, but the university is now working on new areas — biotechnology, robotics and computer science. Recently, the university entered into an agreement with a major pharmaceutical company. It has set up two companies of its own to carry out clinical research and

  1173
  produce diagnostic kits. At the local level, there is a range of consultancy and advisory work that is done by departments such as chemistry, physics, geology, civil engineering and psychology. There is tremendous potential at national and local level.
  Dundee university also produces graduates. They leave with the benefits of a Scottish university education—four years of study in a broad range of subjects. They are not committed to courses that were selected too early in school. They can find out about new subjects and can change direction. They have a better chance of discovering their true potential. Students may specialise or follow combinations of subjects that are best suited to their future careers. In the arts and social science faculty that flexibility has been fine-tuned to achieve the maximum range from available resources. All come out with a far greater range of skills than when they went in.
  The courses developed at Dundee produce those graduates that business and industry need. Derek Hornby, chairman of Rank Xerox (UK) Ltd., made that point at a conference on the role of arts and social science graduates in society held in Dundee last year. He said:
  "there was a pressing need in industry for specialized graduates such as electronics engineers, but that industry also needs good honours graduates, regardless of their discipline. These generalists who have flexibility, inquiring minds, and skills at communication have an advantage over specialists whose knowledge rapidly becomes obsolete."
  The same message came from Bill Hughes, chairman of Grampian Holdings and the CBI Scotland Education and Training Committee. His advice to the universities was "You educate. We'll train." Fortunately, Dundee university has listened to that advice and its graduates' employment prospects are good. The university is high, and always has been, on the league table of graduate employment. It has listened to what business and industry have to say and has got it right. The UGC does not appear to have listened and has got it wrong.
  Dundee university has made a point of being part of the region and the city by developing opportunities for continuing education and part-time degrees. The newly formed Centre for Continuing Education runs its extramural courses for more than 4,000 people. They offer a chance for those who have missed out in their education or who want to learn for the pleasure and fulfilment that comes from study. A recent development is the programme of vocational education aimed at local industry. With support from the Manpower Services Commission and the Scottish Development Agency, several schemes are under way, including one for training in languages with a large local company. There are part-time degrees, such as the master of education, which is a valuable conversion course for local teachers. An innovation is the part-time degree run by the faculty of arts and social sciences. In its first year, there were so many applications that people had to be turned away.
  People in Dundee care about education, and the university is trying to make education more accessible. The Government believe, or say they do, in the value of retraining, but the UGC does not seem to have yet got the message or to understand. It is not giving enough support to vocational continuing education and severe cuts look inevitable. The Government and the UGC must accept
  1174
  that continuing education in Scotland depends on home-based study. If courses in Dundee are cut, the students cannot go elsewhere.
  All these achievements at Dundee have been made despite a cut in funding since 1980 of more than 15 per cent. In 1983, the Prime Minister promised to hold university funding at a steady level in real terms after 1984–85. The university is now being told to cut its expenditure by a further 20 per cent.—so much for the Prime Minister's promises.
  What has Dundee university done to deserve this? What has it done wrong? No one is saying. But it is certain that, if action is not taken immediately, all these achievements will be threatened. What is to be lost? What achievement do the Government and the UGC want Dundee to throw away? Is it the initiatives with the local industries? What advantage to Dundee can there be if these are cut? Is it the quality of teaching? This is bound to suffer if there are further losses in academic and non-academic staff.
  The Secretary of State recently received a letter from the dean of students at Dundee university that said:
  "Secondly, academics in Arts and Social Sciences are most unwilling to see their interests divided, by Government and U.G.C. policy, from those of their colleagues in the Sciences. As a recent delegation from the Standing Conference of Arts and Social Sciences in Universities explained some months ago to your predecessor, Sir Keith Joseph, there are many Arts-based academics who are already working to make broader higher education opportunities available to those who can profit by them…The irony of the situation is that efforts to make the curriculum more flexible while at the same time maintaining high standards of excellence, which Sir Keith on that occasion wholeheartedly professed to support, are precisely what the U.G.C.'s present strategies in redistributing resources arc bringing to a halt."
  How can teaching be improved if there is less money to be spent on books, services and equipment? How will a reduction in the number of students at Dundee benefit industry and business, which are calling out for more of these graduates? Do the UGC and the Government expect Dundee university to throw away its record on graduate employment? Fewer courses on offer will obviously reduce the opportunities for graduates. This will hurt Dundee because over half the Scottish students at the university are local, coming from the area around Dundee, Perth and Angus. Far more Scottish students go to their home university than do students in England. They do this for good reasons. They leave school at an earlier stage, which reduces the burdens on parents supporting their children for a four-year degree. Does the UGC want Dundee to throw away its new innovations in research and damage its solid base?
  What about the effects on the local economy? The university is the second largest employer in the region with a budget for expenditure of £26 million. Every £100,000 that is cut from the university results in an estimated loss of £140,000 from the local economy. With the deficit expected to reach about £1·6 million next year, this means a loss to the region of Tayside of about £2·2 million—hardly the little economy that the Prime Minister seems to think it will be. It could be described as a catastrophe.
  Most of the money spent by the university goes into the region and helps the people there. Universities are about people, the people who work and study in them and those who live alongside them and share the benefits. The principal of Dundee got it right when he said that Scotland needs universities in smaller cities such as Dundee. Small universities, by their very nature, must be somewhat more

  1175
  expensive per student than large ones. To cover a discipline one needs a library, computers and expensive equipment, and one cannot have half of each for a small university. He has explained this to the UGC, but it does not seem to have listened, or it has not been allowed to listen.
  The trouble with the UGC is that its members are the old-fashioned academics who talk about the role of the universities in the economy, but, in real practical terms, this means the local economy, a point that they do not understand. Many in the university system believe that the further away one is from London, Oxford and Cambridge, the more likely it is that the UGC decides to cut one's budget even further. It would be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
  The Government and the UGC have bungled the job. They have not listened to those who know best—the business men, the industrialists, the students, the universities and the local communities. They do not seem to know about the special needs of Scottish universities within the framework of the Scottish education system. They are part of a system that sees as part of its strength the capacity to teach across a broad reach of subjects. Children in school are not forced to specialise too early, and they get a chance to select their subject during the two introductory years of a four-year degree. The system is more efficient because time is not wasted upon teaching students in wrong courses. It is also a system that can respond immediately to change.
  An essential feature of the Scottish system is the four-year degree. It is not just a question of an extra year at university. The whole structure of secondary education is different from that in England. It is geared to the four-year university degree. Students enter universities in Scotland one year earlier than they do in England. Any attempt to change the four-year degree must be seen as an attack on the whole system of education. This is not a special case argument. It is an argument for a completely different system that cannot be funded along the same lines as the English system.
  We shall all be worse off in the long run if there are fewer people in the work force with the advanced qualifications that are needed to maintain an efficient economy and a competitive industry. Already the proportion of the British population with a degree is only half the figure for Japan or America. When he spoke last week to university teachers at their rally, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) said that the Labour party is committed to adequate and consistent funding of higher education, to a proper career structure for all those who work in higher education, and to access for all those who can profit by it and who want to pursue higher education. If the UGC proposals for Dundee university were to he accepted, it would take us back to the failed, elitist structures of yesterday that demonstrably have failed the majority of our young people.
  12.15 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. George Walden): "Wholly a blessed time when jargon might abate and here and there some genuine speech begin." I quote, of course, Thomas Carlyle, an illustrious countryman of the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is as devoted to him as I am.
  1176
  I respect the hon. Gentleman's committment to his constituency and to Scottish concerns that has led him to initiate this debate, but it is rather a shame that he does not seem to have recognised another essential truth propagated by Thomas Carlyle, to the effect that there is a noble conservatism, as well as an ignoble one.
  I am very much aware of the position that universities and other institutions of higher education occupy in their local communities. That applies not only in Scotland but to universities in any part of the United Kingdom. This contribution to employment, as well as the contribution to the educational life of the area in question, is one of the major reasons why the funding of universities is of concern to many local communities.
  Nevertheless, I cannot accept the main burden of the hon. Gentleman's argument, and in reply I should like to make a series of points. The hon. Gentleman made no acknowledgement whatsoever in his speech of the statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) on 20 May. The Government have already made it clear that in order to maintain the policy of selectivity and rationalisation in universities on which the UGC is embarked they are prepared to consider the possibility of extra cash for the universities for the 1987–88 and subsequent financial years, provided that in discussion with the UGC and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals it is possible to reach agreement on a programme of work that will maintain and develop the policy of selectivity and rationalisation, better management, including in particular better financial management, and a drive to improve the quality of teaching, including the development of provision for the training and appraisal of academic staff. This is a serious proposal. I hope very much that the universities will take it seriously. The Department is already engaged in discussions with the UGC and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.
  The hon. Gentleman, like so many Opposition Members, seeks to perpetuate a myth about the contraction of higher education. It is very tiresome for grown-up people to have to go over the same ground so often, but I am afraid that we shall have to cover it yet again. Since 1979, Conservative Governments presided over a massive expansion in higher education. In Great Britain as a whole there are 128,000 more full-time and part-time students now than there were in 1979, including nearly 80,000 more full-time students. In Scotland the number of students in full-time higher education has risen from under 69,000 in 1979–80 to around 79,000 in the current academic year, which is an increase of about 15 per cent.
  The proportion of young people who enter higher education in Scotland is traditionally higher than for the rest of the United Kingdom. Despite the increase in the size of the 17 and 18-year-old population, the proportion of that population entering higher education has grown over the period from 17 per cent. in 1979 to 19 per cent. in 1984–85, and is projected to continue to rise. So we have achieved an increasing proportion entering higher education out of a much greater total population.
  To suggest that there is any systematic prejudice against Scotland — I feared that the hon. Gentleman might suggest it and unfortunately my fears Were well founded — in the allocation of grant by the UGC is simply nonsense. The UGC has this year for the first time moved to a much greater openness in its allocation of grant and

  1177
  to a much more systematic and publicly articulated methodology. Provision for teaching in all subjects has been made on the basis of a common allocation per student in each subject for every university. So there is no possibility of prejudice there. Provision for research has been calculated on the basis of four main factors, three quantitative and one qualitative.
  Mr. Donald Dewar rose—
  Mr. Walden: I want to continue, as I do not have much time.
  They are, first, the numbers of academic staff and of research students; secondly, income from the research councils and from medical and other research charities; thirdly, research contract income from industry and from Government Departments; and, fourthly, the UGC's evaluation of the quality of research in each departmental cost centre, having regard to universities' own research statements, and to the views of the research councils and other bodies and individuals. These judgments were reached by the subject sub-committees of the UGC, so that over 120 academics and others were involved.
  This obviously represents a much wider cross-section of the academic community than the main committee of the UGC. I would like to stress that powerful representation from Scotland was present on those committees.
  Historically, the Scottish universities have been relatively generously funded compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. The move to a fairer distribution of grant based on a common unit of funding per student in each subject has therefore been the main reason for the funding changes in the majority of Scottish universities. Two universities—
  Mr. Dewar rose—
  Mr. Walden: I am sorry. I have only a matter of minutes.
  Two universities gained from this, but five lost. Four Scottish universities also lost because of the judgment that was made of the quality of their research, but so did many other universities in different parts of the United Kingdom.
  It is important to recognise that the allocations that have been made by the UGC are not set in concrete. I want to stress that strongly. If a university gets more from the research councils or from industry, it will automatically get more from the UGC by the operation of the sophisticated formula that has been put in place. So there is every incentive to universities to build upon their strengths and to try to improve their relative position. Later, I shall mention the particular strengths of Dundee.
  I have recently visited two universities in Scotland, Aberdeen and St. Andrew's, and I look forward to visiting as many more as I can. In that and other ways I have become aware of the many links between Scottish universities and industry. The growth of high technology industry is one of the signs of the changing structure of the Scottish economy. As elsewhere in the United Kingdom, some traditional industries such as shipbuilding and steel are declining in importance, largely due to worldwide changes in demand, but there are also exciting developments in, for example, high technology such as electronics and biotechnology, and in the service sector. I
  1178
  was particularly glad to note that the applied mathematics and biochemistry sectors in Dundee university were rated as outstanding nationally. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not show more pride in that.
  The Government recognise that some areas are particularly affected by the decline of traditional manufacturing industry, and our regional policy will continue to make an important contribution. Since May 1979 offers of regional selective assistance made in Scotland have totalled £368·7 million, the projects creating or safeguarding nearly 140,000 jobs. In 1984–85 alone, expenditure on regional development grant is estimated to have been £109 million.
  The hon. Gentleman will be familiar, from his own knowledge of Dundee, with the scope of Government support. Apart from regional assistance, Dundee's development area status gives it access to European Community loans at favourable rates. Maximum support is available from Government and European Community sources for local initiatives such as the Tayside enterprise zone and the Dundee project. I understand that one of the zone sites is a technology park which provides Dundee with the opportunity to become a major centre for high technology industry. All of this is positive and encouraging.
  As I began by saying, the Government are prepared to consider the provision of additional resources for the universities generally, from which the universities in Scotland can expect to benefit, but it is necessary to emphasise the continued need to restrain the growth in public expenditure in the interest of the economy as a whole. If we want universities in Scotland to continue to be as outstanding in international terms as they are, we have to continue to generate the wealth to pay for those universities.
  Universities do not pay for themselves but are paid for out of the pockets of the taxpayers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and the taxpayers in my constituency. We can fund our universities more generously only if we are a wealthier nation. Wealth is created not by the Government, but by individuals and firms throughout the country.
  Under our economic policies the rate of inflation has now come down to 2·8 per cent. in the year to May 1986. In that connection I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that a decade or so ago the inflation rate for our universities was about 30 per cent. Let us keep some sense of proportion by looking back at the sort of policies that the hon. Gentleman's party pursued. Those policies caused the rate of inflation for university costs to reach the astronomical and rather absurd figure of 30 per cent.
  Wage inflation is now running at 7–5 per cent. By contrast, some of our major European competitors, and in particular West Germany, have succeeded in achieving negative inflation and falling wage costs per unit of output. I mention all this because it is important background information in this debate, as it would be in any debate on public expenditure.
  The UGC's policies of selectivity and rationalisation are brave and courageous and are to be applauded, but I understand that they may have caused disappointment in some departments. I say some departments because I must not brand universities in any part of Britain by judging them by specific departmemts. The judgment of one's peers can often seem harsh. Some universities may have been trying to do too much on a limited base and it is

  1179
  important in such cases to build on the strengths that have been identified by the UGC. This is one such area, and I am convinced that in the longer term this whole new exercise of selectivity will be a major gain for the entire university system. In the long-term interests of the health of the system it can only be a plus to be reminded publicly of where one's strengths and weaknesses lie.
  As is frequently the case with the Opposition, the hon. Gentleman fails to recognise that there is an essential interconnection between the economy as a whole and higher education. Frankly, I was mildly shocked, or I would have been had I not become so hardened to this even in so short a time, by the hon. Gentleman's reference to the recent labour rally at which higher education was discussed. He knows as well as I do of the rather embarrassing recent exchange between the Opposition spokesman on education and the spokesman on economic affairs. One pulled the rug from under the feet of the other as fast as the other was dishing out Mickey Mouse money to universities.
  1180
  It was wrong for the hon. Gentleman consistently to ignore in his speech the implications for the economy of the funding of universities, just as it was wrong for him to ignore the important statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East, the former Secretary of State for Education and Science. My right hon. Friend said clearly to the House only a few weeks ago that he was perfectly well aware of the strains that were developing in some universities, and that provided some understanding could be reached about efficiency, selectivity and improvement in teaching in those universities, the Government would give sympathetic consideration to the possibility of finding further funding for the universities in the United Kingdom. That also means in Scotland.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Twelve o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Student Allowances
  Student Allowances
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Royal Scottish National Hospital
  Royal Scottish National Hospital
  Mental Welfare Commission
  Mental Welfare Commission
  Hospitals (Reports)
  Hospitals (Reports)
  Mental Hospitals (Patient-Staff Ratios)
  Mental Hospitals (Patient-Staff Ratios)
  Mental Illness Hospitals (Violent Incidents)
  Mental Illness Hospitals (Violent Incidents)
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Hospital Patients (Transfers)
  Hospital Patients (Transfers)
  Criminal Statistics
  Criminal Statistics
  Dornoch Firth (Road Bridge)
  Dornoch Firth (Road Bridge)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  GCSE (Funding)
  GCSE (Funding)
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Examinations (Statistics)
  Examinations (Statistics)
  Village Schools
  Village Schools
  Warwickshire
  Warwickshire
  Occultism
  Occultism
  NUT (Membership)
  NUT (Membership)
  Students (Fees)
  Students (Fees)
  Universities (Community Funding)
  Universities (Community Funding)
ENERGY
  British Gas
  British Gas
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Nuclear Power
  Nuclear Power
  Electricity Generation
  Electricity Generation
  Gas Levy
  Gas Levy
  Overhead Power Cables
  Overhead Power Cables
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police National Computer
  Police National Computer
  Prison Governors (Uniform)
  Prison Governors (Uniform)
  Victim Support Scheme
  Victim Support Scheme
  Day Prisons
  Day Prisons
  Prison Officers Association
  Prison Officers Association
  Italian Terrorists (Extradition)
  Italian Terrorists (Extradition)
  Hull Prison
  Hull Prison
  Mr. Norman William Davis
  Mr. Norman William Davis
  Immigration
  Immigration
EMPLOYMENT
  Enterprise Agencies
  Enterprise Agencies
  Job Safety
  Job Safety
  Training
  Training
  Retail Prices Index
  Retail Prices Index
  Disabled People (Rehabilitation)
  Disabled People (Rehabilitation)
  Benefit Entitlement
  Benefit Entitlement
  Asbestos-related Diseases
  Asbestos-related Diseases
  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
PRIME MINISTER
  Indictable Offences
  Indictable Offences
  Nuclear-free Zones
  Nuclear-free Zones
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  South Africa
  South Africa
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Sexual Offences (Prosecution)
  Sexual Offences (Prosecution)
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Authority Housing
  Local Authority Housing
  Gipsies
  Gipsies
  Caravan Sites
  Caravan Sites
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Co-operatives
  Co-operatives
  Hippy Convoy
  Hippy Convoy
  Housing Defects
  Housing Defects
  Insurance (Inner Cities)
  Insurance (Inner Cities)
  Water Authorities (Rivers)
  Water Authorities (Rivers)
  Sulphur Dioxide Emissions
  Sulphur Dioxide Emissions
  Greater Manchester Residuary Body
  Greater Manchester Residuary Body
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Northern Ireland Assembly
  Northern Ireland Assembly
  Parliament Building, Stormont (library)
  Parliament Building, Stormont (library)
WALES
  Patients (Statistics)
  Patients (Statistics)
  Surgical Treatment
  Surgical Treatment
  Health Authorities
  Health Authorities
  Radiation
  Radiation
  GCSE Examination
  GCSE Examination
  Singleton Hospital
  Singleton Hospital
  Welsh Development Agency
  Welsh Development Agency
  Housing
  Housing
  Self-employed People
  Self-employed People
  Community Council Clerks
  Community Council Clerks
  Drinking Water (Tests)
  Drinking Water (Tests)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Eastern Europe
  Eastern Europe
  Regional Policy
  Regional Policy
  Footwear (China)
  Footwear (China)
  Motor Vehicle Industry
  Motor Vehicle Industry
  Systime plc, Leeds
  Systime plc, Leeds
  Research and Technology Scheme
  Research and Technology Scheme
  Think British Campaign
  Think British Campaign
  Rolls-Royce
  Rolls-Royce
  Copyright
  Copyright
  Leyland Bus
  Leyland Bus
  Small Firms
  Small Firms
  Leyland Vehicles Ltd.
  Leyland Vehicles Ltd.
  Bogus Business Directories
  Bogus Business Directories
  Confederation of British Industry
  Confederation of British Industry
  Foreign Investment
  Foreign Investment
  USSR
  USSR
  General Motors
  General Motors
  Select Committees
  Select Committees
  Semi-conductor Chips
  Semi-conductor Chips
  South Africa (Code of Conduct)
  South Africa (Code of Conduct)
  Bankruptcies and Liquidations
  Bankruptcies and Liquidations
  Textiles
  Textiles
  Companies (Local Amenities)
  Companies (Local Amenities)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  British Goods
  British Goods
  Iranian Arms Team
  Iranian Arms Team
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Foreign Affairs Council
  Foreign Affairs Council
TRANSPORT
  BR (Locomotive Purchases)
  BR (Locomotive Purchases)
  Cammel Weyman Metro Bus
  Cammel Weyman Metro Bus
  "Highway Code"
  "Highway Code"
  European Air Fares
  European Air Fares
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Aberdeen Airport (Incident)
  Aberdeen Airport (Incident)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Select Committees
  Select Committees
  Butter
  Butter
NATIONAL FINANCE
  European Monetary System
  European Monetary System
  HM Customs and Excise
  HM Customs and Excise
  HMSO Bookshops (Cardiff and London)
  HMSO Bookshops (Cardiff and London)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Child Minders
  Child Minders
  Mortgage Interest
  Mortgage Interest
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Surgical Treatment (Return Rates)
  Surgical Treatment (Return Rates)
  Waiting Lists
  Waiting Lists
  Hospitals (West Midlands)
  Hospitals (West Midlands)
  Hospitals (Theft)
  Hospitals (Theft)
  NHS Staff (Hertfordshire)
  NHS Staff (Hertfordshire)
  Select Committees
  Select Committees
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Community Care
  Community Care
  Criminal Offences
  Criminal Offences
  In Vitro Fertilisation and Embryology
  In Vitro Fertilisation and Embryology
  War Pensions
  War Pensions
  Shellfish Purification
  Shellfish Purification
  Drugs (Side-effects)
  Drugs (Side-effects)
ENERGY
  British Coal
  British Coal
  Potassium Iodate
  Potassium Iodate
DEFENCE
  Nuclear Warheads (Deterioration)
  Nuclear Warheads (Deterioration)
  Asbestos (Donnington)
  Asbestos (Donnington)
  Naval Ships (Video Recordings)
  Naval Ships (Video Recordings)
  Household Division (Recruitment)
  Household Division (Recruitment)
  Procurement Expenditure (Scotland)
  Procurement Expenditure (Scotland)
  Endeavour Rifle
  Endeavour Rifle
  Torpedo Programme
  Torpedo Programme

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro.
Lord Davies—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Viscount Knollys—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Miscarriage Risk: Contact with Lambing Ewes
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how serious is the danger to pregnant women of miscarriage following contact with lambing ewes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, since 1981 10 cases of miscarriage caused by chlamydia psittaci have been reported in the United Kingdom, apparently contracted from ewes in lamb. The risks of infection appear to be small but the condition itself can be serious. Reports of the infection are being monitored closely by the health departments and the communicable disease surveillance centres in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for that interesting reply? I think that I should declare an interest in the Question as we are sheep farmers. May I ask her whether she is aware that many doctors do not know about the disease? It seems to me that vets know more about it than doctors. Will she see that all health authorities in rural areas make doctors aware of it, and also what to look for and how to treat the patients?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government are very concerned about the recent cases. Advice is or will be reaching the farming community in a number of ways. The most practical advice that I can offer about the prevention of further cases is that high standards of hygiene should be observed, and that wherever possible pregnant women should keep away from infected flocks and ovine abortions.
Lord Walston: My Lords, in view of the fact that a large number of farmers' wives, particularly in hill areas, help their husbands with lambing, and precious few, if any, know of the risk, will the Government do all that they can, in addition to what the noble Baroness has already told us, to make quite certain that, in the first place, the risk is well known to all those women who are likely to be involved with
852
pregnant ewes and also to encourage further research so that the experts may have more knowledge which may thereafter be available for the farming public concerning this relatively newly-discovered but probably long-standing disease?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, discussions concerning research continue among the Ministry of Agriculture, the public health laboratory service, the communicable disease surveillance centres and ourselves. We should certainly consider carefully proposals put to us for research in that area.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that a large proportion of the cases were in Scotland and that the Scottish Office has already carried out research? If that is so, can she ensure that is made available to other health departments, and that it continues? Is she aware that I understand that the unfortunate women also contracted a painful and distressing illness?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, four cases have been reported in Scotland over the past five years, three in England this year and a further three in England over the years 1981 to 1985. There was one death in 1980. The Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre and the Communicable Disease (Scotland) Unit routinely monitor all reports of chlamydia psittaci. I understand that cases of the infection being acquired from sheep are extemely rare. With regard to the seriousness of the disease, my noble friend is perfectly right. The report indicates that following the miscarriage, the women suffered from complaints involving defects in blood coagulation, kidney and liver disfunction and heart problems.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, will the Minister kindly ask general practitioner committees to make doctors aware of this problem? I do not think that she has answered the noble Baroness's question, which was whether she would make general practitioners aware of the problem.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I understand that the Ministry of Agriculture will be giving instructions to its veterinary officers before the start of the next lambing season about the risk of the disease for pregnant women and on advising farming families at risk. Any woman who has attended lambing or abortion in ewes should inform her doctor if she thinks that she is pregnant. I understand that the Health and Safety Executive recently issued a press release to the farming papers drawing attention to the disease and warning families at risk.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the noble Baroness the Minister aware that many general practitioners do not take farming papers and that therefore the department should make general practitioners aware of this matter? It should not be done through the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or anyone else like that. It is the department's responsibility to make general practitioners aware of this.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, this is a rare condition. A number of cases have been reported to the medical press—for instance, the British Medical Journal—and this is how many doctors find out about matters. Any pregnant woman who has attended lambing or abortion in ewes should inform her doctor, as I said previously.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is there not something of a discrepancy between the rate of circulation in this Chamber and the rate of circulation outside it? It needs only one Starred Question here to put every Member of the House on the alert that there is a danger to pregnant women from infected sheep. How do we get that message quickly—at the same speed at which we transfer it to one another—to all the shepherdesses in this country?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as the noble Earl says, a Question in this House creates very wide publicity. If the medical authorities in the DHSS think that there is a need for further information to be imparted to doctors, following the advice that they receive, I am sure that they will do that.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I follow up just two of the points which have been made? First, it seems to me that rural doctors should receive, as was suggested by my noble friend, such information as the Government have. Secondly, may I support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that there should be some research into this matter? I know that the noble Baroness said that they would look at the possibility of research. I wonder whether some research on this subject could be initiated.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will take note of what the noble Lord has said. Doctors, particularly those practising in rural areas, should recognise the possible risk to pregnant women in rural areas where chlamydia infections in farm animals may be widespread. Noble Lords may not be aware that there are two strains of this disease. The other one is another question.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that our shepherd's daughter, who was a shepherdess and who was married and pregnant, sadly experienced a still birth? Many cases may not be reported, documented and known about. It is important to prevent the death of an unborn child. Will the department look further into this matter?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I have already said, I understand that from time to time there have been articles in the farming press and that the HSE has drawn the attention of the farming press and doctors to the risks. We shall keep under review the need for further action if the number of cases justifies it.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, will the noble Baroness bear in mind that many hill farmers are dependent upon the assistance of their wives during lambing? Therefore will she put pressure on the DHSS to concentrate on preventive measures?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lady whether she is referring to the ewes or the women?
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: The women, my Lords.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the best advice that can be given is to wear protective clothing if one has to be near sheep and if possible to keep away from lambing ewes and placenta disposal and to observe good hygiene.

M.25 Motorway: Capacity
2.47 p.m.
Viscount Cross: 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 the present bridges on the M.25 motorway will allow the building of a fourth lane in each direction all the way round London, leaving aside the possibility of a second crossing of the Thames at Dartford.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, a full standard dual four-lane motorway with hard shoulders could not be provided without major alterations to over 300 bridges and numerous other structures.
Viscount Cross: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl the Minister for that reply, though I am disappointed that it is in the negative. At the same time I should like to congratulate him on the construction of this bold and imaginative road around London. In view of the traffic problems on the M.25, will he consider adopting the traffic system as practised on the freeways of the United States of America and that practised in, for example, Oxford Street whereby all lanes are equal, so as to make the best possible use of the road space provided and to ensure the free flow of traffic?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend and the House that we have seriously considered whether overtaking on either side on motorways is a possibility. We are not in favour of that alternative driving procedure for different classes of roads because we believe that road safety, which is paramount, depends upon uniformity.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the noble Earl's Answer ignore the fact that a survey is being undertaken by the Secretary of State? I have a copy of press notice 261 dated 13th May, which refers to a speech given on the evening of that date by the former Secretary of State to the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors in which he said that a survey was being undertaken not merely on the question of widening but also on whether other measures might be introduced. Is this a survey of only certain sections of the M.25 or the whole of it, dealing not only with the possibility of extra lanes but also with all the problems of the heaviness of traffic; and when can that report be expected?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's question. I can tell him that the study area is junctions 10 to 13 in the south-west sector, not the whole of the M.25. We expect the results shortly.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend break it to his right honourable friend that his right honourable friend's predecessor was quite wrong in basing an important aviation decision on the theory that there would be a quick and easy flow of traffic between Gatwick and Heathrow on the M25, whereas the contrary has been the case?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am well aware of my noble friend's concern for the helicopter link. When the study is completed, we hope that it will give some solutions for achieving a speedier flow of traffic in that south-west sector.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, will the noble Earl say why the survey is being restricted to certain sections of the M.25 when there are general complaints about various sections?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords. The most pressing complaints at the moment relate to the south-west sector. Our consultants are looking into a number of items connected with the motorway such as the remodelling of junctions, better traffic management and perhaps widening the carriageways, or a combination of those measures, that might well help. If any results come forward from the study that can be applied to other parts of the motorway, we shall not fail to apply them.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that road safety is of extreme importance? Those like myself who live within half a mile of an intersection in Surrey consider that road safety is much more important than increasing the traffic on the motorway.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hope that both can be done.
Viscount Cross: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister not agree that drivers in this country drive quite as well as those in any other country? Can he say why it should be more dangerous to overtake on the left-hand side than on the right-hand side?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree that drivers in this country are perhaps no better and no worse than drivers anywhere else. But we believe that uniformity is essential for road safety. It would cause severe complications, I believe, for many drivers if they were suddenly told that they could overtake on the left-hand side on a given section of road. That would cause problems not only to the person undertaking the manoeuvre but also to others who were unaware of it.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, will the noble Earl give an undertaking that if the survey to which he refers confirms that the M.25 is not the salvation that it was believed to be, certainly by the Minister, he will look again to see whether the helicopter link can be resumed?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot give that undertaking. I shall draw the noble Lord's point to the attention of my right honourable friend.

Radiation Measurement Units
2.53 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will introduce one simple measure of radiation to replace the present multiplicity of Roentgens, REMs, RADs, Curies, Sieverts and Becquerels with a view to enabling the public to distinguish between a nuclear disaster and a nuclear mishap.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): My Lords, the Units of Measurements Regulations 1980 specify that as from 1st January 1986 units of Curies, RADs, REMs and Roentgens are no longer authorised for official use. The unit which best represents radiation risk is the Sievert. A dose of one Sievert is generally regarded as giving rise to an average risk of incurring a fatal radiation-induced cancer of about one in a hundred. Higher or lower doses lead to proportionate risks.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Certainly things seem to be getting a lot simpler. Is he aware of what I would call the nicotine equivalent measure, used by the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Goring, in which he would liken a person who, say, recently drank a pint of water in the Lake District after Chernobyl to a man taking one puff at a cigarette a week, and liken a man living, say, only 10 miles from Chernobyl to a man smoking, say, 40 cigarettes a day?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the arithmetic of these comparisons is difficult, whereas their simplicity is attractive. I am advised—I believe that I am correct on the advice I am given—that half of one Sievert per annum carries an equivalent risk to smoking 10 cigarettes per diem over a year.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is it not the case that what the public want is a simple indication of reassurance like the Beaufort scale of wind or the Richter scale of earthquakes whereby one can associate a number with a degree of hazard? I have suggested to both the Central Electricity Generating Board and British Nuclear Fuels how this can be done. Will the noble Lord the Minister give an undertaking that he will ask them what progress they are making in implementing what I have suggested?
Lord Elton: My Lords, my answer to the noble Earl's second and substantive question is, yes.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend not consider, in addition to the so-called nicotine equivalent, that he might also look at the alcohol equivalent and perhaps liken so many drams of whisky or so many pints of beer to so many Sieverts

857
or whatever they are called? The public does not understand this terminology. It is important that they should have something they can understand.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am entirely in sympathy with the idea that the public should be able to understand something which, because it is not properly understood, at the moment is far more frightening than it should be. I shall certainly look at any suggestions.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what steps the Government are taking to convey this important information to members of the public? It is not conveyed by an exchange of questions in this House, however important that may be. Are the noble Lord and his right honourable friend taking steps, for example, to convey to local authorities that they may disseminate the information; or is there some other way in which this can be done?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the information is of course disseminated to local authorities in the normal way. I take the noble Lord's point that there may be merit in suggesting that it should be translated in some way.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that what is necessary is that the public should believe what the Government say? The noble Lord used the word "reassurance". Will he give an assurance that instead of trying to reassure the public the Government will tell the truth so that the public will know when to be alarmed and when to do something instead of disbelieving the Government, as so often is the case?
Lord Elton: My Lords, this Government have always been committed to open government and have actually passed legislation to that effect. I can add to that the record of the recent Secretary of State for the Environment in ensuring that events of this kind are brought to public attention immediately. I hope that the noble Lord did not imply that the Government obfuscated in any way on the matter. We believe that knowledge is the best combatant of fear.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House which government department is responsible for recommending counter-measures to a nuclear emergency, such as the removal of cattle from contaminated pastures in Cumbria, which some people think should have been done some time ago?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not want to appear craven simply because there are no fewer than three Opposition Front Bench spokesmen to one on this side. I believe, however, that I should direct the noble Baroness's attention to the Question on the Order Paper and suggest that she puts down another.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord has not taken seriously the question of nicotine comparison. It will lead us into all sorts of difficulties. There will be crossing the road comparisons, and what have you. This is a serious matter not concerned with the approval or otherwise
858
of the nuclear industry. It is essential that we have a proper and understandable measure. May I urge the noble Lord to take up the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who is so expert on these matters?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the idea of a commonly understood comparator is extremely attractive. I recognise that the views of those who smoke and drink may not coincide as to what it might be. I shall certainly look carefully at the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. However, I would also point out that the substantive Answer I gave produced a unit which is perfectly safe at nought and which is lethal at 100. That is a scale which is not too difficult to understand.

Parking Permits: Disabled Drivers
3 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: 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 arrangements exist for providing temporary parking permits for disabled drivers.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no such arrangements exist.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that surprisingly uninformative Answer. Is he aware that there is a real need for short-term permits for parking for disabled people? Many people who have injuries, accidents, operations and so on require a short-time permit only. If only long-term permits are issued this puts a premium on unscrupulous applications for a permanent permit which is not required.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am very well aware of the arguments put forward by my noble friend. The first three-year cycle of the badge and the programme has been completed. We are looking into the operation of the scheme with the local authorities and we shall bear in mind the arguments of my noble friend.
Lord Parry: My Lords, will the noble Lord assure the House that he will not simply accept the brief that he is offered from the department, but that he will take into account the fact that the general badge has been grossly abused? Will he take into account that there is—as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has said—a very real need for this short-term parking facility?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are aware that there has been abuse of the badge. This is one of the matters that we are looking at in reviewing the operation with the local authorities.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that local authorities draw up their own schemes and issue the orange badges which are then valid throughout the country except in central London? Within the legislation and the guidelines

859
issued to them is there provision for them to issue licences for shorter periods than three years or more, even if in practice they are not doing so?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not believe that the local authorities can issue the badge for a shorter period than three years. However, this is one of the points that we shall be looking at. I think that we have to go back to why the scheme was designed in the first place. It was designed to assist only those people with a permanent and very considerable difficulty in walking, and the blind and one or two other groups.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as one who sometimes has to drive a very severely disabled person in my car, and bearing in mind that that person can walk only a few yards from the destination at which the car arrives to the place where that person has to go (for example, a doctor's surgery), will he bear in mind the need to issue at least temporary permits for driving severely disabled people as passengers?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the scheme at present is designed specifically to take into account my noble friend's point where one has, as a passenger, somebody who is severely disabled and has considerable difficulty in walking, whereas the driver, such as my noble friend, I am glad to say, is fit enough to compete with the rest of us.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl my kinsman why he thinks permits have to be for three years? Why cannot temporary permits for three or six months be issued in a different colour? They could then be handed back. Can these not be issued by people's doctor and handed in to the doctor?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the scheme is run by the local authorities. The original purpose of the scheme was, as I have said before, to help those with a permanent disability. There was therefore no intention of providing for a temporary badge. But all these arguments will be taken into account in the process of our consideration of the scheme. The arguments of any of your Lordships who care to write to my department will of course be considered.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I, and I am sure other noble Lords, are grateful to my noble friend for undertaking to consider this point. Is he aware that in doing so he should remember that when arrangements were made in this House for permits for exemption from wearing compulsory seat belts, there was a specific provision for short-term permits? As that was workable, it might be possible to make this workable, too.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very valid point.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, it is some time since we last debated this subject of parking for disabled people. Is not the most important point that the orange badge must be removable and therefore it is shown on the car only when a disabled person—as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Renton—is in it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The abuse of this scheme is something that we should not tolerate because it lowers the value of the scheme and makes it considerably harder for those who have a serious problem.

Business
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, after the first short debate on greater public investment in housing and before that on urban and rural environment, my noble friend Lady Trumpington will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on social security benefit for students. I shall, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on student support. My noble friend Lady Trumpington will then, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on supplementary benefit board and lodging.
I should like to say a word about the arrangements for the two short debates themselves standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, and the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick. On the principle that the mover is allowed approximately 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 14 minutes, and in the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 10 minutes. If any noble Lords were to speak at greater length they would be doing so at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate.
Lord Alport: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Deputy Chief Whip whether any arrangements are going to be made in this House in the immediate future to discuss the position in South Africa?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, that is a matter for the usual Channels.

Housing: Public Investment
3.8 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick rose to call attention to the case for greater public investment in housing and the need to reduce the waiting time for applicants for local authority housing; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. That reads as follows:
"To call attention to the case for greater public investment in housing and the need to reduce the waiting time for applicants for local authority housing; and to move for Papers."
The reason I read that in extenso is because it is my belief that if the first part of the Motion is not put into operation there is no possibility of achieving the objectives of the second part.
I consider it a great privilege to be able to move this Motion. I believe it deals with a subject that is perhaps the most serious that we as a nation face, apart from

861
the major one—the question of unemployment. I believe that housing is a basic service that not only covers the question of housing but has a spin-off effect in other directons. Good housing provides a motivation to a better social order but I and other people believe that it also contributes to better health and to a better start in education. Statistics show quite clearly that where a child does not have the advantage of good housing and perhaps exists in a deprived home, that very often is related to the question of poor education. Those of us who are familiar with the big cities see that all too often.
It was only five months ago, in January, that your Lordships had an extensive debate on housing in the United Kingdom on the Report of the Inquiry into British Housing chaired by the Duke of Edinburgh. The debate on that occasion was introduced in an absolutely first class-manner by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, who I see is present in his place today. Noble Lords from all sides of the Chamber contributed to that debate and brought their great expertise to bear on the subject. I said at the time that I thought that the debate had to take place in conjunction with the report. It was a first class exercise enabling us to discuss what was happening.
I am a little sad that, so far as I can see, no Government Back-Bencher's name is on the list of speakers for this debate. I know that there are quite a number of Government Back-Bench supporters who are as interested in housing as any of us on any side of the Chamber or of any political party.
This debate must be something of a re-run because the situation of housing in this country has been discussed in the not too distant past. There has been a series of non-political bodies with expertise in this subject which have given us the benefit of their experience as to what is taking place at present. I shall give your Lordships a list of those people who have declared what is happening in this particular field. The series started in autumn 1984 with a report by NEDO on behalf of Neddy. That was the first major report that indicted the serious situation which was developing as regards housing. It was followed by reports by RIBA, the Federation of Civil Engineering, the National Home Improvement Council, the AMA, the Institute of Housing, and finally the CBI and the TUC became involved. However, the most profound report which has been debated to date is the one to which I have already referred; namely, the Duke of Edinburgh's report on the problem. Since then there has been published the report entitled Faith in the Cities which we have not yet debated. It is the report of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, and I understand that arrangements are trying to be made to enable us to debate that report perhaps in the overspill of this particular Session. I look forward to that occasion when we can once again go over old ground.
During this debate some of us may wander from the strict disciplines of the Motion on the Order Paper, and that is because we cannot isolate any particular facet of housing without affecting the others involved. All of the reports which I have mentioned come to the same conclusion; namely, that massive amounts of money ranging from £18 billion to £35 billion (if we
862
include the private sector owner-occupiers) need to be made available over a long period to deal with the problem. It is no good the Government or anyone else standing back and assuming that there are other huge sums of money that will come into housing from the private sector. If private sector money is to be attracted, it can only be so attracted if there is public money acting as a catalyst and attracting it.
Let us consider the Government's answer so far to the problem. Figures were produced during the debate in January showing that, even allowing for some additional schemes initiated by the Government, on balance local authorities had lost, because of Government action, £8 billion from their housing programmes since 1979. That factor, coupled with the reduction of the rate support grant from, I think, 61 per cent. to 46 per cent. over the same period, is the main cause of the deterioration which is taking place in the public sector stock. I and other noble Lords from various sides of the Chamber, including Government supporters, have questioned the Government as to why they continually refuse to make available the £6 billion of assets upon which the Government placed a moratorium, although they are allowing the local authorities to use 20 per cent. of the interest to deal with their housing problems.
It is a fact of life that when the original Bill dealing with the compulsory sale of council houses went through, its main premise was that it would release or make funds available for local authorities. I have with me figures relating to one of our major cities which show the treatment which the Government have meted out over the past 12 months to deal with the situation. Last year Manchester asked for £96 million to deal with its housing problem. It received £36 million. This year it asked for £108 million, and received £26 million. That is an indication of the seriousness with which the Government view the present problem with which we are dealing. While all that is going on, I point out that all the known figures relating to people asking for local authority accommodation continue to escalate.
I read in the Sunday Times at the weekend that the Minister of Housing, John Patten, was horrified that about 120,000 council tenancies were empty. I think that the correct figure is 113,000. I would not for one moment excuse tenancies in the public sector being kept empty because of poor administration and organisation by housing departments. However, if the local authorities had been granted the resources to get on with their job, I honestly believe that the figure would be considerably lower than it is at present.
Let us compare the 113,000 with the other sectors of housing. If we take the 113,000 as a percentage of the housing stock of the public authorities, it represents 2·3 per cent. of their total stock. At present there are 16,000 housing association properties empty, which represents 3·8 per cent. of their stock. There are 541,000 owner-occupier properties empty in the private sector, which represents 4·2 per cent. of the stock. I do not have the figures for Government departments, but I am assured that, in percentage terms, 6·9 per cent. of housing accommodation under their control is empty. Therefore, it is about time that the Government found another wicket on which to bat.
Every conceivable piece of information on housing indicates that demand is on the increase. In 1979, the known and identifiable waiting list. for housing accommodation was about 1 million; it is now 1·2 million. Over the past few weeks I have persistently put questions to the Minister regarding the escalation of other figures in respect of handicapped people, people in wheel-chairs, homeless people and concerning sheltered accommodation. I do not want to repeat the figures because there is not time, but there has been a tremendous increase in demand for public sector housing. I must tell your Lordships that the figure will not decrease unless the Government decide to make the resources available.
In the few minutes remaining, I think that I am entitled to ask the Minister to comment on the statement made over the weekend by the Minister for Information Technology, Mr. Geoffrey Pattie. He made the most outrageous and scandalous attack on council house tenants that I have ever known. It was absolutely outrageous.
I now turn to some of the points made by the right honourable Nicholas Ridley at the Institute of Housing last week in his first major housing speech since his appointment. He said—and I have to quote quickly—
"Although there is some disrepair in all sectors, owner-occupiers are on the whole well satisfied with the quality of their housing".
I have figures from reliable sources which show that £26 billion would be needed to put the owner-occupation sector in reasonable order.
Mr. Ridley also referred to municipal tenants and said that this Government had as paramount in their thinking on the question of municipal tenants that the views of the tenants should absolutely stand supreme. Does this mean that the new Secretary of State—and he is the fifth or sixth we have had in this Government; Secretary of State for the Environment is a very hot seat in this Government—will withdraw from the Housing Bill shortly to be discussed by your Lordships the disgraceful proposals which will allow a local authority to sell off municipal houses over the heads of the tenants, whether they like it or not? In other words, that would destroy any security of tenure that municipal tenants have historically enjoyed. When that Bill comes before the House we, with I hope the support of Members of all parties in the Chamber, will try to prevent such a disgraceful suggestion going ahead.
I have to finish shortly because I have only 15 minutes. Not only the housing section but also the building section of the community, starting with the Building Employers' Confederation, and including the National Federation of Building Employers, the Federation of Civil Engineers, the Institute of Maintenance and Municipal Building Management, are all ready to play their part. I am not suggesting for one moment that it would be possible to release huge sums of money and absorb them immediately, but surely a start must be made. The figures that I have quoted make it clear that had the Government not imposed those financial cuts, we would have had another half a million council houses available today for letting to people.
The purpose of my Motion today is to try to bring some light to bear on the most difficult social problem that we face as a nation. I was saddened and disappointed by the Minister's reply on the last occasion we debated housing in January. If the Government are not more sympathetic to the overtures and pleas that are being made to do something about this situation, I can only conclude that they place the god of tax reductions above the well-being of our people as a nation. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.23 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for introducing this Motion for debate today. It is not the first time that we have directed our attention to the housing problem of the nation. It will certainly not be the last time because, as the noble Lord has rightly said, this is one of the most important social and economic problems that we face. The evidence, as he has pointed out, is overwhelming that the state of British housing is rapidly deteriorating.
I should like to quote from only three important reports in recent times which indicate the size of the problem. The 1981 English House Condition Survey, which is the latest one we have had—the next one is not yet available—indicated that the cost of putting right defects in the housing stock was then estimated at some £30 billion. That estimate was recently reviewed by the Select Committee on the Environment in another place, and they considered that that figure, in current terms, would now be £40 billion.
Secondly, the Department of the Environment's own recent inquiry into the state of housing in the public sector pointed out that 3·8 million out of the 4·6 million houses in public ownership required attention, at a cost estimated at £19 billion, or £5,000 per dwelling requiring improvement. Then the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, in regard to London estimated that one in five of the houses in London, amounting to 500,000 dwellings, required essential improvement, the cost averaging £5,000 per home. This is overwhelming evidence that the state of housing in Britiain is deteriorating, and I do not believe that this is at all consistent with our position as one of the leading developed countries in the world.
The Environment Select Committee in their last report made the comment, with which I am sure we would all agree, that neglected maintenance is not merely maintenance postponed, but gives rise to the need for even more maintenance later. We all know this from experience in our own homes. The Select Committee went on to say that some property, particularly in the public sector, could be approaching the point where replacement was the only possibility. In other words, maintenance and repair have been so long neglected that the whole house had to be replaced.
Many of your Lordships will no doubt have read a leading article in the Sunday Times last Sunday on the whole question of housing policy. Reviewing the housing policy of the Government, the article stated that "new building has slumped, the existing housing

865
stock is becoming increasingly dilapidated, and homelessness is on the rise". It concluded:
"The Government's housing policy is in tatters".
This is a sad, but I believe reasonably objective, reflection on the state of housing in Britain. We are today far from the objective that the Government stated in their manifesto in 1983 when they said:
"Our goal is to make Britain the best housed country in Europe".
When we now compare ourselves with our Community neighbours we find that their expenditure on housing in the period since then has been greater than the expenditure that we have allocated in proportionate terms to our own housing.
It seems that the Government, in their housing policy, have been unduly concerned with changing the ownership of houses—and I think that the majority of us in this country believe that people should own their own homes—but they have been far too little concerned with the adequacy and physical condition of houses. It is that balance that I suggest now urgently needs to be put right, and I should therefore like to make a few suggestions as to how that might be done.
I believe that there are three clear courses that the Government could now take to correct the balance. The fact of the matter is that there is now what might be termed a house maintenance bulge in Britain. The lack of maintenance in housing is now increasing, and the amount of expenditure on maintenance, in both the public and private sectors, is not keeping pace with increased requirements. This is what has to be put right before the fabric of a house falls into such a state that the whole house has to be replaced.
How do we deal with this? There are three ways in which the Government, if they were to act vigorously and with determination, could begin to correct this problem. First, we know about the moneys that have been obtained from the sale of council houses and the Government's restriction on the use of those moneys for the purpose of maintaining, repairing and building houses. A sum of £6 billion is now available for this purpose and has to be held in reserve because of fears about the possible inflationary impact. But our inflation is now falling. The Government have taken great credit for the low level of inflation in Britain today. Is this not the time when we should be releasing more of these resources to get such an essential part of our social structure as housing right? This needs seriously to be looked at again. The inflationary argument no longer stands.
Secondly, there is a need to increase home improvement grants. I have a special interest in this because I am president of the National Home Improvement Council and I follow these things with great interest. At an earlier date the Government encouraged home improvement, and the discretionary grants under this heading were over £600 million in 1984–85. The trouble is, however, that the Government then had second thoughts and the grants under this heading that were made available in 1985–86 fell to £350 million. At the very time when the need was there to increase the efforts on maintenance the discretionary grants were nearly halved. The companies which were gearing themselves up to produce the tiles, the bricks and other equipment
866
for this purpose were stopped in their tracks. The construction industry, the local authorities and indeed the home owners and occupiers, having got geared up to a certain momentum of home improvement, found that momentum halved. That does not seem to me to be sensible in the light of all the evidence that has been accumulated about the need for improving the housing stock of Britain.
Thirdly, the Chancellor recently introduced VAT on improvement and repairs carried out by registered builders. This has been a further discouragement to home improvements. It has been a further encouragement to people who are not acting as registered builders and therefore it has led to a degree of shoddy work. What we need to do is to encourage people who strictly keep to the law, who want to be registered, who undertake work in accordance with agreed conditions and precepts and who had been held back by this imposition. When one looks at the overwhelming evidence on the one hand, and when one considers the actions of the Government on the other hand, it does not seem to me that the two go together. The actions taken by Government have indeed diminished the efforts to improve the housing stock of Britain.
So what I believe your Lordships should like to hear today from the Minister when he replies to the debate is, first, that the Government take very seriously the deteriorating condition of the housing stock of Britain, and secondly that they intend as quickly as possible to take the necessary measures to deal with the problem.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick for giving us the opportunity to debate this Motion. Building, repairing, and improving the nation's homes is one of the most important economic responsibiliites which pass from generation to generation. Through building we create jobs and preserve valuable skills and technologies. Through building we create the homes which our children and our children's children will live in and make their own. Neglect of this task creates a social burden of homelessness and poor housing and also an economic burden of a back-log of repairs and a shrunken construction industry. That is obvious; it is known to everyone; yet over the past 10 years public sector investment in housing has been a major target for cuts in public expenditure. I presume that the idea was that the private sector was to expand to fill the gap. But this has not happened. In 1985 total construction industry housing output was only 90 per cent. of its 1976 value.
But this is a much more serious development than it seems at first sight. Housing investment is needed to provide new homes to allow for the growing number of separate households and to replace older properties which are worn out and should be demolished. But in addition existing homes must be repaired and improved to make good deterioration due to age or defect and to bring older properties up to modern standards. All these things have to be done at the same time.
The Department of the Environment statistics put the number of new households being formed at around 200,000 a year. Yet the number of new homes being

867
started in both the private and public sectors has exceeded that figure only once in the last six years—even though the number of households is increasing by the figure I have mentioned. We have not built more than that except in one year in the last six. In fact, in 1980 and in 1981 new house starts barely exceeded 150,000. The figure of 200,000 does not take account of the need to build new homes for those households currently living in overcrowded conditions or in properties which are unfit for human habitation or are in a poor state of repair. So there has to be an addition to that 200,000.
Calculations arrived at in outlining a building programme designed to take account of these needs were last made in 1977 for the Labour Government's housing policy Green Paper. Subsequent studies have suggested that the forecasts in that Green Paper were basically well founded. The Green Paper forecast a need for 300,000 new homes a year between 1976 and 1986. Of those houses it was suggested that 180,000 would be built by private builders to meet the demand for owner-occupation, while 120,000 a year would be built by public bodies for those who needed to rent.
The last year in which 300,000 homes were started was 1976. Since then the overall level of starts has been less than two-thirds of that needed; in other words (I am almost repeating myself) it has been less than the 200,000 we need to meet the new households that are being created. That shortfall has been greatest in the public sector where, since 1980, starts have averaged half the level required. In other words, instead of the 120,000 that the Green Paper estimated would be built in the public sector, we have averaged 60,000,—in fact more often a lot less than that.
Overall, the country has built nearly 550,000 fewer homes over the 1976–86 period than the Green Paper said were needed. The shortfall is about 100,000 in the private sector and about 450,000 in the public sector. This explains the lengthy waiting lists about which my noble friend spoke. It also explains the rising homelessness.
In 1985 the number of households accepted by local authorities as homeless exceeded 100,000 for the first time ever. A large proportion of these people are housed in unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation. The conditions in much bed and breakfast accommodation are a direct risk to the health of the occupants. Severe overcrowding, infestations by cockroaches, mice and rats, inadequate sanitary facilities and fire hazards are common. Infections causing diarrhoea are frequently reported by GPs working in areas which contain a high proportion of the hotel homeless. There is also evidence of malnutrition and of children living in these conditions being underdeveloped because of lack of food. Added to that, of course, are the obvious mental health problems affecting both parents and children.
There is an urgent need for investment in new housing, particularly in the public sector. The Government are making a real attack at the moment on drug abuse, but seem never to have connected drug abuse with homelessness. I can tell your Lordships from my experience that the area close to my practice known as Tolmers Square was squatted in and most of the squatters registered with me. After a while I realised—my noble friend Lord Stallard knows all
868
about it; he is laughing—that I had a large number of drug addicts on my books and I endeavoured to treat them. I never run away from problems; I never run away from challenges. One of the things I discovered was this: you can often get a drug addict to the stage where he will give up, but in order for him to do that he has to get away from his environment, his friends and associations, because the society in which he lives is a society of drug taking. Therefore, you have to get him away. I found that often I could not get the addicts away because there were no homes for them to go to, and the only homes they had were those associated with drug taking.
There is a real need for some attention to be given to this housing problem. The need for greater investment in repair and improvement work is equally clear. The last English housing condition survey carried out in 1981 found that 900,000 homes leaked—I am sorry, I am misreading my writing; I should have said that they lacked one or more basic amenities. It is probably right that they leaked, but that is not what I had written in my notes. As I say, they lacked one or more basic amenities, and at one point 1 million were unfit for human habitation while over 4 million, or nearly one quarter of the housing stock, needed repairs costing £2,500 in each case.
Some of the people who suffer most are the elderly. As your Lordships know, I am chairman of Shelter, and we have a lot of problems helping elderly people who own properties that they cannot possibly maintain. This is where I am always having to draw swords with the Government. The Government have this one-vision, a tunnel-vision, approach to housing, and they want owner occupation, but that requires a willingness to support the owner occupiers when they reach the stage that they cannot repair their houses. The Government must take that on board. Unless they do so, many people will be placed in grave difficulties and their homes will be not pleasant places but very unpleasant places in which to live.
Added to that, there are the increasing number of local authority dwellings built in the last 40 years using non-traditional repair methods which are now developing faults. There are several estimates—your Lordships have heard them already—of the cost of the backlog of repairs, ranging between £18 million and £35 million, but whatever the figure, the problem is huge, and it will not go away.
There must be a programme of increased house building—new homes—and of repair and improvement of existing houses. We want both. Shelter has suggested a modest programme for increased public sector investment in housing. We have suggested a public sector new housebuilding programme of 100,000 units a year, which is 40,000 more than we have had on average during the last six years, but in effect is about 70,000 more than we are building now. There is also required repair and improvement spending on public sector housing aimed at reducing the backlog of disrepair by a £1,000 million to £1,500 million a year. There should also be increased public support for private sector improvement spending—the sort of thing I was talking about just now—to restore it to its 1983–84 level because, as I have already pointed out, the Government were moving in the right direction on

869
that one. There again, they have faltered; there were 320,000 houses repaired in 1984, but the figure fell to 195,000 in 1985. We want that to be restored.
This is a modest programme. In fact, I can assure your Lordships that most of my friends think it is much too modest. But it is a programme which in four years will enable us to arrive at the housing investment we had in 1976. I think it is very modest and we cannot ask for anything more reasonable. Remember, my Lords, that building houses also provides jobs. Let us do it.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I too should like to add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick for giving us yet another opportunity to discuss the problems of housing and housing investment.
While it is always a great pleasure for me to follow my noble friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead, I do not know if I shall be able to match his eloquence or his expertise because I know of his long experience in trying to deal with the problems of bad housing in the area in which he has spent most of his practising life, and I respect him all the more for that.
A recent survey conducted by a MORI poll puts housing at the top of the correspondence list of Members of the other place. The correspondence received by Members in another place on housing far exceeds that on any other subject, and, as any former member of the other place will tell you, that has been the situation for many years past under different governments. But in the past governments have accepted responsibility for public housing, and although there have always been arguments about the extent of responsibility and amount of responsibility, there has been some kind of broad consensus about the Government's role and the need for a government role. The present crisis, as has been said, is well documented. We have had reports from the Duke of Edinburgh's inquiry, from the Church of England's Faith in the City, from SHAC in their excellent booklet on capital decay, from the Association of Municipal Authorities, the Audit Commission, the Campaign to End Bedsit Squalor, from Shelter's numerous reports, from the Labour Party documents, expertly researched documents, I may say, and from many other bodies. Whereas housing had come to be regarded as a major government priority, since 1979 this Government's attitude and approach have changed. The main thrust of this Government's policy towards housing now seems to be mainly directed towards seeking ways to offload the responsibility, to shun the responsibility, not in an attempt to get better housing or to improve the situation but in yet another cost-cutting exercise. I think that was clearly demonstrated in the examples given by my noble friend Lord Dean.
It would appear from that, that the Government have abandoned any pretence of a housing policy or strategy and recent statements again seem to underline this view. There are not many statements about the size of the problem coming from the Government, from Ministers or spokesmen or about the seriousness
870
of the situation, or about any recommendations to deal with it. There is not even this spate of panic legislation which we have had in other areas such as social security to deal with immediate problems. There are problems far deeper than many of the social security problems that we have dealt with in the panic legislation to which I have referred. They have abandoned any pretence of involvement in public-sector housing. This means, so far as we are concerned, that after the election of a Labour Government at the next election, the new government will face a formidable task if first of all, they are going to try to retrieve the situation, before they can go on to improve it.
I have listed four major areas that they will have to deal with. First, there is the collapse of the house building programmes themselves. In 1981, house building (public and private) fell to its lowest level since the 1920s. Since then, public-sector house building has remained almost unchanged while the private sector which had shown only a modest recovery is not making much progress and is in fact now falling. Public house building has been slashed: less than 40,000 new council houses were started in the 1984–85 period; that is 65 per cent. down on 1968 and 80 per cent. down on 1975. As my noble friend Lord Pitt says, the present Government seem to be inferring that the private sector can make up this fall but house builders have said quite clearly that it cannot do so. Taking public and private house building together, the number of homes started under the Tories are almost 40 per cent. below the number started under the previous Labour Government.
The second major element that will have to be picked up is the poor quality of our housing stock at the moment. Facing the next government will be a huge problem of poor-quality housing; and the worst of this poor-quality housing is in the private sector. This would seem at least partly to answer part of the speech made by a Government Minister, referred to by my noble friend Lord Dean and reported in yesterday's issue of The Times, headed, "Pattie put his case for No. 10". It reads:
"Mr Geoffrey Pattie, a leading contender for promotion to the Cabinet, last night appeared to put himself forward as a right-wing candidate to succeed Mrs Margaret Thatcher when she eventually steps down as leader of the Conservative Party".
It goes on:
"He condemned demands for extra government spending by colleagues as 'electoral bribery' … and claimed that council housing bred slums, delinquency, vandalism, waste, arrears and social polarisation."
Put in that context, none of us has any doubt about what he was saying. He was blaming the people who live in those places for their conditions; but he had nothing to say about the private sector or about any possible solutions.
Let me say that nearly half the unfit homes in the country are owner occupied in the private sector. These figures reflect the fact that nearly one-third of today's homes were built before 1919 and are rapidly deteriorating. 1¼ million homes in England and Wales are unfit for human habitation; 1 million homes in England and Wales lack one or more of the basic amenities; 2½ million homes in the United Kingdom are seriously affected by damp; 3 million homes require repairs costing more than £2,500; and 1½

871
million homes have serious design defects. The estimate for putting those defects right has been mentioned by previous speakers.
The third aspect that I want to mention is the defects in the design of system building. As a Member of the Opposition who participated in a recent Bill on housing defects, I was privy to a whole batch of documents outlining that programme. We have no time to go into that now, but certainly the Association of Metropolitan Authorities estimate that it will take £5,000 million to remedy system-built design and construction defects in tower blocks and in other high density areas built in the 1960s and 1970s. Some of these, we know, passed into private ownership in good faith. Unlike that Bill and unlike the approach of this present Government, it will not be the intention of a future Labour Government to differentiate between tenants and owners who are trapped in that defective housing. We will treat the problem as seriously as it deserves.
The fourth problem is that of the backlog, again mentioned by my noble friend Lord Pitt. The AMA have stated that this backlog has accrued mainly as the result of cuts in the budget on housing expenditure by the present Administration. They have estimated there is a present shortage of 1 million dwellings. There are now about 1¼ million households registered on the local authority housing waiting lists. There are 83,000 households accepted as homeless compared to 57,000 in 1979; and many homeless people—and we know there are thousands of homeless people especially single homeless people—do not even get counted and do not emerge in the statistics anywhere. Because of this concealment, the known figure of 500,000 overcrowded households may seriously underestimate the real number of householders searching for suitable accommodation. As well as this, we know that by the year 2001 there will be another 2·3 million extra households.
I want to spend my last couple of minutes on two areas of particular interest to me. First, the single homeless. I have just mentioned a few statistics. I cannot apologise for mentioning statistics because they are important in this kind of debate. A government survey shows that over a million people face fire risks and overcrowding because of the conditions of these houses. There are 334,000 multiple-occupied properties in England and Wales and 2 million people live in them. At least, 53 per cent. of those properties are substandard. These are all in the private sector and not, as Mr. Pattie would have us believe, only in council and public sector housing. Some 127,000 houses lack satisfactory means of escape from fire; 110,000 houses need major repairs; 96,000 houses lack proper amenities; 77,000 houses are unsatisfactorily managed and 53,000 houses are overcrowded or over-occupied, according to the Government's own survey. That is no mean problem. And we could probably add a great deal to that because, if their previous record in other fields is to be followed, I imagine that they would automatically doctor the figures.
The other aspect I mentioned, which was touched on, was the question of housing for the elderly. We know that expenditure on public-sector housing is now less than half what it was in 1978–79. The cuts that
872
have been made have had a serious effect on the elderly, and that situation, if left, can only deteriorate. If the housing of elderly people is left static so that nothing is done to cure some of the problems which have been outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, the situation will get worse and cost much more to put right. So we have to face the fact that there are now 10 million elderly people in Great Britain, and by the year 2000 the number of people aged 75 and over will have increased by almost 1 million. The housing needs of elderly people, either to remain in their existing home for as long as they wish (for which appropriate repair work will be needed) or to move to more convenient accommodation, often to be nearer their families, create many problems.
I could go on about the plight of the elderly but I hope that other speakers may also touch on it because it is a problem that affects every area in the country—the problem of elderly owner-occupiers trapped in a house which is far too big for them and unable to qualify for the necessary points to move because they may wish to move to an area, to be near their family, which is outside the area in which they live. There are many other attendant problems, and altogether these represent a tremendously difficult situation that will face the next administration.
I have mentioned the fact that the next Labour Government will have to tackle this problem. Our Motion calls for greater public investment in housing; and in documentation from the Labour Party headquarters the party is firmly committed to accepting the responsibilities in the field of public expenditure because we recognise that poor housing is in fact a false economy. It throws extra burdens on health and social services; it contributes to immobility in the labour market and to greater economic decline. What is needed is a major programme to repair and improve old homes and build new ones. We also know that, pound for pound, house building and construction creates more jobs than any other government spending and it creates little direct strain on our balance of payments. There are 400,000 construction workers on the dole, a recession in the construction materials industry and a massive shortage of decent homes. The arithmetic of those figures ought to be apparent to everybody.
It is a prudent investment. We need good quality housing stock for many years to come. We simply cannot afford to let housing deteriorate at the present rate. Repairs, improvements and replacements, if done now, will safeguard the future of our housing stock and certainly—I can speak only for the next Labour Government—we shall work with tenants, with local authorities and housing associations to develop a strategy that will begin to solve the crisis that has been created and worsened by Conservative administrations since 1979.
4.3 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, the topic that my noble friend Lord Dean has put before us this afternoon is clearly a vital one. That has been proved, I think, by the speeches that have already been made—speeches which have contained statistics and statements which have proved that the Government's housing policy is in very serious disarray.

873
I should like to confine my few remarks to only one area and one category of people who are caught up in our housing situation through having no home at all. I should like to speak only about the homeless; about who they are, how many of them there are and what can be done to rectify their situation. There are, it is thought, no fewer than 100,000 households—I know that the statistics we use are put forward in good faith but sometimes they vary slightly as between different speakers—who are accepted as homeless, in terms of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. As my noble friend Lord Stallard said, it is felt by those who work in the field of housing that the true figure, including the categories of people whom local authorities are not under an obligation to house—all those people who do not approach the local authorities—might well be three times that number. Also, there is no doubt that the figure is rising.
The reasons that a growing number of people are being squeezed right out of the housing market are various, and I should like to give your Lordships a few of them. First, while the right to buy has enormously grown, the right to rent has enormously declined, both in the private and the public sectors. It now seems absolutely inconceivable that in 1914 the privately-rented sector's share of the housing stock was as high as 90 per cent. Much of that may have been imperfect accommodation but nevertheless it provided an option for those people on waiting lists for council accommodation. Today that option has almost disappeared, with only 10 per cent. of the housing stock remaining in the privately-rented sector and with the publicly-rented sector standing at about only 30 per cent. That can only mean that the balance between home ownership and private and public rented housing has been completely lost, with the result that a growing number of people are without homes and on the waiting lists.
Surely it is true to say that the whole concept of a waiting list is itself becoming an anachronism because it implies that there is somewhere to wait. But, as I have said, the waiting room which used to be provided by the private landlords has disappeared and there is a virtual disappearance of new lettings, so that the only option left to those people on the waiting lists is to live with relations or friends or to enter the network of hostels and bed and breakfast lodginghouses.
My noble friend Lord Pitt has given some very vivid examples of the effects on the health of those people who are living in this accommodation. May I also remind your Lordships that as there is no rent control, no security of tenure and no controls over standards, the owners of those commercial establishments are able to make vast profits at public expense by letting squalid, overcrowded and often unsafe accommodation to homeless people. I have visited some families living in these conditions, and it is impossible to overstate the problems of living and bringing up children in such a setting. I have seen small, inadequate and appallingly decorated rooms, with the family eating their takeaway meal sitting on the bed—a takeaway meal because the cooking facilities in these bed and breakfast establishments are almost nil, and they sit on the bed because there is nowhere else to sit.
874
I have also heard so often that children who are cooped up in these very restricted areas, with their education very often disrupted through moving and having lost their friends and homes, are showing serious signs (as my noble friend Lord Pitt said) of withdrawal and of disruptive behaviour. In addition, their physical health can be affected. It must also be remembered that the people who end up in these miserable places are often the most vulnerable people in our society: the single-parent family, often a very young mother and often unmarried, with small dependent children. What sort of grown-ups will those small children grow up to be?
Then there is the mother who, with her children, has left her home because of domestic violence. Others may be patients coming out of hospital with nowhere to go or young people who have left home either because they have to or because they wish to do so, and young people who have been in institutions or in care, because they have nowhere to go. The last category of people who often end up in this kind of accommodation are of course ex-offenders who, when discharged from prison, have nowhere to go. I know from experience through my work with the New Bridge that rehabilitation is the major problem. But if there is accommodation for an ex-offender the risk of that ex-offender re-offending is very much diminished. That very often is the reason for their re-offending: they have nowhere to go.
It really boils down to the fact that, at an exorbitant price to local authorities, the most deprived and vulnerable sections of our community are kept in these miserable conditions. The irony, as has already been said, is that it would be not only better but much cheaper to allow those local councils and housing associations to provide proper self-contained flats than to pay the cost of board and lodging to commercial landlords. However, far from allowing that, the Government's response has been to bring in the new limits which will force people into still more substandard temporary accommodation or, literally, put some of them out onto the streets. Another reason for homelessness, which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has given, is the very large number of houses standing empty in need of repairs and, as he said, the majority of those houses are from the private sector.
So may I put forward two suggestions as to how this situation, which presents so many homeless people, could be slightly remedied? First, the balance of public investment must surely be redistributed, giving a higher priority to investment in public housing, both for building and for repairs, and less to subsidies for mortgage tax relief, exemption of owner-occupied housing from capital gains tax and discounts to council house tenants buying their homes with these bribes, as one would see them. It has now come out that so many of those owner-occupiers are unable to look after and maintain their own houses. This point has been very clearly made this afternoon. So this redistribution is surely the only way to bring about a reality of choice between the right to buy and the right to rent.
We on these Benches have often been blamed for not respecting that right to own, but we respect it so long as there is also a right to rent and sufficient building to provide an option for those people who will

875
never be able to own and buy their own houses. Public investment in housing has continued to decline and, at the same time, the number of unemployed building workers increases. This point has again been made several times this afternoon.
My final point is that surely the way towards a good housing policy is not through a centralist approach but from a local base. Surely a housing policy constructed from the bottom upwards must mean that housing plans and priorities are set locally, based on full discussions with those in unsatisfactory housing and those without a proper home. If local authorities were under a statutory obligation to prepare annually a comprehensive assessment of housing needs and demands in their area, to discuss this with local people and to publish their report and plans, that would definitely provide an essential framework for local housing programmes and would also lead the way towards removing the terrible scourge of homelessness of which I have spoken this afternoon.
There is always a danger that this unfortunate group of people who are homeless will become a forgotten community. That is one of the reasons why we are extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Dean for bringing forward this subject this afternoon, so that some of us can speak about that group of people who, through no possible fault of their own, are without a home and are therefore unable to live with the dignity which a home provides.
4.14 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, some 45 years ago Archbishop William Temple wrote in a book entitled Christianity and the Social Order some significant words about housing. He said:
"A society committed to the family would see that there were houses available for all citizens within their means, in which a family could be brought up in health and happiness in the unity of family life and in the decency and dignity proper to human beings who are the children of God."
All these many years later, we have been given another opportunity to air in this House the problems of housing and I for one am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for introducing this subject in the way that he has.
However, it is sad and depressing that we have to come back, again and again, to this terrible crisis in housing and find that, far from progress having been made, things seem to be getting worse and worse. Sometimes it is alleged that the British people are among the best housed in the world. This may be true for approximately 70 per cent. of them. It certainly includes people like your Lordships and myself. I live in a tied cottage—not a palace, I hasten to say (those days are disappearing for the Bishops)—but a tied cottage adequately maintained by the commissioners.
This is not a personal and pressing problem for me and I suspect, if we are honest, we have to admit that this is so for all of us here in the House this afternoon. Yet we know perfectly well from what we are reading, from the reports which have been mentioned, from the news media and from articles in the press that this is a terrible, pressing and urgent problem which is very damaging for many people who are our fellow citizens in our country today.
876
I believe that one reason that it has been so difficult to get on top of the housing problem is precisely because it is a problem which affects a minority of British people. If you think back to some of the documentaries which have been produced, such as that television documentary "Cathy come Home", a good many years ago now, they had a tremendous effect, but it was not a lasting effect, and surely this was partly because politically the people who are the worst housed do not really have enough clout in this country. Problems which affect minorities in health, in education, in some of our disadvantaged areas in the country are particularly intractable, because they are not problems which affect the majority of our population, and because politically influential majorities do not experience such problems at first hand. That, I think, is partly what concerns us in the issue of housing.
But let me hasten to add that I do not believe this is really a party matter. For example, if you look back at the debate which was held in this House in June 1982, there was one telling quotation from a speaker at that time. He said:
"I can think of no issue on which political economists of widely differing tendencies are in more substantial agreement than on the unholy mess which successive governments have made of the housing market. Housing has become the growing source of human misery."
So there is no cause for complacency on the part of members of any political party in this House this afternoon. Yet, having said that, the situation has been deteriorating and Government Ministers responsible would ignore at their peril what is being said.
We know that we live at a time of diminished resources. We know that, in some ways, Britain has become a poorer nation than some years ago. Yet it is apparent to all that, when something is recognised as a real crisis, money can be found. You have only to go back to the Falklands crisis for that. The national situation over housing has been well outlined in this debate already this afternoon and the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, referred to a number of reports that are readily available and in which the situation is well documented.
So far as the Church reports are concerned—and perhaps your Lordships will expect me to make some reference to them—I think that the Churches have been paying more attention to this subject in recent years, though we feel as puzzled, as weak and as helpless in some ways as the rest of sections of society over how to tackle the housing problems. I think back to a very good report in 1982 that was produced by our Board of Social Responsibility nationally, called Housing and Homelessness, which is in my hands. Faith in the City, which has already been alluded to, carries an excellent section on housing.
As regards the area of Greater Manchester from which I come, we have a Board of Social Responsibility under my own diocese which outlined in a special report several years ago the situation in the Greater Manchester area. It brought home the facts in such a startling manner that, when we had a diocesan synod debate on it, there was no dissentient voice from the fact that housing should be given a far higher priority politically and also by the Churches. That report showed that housing in the Greater Manchester

877
area is of poor quality or in disrepair and nearly 30 per cent. of it is substandard. As is well known, there have been great problems with some of the newer properties—not just the older properties dating from the early years of this century but those which have been put up since, such as multiple-decked access flats in the 'sixties. The case of Fort Beswick, which has had to be demolished, is well known. On one estate in Salford which consists of housing from that era a survey showed that more than half the tenants wished to get out of the estate. The problems instanced concerned overcrowding, small, inadequate kitchens, damp houses, rubbish not removed, repairs not done, and things of that kind. Part of the problem facing us in the greater Manchester area involves public sector housing of poor quality or in disrepair.
We all know that the resources to deal with these problems have simply not been available in recent years and that the situation has been growing worse. Mention has been made of the waiting lists for local authority housing. That is part of the subject of our debate this afternoon. Current figures for Manchester city show that 37,640 households are awaiting housing, nearly 20,000 of them new applicants. Most of these are families or households with elderly dependants. This links to what I was saying at the start with the quotation from Archbishop William Temple about the devastating effect of such problems on family life. Any political parties which make the family a plank in their programme should pay special attention to what housing means for families.
I consulted one of our major local housing associations about what waiting lists meant in their situation in Manchester city. This is what I was told:
"Families being rehoused now have waited four years for a house. The families coming on to our waiting list cannot be told how long they will have to wait, because the waiting list simply cannot be calculated for time. The waiting list has now expanded to unmanageable proportions, and we could fill our entire holding of 1,100 units if all were vacant and still have a substantial waiting list. In short, in a situation of ever-increasing demand we have a significantly decreasing supply leading to over-crowding, homelessness, frustration, boredom and aggression".
There are no individual reasons why this crisis has been growing so much in recent years. You can put a number of things into the pot and look at them in turn. There is bad design from the past, some poor housing management (let us face it), some bad planning in various estates, and of course there is misuse by tenants, which is often used as an excuse for the housing situation. I should certainly not wish to underestimate the amount of misuse that there is. But I think we must all appreciate that there is a real cycle of deprivation which leads to this misuse. That in turn leads to vandalism and the problem becomes difficult and intractable. Again and again one comes back to the problem of under-resourcing in these areas.
I am perfectly aware of the reasons why we are not as wealthy a county as we were and why all the time there is competition for scarce resources, but I believe that there is a moral issue here. I turn for a moment to homelessness. I need not say very much because the previous speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady EwartBiggs, has referred to this. The figures are now higher than have ever before been recorded, though it is very hard to find out exactly what is happening in regard to
878
homelessness. It can be linked very clearly to shortage of housing, as many surveys show. I quote from the Church report on this matter, Housing and Homelessness:
"Homelessness cannot be attributed to personal failure. It results largely from the inability to acquire suitable housing. Thousands of people are forced to live at present in institutions and in situations of stress engendered through over-crowding or poor physical conditions".
We ought to explode the myth that those who are homeless are always single people—male, middle-aged, drunken and inadequate. This applies to only a proportion, and perhaps a small proportion at that. In a recent survey women constituted more than 25 per cent. of the single homeless; 30 per cent. were under 30; and many had skills and above average qualifications. Homelessness is such a distressing feature of our situation today and we must treat this crisis with very great urgency.
I have already said that there is competition for resources and that we have to recognise the danger of inflation. We give credit to government where credit is due for a low rate of inflation, though as we well know, quite a lot of this is due to fortunate circumstances for this country—circumstances which are not necessarily bringing the same good fortune to others in other parts of the world. But now that inflation has come down perhaps attention can be given to other sides of the various problems which face our country at the present time.
Public sector housing remains a vital element of the scene. Whatever we may or may not think about the drive for greater private ownership—and I am not opposed to this—we need to make sure that an adequate proportion of our national resources continues to go into public sector housing and all the problems which are to found there. I support the plea which has been made from the Benches opposite that a hard look should be taken at the tax relief being granted on mortgage payments. This may be unpopular politically in certain circles, but if we are to achieve greater fairness and a better distribution of the resources in this country, this point seems to me to be fundamental.
I shall finish by saying that with all problems which seem to be intractable and which come up again and again for debate in the House of Commons and in your Lordships' House there can easily be a feeling of hopelessness and an attitude of, "Oh, not that again". But we must somehow get over this feeling and look at the facts and try to tackle them realistically and with great urgency. This is surely a moral challenge to us all.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, as every speaker in the debate up to now has said, the House owes a debt to my noble friend Lord Dean for introducing the debate at this time. He has done a favour to this, the temporal, side of the House. In introducing this debate in Ascot Week he has done no favour to the noble Lord who has to reply. The House will have difficulty in proving to the people who are homeless and in substandard accommodation at this time that it is the caring House that we know it to be. We are told from time to time, often from the Benches opposite, that there is no monopoly of care in this House. I subscribe

879
to that view and have said so many times. It has therefore been greatly to the credit of this House that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester has been able to make a massive contribution from the spiritual side of the House to this debate this afternoon.
This debate should be equally supported in all parts of the House because we represent here the entire population of Great Britain, if we have a role in the constitution, as I believe we have. Having said that, I want specifically to say that the debate up to now has identified the problem as it stands nationwide across Great Britain. It would be correct for me to say that in January the Secretary of State for Wales—my former parliamentary election opponent—announced that he was undertaking the most expensive and detailed research into the difficulties of housing in Wales that has ever been undertaken. That survey will cost £1.5 million and it will indicate once and for all the pattern of housing difficulty which exists in Wales.
It is not only a Welsh problem, but a world problem. Food, clothing and shelter are things which we all in our political philosophies seek to provide for the people. The right reverend Prelate was perfectly right to say that no political party should take particular credit for having been able completely to solve or even completely to plan away this great social difficulty. In fact, in the bibliography that has already been provided, one might write in another title. It is the biography of Aneurin Bevan by my right honourable friend Michael Foot.
In 1945, in another place, there was a classic debate on housing. That outlined the very problems which we are discussing this afternoon. Anyone discussing the subject of housing has first to talk about two things. They have to talk about the quantity of housing and about the quality of housing. Those aspects have been identified by my noble friends, and by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, speaking from the right hand side of the Temporal side of the House.
In that debate in 1945, Aneurin Bevan said that a government could be judged in two or three years on the number of houses that it had built; but in 10 years and thereafter, it would be judged more and more by the quality of the housing that it had built. So we are speaking this afternoon about the type of housing as well as the volume.
I want to focus the attention of the House on the fact that we can all of us, though caring, grow away from our own perceptions of the need. I was born literally into a cottage-type house. My father was a nonconformist minister in Wales, and I was born in a tiny manse. Now I am constantly surprised and amazed when I go into terraced houses—and I occupied one myself until the late 1950s—at the limits of scale that there are. So that even within houses that are existing and adequate, there is a certain limitation of life. That comes from a style, scale and type of house that would otherwise pass all the tests as being adequate as a home.
When the right honourable Member for Pembrokeshire, the Secretary of State for Wales, looks into the facts as they affect the Principality, he will find them already presaged, even before his report comes out. I am sure that he, being a caring man, will have set
880
his report in motion because he knows of bleak facts such as that there are in Wales 80,000 homes that have no toilets, bathroom or hot water supply. We forget that some noble Lords who sit on these Benches grew up in houses such as those. As the years go by they tend to forget. It is not that they cease to care; it is just that such memories are no longer in the forefront of their minds. Today we have the opportunity to say, and the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and the Government have the opportunity to say in response to my noble friend's deposition, that they do care; that they do remember; and that they are in touch with the facts.
I have to handle Parliamentary Questions asked in this House and in another place concerning cash grants to landlords of properties. They have been reluctant—and we know the reasons why—to take advantage of development schemes by successive governments because they do not offer the return on capital that the landlords can obtain elsewhere. We understand that. Local government has been prevented from major public housing development schemes by the Government's changes of direction in fiscal policy. It is a fact that many caring councils have been unable to spend money that they have had available because it is the Government's fiscal policy not to spend money in that direction. It may be that a caring Conservative, a caring Socialist or a caring Liberal might find other priorities at any given time for the spending of the national purse. However, that does not remove long term a problem that was identified in 1945 as being soluble only if this nation could build then and there 750,000 houses.
I wonder whether your Lordships realise the similarity of those figures, and whether your Lordships now understand the emphasis of the right reverend Prelate on the failure of successive governments really to grasp the nettle of our housing problem. It was said in 1945 that 750,000 houses were needed. Those houses had to be built in the context of returning this nation's economy from war production to peace. An attempt was made, and it was probably the most courageous attempt that had ever been made up to then.
I shall for just one moment take the issue back another 30 years. Why was it that all those houses were needed in 1945? Many of them were needed because of war-time bombing and because of the war-time failure to spend money on bringing housing up to decent standards. More importantly, the crisis in the economy that existed in the 1930s led to a failure on the part of the private sector to invest in the development of housing. So by 1945, there was not much argument as to the previous position between private and public spending, because everyone said that the building industry had to be remotivated, and that it had to build both public and private housing.
That is my own position from these Benches. We are not arguing for more spending on public building than on private building in the economy. We are arguing that the balance should be maintained and that houses should be built. It is vital that money should be spent in the public sector because some of the money that was spent betwen 1945 and 1951 provided some of the finest public housing in the world. Some of that housing of a high standard has recently exchanged hands. Its market price has been demonstrable, and

881
people were delighted to buy their own homes. I do not want to go into that issue. What I want to say is that, because we build houses of sufficient scale and style, some families were fortunate enough to grow up in them.
It is a fact that some people advised Aneurin Bevan that one could not build 300,000 houses a year. He always regretted accepting that advice; he said so publicly. In fact, subsequent Ministers in a subsequent government built 300,000 houses a year, to his embarrassment. They did so by cutting down on the standards, by limiting the sizes of those houses, and by building an inferior type of house. If Mr. Pattie, whoever he may be, in another place wishes to point the finger at certain council estates and describe them as slum housing, then let him pick up the lease and find out in what period those properties were built. Who built that slum housing, if indeed it is slum housing? How long has it been in occupation?
I quickly want to tell your Lordships that the Secretary of State, when he supplements what is already known with the inquiry for which, very properly and rightly, he has called about my own native land, he will find, because the lines are already drawn, that the number of dwellings both in Wales and in England has increased by more than 50 per cent. over the past 30 years—but that the population has grown rather more slowly.
In 1984, there were 2·5 persons per dwelling compared with 3·6 persons in 1950. The housing stock in Wales is rather older than in Great Britain as a whole, with 22 per cent. of the houses built before 1891 compared with less than 16 per cent. in Great Britain. That is why Wales is one of the poorest areas in Great Britain in terms of housing provision.
The relative importance of public and private housebuilding has changed over the past 30 years. I believe it to be proper that it has. I believe in a property-owning democracy; but I believe also that it is essential for a democratic country to keep within its control, and the control of Parliament, an adequate housing stock of the best possible quality that it can afford. Any government who fail to do that are failing the nation and the challenge of this time.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Crawshaw of Aintree: My Lords, it is always difficult to follow the noble Lord, Lord Parry, who puts over what he has to say with such feeling because it comes from his heart. I was interested in everything that the noble Lord had to say. I may also say how much I appreciate the opportunity that has been given by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, once again to express our views on this particular subject. I hope that the noble Lord was not apologising for bringing this subject forward. I am sure that he was not doing so, because what he and other noble Lords said two months ago is still as relevant today. It is still as true today, and it will still be true in two months' time. However, the more we say it the more chance there is that somebody will pay some attention.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester spoke about Salford. That is where I was born. I know the area he was speaking about where slums have been
882
removed and other slums built. That is not unusual, and it brings me to my first point. This is not a political issue. When we refer to statistics, as we have this afternoon, we must remember that each statistic is a human being living in inadequate circumstances and, in many cases, in squalor. It is not, therefore, a party political matter.
I was going to point out, had not the noble Lord, Lord Parry, done so, that it was a Conservative Government that I believe managed to reach a target of 350,000 houses and I was going to pay tribute to that. But where have all those houses gone to? Where are the tower blocks? They have been taken down at tremendous expense. In Liverpool we shall be paying the interest on the money borrowed for the next 40 years; but the blocks are not there now. That is what we must think about when we decide on building. How are we to do it? It is not just a case of putting up houses. Houses have to be maintained and standards have to be maintained. Obviously the systems we have had until now have certainly not maintained standards. We must look at that problem immediately.
I believe, and I have said it before in this House, that one of the most fruitful means of rehousing people in this country, at a rent which is economic and which people can afford to pay, is through housing associations. But I am not bound to that view. I think there is a tremendous prospect in the private sector if the Government are prepared to help finance building societies and organisations of that nature and get private investment into private housing which could be available for rent. However, having lived through the age of Rachmann I am always loath to talk about private rented housing because of what happened in those circumstances. However, it should not be beyond the wit of government to frame legislation which can provide the private investor with a reasonable return on his money. We must face the fact that, unless finance is going to come solely from the Government, we shall not get private investors unless there is a return. That is why I say the Government must do something to help finance the building societies or other private enterprises that want to go into housing.
The Government have done that in London's docklands. I know that some of those houses are a tremendous price, but there is no need for houses to be built at such prices. Therefore, we must first see how we build in order to maintain their standards. I have said previously in this House that if we build in London for letting at a high rent we should not have the buildings open for all and sundry to go through the main door into the corridors and make a mess all over the place. There should be a commissionaire allowing people to enter or not enter as the case may be. Why should corporation tenants be treated any differently?
One of the points that I made when serving on the Liverpool housing committee was that millions of pounds would have been saved if we had paid for a rota system of commissionaires on the bottom floor of the flats instead of spending millions of pounds a year on each block repairing the damage inflicted on them. Those are the issues we must consider. Penny-pinching only costs more money.

883
That brings me to my next point. The Government talk about getting on your bike. I accept that it is always helpful to go out and look for work but if you live in the North of England and get a job in the South, what do you do? You have to live apart from your family while you are working. There are no houses available in the South at an economic rent that anyone from the North can afford. I know of many executives who are looking for promotion but dread that the promotion might be into the London area or the South-East. At present they have their own homes and are living comfortably, but selling their house in the North-East would not buy a decent garage in the South. So when we talk about getting on bikes and the mobility of labour it is necessary to look at the circumstances which exist.
That is the position in the private sector and that is why I believe that a great need exists, and not only through housing associations, which I have had the privilege of working with for a number of years. I have said often before that each tenant in an association is known personally by the person responsible in the association. At committee meetings they can discuss why someone is behind with the rent. Perhaps the husband has been ill or out of work; all those things can be discussed.
I am not trying to run down the local authorities. They were given an impossible task. In dealing with 80,000 or 100,000 tenancies as in Liverpool—when I was on the council there were 80,000 people on the waiting list—how can you speak of individual tenants? It is an impossibility. Therefore, I plead with my noble friends to be careful, when we are speaking about money being put into local authority funding, to think out some way whereby these tenants can be given their say in the running of the places in which they live.
There is no reason why a tower block should not be handed over to a tenants' association, which would be told, "You look after it. You make suggestions. You have committee meetings and tell us what you want us to do." I am not seeking to take housing out of the hands of local authorities but I have had bitter experience in Liverpool of seeing housing estates developed with hard-won money some of which are now the drug centres of the city.
Those are the problems, and they will not be solved overnight. However, we hear that the Government do not have the money available. I asked a Question about housing associations a few weeks ago and the Minister replied that the allocation was not cut down last year and that the associations received more money. That is true but at the same time it is false. The associations received the same money as the year before but that did not take into account the 2½ per cent. rise in the cost of living. In addition, that money was primarlily sent to the inner city areas. I do not complain about that. I have fought for the inner city areas. But, as I said to the Minister, it leaves a nasty taste in your mouth when you know that the effort you have made on behalf of the inner cities is being paid for by housing associations in other parts of the country where the housing situation is as bad as in some of the inner cities. In many cases they have been cut down to 30 or 40 per cent. of what they were getting the previous year.
884
I do not believe that the Government are sincere in saying that they are trying to solve the housing problem. I have never criticised the Government on a whole range of policies. When the Conservative Government came into power there were many actions they had to take which were unpopular, and I went along with many of them. We cannot live with inflation at 25 per cent. But the Government seem to have made some sort of god of reducing inflation. When they reduced inflation to 7 per cent. they wanted it down to 6 per cent., even at the cost of another 200,000 jobs. That is the sort of thing which I believe is wrong. The more they continue on those lines the more they depress the economy. The more people the Government throw out of work the less money the Government have for what we are asking for this afternoon.
We talk about inflating the economy—and I know that "inflate" is a horrible word for the Government—but I believe that in housing we are in a prize field to do it, under regulation. We know approximately how much it costs to refurbish 1,000 houses, so there is no need for the Government to say that they are going to give £20 billion. All they need say is that 20,000 houses will be refurbished in the next six months. Then, if the economy does not overheat, they can take another 20,000 or 30,000 houses and go on until such time as they reach a position where they think the economy is overheating. Then, of course, any normal government would have to pull back. But the excuse that the Government will spend nothing at all in case the economy overheats is hypocrisy. I do not think that they mean it.
I do not believe that members of the Government are insensitive to people's feelings. I have never believed that. But I wonder how many know what it is like to live in such conditions or have seen people living in them. I had the honour of being the Member for Toxteth for 20-odd years and was a councillor for more than that. Few weeks went by without my seeing 30 or 40 houses that had things wrong with them. As has been said, it is not just the housing; it is what it does to the families. The husband would come home from work to his family of three or four children, and there would be nowhere for the kids to go apart from the one room that they lived in. What sort of married life is that for anybody? It is even worse when the husband is out of work and spends all his time in that environment.
I do not believe that the Government know what it is like to live in such circumstances. After he had been to Liverpool, Michael Heseltine said that he did not know that people lived in such conditions. I do not think that he is insensitive. One cannot criticise people if they have never had the opportunity to see such things. The right reverend Prelate and others know what it is like.
I say to the Government that the tide is running out fast. Bad housing is not the reason for riots in Toxteth; there are a whole collection of things. But when people live in such circumstances they come to a stage where even a riot is a bit different from the life that they are living day to day. That is the great reality of the situation. It is no good the Government saying that they do not have the money. What has happened to the 50 per cent. of the proceeds from the houses sold

885
by councils? I went against my party when I was a member of the Labour Party, because I always felt that there was a need to sell council houses. But in my wildest dreams I never thought that we should have a government who would let the council sell them and keep the money. It is hypocrisy for them to say that the money is not there. There is plenty of money from the council house sales. At least that would be a start to what we are asking for.
4.52 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, housing is a human problem, and a very big human problem, and it is not going away. It is getting bigger. That fact and the information in the speeches this afternoon and in the numerous important reports that we have had over the past year totally justify our choosing the subject for debate. Those who suffer from poor housing or no housing at all need others to put their case, as the right reverend Prelate said.
The Government have had a strong case made against them. I hope that they will come up with good answers. All the reports tell the same tale of gross under-investment in housing, of a shortage of houses, particularly in the areas of the country where there is work, of an accelerating deterioration of the housing stock and of a failure to bring the many properties lacking the basic amenities up to a respectable standard.
The Government are constantly telling us that they have spent more in real terms on education and health than was spent in 1979. One can argue about what effect that has had and about its adequacy, but there is no question but that the money spent on housing has been cut by this Government more drastically than public spending in any other area. I should like to ask the Minister to tell us the amount spent in, first, cash and, secondly, real terms on public sector housing in 1979 and in 1985.
The lack of resources in the public sector has resulted in 1985 having the record lowest number of new houses started since the First World War and there was no net decrease in the number of empty houses needing work to make them habitable. Eighty five per cent. of council-owned dwellings require some repair and improvement. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, spoke powerfully of the need for more improvement grants. Are we to have a response to the Green Paper on improvement grants? The responses from local authorities have been in for some time. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us about that. I totally back up the noble Lord's plea for the removal of VAT on repairs. That should definitely be done. Both he and the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, mentioned the ability of councils to spend their own money.
I have no doubt that when the Minister replies he will be referring to the helpful report of the Audit Commission in March 1986, Managing the Crisis in Council Housing—and crisis it is. He will doubtless point out that councils could do better than they do with the money they have. No one would deny that there is the possibility that some councils could do better. Estate management does not always receive sufficient attention. Too little is spent on it and too few
886
staff are allocated to it. Top managers are not always of top quality. Their responsibilities are great. A typical large authority might have 40,000 dwellings and an annual rent roll of £30 million a year, but few directors of housing receive more than £25,000 to £30,000 a year and salaries are not competitive with industry.
The commission refers to empty properties, and my noble friend Lord Dean mentioned that 2.4 per cent. of the total housing stock was vacant at any one time. He made the point that the housing associations, the private sector and the Government most of all have higher percentages. Many homes are awaiting repair, being repaired or awaiting sale or demolition. It is possible by good practice to reduce the relet period, but waiting lists are large and growing, the Audit Commission admits. They are increasing at the rate of 3,000 a year. There are also those who want to transfer; over 4,000 applications a year might be made in a typical metropolitan district.
I think that it would be appropriate to ask the Government whether they can set about collecting very much more information on those lists. I should have thought that much more precise information and monitoring are needed in order to understand the national need and to formulate a national housing policy. I am not suggesting that local authorities should not have their own arrangements about creating their lists. Circumstances may be different in different parts of the country. But an overall and up-to-the-minute view is necessary. With computers available, as they were not 10 to 15 years ago, that should be quite possible.
Shelter did a good job in producing in 1983 a waiting list survey and an analysis of trends in waiting lists between 1976 and 1983, but that is now three years out of date. It says that it is supplying information which is not officially available elsewhere. That also applies to transfers, which are equally important. The information ought to be officially available, and what is the department to do about that?
I want to say a word or two about the homeless, although the subject has been well covered by my noble friends Lord Pitt and Lady Ewart-Biggs. However, it is such a important problem that I feel I should mention it from this Front Bench. The number of families in London in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has tripled over the past three years. The total cost of homelessness to local authorities was £28.6 million in 1983–84 and rose to over £34 million 1984–85. That can be compared to the increase in the DHSS cost of supplementary benefit board-and-lodging payments, which have risen from £76 million 1980 to a staggering £380 million in 1984. Surely a wiser Government would use those huge sums to invest in hostels or indeed in houses. The average cost of a night's bed-and-breakfast accommodation for a family is about £19, which is above the average weekly rent of most council dwellings.
A Shelter report, A Decent Home Makes all the Difference, shows the position in four large cities. The larger problem is found in the large metropolitan authorities and in London. I met an old friend, the headmaster of North Westminster Community School last week. I told him about this debate. He said that he

887
would send me a report on 90 Bangladeshi children from homeless families in his school living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in Bayswater. It makes devastating reading. I shall quote from it about one family:
"When the children come home from school at 4 o'clock, all they can do is sit in the two rooms the family occupies. There is nowhere for them to do homework or to play, except the hotel corridors and stairways—or outside by the busy main road. Four of the children sleep in one of the rooms—they are aged 19, 14, 11 and 9. The fifth and younger child sleeps with the parents in the other room. There is little or no privacy."
The report tells more horrifying stories. The length of time families are staying in such accommodation is increasing. A two-year stay is no longer remarkable. It seems a little ironical that in this House on 2nd June we passed an amendment to the Education Bill to the effect that where sex education is given to pupils it should be given in such as manner as to encourage those pupils to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life. There must be some hollow laughs in Bayswater if they know of that. What sort of family life can there be in the wretched circumstances of those seven people "partly living" in those two rooms?
In his defence of the Government's position on housing, I am sure that the noble Lord the Minister will mention rent arrears and the figure of £250 million. Authorities vary enormously in the amount of debt. Total rent arrears at the end of March 1985 amounted to the equivalent of some 25 days' rent on average, but in 262 authorities it was under 3 per cent., of gross debit—less than 10 days' rent—and in 168 authorities it was under 2 per cent. When local authorities are criticised, it should be remembered that many housing associations have arrears in the range of 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. of gross debit, and nearly all manage fewer dwellings.
Since the Audit Commission's 1984 report, Bringing Council Tenants' Arrears Under Control, the trend has been downward. I want to ask the Minister, and I believe it is relevant in this context, what are the building societies' repossession figures for the past three years? It is worth remembering that 10 per cent. of families accepted by local councils as homeless in the first nine months of 1985 had defaulted on their mortgage payments. It is not always right to buy.
There could be tighter financial control and better management, but the savings so made would only go a small way to solving the enormous housing problems in this country. On page 72, the Audit Commission's report states:
"even on optimistic assumptions about the value improvements that could be generated from implementation of the recommendations in this report, little immediate headway would be made in clearing the £20 billion repairs and improvements backlog. The most that could be reasonably expected after a 2–3 year implementation period would be of the order of £1 billion a year. Moreover, local management may not be able to cope with the challenges involved. In such circumstances proposing a managerial solution may be tantamount to suggesting a rearrangement of the deckchairs on the Titanic".
In chapter 4 the commission considers what steps should be taken over and above those managerial proposals made in the earlier chapter. I should like to refer to those:
"(i) relax the current controls over local authorities' ability to fund capital spending internally, from the sale of assets".
888
That point has been made previously. The second is:
"Attract more private sector finance. This will be essential in Category B authorities"—
they are the ones with moderate problems—
"where saleable assets and local property market values will not be sufficient to generate the necessary funds internally to meet the authorities' capital needs.
(iii) Invest more public resources in Category C problem authorities, if only to attract the necessary weight of private money to tackle the serious problems involved".
The 1985 report, Capital Expenditure Controls in Local Government in England, is referred to and a plea is made for local authorities to be given much greater freedom to get on and be allowed to help themselves. In particular, it asks for a new approach and for a three- to five-year planning horizon so that programmes and projects are not subject to abrupt changes in the year-end "rush to spend". I have referred to and quoted from the report fairly extensively because, as the Audit Commission is a body set up and created by this Government, one hopes that its wise words will be heeded. Will the noble Lord the Minister tell us when we shall hear the Government's reaction to the report?
I want to turn to another side of the need for more investment in housing. The Government seem to have lost sight of the fact that investment in public housing for rent makes a major contribution to private sector building. Somehow, the impression has been conveyed that houses for rent are built by local authorities and housing associations. That is rarely true. It is normally carried out by local and national builders who tender for the work. They are firms such as Wimpey, Laing, Costain and Tarmac. They have suffered from the drastic decline in public sector starts. Public money is also vital if private builders are to be able to build for sale on sites other than the easy-build easy-sell green-field sites. Massive sums must be made available for infrastructure, roads, sewers, etc., and, in many inner city areas, for basic land reclamation.
The Government have quietly recognised that in the case of the London Docklands Development Corporation, as the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, said, where £300 million of public money went into assembling the land, the infrastructure and so on. Huge public expenditure is a prerequisite for new house building, both public and private. Land prices and availability of land are vitally important. The reason that the London docklands can sell 75 per cent. of its houses for less than £40,000 is that the land was made available to it free of charge.
I should like noble Lords to look at my area, Cambridge, where £500,000 is being asked for one acre. In a few cases more than £500,000 is being asked. Assuming that 15 houses are built to the acre, the site cost per house is over £33,000. That is before a brick is laid. It is not surprising therefore to hear that a not very attractive three-bedroomed semi-detached house in a fairly smart area of Cambridge has just sold for £91,000 and that a very small terraced house with the front door on the street in the Romsey Town area, where houses were run up pretty quickly when the railway came to Cambridge, has just been bought by a young couple whom I know for £38,000. Grander houses are fetching London prices—£200,000 or so.

889
That is crazy. Will the Government think again about mortgage tax relief reform which would help to stop the ridiculous escalation in house prices? Of the £4,750 million spent on mortgage tax relief, £1 billion went to those paying higher rates of tax. Are the Government going to develop any policy on land allocation and availability, because it is the scarcity and high price of land which is helping to cause the escalation? Even some Conservatives are becoming bothered. I was told by one housing expert who went to speak at a Conservative meeting in the Home Counties that people there were becoming very angry because although they were living in houses which had increased astronomically in value, that rise was of no immediate benefit to them, and their children were now marrying and wanting homes and just could not afford to be first-time buyers.
The House-Builders Federation has produced an interesting document, Homes Jobs Land The Eternal Triangle. Current planning policies are creating difficulties in building houses where they are needed and where there is work. On Greater London it says:
"the shortage of suitable land for private housing at the right price means that only 10–15,000 dwellings in total can be built each year during the 1980s compared to the requirement for some 20,000 dwellings per year to meet the recognised level of need. As a result, some 40,000 people a year are currently leaving London. Yet the counties in the rest of the South-East are planning to keep them out. Many local authorities are seeking to resist natural growth trends and to suppress the development of the housing and job markets. Hertfordshire proposes to cut housing provision by 17 per cent. from previous levels to well below market demand. But it intends to continue to promote jobs and office growth".
Are the Government taking note of the way that this restraint pre-empts the planning of land for public and private housing? If the Minister refers to lifting the burden, or building businesses, not barriers, I would say that they will make no impact on this problem. Job mobility and employment opportunities are being suppressed by high land value resulting from these restraint policies.
I must finish now as I see that I have overshot my time. The Secretary of State made his first speech on Friday as Secretary of State. I do not believe that the speech was very helpful. He is, however, the third Secretary of State to hold that office within the Department of the Environment during this year. It does not seem likely that we shall get very forward-looking or sensible policies while these changes are going on.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity of discussing housing in this Chamber, and I am very willing to cross swords again with the noble Lord, Lord Dean, on a subject upon which we profoundly disagree. This debate, with a few notable and welcome exceptions, has concentrated almost entirely on bricks, on mortar and on cash. Hardly a word have we heard about people, and their desires, their wants and their needs. It is these—I agree here with the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw—which should dictate housing policy and not theoretical prescriptions that have been tried and found wanting on so many occasions in the past.
890
The first part of the Motion, putting the case for greater public investment in housing, emphasises what has been evident in the Opposition's contribution to recent debates here and in another place. Despite plenty of gloss, presentation and changes of colour scheme, the Labour Party's heart is still firmly entrenched in the same discredited old ideas. Its approach is clearly illustrated in a comment that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, made during his contribution to the debate on the inquiry into British housing. The noble Lord said:
"We must have some action. I do not think it can come from the private sector. It never has before, and as it is so urgent this action mut come from the Government".—[Official Report, 29/1/86; col. 758.]
The noble Lord said much the same this afternoon. If the noble Lord was right, we would listen to him. Indeed, even though he is wrong, we listen to him. Why is he wrong?
"I do not think",
he said,
"it can come from the private sector".
I assume that the noble Lord knows perfectly well, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, revealed that he did, that in the last three years private housing starts have been in excess of 150,000 a year and total 485,000, the highest three-year total since 1972–74. But, as amply demonstrated this afternoon, this, of itself, is not enough.
The noble Lord, Lord Parry, referred to a debate on housing that took place in 1945—the year, incidentally, that I was born. He suggested that the same problems existed then as now. In fact, there have been enormous achievements in housing since then. The number of dwellings in England and Wales has increased from 10.7 million to 18.7 million, and standards of accommodation have improved dramatically. Nearly every dwelling now has basic amenities, and space and the number of rooms per household have steadily increased. In these strict terms—I agree that this is not a particularly valid comparison—our housing is among the best in Europe.
The Government are no Jeremiah in these matters. Briefly, the major differences between us and the party opposite are that, first, we have faith in the skills and capabilities of the private sector and, secondly, we have learned a lot from the lessons of the past about the effects of massive public sector house building drives, both in terms of the type of housing that results and the effects on the economy.
Some speakers today have pointed to the stockpile of capital receipts that local authorities have accrued through council house sales as a possible source of finance for more public housing investment. If this money was sitting idle in town hall petty cash tins, there might be an economic case for spending it. But this is not the case. Receipts are used by local authorities to reduce their borrowing requirements. Therefore, if the money is used on capital projects, local authorities will have to borrow yet more money to replace the sums used in this way, thus adding to their external debt that already amounts to around £30 billion in England. We now know that the accumulated receipts amounted to £6.2 billion at the end of 1984–85, and the figure by now will be substantially

891
larger. If the whole of this were to be released into the economy at once, the effect on the PSBR, interest rates, inflation and ultimately unemployment would be devastating.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that we are talking in terms of housing shortage and crisis? Will he justify the morality of refusing councils the freedom to spend their own money in providing houses with cash that has been raised from the sale of houses? If the noble Lord is arguing that to release all the money now would be catastrophic, the reason that it has accumulated is that Government policy has not allowed it to be spent in reasonable tranches.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if the noble Lord will do me the courtesy of allowing me to develop the argument in my own way, he will find that I am about to answer that question. It is only reasonable, in view of the shortness of time available to me, if I do not answer any further interruptions.
The construction industry would be unable to cope if we were faced with the situation I mentioned a few moments ago. The Government are currently reviewing the whole area of local government finance, including the capital control system. But one option which is definitely not being considered is that apparently favoured by Labour Party spokesmen—unleasing all at once this whole immense torrent of purchasing power. Listening to the speeches of some noble Lords, one would think that the Government were preventing councils spending their capital receipts from the sale of council houses. As I have sought to explain, that is simply not the case. Over a period of three years a council can spend about half of any receipts that it has generated on new capital projects. And councils are making use of their receipts. In 1985–86 the housing investment programme allocation was £1,600 million. But actual spending was about £2,500 million. The difference was made up mainly through the spending of capital receipts.
Let me return to people. By disagreeing with the approach suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, I shall immediately be accused of lack of sympathy and even of complacancy in the matter. That is a palpable nonsense. It does not mean that I am not sympathetic to the strong desire and need of everyone to be properly housed. I recognise and put first and foremost in my mind the fact that there are people who have to live in sub-standard housing on impersonal estates or indeed who have no accommodation at all. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that rented housing is far from completely lost. The Government's strategy for dealing with the problems is aimed at helping these people through better targeting of public funds and the greater involvement of the private sector. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, pointed out, public expenditure on housing under this Government has indeed been reduced. What the noble Baroness did not add was that cuts in investment under the last Labour Administration were much more severe—46 per cent. as opposed to 36 per cent. Both figures are in real terms. The noble Baroness asked for the particular figure. In 1984–85, in real terms, £3,914 million was spent. The figure for
892
1979–80 was £3,159 million in cash terms and £4,812 million in real terms. So, yes, it has reduced as I have just explained.
The crucial consideration is not the amount of public investment but the total resources mobilised to solve housing problems, public and private. No one has recognised that where a local authority arranges for a developer to build for sale under licence on land that it owns local authorities can use not 20 per cent. and not even the old 40 per cent. of their capital receipts, but a full 100 per cent. Why do we make this exception? It is for one very simple reason. The vast majority of people want to own their own homes. It is right that the Government should do all in their power to help them achieve this aim. These schemes are, of course, self-financing.
While I am speaking about home ownership I should respond to the noble Baroness, Lady David, on the question of the number of homes repossessed by building societies. This is still a very small proportion of the total number of loans given. The noble Baroness asked for figures for the past three years. These are as follows. In 1983 it was 7,320 homes, or 0.12 per cent. of total loans. In 1984, it was 10,870 homes, or 0.17 per cent. of total loans. In 1985, it was 16,590 homes, or 0.25 per cent. of total loans. I cannot agree that a repossession rate of 0.25 per cent., or 1 in 400 homes, gives credence to the contention of the noble Baroness that people are being forced to buy who cannot afford to do so and are then suffering the consequences.
As well as owner-occupation, people have other pressing needs which local authorities have to meet. I am pleased to say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that local authorities each year prepare an annual assessment of housing need as part of their housing investment programme submissions. The Government discuss these assessments very carefully with the local authorities before reaching decisions on their HIP allocations. It is as a result of this that the Government have continued to devote very substantial amounts of public expenditure to housing.
Gross capital expenditure on housing in England is currently £3.25 billion. Indeed, we have started following the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, by increasing the provision by £200 million last year. We fully intend to see whether it is possible to maintain a small increase until we get to the damaging figure that the noble Lord very reasonably recognised. Within this total the Government have been encouraging local authorities and housing associations to target their expenditure at those people and areas most in need: the inner cities, the homeless, the elderly and the disabled on low incomes. These will continue to be the priorities. These are the types of housing need for which the public sector still needs to provide and—I freely admit it—will always need to provide.
It is not the job of local authorities and housing associations to house the great majority of the population for whom the private sector has been catering with increasing success. We must be careful to ensure that the public sector does not fritter away its resources on people who can meet their needs perfectly well in the private sector.

893
In this connection, I should like to make a small reference to the Building Societies Bill which is to have its Second Reading in your Lordships' House on Friday of this week. I hope that building societies will make full use of the opportunities offered by the Bill to play a much more direct role in housing than has been possible up to now. The new powers to own and manage land will enable societies to offer, for example, shared ownership, a full range of agency services, and schemes to revitalise rundown council estates.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and many other speakers discussed the problem of the homeless. Of course I share the concern about the increase in the numbers of homeless. It is for local authorities to decide how to fulfil their duties under the Homeless Persons Act. We have improved the way that housing resources are distributed to give a better measure of the problem in the areas most affected. In addition, the homeless stand to benefit from a wide range of government policies; for example, measures to encourage the private rented sector, facilitating subletting of council dwellings, and the Government's hostels initiatives.
Within the public sector the first priority lies not with new building but with renovation of the existing stock. The House may be interested to know that this is true not only in this country but in developed countries generally. The United States House of Representatives agreed unanimously earlier this month to restrict public housing funds to renovation, and not to allow any new building. We have not gone that far. Local authorities take decisions about the content of their housing investment programmes but we expect them to be guided by the priorities as I have stated them, and by the facts.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, noted, the Department of the Environment's stock condition inquiry last year estimated that the backlog of repair work needed in the local authority housing stock amounted to almost £19 billion. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, spoke of private sector home improvement, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, also asked me about it. The House will be aware that we published a Green Paper on this subject. I can tell both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that we are looking again at the proposals in the Green Paper in the light of the many comments that my department has received. It will not be too long before I or my noble friend can reveal the answers to the House.
This £19 billion was built up over many years and with the best will in the world cannot be conjured away overnight however much the Government, or indeed any government, spend. I agree with the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Parry, that it is a colossal amount of work even though not all of it requires action right away. I am very encouraged by the way local authorities are now responding.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, asked about the English house condition survey. The next survey in this five-yearly series begins this autumn and will give an up-to-date overall assessment of the condition of the stock. Surveys of this kind are complex exercises and thorough analysis of the results will be necessary. As has become normal form, it will be published in due course. It is also too early to start speculating
894
about the results. However, I am encouraged by the recently published provisional report of the AMA's Greater London house condition survey which suggested that the Capital has enjoyed a considerable reduction in the number of unfit properties and those lacking basic amenities. We shall have to wait to assess the contention of the right reverend Prelate that the situation is still getting steadily worse.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, reminded us that nearly half of the unfit homes are owner-occupied. He failed to add that in Great Britain, at December 1985, 62 per cent. of the houses were owner-occupied and 30 per cent. of the houses were in the public sector—and in the time available I have been unable to find out what has happened to the other 8 per cent. I shall let noble Lords know in due course. The number of unfit owner-occupied dwellings is high because owner-occupation forms such a high proportion of the stock and the average age of owner-occupied dwellings is much older than public sector stock.
More immediately, it is for local authorities to decide how much to spend on grants, taking into account their local housing needs and priorities. Last year, spending was around £450 million. To put this in perspective I would remind the House that in the last year of the last Labour Government grant spending amounted to a mere £90 million. I agree that both these figures are in cash terms. However, even in 1983–84—the peak year for grant spending—public spending accounted for only about 10 per cent. of the total. Private spending will therefore be the most important factor in improving the condition of the stock. Public help should be directed where it is most needed. We have asked local authorities to consider giving priority to certain groups when approving discretionary grants. These comprise those living in unfit dwellings in statutory improvement areas, private rented housing, elderly owner-occupiers, the disabled and other applicants known to have limited income.
Our strategy is also designed to stimulate and encourage the maximum contribution from the private sector, both in its own right and in partnership with the public sector. I have already told the House the recent very encouraging trends in new private housing starts. Furthermore, there are also increasing examples of joint ventures and partnerships with local authorities. This is happening not only in Conservative-controlled councils but also in those Labour areas which have been far-sighted enough to see private developers not as bogeymen but as invaluable repository of expertise and resources. A major part is being played by the Department of the Environment's urban housing renewal unit. This unit recently completed its first year of operation and has just published its first annual report. I have arranged for copies of this report to be placed in the Library of your Lordships' House. It illustrates very well what can be achieved when local authorities, central government, private developers and the tenants themselves get together to devise ways of revitalising run-down estates. So far 23 schemes have been approved, which when completed will transform some 15,000 dwellings, and the lives of the people living in them. A number of other applications are still being considered.

895
I turn now to the second part of the Motion—the need to reduce council waiting lists. By encouraging local authorities to concentrate on specific needs rather than general needs, and by applying public and private sector resources where they are most needed, local authority waiting lists should fall. I deliberately say "should" rather than "will" fall, because this is not simply a question of resources. Good management is also a critical factor.
It is a scandal to hear, as we did last week from my noble friend Lady Macleod, of 2,000 letable units in Southwark standing empty; and I understand that on 1st April this year there were 110,000 empty local authority dwellings in England, and of those 30,000 were in letable condition. That surely is an affront to the homeless, the taxpayer and the ratepayer.
The recent Audit Commission report Managing the Crisis in Council Housing draws attention to the need for reletting periods by local authorities to be reduced to the absolute minimum necessary. We shall of course respond in due course. A particularly telling statistic appears tucked away as a footnote. In London the average reletting period varies from over 30 weeks in the worst borough to seven weeks in the best, compared to an overall weighted national average of 11 weeks. In case anybody wants to suggest that this had to do with the size of the borough's housing stock, noble Lords should also note that a leading American property company with a stock of over 60,000 dwellings, aims for a reletting period of just five days—even when major repairs are required.
As I told the House last week, the Audit Commission estimates that, if all authorities could improve this turnover time by just two and a half weeks, an additional 20,000 dwellings would become available for letting. Imagine the effect on the waiting lists if all councils started to approach the American model! I shall of course look at the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady David, of having a rolling investigation into waiting lists. I think that that has a great deal to recommend it.
One matter which has been in your Lordships' minds is the speech made recently by my honourable friend the Minister for Information Technology. I should make it clear that in the course of a wide-ranging and hard-hitting speech he was expressing a personal view of the problems of council housing. He did not express government policy on public sector housing.
In conclusion, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, will join me in urging local authorities to do all they can to improve their management in the light of the Audit Commission's report. I hope they will be able to achieve this in months rather than years. Perhaps I may be allowed to rephrase the quote with which I started the speech. Throwing money at a problem, does not make it go away. It never has and it never will. But solving all the problems of Britain's housing will not be easy and will take a concerted strategy by all the parties concerned over a period of years. The Government have such a strategy which they are determined to pursue until the problems are solved.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, it falls to me as the mover of the Motion to wind up the debate. I must say that I am disappointed at the quality of the Ministerial reply which I think only indicated the Minister's prejudice against public sector housing. He mentioned my reference to private capital being involved in housing. He obviously had not read carefully the Motion on the Order Paper. The point which I was making—and which I have made again and again—is that private money will not flood in to rescue the public building stock. It never has done, and it never will do so unless it is matched by Government money.
I was also surprised to hear the Minister say that the debate was not about people. One speaker after another talked about people—about the homeless, about drug addicts, about people who had nowhere to live or who were living in overcrowded conditions. If this debate was not about them, it was not about anything.
The Minister once again castigated local authorities for not letting houses quickly enough. Does he not realise that the figures which he gave meant that of the total of 120,000 houses that are empty and under local authority control only 0.25 per cent.—I repeat, 0.25 per cent.—are due to local authorities not letting them quickly enough? No other sector of housing, according to my figures, comes anywhere near it. I would not for one moment defend authorities that are slow in letting. However, the Minister should try to put the picture in its proper perspective.
I opened this debate by saying that I was privileged and pleased to be able to move a debate in your Lordships' House on such an issue as housing. At first, I thought that it might have been a little soon after the debate which we had in January on the report of the inquiry chaired by the Duke of Edinburgh. However, I am convinced that it has been a worthwhile exercise because it has shown that the Government have not shifted one inch in the stupid policies which they are pursuing.
Having said that, I wish to thank each and every Member of your Lordships' House, from all sides of the Chamber, who have taken part in the debate. I cannot thank anyone on the Government Back-Benches, because no one there has taken part. I thank all those who spoke to the Motion. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Students: Social Security Benefits
5.36 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security. The Statement reads as follows:
"With permission I would like to make a Statement about social security benefits and students.

897
"In January the Government published proposals which were a first step to channelling support for students more through the educational maintenance system rather than the social security system. I referred these proposals to the Social Security Advisory Committee and I am today publishing the committee's report together with the Government's response to it. I am also laying before the House amended regulations which take account of their views and those of the local authorities' associations and others expressed during the consultation period.
"Mr. Speaker, it remains the Government's view that in the long term it cannot be sensible that students should be subject to two separate but intertwined systems of support. It cannot be satisfactory to have students permanently dependent upon a system which is primarily designed for those who for various reasons cannot work rather than for those who have withdrawn voluntarily from the labour market to study. The vast majority of comments to the Social Security Advisory Committee supported the principle of rationalising student support. But at the same time three main concerns were expressed.
"First, there was concern that the major change proposed to housing benefit—whereby the accommodation element in the grant would be taken fully into account when assessing housing benefit entitlement—would cause a wide range of losses. The Social Security Advisory Committee shared this concern while at the same time recognising the case in principle for the change. Although there is no doubt that the present rules treat students more favourably than other claimants, the Government are prepared to withdraw this proposal.
"Second, there was concern that in relation to the withdrawal of housing benefit for accommodation left unoccupied in the summer vacation some students would not have time to change existing plans and commitments. We recognise their concern and therefore this measure will not take effect until the summer of 1987 as we accept that students who have already entered into rent commitments for this summer could face difficulties.
"Third, there was concern about the position of students without an award who have begun their studies on the assumption that they would continue to draw benefit at the current level. We accept that we should protect the most vulnerable of these—existing students living away from their parents' homes. Those students will be treated as now for housing benefit—in respect of private rented accommodation in term time and the short vacations—up to 1st April 1988 or when their present course ends.
"The remainder of the Government's proposals are largely unchanged. We shall remove entitlement to unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit in the short vacations when students are already provided for through the grant. We shall simplify housing benefit administration by averaging grant income for the whole of the grant-assisted period. Students in halls of residence will in
898
future be able to claim housing benefit only during the long vacation for which there is no provision in the grant.
"Our proposal to make a £36 additional increase in the grant still stands and is an important step to the long-term aim of shifting student support away from the social security system. Nevertheless the Government recognise that there are important issues to be discussed before making further progress towards this aim. This raises a question of a wider review of student support and this will be dealt with by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education in his Statement shortly.
"Our other proposals have been widely welcomed and will go forward. We shall extend help under the students dependants' hardship scheme to cover the full year for two-parent families, as well as single parents. We shall disregard for housing benefit those parts of the grant which cover books and travelling expenses. This change will now take effect for the academic year 1987–88. We shall provide a firm legal basis for treating students' income from parental covenants so that it does not affect their claims to benefit during the summer vacation.
"Mr. Speaker, the Government's long-term aim of removing students from the benefit system has been widely welcomed and accepted in principle. It cannot be right that generations of students should be encouraged to depend on social security. We set out our proposals five months ago and we have responded carefully and constructively to the comments made upon them. I believe the proposals I have described today represent sensible steps towards rationalising provision for students, and reducing their dependence on benefits".
That, my Lords, concludes the Statement.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made by her right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place. Of course we must be thankful for small mercies in terms of grants this summer and in terms of the £36 additional increase in the grant; £36 goes a long way over a year, I have to admit.
While I accept the principle that student support should primarily be a responsibility of the Department of Education and Science, is it not apparent that the Government have created great concern and uncertainty among students as a result of this long delay? The right honourable gentleman's Statement referred to the January proposals which were referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee, and the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee was received in March this year. That is three months ago.
Why was there this inexcusable delay? Is the noble Baroness not aware that her right honourable friend has postponed his Statement until many university students have left for the summer vacation, thus causing great uncertainty and consternation? Is she not aware of the confusion that her right honourable friend has generated among students, parents, advisers, and even his own administrators?
Welcome as the proposals for changes in the system of assessing students' covenanted income must be, is the noble Baroness's right honourable friend not

899
embarrassed to be bringing these proposals to the House only now, having promised them as long ago as last August? Will she concede that her right honourable friend's claim to have been motivated by the desire to rationalise the system seems to be somewhat in shreds? In the face of the report by the Social Security Advisory Committee will the noble Baroness acknowledge that her right honourable friend's original proposals were hasty, ill-considered, and, some would say, vindictive? Will she also admit that his promise of a review proclaims the measure of the haste and lack of consideration which applied at that time?
We are glad that there now is to be a review; that is to be welcomed. But will she accept that it seems quite wrong to take action which, in many cases, will cut student benefits before a new system is instituted? Surely the idea of a review is to produce a new scheme, and would it not seem unwise to start taking some action on it before the scheme has been worked out and announced?
Will the noble Baroness accept that students and their parents are being squeezed as a result of the conflict between the DHSS and the Department of Education and Science? How many students will lose and how many will gain from the announcement made in another place today? What is to be the saving to the DHSS as a result of the measures that her right honourable friend has announced?
Does the noble Baroness accept that the students who will suffer most are the poorest students, and especially those living in areas where summer jobs are virtually impossible to find because of the high level of unemployment? Will she accept that we shall want to discuss this Statement, the regulations, and the Social Security Advisory Committee's report after we have had time to read them carefully?
5.45 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we, too, on these Benches should like to thank the noble Baroness for repeating this Statement. We accept in principle that it is not sensible to have two separate but intertwined systems of student support, and it is the case that students have been bandied about between two departments for long enough; so we welcome the move towards a single system of support.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has just said, this Statement has come in the nick of time. I believe that the Government have been brooding on the Social Security Advisory Committee's report for five months, and in the meantime students have been in an agony of uncertainty about their future.
The Statement says that the Social Security Advisory Committee supported the principle of rationalising student support. Can the noble Baroness say whether the Government will publish these comments in full? I forget whether or not they are obliged to; the noble Lord, Lord Banks, would know. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would tell me. It would be interesting to see the Social Security Advisory Committee's full report.
We welcome the withdrawal by the Government of the proposal to take the accommodation element of grant into account for housing benefit. That is correct,
900
because of the wide regional variations. The withdrawal of housing benefit for accommodation left unoccupied in the summer vacation has been deferred until 1987, and we certainly welcome that as students will indeed, as the Statement says, "have already entered into rent commitments for" their accommodation. It is the case that they have to pay for the vacation period if they are not to lose their accommodation and become homeless. But what about the future? This just takes us until 1987. Students without grant will be protected for housing benefit up to 1st April 1988, or the end of their course, and we welcome that.
These are all holding measures which will relieve immediate hardship, but they do not provide a longterm solution. The removal of unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit for the Christmas and Easter vacations we cannot welcome. The removal of these entitlements is another indication of the Government's lack of sympathy for those students whose studies are blighted by constant worry over finance. This entitlement should have remained in place pending new arrangements, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has said.
The initial savings rumoured in the press from the original proposals were said to be in the region of £20 million to £25 million. Can the Government say what savings are now envisaged after these revised measures?
The additional £36 of the grant is held in the Statement to be,
"an important step to the long-term aim of shifting student support away from the social security system."
It is an extremely inefficient one. It gives each student a lump sum, regardless of the regional variants and his costs; also, routing this compensation via the grants system presumably means that it will be liable to parental contribution. Can the noble Baroness say whether that is the case?
These are all short-term measures. We are glad the Secretary of State has drawn back from some of his predecessor's more draconian and punitive measures, but for a real solution we await the next Statement.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for his welcome for the £36 grant. Both the noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Kilmarnock, spoke about lengthy delays. They must remember that there was a need to consider the SSAC report and comments with great care. They must also remember that students will not suffer any losses of benefit this summer. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will understand that I cannot comment on the review about which I understand a Statement will follow. Furthermore, any discussion on this whole matter would have to be referred through the usual channels.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, remarked that these were ill-considered, hasty proposals. I suggest to him that all proposals were supported in principle by SSAC. The concern was about the practical consequences. The Government accept this concern and have made, as noble Lords will know, considerable concessions. The proposals will reduce some wasteful and unjustifiable expenditure and the review will carefully consider options for the future.

901
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked me for the numbers of losers. One hundred and forty thousand gain the full £36 per annum; 260,000 other students will find varying effects, according to their individual circumstances and which of the particular measures apply to them. Most will lose from only one source. The effects of the measures do not in general overlap. If the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, requires any further figures I should be only too happy to write to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked me about the publication of the SSAC comments in full. He should be aware that the SSAC report and the Government's response were published today and laid with the regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, raised a question on unemployment benefit. As for supplementary benefit, we consider that students' availability for work is slightly dubious. In a way they are rather like seasonal workers who cannot be working at certain periods without being considered to be unemployed in the proper sense. Students have provision for the short vacations in their grant, but despite this unemployment benefit is paid in full so students are getting double provision from public funds in the form of two separate income replacements at the same time; in other words, the grant and unemployment benefit.
Halls of residence are required to be self-supporting and receive no subsidy from the Department of Education, but housing benefit in effect has been providing an alternative subsidy. Moreover, it does this by paying usually small amounts of benefit at a disproportionate administrative cost. Hall charges should not in general need to be as high as private rents and we see no justification for bolstering them through housing benefits. We shall ensure that the exclusion does not affect schemes whereby the education institutions act as an intermediary between students and private landlords. Also, it must not be forgotten that where a student needs to stay in hall during a long vacation (when of course he is not supported by a grant) we shall allow him to claim housing benefit.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, also mentioned non-grant-aided students. I should like to say in reply that at the outset we do not and never have considered it appropriate for social security to provide support for the maintenance of full-time students where the award system does not, for whatever reason, make provision for them. Our proposals therefore provide equally for all students whether grant-aided or not, but we recognise the impact this will have on students who have already begun their courses. That is why we are making a concession whereby these students will not lose help with their housing costs. The concession will last until the introduction of the new scheme in April 1988 or until the end of the student's course if that is sooner. This will mean that the most vulnerable nongrant-aided students, those who are away from the parental home, will not be disproportionately adversely affected.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, also asked me about the net saving and the parental contributions. The net savings will be £8½ million in 1986–87 and £16 million in 1987–88. With regard to parental
902
contributions, all students will receive the £36 in full except those whose parents have to contribute all the maintenance grant. Those parents will he expected to contribute the £36 also. If I have omitted to answer any questions, I shall write to noble Lords.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her helpful reply. I shall not ask her for any more factual information. There was one point that I wanted to ask and I put it in my first intervention. I do not understand—perhaps it can be explained to me—why the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Secretary of State for Education and Science decided to have their review after the Secretary of State for Social Services reached his conclusions in January, rather than having the review before. It seems a most peculiar way to come to policy decisions.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will understand that I cannot answer for my right honourable friends in another place who make these decisions.

Student Support
5.57 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat a Statement on student support which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Statement is as follows:
"The measures just announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services mark a return towards a system in which support for students will be provided through the single channel of the educational maintenance system. It is a limited step, taken in close consultation with my department. I am, however, convinced from the many representations I have received that it would be very difficult to make further progress towards disentangling students from the social security system without a wider examination of the whole structure of student support.
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I, in association with the Secretary of State for Social Services, have therefore decided to institute a comprehensive review of all aspects of financial support for students in Great Britain studying at first degree or equivalent level. It will examine the maintenance needs of students and the extent to which they should be provided for from public funds, having regard to other actual and potential sources of support, including loans.
"The study will be carried out under the chairmanship of my honourable Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the honourable member for Buckingham. The Scottish Education Department and the DHSS will be represented on it and the education departments of Northern Ireland and of Wales will be associated with it. The review will be carried out within government. But we shall be open to representations and advice from every source. We shall undertake extensive consultations and

903
consider international comparisons. The outcome of the review will itself be in the form of published proposals for public discussion and consultation.
"Meanwhile because the Government recognises the needs of students, we have mitigated the proposed removal of benefit whilst maintaining the level of compensation through the grant system originally proposed. Subject to the agreement of Parliament, the maintenance grants of students living away from home will be increased by £36 a year from the beginning of the academic year 1986–87. This will be in addition to the increase of 2 per cent. which my predecessor announced on 16th December and will result in an overall increase of 4 per cent. on present rates for students living away from home. This is higher than the current rate of inflation. A similar addition to grant will be made in Scotland. A paper setting out detailed grant rates is being placed in the Library. The main rates of grant applicable to Scottish students are being given separately in a Written Answer by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland today.
"Student numbers in higher education are at an all-time record level. We want still more to benefit. The Government stand by the principle of access to higher education for all who have the necessary intellectual competence, motivation and maturity, regardless of parental income. We want to ensure that students will neither be deterred from entering higher education nor handicapped in their studies by lack of means. But in doing so we must have regard to the claims on national resources. That is why I think the time is ripe to investigate with an open mind all possible forms and sources of support. I hope the House will welcome the review which I have announced today."
My Lords, that concluded the Statement.
6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement which has been made in another place. Will he accept from the outset that we are not saying from these Benches that everything about that Statement is bad? In particular, the announcement of a review, which although it is to be carried out within the Government will nevertheless take representations from interested parties and will publish its results, I hope with rather less delay than the results of the review of the Social Security Advisory Committee, is welcome. It has been the policy of my party for a number of years that a review of this sort should take place, and we are pleased to see the Government accepting the logic of our position.
Nevertheless, the Statement refers with some pride to the fact that with the addition of the £36 a year the level of grant for 1986–87 is above the level of inflation. Is it not the case that the real value of student grants has been eroded by something like 20 per cent. over the seven years since this administration took office? Under those circumstances, is it justifiable for the Government to congratulate themselves on maintaining the position in this year only when the real loss has been so great?
904
In view of the very considerable justifiable alarm and despondency which there has been among students, parents and educational institutions at the lack of decision about student grants over the years, is it adequate for the Government simply to postpone the decisions in this way by postponing until 1988 the effects of the abolition or disregard of deemed grant by postponing until 1987 the changes which have been proposed on rents, and by maintaining the unemployment benefit for the long vacation? Is it not the case that those who claim unemployment benefit have very often earned that unemployment benefit from previous employment and therefore their entitlement to it comes as of right and not from any sense of privilege or debt to the Government or to society? The grant which is now available to students is simply not adequate even to maintain students during the short vacation, and is it not the case that the Government ought to think again about this and to review their decision to take away the unemployment benefit from the short vacations?
We welcome the Government's continuing commitment to access to higher education, but how can we be convinced that this commitment is a real commitment in the light of the reduction in the real value of the student grant and in the light of the very considerable uncertainty and insecurity which students have felt?
If the Government had been wholly sincere and wholly well-meaning in announcing the review, they would have delayed some of the measures which have now been proposed. As it is, will the Government accept that they have gone only part of the way to reassuring those involved in higher and further education about the goodwill that the Government feels towards them?
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on these Benches should also like to thank the noble Earl for repeating that important Statement. The thrust of the Statement is:—
"a return towards … the single channel of the educational maintenance system".
Is it not because that single channel has broken down through erosion that the social security system has had to be relied on increasingly? Would the noble Earl not agree that that is the case?
We certainly welcome a wider examination aimed at disentangling students from the social security system; but the Government must realise that this cannot be achieved simply as a cost-cutting exercise. We are told that the comprehensive review will examine all potential sources of support, including loans. I am not implacably opposed to loans in all cases, but I should like to ask the noble Earl if the Government will include in this review a serious examination of support for adult learners. It is monstrous that adult learners are at present left out in the cold, and it is indefensible to go on preaching about adult re-education and adult retraining while doing nothing to facilitate these things. So will that area be taken into account in the comprehensive review?
We are told that the review will be carried out within the Government. I quote:

905
"But we shall be open to representations and advice from every source".
There will then, it appears, be a further stage of consultation on the published proposals. At which stage in this process is the Government prepared to look at submissions from other parties and relevant bodies? I hope it will be before and not after they have made up their minds.
On the £36 which we had in the last Statement, I am not quite sure from where the Government get their figure of 4 per cent. from December because there is presumably a gap until the £36 actually comes into operation, so there must be a period in which only 2 per cent. is what is being provided, in fact.
What does take my breath away is paragraph 5 of the Statement. I quote:
"Student numbers in higher education are at all-time record level".
Surely, this is extremely smug by international comparisons. With 40 per cent. in Japan and 50 per cent. in the USA taking some form of higher education. This really takes the biscuit for smugness. Is the Government still planning on the lower of the two departmental projections of student demand? That would leave us with an age participation rate of 14 per cent. in the 1990s when we on these Benches would aim for 20 per cent. at least. There is no way in which the revised Robbins principle which is quoted in this Statement can be met on that projection of demand.
Of course we welcome the review. We hope that it will be positive and durable and lay the foundation for a fairly funded student maintenance system which will last, and for the increase in numbers in higher education not least among adults which this country so sorely needs.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for the way in which they have received this Statement. At least the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, seemed to treat it as something of a curate's egg: it was not wholly bad all through. The noble Lords did make a number of comments and asked some questions.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that he hoped this review would be speedy and would not take as long as the present ones. I cannot give any date as to when the review will report. This is the first major review of the subject since the Anderson Report in 1960. I can give the noble Lord an undertaking that it will be conducted as expeditiously as is consistent with thoroughness, bearing in mind the need for wide consultation and the need to examine the arrangements in other countries with developed systems of student support. I mentioned consultation and I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that anyone will be invited from the outset to give evidence to the department and to the committee going into that matter.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, went on to refer to the much-quoted figure of the loss of 20 per cent. in the value of grants since this Government came to office. The decline in real terms in the value of the
906
grant between 1979–80 and 1985–86 for the great majority of students who study away from home has actually been 12 per cent. I know that that is not perhaps a marvellous figure; but it is better than 20 per cent. The 1986–87 grant settlement, including the £36 increase announced today, is expected to maintain the value of the grant in real terms for those students, although it would not make up for the loss of DHSS benefit. To restore the value of the grant to its 1979–80 level would cost another £90 million.
I think that I would take this opportunity to point out that, in comparison with our European neighbours, we are still being extremely generous. After all, the 390,000 students currently in receipt of maintenance awards will this year cost the taxpayer some £470 million in maintenance grants and nearly £1,400 million in tuition. The United Kingdom spends on average between three times and five times as much per student as is spent in the Netherlands and West Germany and much more still compared with Denmark, France and Italy. We devote a much higher proportion of our gross national product to student support than other major developed countries. The noble Lord asked whether the fact that we are so mean, or not as generous as we might be, has not eroded the number of students and possible entrants into higher education. I am not being complacent, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said earlier, but I think that I must point out again that despite the fall in the value of grant there are nearly 80,000 more students in higher education now than there were in 1979. Moreover, the proportion of 18 year-olds and 19 year-olds entering higher education is about 15 per cent. higher, and the number of mature entrants 12 per cent. higher, than when this Government took office.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said that this was just a cost-cutting exercise. The purpose is not to cut costs but to examine how the principles of access to higher education can be reconciled with what the nation can afford. The cost of student support must be considered in relation to the cost of maintaining the quantity and quality of higher education provision. There are of course also the competing claims of other groups such as the old and the sick; and the level of the student grant represents a balance between the students' needs and the total expenditure which taxpayers and ratepayers can reasonably be asked to contribute, given some of the other claims of which I have given examples.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked me whether adults could be included in the review that is going to take place. In fact, the committee will match the remit given to the Anderson Committee inquiry in 1958 and is sufficiently formidable. A review which tried to raise the support of students over the whole range, from non-advanced further education to post-graduate studies, would lack cohesive purpose and would be at considerable risk of dissipating its energies and failing to agree on recommendations for action. But I must say to the noble Lord that that is not to say that either the policy of student support in other areas will be subject to no process of continuing scrutiny or that the results of the review will not have implications for student support in other areas.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Statement that he has made will give great pleasure to those who care about trying to maintain numbers in higher education? I hope that he would agree that the Anderson Committee, when it formulated the procedures and rules for obtaining student maintenance grants, carried out its deliberations entirely in ignorance of (or, at any rate, without cognisance of) the expansion of universities which Sir Keith Murray was responsible for and also without reference to the Robbins Committee. Therefore, its conclusions were really inapposite to the kind of expansion which was being planned at that time.
I hope very much that the noble Earl will pass on to his right honourable friend the very good point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, about adult education. This is a difficult area because it must comprise two kinds of adults: one, those who are coming to universities from jobs to which they will return for retraining, and those who are adults who may well have retired or are without jobs and who want to improve their qualifications. They are separate problems and they will require separate treatment.
Would the noble Earl also agree that one of the things that is most important is to bring down the costs of higher education as a whole if we are to increase student numbers? I agree entirely with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, about the need to increase student numbers but we cannot expect this to be done unless some extra control is exercised over costs. May I also tell the noble Earl that there will be a great welcome for the principle that the maintenance grant should be the sole way in which a student receives grants from the Government for his maintenance and that he should not have to fall on social security.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said that the reason why he had to go to social security for extra benefits was because the maintenance grant was inadequate. But in fact that principle of going to social security was taken many years ago when the maintenance grant was very much higher than it is today or was in 1979. It was much higher in those days of the 1970s when students, showing a very considerable degree of entrepreneurial acumen, discovered a new way of obtaining extra money to supplement their maintenance grant.
I thought at that time that this was wrong; but of course it was very difficult to controvert. I welcome the principle that we shall now go back to a single grant which then will be able to be seen in its entirety as being adequate or the best that can be done in the present financial circumstances.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, not for the first time in this House, I am able to say that I an very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for the points that he has made, with most of which I would agree. Of course, I will draw to the attention of my (if I may say so in inverted commas) "new" right honourable friend the points that he has made about adult learners. Perhaps I should say, in case I misled the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, in the reply that I gave, that all adult students studying at first-degree or equivalent
908
levels automatically will be taken into account in this review anyway.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those of us who have a share of responsibility for the acceptance of the Robbins recommendations have always followed with a measure of anxiety the mounting costs (to which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, referred) of higher education in this country and therefore welcome indications of the Government's concern in that area, too.
Is he also aware that the very interesting comparison which he gave us of the cost of supporting higher education in some of the European countries, as compared with this country, reflects to some extent the fact that in those European countries a far larger proportion of students study at home and go to a university near their home, which can be reached fairly easily? Will he not exclude from this forthcoming review the possibility that some saving in the ever-increasing cost of an ever-increasing university population might be achieved by adopting a system which is a little less geared than the present one to encouraging the student to study away from home?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's suggestion, and of course I will draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend. The whole idea of this review by this committee—call it what you wish, my Lords—is that it will take evidence from abroad, hopefully with a thought to introducing those ideas here.
I think I really must state categorically to my noble friend and to the House what I said in the original Statement—that the Government stand by the principle of access to higher education for all who have the necessary intellectual competence, motivation and maturity, regardless of parental income. We want to ensure that students will neither be deterred from entering higher education nor handicapped in their studies by lack of means. I should not like my noble friend to get the impression that we are going to try to make them all pay and that only those who can afford it will be able to benefit from it.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, will the noble Earl go a little further than he has done and accept that, in view of the very considerable difficulties which some students in higher education are now experiencing, it is highly desirable that the consultative exercise and the comprehensive review to which he has referred should be carried out and the Government's decision made in time for that decision, if approved by Parliament, to operate before the year 1987–88 if at all possible?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I said that I really cannot give a date, but I should hope that the report would be available by the end of 1987.

Board and Lodging: Supplementary Benefit
6.22 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister

909
of State for Social Security. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on supplementary benefit arrangements for board and lodging.
"As the House knows, when the main lines of the present system were set in April 1985 the Government undertook to monitor its working carefully and to review the financial limits on maximum payments after a year. Following the subsequent decision to have a general social security uprating in July 1986, it was thought sensible to defer any changes until then but meanwhile, in advance, to make significant increases in the limits for residential care and nursing homes alongside the previous uprating in November 1985.
"I am arranging to place in the Library copies of reports on the extensive monitoring and statistical surveys undertaken by the department since April 1985, together with the full report commissioned from the consultants Ernst and Whinney on residential care and nursing homes. I have placed in the Vote Office copies of Ernst and Whinney's own summary of their report, and of my right honourable friend's response to the Social Security Advisory Committee's comments on last November's amending regulations. In reaching our conclusions we have of course also taken account of the representations we have received from honourable Members and from other individuals and organsiations.
"For ordinary board and lodging, our most recent figures show that expenditure in 1984 rose not to £380 million, as we earlier estimated, but to over £500 million—an increase of no less than 80 per cent. in a year. At the same time, the number of boarders increased from 112,000 to over 160,000. Our monitoring and surveys confirm the existence of an accommodation market unduly influenced by the amount of benefit payable, rather than by normal commercial factors, and of an unacceptable degree of abuse. Many landlords have reduced their charges in response to the restraint imposed, and across the country our studies show average charges for the most part close to average limits.
"In view of this, and of the continued need to ensure firm control in this area, the Government have concluded that no general increase in the financial limits for ordinary board and lodging, or in the associated meals allowances, is at present justified. This is also the case for hostels, where our monitoring showed that average charges in all regions (including London) were below the present limit. We have, however, looked again at the current limit for couples without young children which is 1¾ times the single adult limit. This has been widely represented to us as unrealistic, and we have decided to increase it to twice the single limit, as for couples with young children.
"Mr. Speaker, it will not surprise the House that many of the representations about ordinary boarders have focused not on the financial limits but on the limited time for which many of those under 26 can be paid as boarders at all. The regulations which come into effect on 24th
910
November 1985 provided for those paid as boarders at the time to be exempt from time limits until 28th July 1986. We now propose to extend that exemption indefinitely. New boarders under 26 will, however, continue to be subject to time limits which we do not propose to change, unless they come within the extensive range of exemption categories covering those for whom longer-term boarding is a genuine need.
"I turn now to the limits for residential care and nursing homes. Following the November 1985 increases of £10 a week in the residential care limits and £31.40 in the nursing home limits, the evidence is that in general homes charging at or below the average will fall within the benefit limits—in several categories, well within. While there is therefore no clear case for an all-round increase in July in addition to last November's, we nevertheless think it right to make some further increase where the evidence suggests it is most needed—in the limit for residential care homes for the elderly. We propose that this should go up by £5 to £125 a week, making an increase of £15 a week overall since April 1985.
"In addition, we intend to make five important changes to meet specific problems which we judge to be of greater significance than the limits for particular categories of home.
"First, for those elderly people in residential care homes who are very dependent who are at present limited to £120 a week, we propose an increased limit of £140 a week where they qualify for the higher rate of attendance allowance. Secondly, for blind people over pension age, where the same limitation currently applies, we similarly propose to increase the limit from £120 to £140 a week. Thirdly, for those in residential care or nursing homes in Greater London, we propose to increase the limits by a special extension of up to £17.50 a week.
"Fourthly, for those whose benefit is being paid at a transitionally protected rate in July, we propose an addition of up to £10 above their protected rate. This is a departure from the normal conventions concerning transitional protection, but one which will, I think, be welcomed in all parts of the House. Fifthly, for those who are away from a home for short periods, for example, for a break or to maintain contact with their families, we propose new provisions to meet retaining fees.
"Taken together, the changes I have outlined mean that, for example, the limit for a severely disabled elderly person in a residential care home in Greater London will rise by £37·50 a week. To assist the House, I am arranging for details of the new pattern of limits to be inserted in the Official Report.
"Mr. Speaker, these proposals are an important step towards the more flexible approach, but within a firmly-controlled framework, which is also the aim of the longer-term studies we are conducting with the local authority associations, in consultation with the private and voluntary sectors. Subject to the views of the Social Security Advisory Committee, we intend to embody them in regulations to take effect from 28th July".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Following is the information referred to in the Statement:

RESIDENTIAL CARE AND NURSING HOME LIMITS FROM 28TH JULY 1986

Residential Care Category

July Limit £

London Limit £

Present Limit £

Elderly

125

142·50

120

Very Dependent or Blind Elderly

140

157·50

120

Mentally Ill

130

147·50

130

Drug or Alcohol Dependant

130

147·50

130

Mentally Handicapped

150

167·50

150

Physically Disabled:

Disabled under pension age

180

197·50

180

Disabled over pension age

125

142·50

120

Very dependant elderly

140

157·50

120

Others

125

142·50

120

Nursing Home Category

July Limit £

London Limit £

Present Limit £

Mentally Ill

180

197·50

180

Drug or Alcohol Dependant

180

197·50

180

Mentally Handicapped

200

217·50

200

Terminal Ill

230

247·50

230

Physically disabled:

Disabled under pension age

230

247·50

230

Disabled over pension age

170

187·50

170

Others (including elderly)

170

187·50

170

6.30 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I once again thank the noble Baroness for repeating the second Statement made by her right honourable friend in another place? Does she accept that this Statement is another step in an extraordinarily sad story of government incompetence? The fact that ordinary board and lodging payments rose after 1984, not to £380 million, as had been estimated, but to over £500 million—an increase of 80 per cent. in just one year—while the number of boarders increased from 112,000 to 160,000 seems to me to be a sign of ineptitude, even by the standards of this Government.
Is it not an appalling admission that there was widespread profiteering by those running private homes and, according to the Statement, there was,
"an accommodation market unduly influenced by the amount of benefit payable, rather than by normal commercial factors, and of an unacceptable degree of abuse".
Those are very hard words to describe what I believe was a scandalous situation at the time when the new levels of payment were introduced. I should like to ask the noble Baroness why those figures were suddenly and dramatically increased, and whether the increase was designed to put money into the pockets of those who were running private homes. Does she recall that this factor was brought to her attention by my noble friend Lady Jeger nearly two years ago?
Secondly, in view of the fact that there had been many complaints about the limited time for which people under 26 can be paid as boarders, and about the unseemly process of moving on genuine cases like refugees, is it not reprehensible that the Statement says:
"New boarders under 26 will, however, continue to be subject to time limits which we do not propose to change, unless they come within the extensive range of exemption categories covering those for whom longer-term boarding is a genuine need."
I do not know what to make of this, because I do not know what are the exemption categories. What I do
912
know is that there has been intolerable damage done to young people who have been forced to be on the move because they are homeless, and for no other reason, and when this has affected particular categories of people it has caused very great hardship. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell me what is this extensive range of exemption categories, in order that we know what we are talking about; because without it that paragraph is meaningless.
Personally, I have to say that I find it very difficult to comment on the list of increases available in the various categories of benefits until I have seen the details in the Official Report, the report from the SSAC and the consultative studies by Ernst and Whinney. I must say that these days, as I keep on hearing of city accountants who are undertaking what must be well-paid studies on behalf of government departments, I wonder why these studies are not done by the DHSS itself, rather than constantly putting these studies out to profit-making private firms.
The National Council of Voluntary Organisations recently said:
"The whole system of funding residential care needs a radical rethink and the NCVO, along with other voluntary organisations, will continue to press for changes that both alleviate the current crisis and put funding on a secure foundation for the future."
Maybe the actions which have been taken by the noble Baroness have alleviated the current crisis, but certainly they have not put funding on a secure basis for the future.
I hope that the noble Baroness can tell me what are the Government's long-term intentions; whether they are just going to stagger on from problem to problem, increasing by bits, rather than have the kind of long-term survey which has been proposed by the NCVO and which I myself strongly support.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made in another place. I must confess that I am very surprised that the Government should have concluded that, generally speaking, no uprating is necessary. We shall certainly want to examine most carefully the evidence on which the Government have based this decision. It would appear to conflict with evidence which we have received from other sources.
I am equally surprised and concerned that the Government should feel that no regional variation is necessary, even for London. That goes against the view of most welfare organisations working in the field. I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether the Government have considered the control of prices and conditions of boarding establishments.
I welcome the extension of the exemption from time limits indefinitely beyond 28th July 1986, which is referred to in the Statement, but will this not create a sense of unfairness among other boarders? I also welcome the specific increase for some special categories in residential accommodation. But I note that while the elderly blind limit is raised from £120 to £140 a week, for blind people under pension age the figure is £180 a week and I wonder whether that is just. Elderly people are excluded from local authority topping-up. Is that justified? Would the Minister consider establishing another category for elderly mentally ill—for example, people suffering from

913
dementia—or is the increase for those who are very dependent intended to cover those people?
I am glad that the new proposals are to be presented to the Social Security Advisory Committee for comment. Will the Social Security Advisory Committee have the opportunity to discuss the decision not to have a general uprating and not to introduce any regional variation?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I must say that I am rather disappointed with both noble Lords, because I thought that this was a good news Statement. We have responded to the needs where they were most felt and I think they will certainly be welcomed by some of my friends in residential board and lodging nursing-home establishments, who have been worried about the very elderly. I should have thought that they would welcome this news—
Lord Banks: My Lords, will the noble Baroness allow me to say that I welcomed the Statement where there are advances in particular categories? I made that point, but I had criticisms as well.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I also say that I did not comment unfavourably? I said that I wanted to study the figures very carefully before I made comments.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the more we are together, the merrier we shall be. I am delighted to hear that there was a welcome, because it would have been sad, when people were feeling very pressed, if the Statement had not been welcomed.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said that the time limits should be written because they failed to achieve any results except to create further homelessness and rootlessness. Our monitoring does not support any suggestion that the time limits have led to increased homelessness or any significant movement between areas. In fact most people stayed in the same area; often in the same accommodation. Our monitoring also shows that the time limits have had a successful impact on boarder claims while the exemptions have been widely applied; a quarter of cases qualifying for protection. The boarder caseload declined significantly in the light of advance publicity about the April 1985 changes and their introduction. There was also a sharp decline in the number of new and repeat unemployed boarder claims following both the April and November changes compared with an increase in such claims when time limits were withdrawn.
The number of new and repeat unemployed boarder claims in April 1986 was some 4,000 a month lower than in the same period last year before the measures were introduced. I shall gladly let the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, have a list of the extensive exemption categories which apply. We recognise that a number of young people may be in board and lodging for what may be considered good reasons. That is why we have drawn up that extensive exemption provision from time limits, but we do not think it right as a general principle that supplementary benefit should be freely available so as to entice or encourage (or whatever way one wants to put it) young people into expensive board and lodging, perhaps sometimes after a row with their
914
parents. That would be no service to the taxpayer, the family or the young person.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, suggested that we had not acted promptly to curb growing abuse and expenditure. We acted promptly as soon as all the signs of growth and abuse were shown. We introduced changes in November 1983 to curb growing expenditure and abuse and took further steps in September 1984 by imposing a freeze on limits before further measures were introduced in April last year. I should clarify one point. The growth in spending about which I spoke was in ordindary board and lodging and not in homes, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals.
The noble Lord spoke about the long-term future for funding for residential care homes. We are already in discussion with local authorities to harmonise funding in residential care homes. On increasing the limits at the next uprating, we cannot give any undertaking about particular increases. While we remain firmly committed to continued proper control of expenditure, the limits will be reviewed and changes made when a clear need is shown, just as we have reacted now.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, spoke about the limits in particular areas being too low and about there being too little accommodation available within the limits in comparison with other areas. He suggested that the limits were too low and that the charges were somewhat above the limits. We looked closely at the limits in all areas, considering carefully available charging information. This included surveys and representations of local groups, although these were not generally fully representative of the range of accommodation available to claimants. However, since an important objective of the 1985 changes was to move away from a system where limits were determined by local charging practices, we looked at a range of other factors such as the operation of the market for claimants. We also loked at changes in adjoining areas and the existence of any special local factors.
I fully recognise that in a broader brush system of locally related limits with limits set at £5 bands, a difference of as much as £5 in adjoining areas may strike a jarring note. But unless the same limit is to apply everywhere boundaries do have to be drawn. However, we are firmly convinced that any increases in the current limits are not justified. What is clear is that to make changes simply because some local landlords fix their charges by reference to the limit but some way above is a recipe for chasing up the limits. This was something the 1985 changes were designed to avoid.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked about changing the rules for all people in homes for the physically handicapped to get the higher limit. It was never intended that the higher limit should apply to people suffering some physical restriction simply because of old age. In order to avoid any ambiguity between those suffering from substantial and permanent disablement and those simply becoming frail with the passage of time, the physical disablement category has been limited to people whose disabling condition arose while they were below pension age. However, some of

915
these elderly people will now get the £140 limit if they are entitled to the higher rate attendance allowance or are blind.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked why the ordinary boarder limits have not been raised, particularly in central London. We considered most carefully the limits in Central London and carried out a good deal of consultation and took account of all the consultations. We concluded, however, that for the greater London board and lodging area as a whole, changes in limits were not justified. I could expand on that, but I have a horrible feeling that a good many people are waiting for the next business and so I shall not gain any Brownie points if I go on. I shall write to any noble Lord who wishes me to do so.

Business
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, just before the second short debate is called, I should like to make a Business Statement for the convenience of the House. In view of the amount of business before the House this evening, the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has indicated that she will not ask her Unstarred Question on health and family planning in developing countries.

The Environment: Protection
6.47 p.m.
Lord Ardwick Lord Ardwick rose to call attention to the need to protect our urban and rural environment against current threats to it; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, nothing is easier than to philosophise about the environment. But when you look into the causes of physical threats to it you are overwhelmed by a mass of contradictory evidence presented by warring scientists, ruthless propagandists, self-protective industries and defensive governments. However, we must do our plain man's best. But before proceeding, perhaps I may say that we are all looking forward to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro, who I am sure will speak out of his experience of that most agreeable environment in Cornwall.
More and more people are becoming more and more alarmed about the manifold threats to our environment—threats which may range from a disturbance of our tranquility to a nuclear disaster bigger even than at Chernobyl.
Let us look, to begin with, at the minor disturbances. There were, it is true, several reasons for the national rejection of the proposal to allow all the shops to open at will on Sundays. But surely a major reason was that the British Sunday might cease to provide the traditional relaxed environment which contrasts so sharply with the tense environment of working weekdays. Now we have residents of inner London battling against the proposals to turn Battersea power station into a gigantic fun park and Waterloo Station into a terminal for the Channel Tunnel. They fear the crowds and the traffic.
When we return from abroad we see Britain with new eyes. We notice its shabby, run-down and
916
neglected areas. Thus the Prime Minister was appalled by the litter on the motorway verges, and then Mr. Richard Branson, that lively, charismatic self-made millionaire, was persuaded to preside over a government-appointed committee that hopes to recruit thousands of young people who will tidy up Britain, rewarded by a modest wage. Some of my friends, and many others, greeted that proposal with not unjustified derision. Surely, they said, much of the litter remains ungathered because local authorities, crippled by Government financial edicts, have had to sack 25,000 or more street-cleaners and dustmen. The Branson scheme, they suggested, was a mere political gimmick, simply applying cheap cosmetic to the ravaged face of Britain.
Yet, to be fair, there is a bit more to it than that. It was the brain-child of Mr. Kenneth Baker, who proposed to increase the funding of some voluntary bodies so that they could organise the clearing of derelict urban sites and improve river and canal footpaths, etc. I give the scheme a single cheer. But I should like specifically to ask the Minister whether it is true that the 15,000 jobs that will eventually be created are not new jobs but part of the 225,000 jobs to be created by the Community Programme. Is it also true that there is very little new money being put into the scheme—probably a mere £½ million?
We have to recognise that concern about the environment is worldwide. It is one of the most remarkable phenomena of the latter part of the twentieth century. There is a growing realisation that we are capable of destroying our environment, either bit by bit or in one big bang. Yet although there have always been enlightened people who have been concerned about such matters, we have tended to look upon many of them as consisting mainly of bicycle-riding lentil-eating, sandal-wearing cranks. But today we are all cranks, even if we do not share the full apocalyptic dread of the crusading Greens. Yet Chernobyl has upset even those of us who have defended the nuclear power station. This is not the time to discuss that tragedy and its consequences for the industry. We must know more about the causes of disaster, more about the real possibilities of similar disasters, and more about the real possibility of safeguards.
The Government and the authorities must understand that we live in a different world after Chernobyl. The kind of assertions that have been made in the past about the virtual impossibility of such accidents are no longer acceptable. They have a very hard task to regain their credibility. They must not believe that public anxiety will disappear with time. Every nuclear incident will get the maximum publicity in the media, and every minor incident will remind us all of what might happen. Soon, this country and other nations will have to decide whether we add to our nuclear capacity, perhaps decommissioning those power stations that we already have.
The Green movement is not yet a political party in this country, but even here it is a mass movement, with 3 million adherents and many fellow travellers, whose votes could affect the results in 50 constituencies. Parts of the movement are highly emotional, hopelessly idealistic, often unfair and sometimes

917
reckless in their tactics. Yet one must acknowledge that pure reason will get them nowhere, for governments dealing with environmental problems must be pressed into doing things that they profoundly dislike—such as spending money, impeding economic growth, or getting business to behave in unprofitable ways.
One may take the case of Durham. For 30 years, the people of Durham have been fighting to get their beaches cleared of black pit waste and of raw sewage. They have had not just sympathy from the highest quarters but promises as well. However, the beaches remain defiled. No wonder they are welcoming this month the Greenpeace ship "Beluga", and the opportunity to publicise their plight further.
For a moment, let us look on the cheerful side. There are some improvements in our environment. We must rejoice that the Thames is less of an open sewer than it used to be and that the bolder and hardier salmon can live in it again. Then of course, we, and most of our friends, have stopped smoking, and smoking is prohibited in many unlikely public places, such as in the Labour Party Conference. Smoke-abatement laws have removed from our cities and from London the kind of fog that killed 4,000 people in the early 1950s, and it is now worth while to clean the exteriors of the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey. Yet the atmosphere is not nearly so good as it seems. The haze that cuts down our view of the countryside on fine sunny days is produced not by nature but by polluting man.
The noise is getting worse, and traffic is getting ever more threatening. Will the Minister tell the House what is the policy of the police on traffic in central London? I refer not only to private cars but also to heavy vehicles and long diesel trucks that sweep through with no risk of prosecution for excessive speed. Is the concern of the police only to keep the traffic moving? Every morning there are reports of hold-ups on one or more of the motorways into London because a truck has jack-knifed or has met with some other disaster. Is that because those vehicles are badly designed, or because they are incompetently driven at excessive speed, or could it be a combination of those factors? Our British roads seem to be more congested and less well-controlled than those of some other countries.
When I said a moment ago that smoke abatement, with all its conspicuous benefits, has still left us with problems of pollution, I was thinking of acid rain—or acid deposition, as it is now fashionable to call it. It is a subject that requires a whole debate, so I will confine myself to a single question. The current number of Catalyst, that new and most useful journal of policy debate, is concerned wholly with choice and the environment. In it, the former Minister, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, deals with international pressure on the United Kingdom to reduce the acidification of lakes and streams, and damage to coniferous trees, particularly in Scandinavia.
Mr. Jenkin argues that it is not just a question of cost that is holding us up, but scepticism that the benefits could justify the cost incurred. Yet he believes that the United Kingdom could improve its image by agreeing to join the club of nations which promise to reduce
918
sulphur-dioxide emissions by 30 per cent. of the 1980 figure. Mr. Jenkin says that it is more than probable that we should achieve the required reduction without any further measures. What do the Government think about that matter now? Was Mr. Jenkin's assertion based on the belief that a larger proportion of our electricity than currently seems probable after Chernobyl will now be produced by nuclear means? As a lot of pollution has been attributed to the motorcar, will the Minister tell the House what point we have reached in the control of exhaust emissions? There is a European Community draft directive, several times revised. The last news we had of the directive was that Denmark was still blocking it because it was well below the American standard, and the Greece was blocking it because it wants more money to deal with the damage done by pollution to the classical buildings in Athens. Where does Britain stand? May we be sure that there will be adequate supplies of lead-free petrol by the time controls take effect?
I shall not try to deal with the question of the countryside in view of the conservation measures in the Agriculture Bill that is now passing through your Lordships' House. I will simply refer to a story in the Observer that there is a report claiming that the Government's policies for protecting the countryside are ineffective. It is alleged that that report has been suppressed. Will the Minister tell the House whether that is a fair representation of the report and, if so, why it has not been made public?
The concern for the environment cuts across party lines. This week, the Evening Standard, not a Labour paper and not an intemperate paper, wrote pretty roughly about the Government and the London Green Belt. It is, the Standard said, under greater threat than ever, despite Mr. Ridley's promise to maintain the policy of the previous Minister for the Environment and preserve it against all major planning development. The Standard said that half a dozen major schemes have been brought forward, several of them near the M25. The Standard alleges that what has spurred the developers is Mrs. Thatcher's contempt for any kind of conservation that appears to stand in the way of growth. Yet, the Standard adds, there are 20,000 acres of derelict land in London. Can we have another assurance about the Green Belt?
There is then, for a million or more of Londoners, the question of aircraft noise which for those of us who live in the Richmond area seems to be getting worse, particularly at night. I hope that my noble friend Lord Jenkins will deal with that point.
Finally, I quote the Emeritus Professor of Economics at Leeds, Mr. Arthur Brown. He recalls how Galbraith's 1958 phrase about the contrast between private affluence and public squalor so influenced public opinion in America that between 1967 and 1975 they sacrificed between one-tenth and one-twentieth of the increase in material output that they might have privately enjoyed in order to abate environmental pollution. We have spent considerable sums, too, but I imagine they represent nothing like that proportion of the material improvement.
The professor makes observations about the reductions in public expenditure over the past half-a-

919
dozen years. It is highly relevant, he says, because improvement or protection of the natural environment, the built and the human environment is dependent upon public expenditure. He adds,
"The downward pressure on such expenditure, along with related financial policies has produced a major increase of unemployment which with the consequential increase in the incidence of poverty has a powerfully adverse affect on environmental character."
The question of public expenditure is only part of the problem, but it is an important part. A government who, in today's conditions, make a 5 per cent. tax cut their primary objective are putting private affluence before the abatement of some of the current public squalor. Although we all enjoy having more money in our pockets, the Government should understand that they may well be wrong in thinking that that is always the highest priority of the people of this country. I beg to move for Papers.
7.3 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, for opening this debate and I look forward to hearing the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro because I have had the pleasure of hearing him preach. I am sure we shall enjoy what he says today and I wish him every success.
In January 1986 a document was published by the Association of District Councils called Rural Economy at the Crossroads. On the cover was a signpost showing nine different ways that one could go. Today I shall chose only four and I hope they will be useful. One subject that I choose which is not on the signpost is farming. At present farmers can build anything they like—houses, sheds, outhouses—without any permission from the local authority. I think that is unfortunate and it is about time there was some control over what farmers build. They are building very ugly places in many cases. They are building houses which they then sell to people who are not necessarily farmers. Futhermore, they have no chance of getting another piece of land easily. Moreover, the PSA has a system whereby farmers rent their barns, and so on, without repairing leases. I have been into this several times and I believe it to be accurate. Therefore, many lovely barns are falling down. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who rescued a beautiful old barn by making it possible for people at Bristol who have a model farm to fetch it at no cost and rebuild it there so that it will last for the future.
District councils have very good relations with voluntary organisations and that is particularly helpful in the rural areas. I gather that they combine on housing for the elderly, usually in small towns. The voluntary organisations do everything they can to keep the elderly in their own little houses or cottages for as long as possible.
One difficulty is that when a house in a village becomes vacant and is auctioned the price is always above that which anyone in the village can pay. Therefore, there is practically nothing left for the young married couples in their home village. That is a great pity. I am not saying that the people who buy the houses are not nice people, but they are not local people and they do not fit in with the local economy or the wishes of the local people themselves. There is no community spirit.
920
Another difficulty is the lack of village corner shops. These are of course in danger from supermarkets. The Association for Village Shopkeepers and the Council for Small Industry in Rural Areas have helped county shopkeeper associations and said that the village shop and the post office are used by pensioners and mothers with small children who cannot get to a supermarket, and that they often remain the social centre of a village. It is becoming increasingly difficult for village shops because items are much more expensive in their shops than in the supermarkets. For example, pork pies are 35 pence in the village shop and only 22 pence in the supermarket. Ajax is 32 pence in the village shop and 25 pence in the supermarket. These are often used as loss-leaders in order to attract customers.
As regards post offices, there are now 22,000 and there are rumours that up to 1,600 are to be closed. The biggest blow has been the switch of pensions and family allowance payments to banks. However, many people still do not have bank accounts. For example, the village in which I live is 10 miles from a bank. If people have bank accounts that is a long way to go. Fortunately, I have a kind publican who is willing to change cheques, and that is very helpful. When the Wages Bill comes in it will be still more difficult—it will be difficult, I know, for other reasons—for those many people who do not have bank accounts.
In February 1986, the Daily Telegraph published an article headed "Vanishing Villages" and urged that £20 million should be given to halt the decline. Councillor Nick Wilson, chairman of the ADC Economic Development Committee, said that the rural areas are being forgotten by the Government because they do not have a strong enough voice. He suggested a more locally based approach to rural problems; districts themselves to do more to encourage economic development in their areas; the Government to recognise special needs in the rural areas; and pointed to the district councils' role in reversing the decline.
I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Vinson, who is chairman of the Development Commission—England's rural development agency. He is involved in 200 county towns. In April 1986 he stated in the Daily Telegraph that £38 million was needed to stop the developing crisis in the countryside where 10 million people—22 per cent.—of English people live. In the past 10 years the number of farm workers has fallen by 30 per cent., and in the past five years 500 schools have been closed.
The noble Lord in his report said further that money would help to convert old buildings to be used as workshops and small factories. It makes no sense to open a new workshop in a village when the local authority is closing down the only school. His programme covers 28 counties which have areas needing special assistance.
I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, for mentioning various points. I shall not take them up, but I was interested in what he had to say. I should just like to quote what the Prime Minister said on 28th May 1986 in connection with conservation and development and the British approach. She stated:
"There is no reason why a modern country should not develop modern institutions, good transport systems and proper housing in a way which fits in with those things we need and want to conserve.

921
The British Government intends to meet the challenge and to preserve the rest of our heritage".
I hope that through this short debate today we shall try to carry out that wish and that in the future more interest will be taken in the rural areas which give us such great pleasure in this country. I have lived in many countries, as some people know. Always when I come hack to rural England I think that this is a heavenly place to live.
7.22 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Truro: My Lords, there is a great deal of knowledge and expertise on all sides of the House and we have had two speeches that have born witness to that fact. I should like to express gratitude to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness who have kindly welcomed what I am hoping to say.
The subject of the environment is constantly before us. Because there is so much knowledge it would be inept for me to speak in any detail about any one particular aspect. But it is before us this very week. For instance, on Monday we were looking at the Agriculture Bill; later today there is the special development order; and on Thursday we are debating the protection of children legislation which has to do with the consumption of tobacco. All those things take place against a background of world conservation strategy, the Royal Commission on Pollution of the Environment and the many other publications, inquiries and statements of public policy. We all ought to know a great deal about the subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, touched on various areas of concern. I should not wish to go over that ground again, nor indeed that covered by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers. But we have to see those things in the context of the population explosion in the world at large and of waste of natural and artificial materials, and we have to remember the need for what is called sustainable development; in other words, the constant lessons that we have to learn from nature about the whole process of recycling, remembering that we are ourselves part of nature.
If I may say so with respect to noble Lords, I think also that we need to remember that there is built into the whole relationship of man and his environment a need to have respect, reverence and even humility towards nature. There is a fine quotation that often appears in these documents and reports to the effect that we are not inheriting the earth from our fathers but borrowing it from our children.
But there are one or two dilemmas in the situation. I should like to illustrate them as far as the rural scene goes from Cornwall from whence I come. If one stands outside the front windows of my house one can see for at least two or three miles to the horizon. The terrain slopes gently down towards the River Fal and before you there is a belt of trees where there is represented every possible shade of green. The eye can wander through an arc of 180 degrees from left to right and back again and there will be no sign whatever of human habitation. It is therefore a tremendous privilege to be living there.
There are one or two other houses within a mile or so that have a somewhat similar view. But it has to be said that that illustration is a paradigm of the whole
922
notion of privilege. It is a wonderful thing to have such a glorious and spectacular view, but every time that I look at it I feel slightly guilty because so few people are able to share it.
Already the landscape for human beings to wonder at and to enjoy, if not always to profit from, and the countryside as the natural habitat for flora and fauna of all sorts are at grave risk. But in spite of that there is an even more serious conflict between what might be called, simply put, the amenity and productivity of life (that is to say, the employment, the living standards and the human dignity of our people). For instance, in the United Kingdom rural industries contribute some 10 per cent. of the gross domestic product. Of that 10 per cent., oddly enough, agriculture and forestry represent only 2 per cent. Mining and quarrying represent 5 per cent. and tourism and recreation some 3 per cent. of that 10 per cent.
The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, said that the number of people working on the land had reduced over the years. My researches indicate that since the last war fulltime workers on the land have dropped from half a million to one-third of that number. One can imagine what such figures mean when translated into Cornish terms, as it is a county full of small rural communities.
Noble Lords are probably aware of the British response to the World Conservation Strategy. That strategy evolved at a Stockholm conference in 1972. The response was contained in a report entitled The Conservation and Development Programme for the United Kingdom which was published in 1983. It had a number of valuable proposals for discussion and implementation at national and local levels covering the management of cities, conservation in rural resources use, marine frontier management, overseas policies and education for conservation. I am quoting from the chapter headings of the report. All those things do not of themselves help us a great deal over the dilemma that I have described.
Some of us in Cornwall are attempting to make a tiny contribution towards balancing the need to conserve the countryside on the one hand, and on the other to sustain human beings. Cornwall is its own greatest natural asset. It has to be enjoyed even when its riches are tapped for production. I do not bemoan the great St. Austell moonscape—those china clay mountains—because they have been skilfully landscaped and are indicative of the employment and dignity that they have brought to many thousands of people over the years, and still do.
However, there are still 9,000 unemployed people between the ages of 18 and 25 in Cornwall. There are probably more than that with the recent closure of the Geevor mines. That is the group at which the little party of people with whom I am associated is attempting to look. We do not wish to patronise those people. We do not want to try and find something for them to do. We would rather look at what needs to be done and see in what ways that group of mobile young people between the ages of 18 and 25 can respond.
We are thinking in terms of setting up some teams of those young people to promote Cornwall both up country and perhaps abroad, to provide trained and enthusiastic guides for tour operators, families and

923
individuals visiting Cornwall, to run adventure playgrounds, seaside sport and nature trails, and so on, for children coming into Cornwall, and to help tidy up the countryside—the footpaths, beaches, and so on.
Such a project will take a great deal of planning, organising and funding. In all probability there will be help from the Manpower Services Commission and the Development Commission. We shall have to see what comes of it. There will be some resistance in the guise of conservation even to that programme. Many people coming to Cornwall to retire or to work will perhaps be among the first to hesitate to welcome more visitors. Landowners and farmers who have done nobly for the environment will be a little nervous; hoteliers will complain that the season is too short, but Cornwall is a self-conscious and proud county, and newcomers quickly sense a rare solidarity among its people.
There is a need for a training programme to be undertaken by the tourist board, which has a limited budget in Cornwall, by the mass media and by other public and private institutions. In the past few weeks, the Church of England has produced a report, through its board of social responsibility, entitled, Our Responsibility for the living Environment. I recommend that to noble Lords. It has many valuable things to say.
Of course there are factors in the situation over which control is limited; for instance, the whole matter of the disposal of surplus foodstuffs, the common agricultural policy of the European Community and the personal tastes of the British housewife. In Cornwall, we know as well as anyone the dangers of economic undercutting from overseas. While public education must be part of an ongoing programme for resolving those tensions and promoting the balance between amenities and production, some intellectual initiative would be welcome and some research on the British landscape such as has not been done substantially since the last war. There should be research by qualified people, including the environmental science professions, land managers, and so on. We could do with a higher proportion of graduate farmers.
Government have their part to play and so do the local authorities; but at the end of the day it is for the whole community. The good earth is for everybody to enjoy, and I believe to reverence.
7.24 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I shall start by congratulating the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Truro on a a very interesting and informative first speech in the House. It has been a long time since I visited that part of the world. I know that there are many people from the Midlands who pay glowing tributes to Devon and Cornwall. From some of the points that you raised it was obvious, my Lord Bishop, that you and your colleagues are trying to play your part—
Lord Elton: My Lords, I apologise. I was merely noting that the noble Baroness had departed from the convention of addressing the House rather than individual Members. I am very sorry to have held things up.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I apologise to the House. I thank the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Truro for his contribution.
The downward pressure on public expenditure, together with related financial policies, has produced a major increase in unemployment which, with the consequential effects of poverty, has had powerful adverse effects upon the environment of our inner cities.
The inner city problem is the old slum problem reborn—old and worn-out housing and abandoned and derelict industrial buildings. In the West Midlands, 8,500 acres of derelict land were reclaimed between 1979 and 1984, but the total of such land rose from 11,500 acres to over 14,000 acres.
Merseyside, the North-East and many other regions recorded similar experiences. I think that all will agree that all derelict land is unsightly and depressing. Decaying factory buildings are eyesores and, as the City of Birmingham knows all too well, are also prone to fire-raising by the squatters who tend to inhabit them during the evenings. They impoverish the character of our cities, leading to a further loss of commercial and industrial activity because they have to compete against green-field sites.
Anyone who wants to invest money looks at both and decides against the inner cities. It is important for us to recognise that fact if we are to increase our manufacturing base. Dereliction is clearly a serious problem in our inner cities, which cannot be left untreated. If the Government are sincere in their efforts to resuscitate the inner cities, they should consider speeding up the granting of ministerial permission on derelict land grants to enable local authorities, with private enterprise, to deal much more comprehensively with those sites and to create new communities.
While I welcome the garden festival ventures in Liverpool and Stoke-on-Trent, they are only land reclamation schemes; they are icing on the cake, but the cake is growing stale and mouldy. The regeneration of the physical environment and decent housing are a fundamental part of enabling local people to fulfil their potential. A lack of such things is ultimately a denial of social justice in a developed economy like ours.
Following the riots last year in several city areas, the Prime Minister announced a review of urban policy. Riots unfortunately took place in Handsworth, Birmingham. However, last week Birmingham City Council was told that the Government will not help with the cost of rebuilding Handsworth after the riots nor will they exempt the city's expenditure on Handsworth from financial penalties for overspending. So much for the Prime Minister's review, which appears to refuse with one hand to give any help and threatens to take it away with the other.
Those inner city areas are also areas of low-income groups and the highest pollution. This pollution is largely the result of traffic going about its business through the cities and from the city centres to the suburbs. Despite major advances in engine technology, motor vehicles remain one of the principal contributors to atmospheric pollution. The extent to which the exhaust gases of lorries, vans, coaches and

925
cars contribute to the problem of pollution in the environment is almost totally unqualified.
I understand that the Government are fully aware that motor vehicle exhaust emissions can be substantially reduced by fitting autocatalyst convertors but that they are hesitant about enacting legislation because of the cost. A former transport Minister has said that the cost would be in the region of £400 to £600 a vehicle. This is at variance with an estimate of £100 that I heard mentioned by a notable speaker at a conference on the international environment in Birmingham recently. Like my noble friend Lord Ardwick, I should like to ask the Minister to be more forthcoming about tighter emission standards as envisaged by the recent EC draft directive. Are the Government going to take any action on tightening up emission standards? The Government have been surprisingly tardy in encouraging the introduction of the sale of unleaded petrol. This was, I believe, initially a British initiative within the EC. It may have been a British initiative, but perhaps the intention was to do nothing about it.
My next point relates to motorways and trunk roads. The first motorway was the construction of 100 miles between Birmingham and London; though I should perhaps say, so that there can be no doubt, from London to Birmingham. This was completed in 1959. The motorway was designed to carry 28,000 vehicles a day over the Northampton section by 1979. In that year, the actual movement of vehicles was 70,000—a little removed from 28,000. No doubt the Minister can give a much more up-to-date figure of the increase.
It is not only the volume of traffic that has increased. The weight of vehicles has increased, as has the length of vehicles. As my noble friend Lord Ardwick said, more accidents are occuring on our trunk roads and on our motorways. I should like to congratulate those responsible for the information given on radio every morning warning those who intend using motorways or trunk roads of the latest breakdown or the latest spillage. One marvels at the kind of loads that lorries shed on the motorway. Within the past six months, on the M.6 motorway interchange in Birmingham, spillages have included a load of marmalade, a load of metal pipes that were rolling all over the place and a load of bottles of milk. It is amazing what falls off the backs of lorries.
Even more interesting is the information given on the radio about contraflow operations. These seem to be a daily occurrence. The manufacturers of cones used on motorways must have a very flourishing business. I trust that they are all of British manufacture. It could be argued that increased capital spending by British Rail would alleviate the delays and the inefficiency arising from motorway repairs. However, as we all know, that is unlikely to happen when the most important person in the Government attaches something approaching leper status to trains.
I should like to conclude with a few remarks about holes in the road. The noble Lord the Minister must, when he meets friends, find that they wish to talk about various subjects. Yet more often than not, I would think, someone wishes to talk about holes in the
926
road. The Government cannot pass the blame to local authorities for lack of maintenance. All of us are aware that central government have direct responsibility for the financial management of the road network comprising our trunk roads and motorways. The noble Lord might find it a useful experience, if he has the time, to make spot checks on our trunk roads in order to measure the depth and width of some of the holes. That might not be so glamorous an occupation as a Minister from the other place visiting a Spanish resort but would no doubt be equally useful.
7.36 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, for initiating a debate that cuts across party lines.
It is my unique privilege to be the first from this side of the House to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro on an excellent maiden speech. I share particularly his views about the dynamism of English China Clay's Cornish Alps, as I think they are known. I wish to confine my remarks to Liverpool, a proud city founded in 1202—a city of magnificent buildings, a great port whose ancient emblem is the Liver Bird and whose goddess is Minerva. And yet, as noble Lords have already said, it is a city with problems, with unemployment up to 80 per cent. among the blacks of Toxteth and with the problem, too, that many of its fine buildings have decayed into slums. The only paint that those buildings have seen in the past 20 years is the green, yellow and red of the Rastafarians.
As noble Lords will realise from my name, it was in Liverpool that my family made their mark in the 19th century. That century saw an influx of entrepreneurs into a thriving community—great Liverpool names like the Swires, the Holts, the Brocklebanks, the Booths, the Ismays, the Inmans and the Harrisons. In among those giants tiptoed my great great grandfather John to set up shop modestly as a pawnbroker. Liverpool was so vibrant in those days that he was soon able to buy his own ship and made his fortune by exporting turpentine to America.
Liverpool must have been an exciting place in those days, perhaps like Silicon Valley today. His son, John Charles, was called to the Bar and rose to be president of the Admiralty, Probate and Divorce Division. He sat briefly in another place as Member for Liverpool, Exchange. He was then ennobled and is best remembered for presiding over the inquiry into the loss of the "Titanic". He had an ability to worry at a problem and for that reason was known as the little terrier of Toxteth. Like all noble and learned Lords, the little terrier was impartial. He would therefore doubtless be pleased to see in this House today a balance in the Mersey dynasty. Obviously one of his great grandsons—myself—is a Tory. But his other great grandson is of a different political persuasion. I refer to my noble kinsman, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.
I put it to noble Lords that a balanced impartial approach to Liverpool's problems is the only one that will work. I am not here to make a party political speech. I am not here to knock Derek Hatton. I am here to knock the party political feuding that has

927
bedevilled Liverpool and has caused it to decline steadily since 1912. Noble Lords who have seen that great city, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, has obviously done, will be struck by the large areas that have simply been left as derelict bomb sites since the Second World War. They will be struck, too, by the fine Victorian terraces and squares of Toxteth, apparently never repaired since the First World War.
We cannot say that such long-term neglect is the fault of Left-wing socialism. Liverpool has had councils of every political persuasion. The problem is feuding. The problem is that too many good men and true start their remarks about Liverpool with those defeatist four words, "The trouble is that". Anyone who starts a sentence that way is doing a cop-out. He is passing the buck; for instance, "The trouble is that the Liverpool blacks hate the whites" or "The trouble is that Militant has bankrupted the city". A person speaking thus is ending all hope of progress in Liverpool and I think that, subconsiously at least, he is inviting us to switch to a more hopeful town, like Basingstoke or Milton Keynes.
As His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales said so ably on 14th June:
"Those involved in assisting community initiatives really must try and stop feuding and recognise that a multiple approach is called for".
Indeed, our success in urban renewal is the result of multiple approaches and multi-party approaches. The highly successful London Docklands regeneration was masterminded by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, who is surely as multiple a Peer as one could wish to find in this Chamber. The equally successful Glasgow eastern area renewal scheme—the acronym of which is GEAR—is much praised by the present Government, and rightly. Yet it was started in 1976 when the socialists were in power.
There is much to be said for authorities with multiple powers: the London Docklands Development Corporation and the Scottish Development Agency. Indeed, Liverpool has one of them too: the Merseyside Development Corporation. Its most spectacular achievement is the rebuilding of the Albert Dock. I was there on a Saturday three weeks ago. It was a hive of activity. The Maritime Museum was packed, as was the Museum of Emigration. There are 50 or 60 new shops all doing a brisk trade in quality goods. Indeed, they make the goods on offer at Covent Garden tatty by comparison.
In the dock itself, a weird assembly of crews was practising for the fancy dress raft, race to take place on 29th June. Across the dock we saw taking shape the new Tate Gallery of the North. Beyond that again, we saw workmen laying the cobbles of a splendid new riverside walkway to stretch from the garden centre along three miles of waterfront. The architect in charge, Mr. Jorrisen, forecasts that Liverpool will be the great new tourist centre of the North-West, and indeed the enthusiasm on the banks of the Mersey is so catching that I regard Mr. Jorrisen's forecast as much more than a pipedream.
I am generally much more hopeful about the future of Liverpool than is the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher. My only regret is that Merseyside Development Corporation's sphere of activity is not larger. A few
928
hundred yards inland one finds oneself in one of the worst areas of urban blight on God's earth. There is worse housing in the world, as anyone will know who has seen the shanty towns of Delhi or Bombay. But, as I see it, the Indians are making the best of a bad job whereas the Scouses are making the worst of a good job—by which I mean a solidly built stock of perfectly good Victorian housing. There is hope in Delhi but defeatism in Liverpool 8, in Toxteth.
Surely the way forward in Liverpool is to extend the area managed by the MDC. I should like to ask my noble friend whether there are plans for so doing. The potential of Liverpool is greater even than the potential of London Dockland. In Liverpool, the aim is to graft excellent new buildings onto excellent old buildings. Hard by the Albert Dock lie the stately Cunard and Liver Buildings. In the city centre there is the great Grecian temple of St. George's Hall, which Queen Victoria thought worthy of ancient Athens. To its north stand a series of neo-classical buildings all dedicated to culture, the arts and education. They include the finest picture gallery in the North: the Walker. Nearby is the Liverpool Philharmonic Hall, and the Everyman Theatre. A more recent building is the Cavern Walks built by the Liverpool architect David Buckhouse in honour of the Beatles.
This sounds almost like a Michelin Guide, but the truth is that Liverpool has so much going for it. It is a port on a hill with some of the finest buildings in the land. It is thus all the more depressing and annoying to note that a European Commission recently listed 102 great cities in order of excellence. Frankfurt came top and Liverpool came 102nd.
There is something peculiarly exciting about Liverpool. Perhaps it is the cheek by jowl nature of the good, the bad and the ugly. Gilbert Scott's Anglican cathedral almost backs on to the awful Granby Street, dominated by ganja and violent crime. How are we to get rid of the bad? Certainly it will not be by political feuding. As I hope noble Lords will agree, this has not been a political speech but I hope a patriotic one. The approach has to be multiple and then Liverpool can and will make it. I remind noble Lords of the unique loyal toast by many a worthy Liverpudlian: "God bless the Queen, the Duke of Lancaster."
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, for giving us the opportunity to call attention to the current threats to our urban and rural environment. I should also like to express my appreciation and thanks to the right reverend Prelate for his splendid maiden speech. When he described the wonderful forests I felt that the words of the poet were certainly true: where everything is lovely and only man is vile. I often feel that the real threat to our development is mankind himself—and the Government will be glad to know that I am speaking generally and not for once calling upon them.
During this week we have had several appeals from various people to do something about our urban environment. This morning I heard on the radio that someone who was going around the world for charity had had all his belongings stolen when he was in New York. It was interesting to hear him say that he had

929
been the victim of theft on only two occasions—in New York and in a major city in Australia. He said that when he travelled through the poor countries of India and Africa he was safe and nothing happened to him.
I feel strongly about this. As the noble Viscount who has just spoken is proud of his city. I am very proud of mine. I am a born Londoner. I still live in the borough in which I was born and I am sure that I shall continue to live there until I die. I like my neighbours. But there is no doubt that the London I grew up in is not the London that we now have. I do not know where to apportion the blame, nor indeed whether we should attempt to apportion any blame, but I so agreed with His Royal Highness Prince Philip when he described the day when one could leave one's car unlocked and one's door open. For some reason the press seemed to castigate him for this. I thought that he was making a very sensible and intelligent speech—and he is a very sensible, caring and intelligent man, though not perhaps one of the darlings of the press.
What is disturbing as one walks through the city of London—whichever borough one chooses—is its shabby, rundown and derelict appearance. This was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Fisher when speaking about her part of the world. We have heard of the holes in the road, but the broken pavements are incredible. How blind people cope in these conditions I do not know. There is the indescribable dirt. I know that I shall get a lot of letters, but I must say this. Dogs do not do very much for our urban environment.
I feel particuarly strongly sometimes about the animal movements and the conservationists. I am chairman of a small urban development in my borough. We received permission to have what would have been a beautiful park on a part of Wormwood Scrubs. All of a sudden up came the wildlife conservationists. I asked them what wildlife there was in Wormwood Scrubs, apart from the prisoners—and we could not do anything about that. I said that if it were rats, I was not too bothered; I cared much more for children. But I am afraid that they spoiled that scheme. The right reverend Prelate made a valid point about this. There is conflict, unfortunately, between the interests of one group and those of another. They sometimes prevent schemes which could be of benefit to us all.
As one travels through my borough, which is a very typical borough, one sees closed schools. There is nothing more depressing than a closed school. One also sees closed hospitals (which people have fought to keep open), as well as closed churches, some of which are boarded up and others of which are used perhaps to manufacture soap. As a good Catholic, I shall not pass any further comment on that! However, there is decay and general degradation which should never be the lot of a city like London.
The Prime Minister has encouraged people to come to Britain. She has encouraged people to come to London in particular. I sometimes wonder what we offer people who come to London. What does Trafalgar Square look like most days? It is full of empty beer cans and all kinds of dirt. People cannot
930
get buses if they want to move about; they cannot cross the street very easily because cars race about and lorries thunder through. The general feeling about this great city is that it is not a place in which one wants to be for too long. It is very sad and it is something for which we all have responsibility. No one group—and certainly not governments—can be held wholly to blame for the situation in which we find ourselves at present.
I noticed the other day—and this has been referred to already—that the chairman of the Green Belt Council uttered a warning about intrusion into the green belt. In this respect I should like to make an appeal to the Minister. I know that we have been promised that the green belt will be protected, and I should like to underline that promise. The green belt is a marvellous lung for those of us who live in London. Please do not let the property developers get into it and build hundreds and hundreds of what are laughingly called "starter houses" which are so small that you could not do much else other than start in them. Please leave for those of us who live in the city the joy of walking in it and the pleasure of good pavements and good houses, with schools and churches nearby. We who have built this city over centuries should still be allowed to enjoy our urban development. I am not quite sure to whom I am appealing—perhaps to all of us. However, it is important that we look at the situation now because if we do not, there will be nothing of which we feel proud for us to leave our grandchildren.
7.52 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I should also like to thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro for his very interesting maiden speech. Perhaps I may also say how interesting it has been to listen to this debate. I have been transported from the beautiful countryside of Cornwall to the centre of the Midlands and up to Liverpool, and I should now like to come back roughly to London.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, for having introduced the debate. He managed, when opening the debate, to cover so many aspects of the problems of our environment. As there are many speakers in the debate, I have chosen to deal with only one aspect of the environment, and that is as it relates to London. Perhaps I should have been speaking in a debate called, "The need to improve our urban environment and protect our rural environment".
It is perhaps difficult to protect the rural environment around London to which the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, referred; namely, the green belt around London. It looks as though it will be a tremendously difficult problem for us to preserve it. The most marvellous piece of legislation that was ever passed was the creation of the green belt around our urban cities. However, there has been erosion of that green belt. At present there is tremendous pressure on the use of the green belt by big development consortia. There is the consortium which is asking for planning permission for the proposed new Tillington Hall New Town and there is the Country Properties' development at the Golden Triangle. All those pressures will increase; they will not diminish. We

931
must be enormously vigilant to ensure that we do not destroy what we so proudly once created.
It is really an anachronism that this pressure is being brought to bear while at the same time—and various figures have been quoted in the House tonight—in our cities there must be something approaching 250,000 acres, according to the Civic Trust, of idle land. According to the Civic Trust, that does not take account of empty or under-used buildings.
We must positively try to redress the balance between investment in the development of green field sites and the rehabilitation of run-down or derelict cities in urban areas. To do that we must tackle the situation both in a fiscal manner and by the introduction of new administrative measures. I believe that the Government have an opportunity immediately to take one step. It may not sound very big, but I believe it would have an effect on the development programmes. If the Government would be prepared to remove VAT from the refurbishment and rebuilding of buildings which are under-used in the inner cities, it would go a long way towards helping to promote greater energy being put into the development of those buildings. Perhaps at the same time, instead of allowing building on a green field site free of VAT, why not put VAT on building on green field sites and thus help us to encourage the redevelopment of our inner cities?
The recent Audit Commission Report on local government expenses stated that there was not enough encouragement for local authorities to help themselves. They said that local authorities should be able to generate more funds internally and work with private companies without circumventing central government public expenditure control. However, at present the Government control the total amount of capital spending by local authorities, from whatever source the money comes, and they have thereby reduced in real terms the total amount of investment. For instance, the London boroughs currently hold nearly £1 billion of receipts from assets which they are not allowed to spend, and they have acquired many of those assets by obeying the Government's encouragement to sell council houses. If we want to revitalise the inner urban areas we must use that money in the place where it has been raised, and together with an input of private finance, I believe that we could achieve a tremendous turn-around in the dereliction of the inner cities.
It is desperately important that when it comes to planning, the power to take the decisions must be devolved as low down as possible—to a very local tier of government—if it is to be environmentally beneficial. I am a great believer—as I think we all are in this House—that the local people living in an area are more likely to be sensitive to the environment around them than those taking decisions in Whitehall departments.
On a previous occasion, when we were discussing the Sizewell nuclear inquiry report, I suggested that all planning inquiries should be on a two-tier level; and I make no apology for voicing that opinion again. It would make it easier for local people to have an input, without having to spend too much money in these lengthy inquiries, if we divided the planning inquiry
932
into two stages. The first stage would be purely to justify the proposed development; to come to the conclusion that a development of some kind is needed. Then the second stage of the inquiry would be held where the development should take place. This is where local people would be able to have an easier input, and this is important.
Although I have just said that decisions should be taken as locally as possible, it is also worth considering whether we need a Secretary of State for environmental protection with a seat in the Cabinet. That department should include planning, national parks, historic buildings and ancient monuments, the control of pollution, resource conservation, and material recycling. It should also have within its orbit the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission, because too often at the moment there are different areas of conservation, and it does not make for a coherent programme. I hope that the Government will consider those suggestions.
8.2 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, after the rousing speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, I feel that I have to declare my Merseyside connection. My mother was entirely Welsh in origin but my grandfather on the maternal side was the official port gauger for the docks of Liverpool. I can therefore claim a certain indirect connection. He was also incidentially the first person, so far as I know, to take a doctorate in literature by examination of the University of London in his spare time.
This debate has come at a slightly awkward moment for those of us engaged on the environmental clauses of the Agriculture Bill, and who are looking forward with some apprehension to the massive Housing and Planning Bill, which I believe comes before us early in July. Nonetheless I am sure that it is much to be welcomed as it provides an opportunity to touch on certain considerations which affect both the urban and rural areas, and all of us have indicated that we have certain causes particularly close to our hearts that we are anxious to draw to the attention of your Lordships' House.
For my part I am concerned about the structure on which a great deal of our environmental protection depends, and that is our planning system, which, in recent years, has come in for a good deal of criticism. The Government's declared aim, expressed a few days ago by the environment Minister, Mrs. Rumbold, is,
"to simplify and improve the efficiency of the planning system without deteriment to careful control."
An admirable sentiment, but not too easy to put into practice.
One must agree that the planning system to which we have grown accustomed over the years has led to unnecessary complexities and to some long delays, but I have a great deal of sympathy for the views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington. Are we not now in danger of going to the other extreme by over-centralising and so depriving local communities of the chance to put their own case effectively?
We have examples in major projects. The Channel tunnel and the second Severn Bridge, or barrage, if it

933
comes about, may be cases in point. Consultation for the former seems, in a formal sense, to be confined to those willing and able to enter into the list of petitioners in Parliament on a hybrid Bill. This is a quite daunting undertaking. It is not at all clear to me how local people are going to make their own community interests fully apparent to those who are primarily concerned with major financial and construction enterprises.
London docklands is another case in point. The procedures that seem to be likely to be embarked upon appears to be more daunting than the traditional public inquiry, with all its disadvantages. For private citizens, whose life can be significantly affected by proposed developments, the chance to make their voice heard is extremely important. Whether we ought to rethink the whole structure of planning policy on the lines suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, I do not think we can enter into tonight, but that there is a feeling of unease and questioning, on a broader basis than the Government perhaps realise, is of importance and should engage our attention, although it is doubtful whether we can do this on the Housing and Planning Bill coming before us. There is so much else in that Bill that it would be difficult to attempt a real reconstruction of our planning system just yet.
The Government have already made certain alterations, in their enterprise zones, and simplified planning zones, both of which have their justifications but unless they are handled with a strong sense of social and environmental responsibility they can diminish rather than enhance local values. They need the most careful scrutiny and examination in practice.
Faced with the challenge of unemployment and the urge to invest in enterprise at almost any cost, there is a strong temptation for both local and central government to let other considerations slide. Fortunately our traditional planning procedures, with all their faults, retain a strong hold. There have been two encouraging recent examples in the London area. Not long ago there were apprehensions that Wimbledon town centre conservation area might have been de-designated—an ugly word, but I believe it is the correct jargon—to enable the Borough of Merton to develop land to the detriment of the conservation area, but land in which the borough itself has a direct financial interest. Fortunately, the Minister, as I understand it, has now seen fit to call in this planning proposal for his own determination after public inquiry.
Another encouraging sign has been that in Westminster many of us are glad to learn that the public library and the adjacent attractive area in Great Smith Street, in close proximity to Westminster Abbey, the precincts and Dean's Yard, is unlikely to be demolished. The proposal was to build yet another office block there, together with a deep underground car park which would have hopelessly congested traffic in that particular locality. I understand that the Westminster City Council is to be advised not to proceed with this development. This has been achieved only by a massive campaign of protest by the Victorian Society and other bodies, to which Westminster City Council has now given its ear.
934
It is an articulate area—and that does not apply to all other neighbourhoods—and it has some doughty champions, including the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, who played an active part in this campaign. At least it is encouraging that, if people care enough and can organise themselves adequately, the worst ravages can be prevented.
But difficulties remain. I want to draw attention tonight to one particular one. Your Lordships will be surprised to hear that it is in the Principality of Wales. On our Heritage Coast adjacent to the Pembrokeshire National Park, we face an example of economic development which is desirable in itself but which threatens to take a most damaging advantage of a planning loophole of the kind referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers. Above Marros beach, on a conspicuous Heritage Coast headland, within recent months a network of farm roads has appeared. I have seen aerial photographs of them and also of the 28 chicken houses recently erected. They are large chalet type structures, but just small enough to qualify on agricultural grounds for exemption from planning control. They are for free range poultry, but sited on a headland so windswept that the birds often prefer to remain indoors.
A steep pathway has been bulldozed down the cliff to the beach below. It can hardly be intended for the hens. Indeed it is not, because now the developer wants planning consent for housing for the people required to tend the poultry and to take over the poultry enterprise: a consent that he could never have hoped to obtain had he not first put up agricultural structures free of planning control. Now, of course, he can appeal to local sentiment because he is providing jobs—most desirable—but nobody is going to tell me that in South Carmarthenshire and the adjacent county of Pembrokeshire he could not have found sites for these 28 very conspicuous structures. Whether the chalets will ultimately be turned into holiday accommodation for visitors is not clear, but it is not entirely impossible.
This developer wishes to repeat the performance at Laugharne, the Dylan Thomas shrine currently being visited by the former President of the United States. Mr. Jimmy Carter. But I am told that, fortunately, Carmarthen District Council is now fully alerted and is to apply to the Secretary of State for Wales for an Article 4 reference on the Laugharne proposition. What disturbs me particularly is that this developer has been partly financed by the official Welsh Development Agency. On another site the enterprise would have been admirable and much to be commended, but as it is the whole affair is a very sad example of how not to attempt to do good exploiting a planning loophole. This use of a planning loophole is apparently being encouraged in certain areas in North Wales as well as South Wales as a way of moving into an area to which otherwise one would not have access, by first putting up agricultural structures for which planning consent is not required as long as you keep them just below the limit of size.
I hope very much that, having drawn attention to this, both the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office will take it on board to see what can be done to make certain that this sort of exploitation is not repeated.

935
There are many other matters which concern those of us who are interested in conservation areas, listed buildings and so on but most of these will come up in the legislation that will be before us in July. I should say in advance that many of us are very much concerned with the proposals in that Bill for the relaxation of the conditions for Grade II buildings. We are also very much concerned about the landscape conservation orders that are coming up before us tomorrow in your Lordships's House. In a recent press release Mrs. Rumbold referred to these as being confined to national parks. If this is really so—this is by way of giving notice to the Minister about what may be raised tomorrow—most of us would consider that to be quite unacceptably narrow.
There are many other matters of business coming before the House tonight so I shall conclude by thanking my noble friend Lord Ardwick for giving us a chance to air some matters about which it is quite clear that many of us in this House are deeply concerned. This is an unusual parliamentary opportunity to draw attention to them.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I feel a little nervous at following three such excellent speeches from three noble Baronesses. Indeed, this debate is dominated by the female sex because we have also heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, and my noble friend Lady Fisher, and we are about to hear from my noble friend Lady Nicol. I think that this is appropriate because women for the most part have to live with the consequences of misplaced male ingenuity. That is their life, and that is the life of all of us because we all live with the consequences of our misplaced ingenuity.
There may be one or two of your Lordships who are old enough to remember, as I am, when progress was automatically a good thing. The words "progress" and "good" were virtually synonomous and one knew that the future was bright, even though one might arrive at it from different avenues, by, on the one hand, the sudden perfection of the perfect market economy which would operate to the benefit of all concerned, or, on the other hand, by the development of a Socialist peaceful revolution which would give us all that we wanted. One way or another we were sure that we would arrive at a wonderful condition in due course. We did not quite know when, but we knew we would get there somehow.
I am afraid that the generation growing up now has lost all that. They do not have the confidence we used to have that we would arrive eventually at a condition in which the good would prevail. It is not with us any more. So we are now concerning ourselves not with the ultimate good, but with how we can modify and mitigate the bad, how we can make things less bad than they are, rather than how we can bring them to some ultimate perfection.
My noble friend in his felicitous opening speech has given us an indication of the width of this subject. So could I: in this context I should like to talk about theatres; I should like to talk about the consequences of nuclear development. I should have said that if there was one threat above all since Chernobyl that we
936
are all conscious of, it is the threat of nuclear development. At one time I thought it was possible to separate opposition to the bomb from support for nuclear energy. That conviction or belief has recently been badly shaken. I now gravely doubt whether man can survive the consequences of his own nuclear ingenuity and I fear that he may succeed in destroying himself not by the consequences of nuclear war but by the incidental consequences of trying to use nuclear energy for a purpose which some people might argue must ultimately, possibly accidentally, lead to disaster. Human beings are fallible. They are fallible in the Soviet Union; they are fallible in the United States; they are fallible here, and mistakes can be made.
My noble friend reminded me that at one time my main concern was not with these disastrous things which we have to try to handle but with the relatively minor nuisance (but not minor to those who lived under it) of aircraft noise. He and I share in common, because we live not too far from each other, the consequences of living under the flightpath to Heathrow. He said that I would deal with aircraft noise. I am not sure that I shall deal with aircraft noise because I have been trying unsuccessfully to deal with it ever since 1958 when I moved to Putney. I tried to deal with it in another place as the Member of Parliament for that constituency, but I was not very successful, I am afraid. At one time we used to have a measurement of aircraft noise called the noise and number index. I wonder what has happened to it? I wonder whether it has gone the same way as the RPI, whether, because it produces inconvenient results it has been decided to concentrate on some other form of measurement which will not point to the truth so clearly. The noise and number index indicated that the great nuisance of aircraft noise was to do with the amount of noise; you could put up with a single noise in one hour, but what you could not put up with was a noise every minute. That is why the people living under the glide path at Heathrow suffer so much.
I want to assure the right reverend Prelate that I listened very closely to his remarkable maiden speech. I heard all of it from below the Bar because we have a rule that if a maiden speech has started, one cannot come in and sit down in the middle of it in case the "maiden" is so nervous as to be upset. There was no chance of that happening so far as the right reverend Prelate was concerned. He occupies a very strong Bench, but he will add further strength to it, and we shall all wish to hear more from him in the future.
My Lords, how are we going to deal with this problem of aircraft noise? How are we going to deal with the even greater problem of nuclear weapons? Frankly, I do not really know. It is a minor problem on the one hand, a major problem on the other. What it really boils down to is that all sections of the human race must be determined to get the situation under control and not allow the consequences of our own ingenuity to destroy us. We must decide consciously on a world basis to take hold of the situation and ensure that we are in charge and are not simply carried along by the consequences of what we can do. We have arrived at a point, as the "green" people tell us, at which we must not necessarily say that because we can do a thing we must do it, that it can be done and therefore we have to do it. We used to think that way

937
at one time and we cannot get out of the habit. Because a thing could be done all societies used to say "It is there, so we have to do it". The mountain had to be climbed, the experiment had to be conducted.
We have reached the point at which we must say, "No". Whether it is chemical warfare, nuclear warfare, or the minor injury of aircraft noise, it must be brought under control. It must be controlled not necessarily in the interests of those who are flying in the air or those who are conducting experiments, but in the interests of the people who are living under the glide path, the people who are going to suffer the consequences of the nuclear experiments, the people whom we in this House, indirectly perhaps, regard ourselves as representing.
I welcome this debate. My own contribution to it has not been as informed and as particular as some of the contributions have been. I hope that does not mean that I have nothing informed or particular to say. However, in spite of what my noble friend said, I have allowed myself to be urged along on to the wider path, and I hope your Lordships will think no worse of my contribution for that.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, first of all I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, for giving us the opportunity to have this extremely well-informed and highly interesting debate. He has given an example of how to protect his environment by placing himself originally between two noble Baronesses and behind yet another one; so his environment has been well protected and it is good that he gives us that example!
I should also like to add my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate for his stimulating, well-informed and sensitive maiden speech. He certainly does not present any "sly shade of a Rural Dean"; rather, he presents the robust reality of a realistic rural Bishop, which for us in this House is an enormous asset. We look forward very much to hearing his wisdom on his own area and many other areas, too, in the future.
It has come out in this debate, far-ranging as it has been, that this problem of protection of the environment, rural and urban, is almost entirely a question of balance. For instance, the right reverend Prelate talked about the conflict—conflict or balance; one has to hold the balance in a case of conflict—between amenity and production and rural employment. That is a real conflict between groups at Wormwood Scrubs: a difficult balance to hold. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins conflict between groups at Wormwood Scrubbs: a difficult balance to hold. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, talked about aircraft noise. That involves the balance between the amenity of those living underneath and the convenience of those who have to get from one place to another speedily. The whole question of environment is surely a question of balance.
There are many other balances. For instance, there is the balance between cost and benefit. Protection and enhancement of the environment is a costly matter. Are the benefits that are going to accrue, not only to the present generation but to those of the future, worth
938
that particular amount of expenditure? There is the balance between those who want to enjoy the quiet environment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, mentioned—those living in a rural area—and those who do not have the advantage of living in a rural environment but who want to have the opportunity of going there and enjoying it, of picnicking there, of camping or hiking there, very often to the detriment of those who actually live there.
There is the balance between preserving the old and encouraging the new. That is something which has not been mentioned but we must remember it. For instance, what would we think of Rome today if there had been environmentalists in the 16th century who had preserved all the mediaeval and older parts of Rome and we had none of the beautiful buildings which appeared there because the old ones were razed to the ground? What if the environmentalists had been busy at the time of Capability Brown and he had not been able to level his hills, make his lakes and build his bridges?
There is a further balance that we have to bear in mind, the balance of convenience and efficiency against that of conservation. The City of London, which is not a place for which I hold any brief, was created primarily for the convenience of merchants in the first place and later, in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, for finance houses. Yet, in order to create that environment where they could prosper and work comfortably and efficiently, the City of London destroyed more Wren churches between the wars than any of Hitler's bombs did during the whole of the war. That is again some form of balance.
Then there is the balance between a quiet countryside and good communications and access. Should motorways be built? Should bypasses be built? They destroy some of the things that people fortunate enough to live in the country have enjoyed for generations, and yet they add to the enjoyment of those who do not have the privilege of living there. They enable them to get there; they enable them to get to other places too.
There is the balance between the official flotation of industry and creating overcrowding in the South-East and dereliction in the North-West—and in the North-East, too, for that matter. All these are matters of concern, matters of environmental importance, which cannot be decided as they were until relatively recently purely by the free play of the markets. They cannot be decided solely by the gentlemen in Whitehall who know best. They cannot be decided by the pressure groups who happen to have got a great movement going to preserve some particular type of rare bird and who ignore all the interests of the other people who live near or by that particular area.
I think now that in some cases, but by no means all, the pendulum may have swung rather too far in the opposite direction from the old laissez-faire way. There are inordinate planning delays which cause not only a great deal of hardship to people and loss of money but a great many lost opportunities. The Piccadilly Circus problem still has to be solved. And there are preservation orders on some houses of interest, in good state and of considerable attraction but in which nobody wants to live and which the owner cannot afford to preserve properly.

939
I believe that some of these things have gone too far. But for all that, having made that caveat, I think there is still a great deal to be done; there is still much on which money must be spent and to which thought must be given: effluent control, exhaust gases (which have been mentioned), acid rain (also mentioned), nuclear wastes. These are matters of very pressing importance indeed; and there are also the environmentally sensitive areas (which we shall be discussing tomorrow): the national parks, the areas of outstanding beauty. All these are steps in the right direction. I am not blaming the Government for this at all; but all the steps that have been taken so far, although good, useful and even admirable, have been too small. The steps have not been great strides; they have been hesitating, little steps. If we are to preserve and improve our rural and our urban environment, we must go farther and we must go faster.
May I make one suggestion to the noble Lord who is going to reply? In my view, the old regional economic planning councils played an enormously useful part in achieving a balanced form of long-term planning in their regions. One needs a body which is more widely based than are our normal local governments; which is closer to the actual problems of the area than central government can ever be; which can take a long-term view without an eye on elections coming up and on popularity; but which looks overall and can look at a wider area than any single local authority; which can look at matters such as location of industry, long-term planning of communications, including the siting of airports; whether there should be more international airports in the North or in the North-East; housing; whether there should be a new town here or whether it is better to have substantial housing estates on the outskirts of existing towns, public and private; whether you should enlarge certain villages. All these things must be looked at on a longterm basis and on a regional rather than a purely local authority basis.
Similar plans and decisions must be taken for industry, too. I believe that as well as encouraging and expanding those authorities, those bodies that are already in existence, the revival of some form of regional planning is the most effective way of protecting both the urban and the rural environments against current effects.
8.34 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, it is customary to say that this has been a wide-ranging debate. I think that perhaps this evening, the cliché is actually true. We have ranged from inner cities to Cornish landscapes and back again. I must thank my noble friend for giving us this opportunity because many of the things that we are discussing tonight loom very large in people's minds and another opportunity to discuss them is very welcome indeed. Perhaps I may also add my compliments to the right reverend Prelate on his maiden speech, which was excellent. I think that it is an interesting reflection on the state of mankind's minds that when he described as the height of privilege an absolutely empty landscape, there was a murmur of approval all round the House. I think that it is rather sad that we should have reached the stage where to get
940
out of sight of our fellow beings is our one aim in life. But that seems to be what we all want.
My remarks can be only a summary because it is a vast subject and we have very little time. But there is no doubt about the public concern and the growing awareness of the need to conserve our environment. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, feels a little defensive about conservationists. I am equally sorry that he chose Rome as an example because I seem to remember that it was burned to the ground—which got them off to a flying start; and there was not much that the convervationists could do about it at that stage.
All governments have contributed to protective legislation. In an idle moment, I sat down and made a list of the protective Acts which Labour governments have brought in. Perhaps I could make a pact with the Minister. I shall not read out my list to prove the green virility of the Labour Party if he will promise not to read out his, which I am sure that he has. Let us just accept the fact that all governments have introduced legislation which has been useful in protecting the environment. The Royal Commission on Environment Pollution has now produced 11 reports and has given us plenty to go at. If we are looking for ways in which to do it, we have plenty of guidance. But the need for action is greater than ever, and today I want to concentrate on the United Kingdom's problems not because we can ignore world problems or the fact that we contribute to them—and demands on world resources which we make too must be considered—but because we have our own problems and they are the ones which press hardest upon us.
Our greatest problems are because of overpopulation. A number of speakers have made this point. It is that and it is the high expectations that we have now introduced into our population; we expect a very high standard of living accommodation, of feeding and of environmental surroundings. But our most immediate problem is the one caused by the waste products of a very sophisticated society. I shall come on to litter in a moment. It is visible, it is the one which upsets people but it is perhaps the most superficial of all the problems that we have to deal with.
We have chemical wastes, nuclear wastes, sewage residues and motor vehicle emissions; and we have learned to live with the need to deal with these. The only way we shall not be able to have them to deal with is if people are prepared to live with reduced expectations—and I cannot see that happening. Our problems could be lessened because some of the processes producing chemical wastes are capable of being reorganised to produce less waste at a cost. Discharges to sewage systems could be more tightly controlled, making sludge less toxic and easier to dispose of; and that is one of our greatest problems at the moment. Vehicle emissions are being controlled and I am happy to be able to say to my noble friend Lady Fisher that we hope to have lead-free petrol in full use in the early 1990s and certainly by 1997 which I think is the very latest date for it.
But the noise and the visual intrusion of traffic are still with us, and particularly that of the very large lorries, and so is aircraft noise. It is no coincidence that this year a noise council has been formed to try to deal

941
with the problems caused by noise. It is being more and more recognised as a pollution in its own right, and the Environmental Health Institution is very concerned with it. Agricultural pollution is at least being recognised as a very serious problem, and legislation exists which could be used to control it. Overall we could, as a nation and as individuals, look to our attitudes of over-consumption of energy and natural resources—including, incidentaly, packaging. We are hopelessly over-packaged. We buy items which have packets within packets, wrapped in plastic bags, for one item. That contributes largely to our litter problem that we are all having to deal with.
Last month, the Government's response to the World Conservation Strategy was published: that is six years after the original document came out. The document to which the right reverend Prelate referred, I think, was a document which was produced by a combination of voluntary and statutory bodies. It was not the official government response. The one we are dealing with at the moment—this beautiful object—is the official government response, which has just come out.
The response itself and the speeches which the right honourable Minister in another place made at its launching are hopeful and we do not quarrel with them. What worries us is that in the application of existing legislation and in Government proposals for the economy there is direct conflict with their stated conservation aims. I shall give just a few examples of that, although I have not very much time. The response admits the need for continuing research in environmental science: yet money for such research is being cut year by year, and many of the institutions who have made past contributions to environmental science are to be privatised—which almost certainly means further reductions in non-commercial research. This document draws attention to the value of environmental science in the control of pollution and in other ways.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, was very anxious about this and about the White Paper Lifting the Burden, and its offspring which has just arrived Building Business, not Barriers. Both documents undermine the planning system which has been the backbone of environmental protection in urban areas. We have heard cries from all sides tonight for protection of the green belt and we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, about the need to control farm buildings. However, if we are to introduce controls for farm building we need also to remember that controls on industrial building are about to be relaxed; and I think this is a very dangerous road for us to follow.
The Food and Environmental Protection Act, which we all hailed last year as a step forward in the control of farm pollution, is likely to fall short of some of the most useful protections because, in spite of promises made at the time of its passing, we understand that adequate staffing to enforce the provisions has not been appointed and is unlikely to be so. If I could return just for a moment to the question of litter, which has been having a lot of publicity lately because of a certain amount of litter on the way from Heathrow, I saw today an extract from the Code of Practice for Routine Maintenance, issued by the
942
Department of Transport at the end of 1985 and which came into effect on 1st April this year. I will read only small extracts from it because there is quite a lot all in the same vein. It gives directions for highways authorities on how to maintain roads, and it says:
"Kerbed rural all-purpose trunk roads shall not be swept more than once per year unless … there are special circumstances".
It also says,
"Urban kerbed all-purpose trunk roads shall not be swept more than twice per year"
and
"rural unkerbed roads will not be swept at all unless a particular need arises."
I wonder whether the Minister from the Department of the Environment is aware of what his friends in the Department of Transport are doing. On the very next page—and this is even worse—it says:
"All litter bins shall be removed from all-purpose trunk road lay-bys and notices erected advising road users to take their litter away."
In view of the fuss that is currently being made and the appointment of Mr. Branson to clear up the country, it seems to me that the Department of Transport needs to be reminded of the present priorities of the Government. That document goes on like that, and there are other pages which I will not read.
I could give many more examples of inconsistencies but I have reached the end of my time, and so I shall simply say that we have now to support all our fine words in legislation with action—not for political reasons but for reasons of survival. The Church of England report, which I have read with much interest and great pleasure (and I am delighted that the Church is taking an active interest in this side of life because I believe it is its right to do so) seems to imply that we have a choice between protection of the natural world and meeting the needs of mankind. In reality, there is no choice. If we destroy the natural world, we destroy ourselves. It is time to stop making speeches and take action. To borrow the slogan of the World Wildlife Fund in its local British wildlife appeal, "Tomorrow may be too late."
8.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, for a debate today of great interest to so many noble Lords and for the opportunity to hear an extremely well-informed and constructive maiden speech from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro. If I may add another word of congratulation, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, actually triumphed in a difficult situation in imposing a structure on a speech which was almost complete from start to finish and which will certainly be far more cohesive than anything I shall be able to produce from the cobbled-together bits that I have in response to points made in the speeches we have listened to.
I am glad of the opportunity of explaining the action which the Government are taking to deal with many of the threats to our environment to which noble Lords have referred. One of the most characteristic features of the 20th century has been the change it has brought in how we see the planet on which we live. That is not surprising, because, for the first time, we can actually see it as a planet from outside, thanks to satellite technology. What we then see is that it is what we have

943
always been told it was—one single finite object on which all of us live, all of us move and all of us have our being. Natural resources are more clearly finite and therefore more clearly precious than they have ever been; and our environment is more clearly common to all of us than it has ever been.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, has pointed out, the explosion at Chernobyl has driven that lesson home. In that context, I should say that that is why discussions are now under way in the International Atomic Energy Authority to make more effective international arrangements for disclosing information on nuclear accidents. Noble Lords should also be aware of the existing bilateral treaty arrangements with France. An agreement is currently being negotiated with Ireland and representations have been received from the Federal Republic of Germany and from Denmark. So conservation and preservation of the natural environment is not simply a local activity; and to treat it even as simply a national activity still does not fully recognise either its scale or its importance. What we do to the environment in one country can, and quite often does, affect what happens to it not only there but in other parts of the world as well.
That is why this Government welcome the publication of a World Conservation Strategy by the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources and the World Wildlife Fund. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred to that and she also referred to the United Kingdom's response to this strategy, which was published last month. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate and to the noble Baroness for their references to this, as it explains our approach to conservation in the United Kingdom fully. I will not now attempt to summarise it but the whole of it is relevant to this debate. Copies are available in the Printed Paper Office, and I commend it to your Lordships, who can have it free, as a very clear and full exposition and, as the noble Baroness said, elegantly presented.
I am also glad to see that the World Resources Institute and the International Institute for Environment and Development have together produced the first of what is intended to be a series of annual reports, aimed at providing a valuable contribution to the information base on the world's natural resources and what is happening to them now. I think that this is a constructive and useful step and, had it been published a week earlier, many of your Lordships would have drawn from it this evening.
Conservation and protection cannot be considered on their own, because they have an important interaction with other policies and other priorities. The economy of a nation is as much an organism of interacting parts as is its ecology, and in both good health comes, as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, sagely pointed out, from a proper balance.
So the first thing to be said about today's subject is that policies to improve or preserve the environment must be made and seen as part of the overall strategy for future development. The balance between production and conservation, for instance, means this. We cannot afford to create an environment in which
944
we cannot subsequently afford to live; and that echoes the theme of the right reverend Prelate's speech. The guide to the World Conservation Strategy put it very well when it said that:
"The aim of the world conservation strategy is to help advance the achievement of sustainable development through the conservation of living resources".
The concerns which have been expressed today go wider than those about living resources. There is much of our physical and built environment that is also precious. But the underlying point remains valid; we need both conservation and sustainable development and we have to strike a healthy balance.
The British approach to environmental protection is to take sensible, balanced measures which recognise the interests of all the parties concerned and which will endure. We also recognise that in many situations prevention may be better than cure. But complete protection from environmental damage will not always be technically feasible or economically practicable.
I want to turn now to how this approach is being put into practice. Several noble Lords have spoken about their concern to see more done to control pollution. The noble Baroness said that we must be most careful about our waste products. It reminded me—I think I am right in saying this—that the way in which cheese mites preserve cheese is by producing a level of waste products which stops them from eating any more. We do not want to get into that position ourselves. Our policies are based on the concept of finding the best practical environmental option. This means that we compare the potential impact of alternative ways of dealing with pollution, and choose that which secures the best overall result when costs and benefits are taken into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, directed our attention to sulphur dioxide. Emissions of this have fallen by 42 per cent. since 1970 and by more than 20 per cent. since 1980. Noble Lords have suggested that we ought to join the 30 per cent. club. The club's 30 per cent. target is entirely arbitrary, and the 1980 base year gives a country like the United Kingdom no credit whatsoever for the reduction in emissions before that year, during which time some members of the club were actually increasing their emissions and producing a higher threshold from which to reduce. We expect our actual performance to equal or better that of a number of those countries which have signed the club protocol. Had it been a "40 per cent. since 1970" club we should have been a founder member.
The Government hope to achieve a 30 per cent. reduction on the emission level of 1980 by the later years of this century, and I remind your Lordships again that that reduction will be from a level already reduced by 24 per cent. since 1970. We are not the uncaring villains, therefore, that people sometimes paint us. Nitrogen oxide emissions, which have changed little over the past decade, will also be reduced. The aim is a 30 per cent. reduction on a similar timetable. In reply to the noble Lord's direct question, the reduction in sulphur dioxide will result from continuing steps to control the emission from power stations, from a continuing increase in the efficiency of use of energy and from an increase at a responsible rate, as he suggested, in our nuclear power capacity.

945
Pollution from motor vehicles has come under criticism from the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, and others this evening. It has also come under increasingly tight control. During the 1980s, more cars travelled further on British roads than ever before. That includes, no doubt, the road linking London with Birmingham or, for the avoidance of doubt, Birmingham with London. Yet their total emission of lead to the atmosphere was falling even before the maximum permitted amount of lead in petrol was reduced from 0.4 to 0.15 grams per litre at the beginning of this year—a reduction of over 60 per cent. We are also taking steps to ensure that lead-free petrol will become increasingly available in this country in the late 1980s and hope that this form of pollution will be phased out altogether by the end of the century.
I should also say to the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, and the noble Baroness that we should also see an improvement in other emissions from motor vehicles. Agreement reached last year by the EC environment ministers on the framework of a permissive directive for tighter standards for gaseous emissions from cars is still subject to outstanding reservations by Denmark and Greece. We hope that these can be lifted soon. So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, although we do not intend to impose any standards which effectively require expensive three-way catalysts, considerable improvements on current standards should be possible in the early 1990s, using cost-effective technology. An appropriate standard can be decided nearer the time, in the light of research now under way.
I am not competent to judge the comparative costs, which the noble Baroness suggested were advertised at the conference. I will read Hansard with care, but I think the noble Baroness will find that she was comparing one system, which is fuel efficient and improves fuel efficency, with another which is fuel expensive and therefore has a different environmental impact; and again we come to the question of balance.
I will draw my colleagues' attention to the regulations about the cleansing of roads, but I would just say without special information that, having driven over a great many unkerbed rural roads for many years, both before and after the issue of this guidance, one does not see the rubbish on the roads. One sees it in the hedgerows, and sweeping a country road, unless there is a special circumstance which is provided for in the regulations, would often be an interesting but not a useful method of employment of the person driving the sweeper. However, I am not expert in this and will write to the noble Baroness.
The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, like the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, was also concerned with the aircraft noise climate around Heathrow and suggested that it is worsening. I sympathise with anybody who believes subjectively that nights are getting noiser, but I assure him that that is not the case in that area, because I have to tell him that, objectively tested, there has been a considerable improvement. The area within what is described as the 35 noise and number index contour—the generally recognised indicator of the onset of annoyance; whether it coincides with the noble Lord's onset of annoyance, I do not know, but that is the recognised criterion—was 826 square
946
kilometres in 1974. In 1984, the last year for which information is available, it was down to 433 square kilometres and the population within the area affected had reduced from 2 million to under 800,000. That is a considerable improvement, but it will not have improved the sleep of the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, and he is now about to tell me so.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, it was not the quality of the noise with which I was so much concerned, as the number of night flights which has increased and is apparently increasing. They have been counted.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for his clarification. The noise and number index embraces number as well as noise, but as to night noise I have no special information. I will leap over the legislation, which the noble Baroness invited me not to mention, and undertake simply to write to the noble Lord on that technical aspect.
From air, I turn by natural progression to the question of water, where I think the Government also have a good record of cleaning up our rivers. In 1958, the extent of our tidal and non-tidal rivers and canals classed as grossly polluted amounted to 7 per cent. of their total length. By 1980, it had dropped to 2 per cent. Ninety per cent. of all river and canal length in England and Wales, and 99 per cent. of all river length in Scotland, are now in good enough condition to supply drinking water and to support fish. Looking at some of them, your Lordships may be surprised. Thirty years ago the tidal Thames was virtually devoid of life, whereas now it supports more than 100 species of fish, some in abundance.
Action to improve rivers will continue and particular effort is being devoted to cleaning up the Mersey, which is of interest to a number of your Lordships and which is one of the most grossly contaminated major estuarine systems in the country. Britain will host an international conference on the North Sea in 1987.
After those references to water and air, it is natural to turn to the land, and its uses. Land use control is provided by the town and country planning system which has to balance two very different objectives—to provide for developement and to protect our natural and built environment. The development control system has reduced the natural rights of individual property owners to use their land to its full economic potential. It is right, therefore, that the procedures for operating the system are based upon judicial principles so that the rights of individuals can be properly safeguarded. But some of the procedures have become too cumbersome and time consuming, as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said. The Government have taken steps to simplify and speed up planning where this can be done without undermining the principles on which it is based. The announcement I made on Monday about our proposals to simplify the Use Classes Order illustrate this philosophy. They will remove from planning control changes of use which have no significant environmental effects, but retain more effective and efficient control over the remainder. I believe noble Lords will find that these are sensible and practical proposals and that the fears of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, will prove unfounded. We are also taking steps to make

947
considerable reductions in the time taken to process about 80 per cent. of all appeal cases.
I sympathise very much with the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, that local people are the best custodians of their environment. They can see both sides of the balance more clearly than we can. That is why I am concerned to see that the strategic guidance we provide, for instance, to replace the structure plans of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils, shall be general in nature and provide a matrix within which local authorities can prepare their unitary plans with reasonable freedom. I have to remind the noble Baroness, Lady White, however, that some decisions have far more than a local importance and are proper for the Secretary of State to call in, as I am sure she will agree, and that others have regional and even national importance and are the proper concern of Parliament.
I am profoundly relieved to hear, and I heartily endorse, the view of the noble Baroness that the Housing and Planning Bill is not a vehicle for the fundamental restructuring of the planning system. I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales to the chickens she refers to on his heritage coast.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, also shares my interest in public inquiries. We do keep procedures under review; but of her proposal for a two-stage system I can only say that at present I fear that very heavy penalties in length of time would result from the difficulty of distinguishing between strategic and local matters and seeing that they were not inexhaustibly rehearsed on both occasions. I am not qualified to judge her proposal on value added tax, which I shall pass on. I shall comment only by saying that I foresee hideous difficulties in fitting it into the European formula, but that is not for me.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, expressed a concern, shared I think by all, for the green belts, and about the Government's attitude to them in particular. I believe our record on this ought to speak for itself. There are now some 4½ million acres of green belt, and more than half of it has been approved since we came to office in 1979. Green belts not only check urban sprawl and provide open space around and between settlements for people like the noble Baroness to walk and simply breathe in; they also provide a means by which pressure for development in city areas can be focused back into the inner city where it is so badly needed. There was one quotation from a most regrettable leading article in the London Standard on Monday. I shall not waste time on rebutting a travesty of the Prime Minister's position that was published there.
But even in the green belts we must achieve a balance for the health of the system we want to preserve. We are committed to preserving the green belts but it would be dangerous and destructive to the local communities to stop all new initiatives in the green belts and to leave them to stagnate. I can tell my noble friend Lady Vickers that that is why we are encouraging the redevelopment of redundant farm buildings in the green belt. It is far better to have a well maintained building in active use supporting a rural community so that we have a live green belt than to let
948
it fall into disuse, disrepair and ruin with others while the rural economy—and the green belt—decline with it. The change in agricultural methods and the decline in agricultural population mean that we have to do something if there is not to be this sort of stagnation.
I should like to return briefly to the point I made about the importance of making use of land for development in inner city areas. Many noble Lords will have seen an article in The Times last week by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. It mentioned the importance of releasing surplus land for regenerative projects. We agree that this is vital. That is why we set up the land register system, which records unused and underused publicly owned land throughout England. Without the register we should not even know the extent of the wasted resource. The register shows that some 110,000 acres of land in England are under-utilised of which around 5,700 acres—not 100,000 acres as stated—are in London.
But even so it shows that there is still considerable scope for development in London. Since the register was set up in mid-1981, 148,000 acres have been registered and 38,000 acres removed, of which 27,000 have been sold or otherwise brought into use by the owner. That is not a completely negligible amount of land to have removed from sterilisation. And the process of development within our major conurbations has been made simpler and quicker within the past few months by the removal of a whole tier of planning authorities in the metropolitan counties and Greater London. We have reduced by a third the number of hurdles a developer potentially has to jump in order to get into this land and develop it.
The noble Lord's approach to this whole subject was a touch pessimistic. I apologise if I go on a couple of minutes longer, but I have actually an awful lot of spare time—I shall not use it all. The noble Lord's approach was I think a little less than cheerful. I hope I said a few things that may cheer him up. He should certainly have been cheered up by the right reverend Prelate with his constructive and intensely loyal commitment to Cornwall. I was deeply interested in his description of where his roots were and the equally intense loyalty of my noble friend Lord Mersey. Where there is positive enthusiasm there is more than hope; there is the expectation of success.
I think your Lordships would prefer me not now to start banging the rather large and impressive drum I have for the things we have done in the urban environment. The figures are impressive but your Lordships have not teased me too much on this. I believe that I should leave it on the record—it is already in Hansard—rather than detain your Lordships before the next debate.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for a fascinating and very wide-ranging debate. I believe that the Government have the correct philosophy, and it is a philosophy of balance and care. For as long as I am attacked from one side for too much development and from the other for too little, then I shall think that we are not going too far wrong.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord the Minister for his detailed answers to the questions that I and other noble Lords have raised.

949
However, I must add that his reply on the subject of the green belt fills me with dismay, as I am sure it fills others with dismay, and he failed to repeat the undertaking that has been given previously by the Government that there would be no major developments within the green belt. But perhaps that can be read into the noble Lord's words, which I shall read tomorrow in Hansard.
I want to thank also everybody else who has taken part. I was very worried about this debate because I saw that it was starting too soon after the last race at Ascot and rather before the kick-off of the World Cup game. I hope that everyone here has felt well rewarded by this debate because I understand that we have missed another glorious triumph for England, who have beaten Paraguay by three goals to nil. In any event, perhaps noble Lords will be able to watch the highlights later.
There is one other point I want to make. My noble friend Lady Nicol spoke about the burning of Rome. Many years ago our beloved late Baroness, Lady Stocks, wrote a play on Nero, in which the final line was:
"This is not just slum clearance; this is town planning".
My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Bill
9.10 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Lane-Fox.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD STRABOLGI in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Child Care Act 1980.
. After section 18 of the Child Care Act, 1980 there shall be inserted:
"Complaints 18A.—(1) It shall be the duty of a Local Authority to make arrangements for dealing with complaints made by or on behalf of a child or children in their care,
(2) The Local Authority shall secure—

(a) that children in the Authority's care and their parents are notified of the arrangements made under subsection (1) above; and

(b) that the said arrangements involve a person or persons independent of the Local Authority, and,

(c) that children and their parents have a right to obtain independent advice and representation when pursuing a complaint under the said arrangements.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulation make provision for the conduct of arrangements made under this section." ").
The noble Lord said: The intention of the new clause proposed in this amendment is to require local authorities to set up a proper procedure to deal with complaints concerned with children in care. The
950
amendment is suggested by the Children's Legal Centre, and the position is as follows.
At present, there are in most parts of the country no established procedures for dealing with complaints about a large number of matters affecting children in care, ranging from the relatively trivial to far more important issues that can arise. They are issues, even the relatively trivial, which can be of considerable importance to the child concerned and which can indeed become a source of friction, tension and unhappiness, both between the child and the adults involved in his or her welfare and between the adults themselves—the parents, relations, foster parents, social workers, and so on.
I will not give the Committee a list of the matters that can arise but perhaps just some examples. The most serious question that can arise in relation to a child in care is of course abuse of that child. Less extreme matters that quite often arise include complaints by foster parents about the removal of a child from their care and control; complaints from parents about the phasing of a child's return to home on trial; decisions about access that fall outside the court's normal jurisdiction; decisions to split siblings; decisions about education, and so on.
Although there are no generally established procedures, there are in some parts of the country varying ad hoc procedures set up by local authorities to deal with, for example, appeals against decisions made at the child's six-monthly review. Both the social services Select Committee inquiry and the interdepartmental working party report into child care law consider that there should be some form of appeal. I quote briefly from paragraph 9.11 of the interdepartmental working party report as follows:
"Every local authority should have a procedure for handling complaints and resolving disputes on the way it carries out its responsibilities for particular children. In the first place this will amount to reconsideration by social services management. If this does not resolve the complaint, a further channel for challenging decisions or actions should be provided".
The amendment suggests a clause which is quite loosely drawn. There are only three specific requirements; first, that the parents should be notified of the arrangements; secondly, that there should be an independent element so that the local authority would not be judge and jury in its own case; and, thirdly, that the children and the parents have a right to independent advice and representation. There is no mandatory requirement on the Secretary of State to make regulations; simply an enabling provision.
Finally, I stress that it is not intended that the procedure suggested under this amendment should overlap, or intrude into, the courts' jurisdictions. The vital necessity remains for the really important issues to be resolved by the courts. This procedure will provide a forum for other important issues to be resolved—issues which are outside the jurisdiction of the courts or on which it will be generally inappropriate to require the courts to have to decide.
I suggest that a procedure such as is proposed in the amendment will help to defuse problems, maintain standards and provide a further safeguard for children in care. I do not envisage that it will cause undue expense and I would not expect there to be any undue formality in the procedures to be created. I hope that

951
the amendment strikes a chord with the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: I totally support the new clause and the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. If on Second Reading the noble Baroness had been able to give some idea of when the Government's major legislation will come forward, I would have been reluctant to be associated with an amendment to strengthen the Bill. However, she has not given any idea and it may be two or three years before we have any child care legislation covering a wide range of issues. This particular issue is felt very strongly by parents and, indeed, by most who have looked into it.
The noble Lord referred to the Short report. I was a member of that Select Committee when it was taking evidence. I quote from it:
"The risk of abuse of power by social workers and other adults concerned with children in care is however sufficiently serious for there to be a need for some means by which a child can contact, without fear of reprisal, their local authority parent".
The Select Committee thought that the formal involvement of elected members might offer the best way forward and recommend only
"that the Department support efforts being made to reach an agreed model for complaints by clients about social services provision".
It is certainly my impression that the Government are in favour of the principle of this, although I must not anticipate what the noble Baroness will say. However, as she will realise, there is as yet no statutory duty to provide a complaints procedure about local authority treatment of children in care in general.
The Children's Legal Centre carried out a study of a number of local authorities. There were 63 local authorities which responded to a question on what sort of appeals procedure they had. Only 22 of those 63 said that they had any form of appeal, and of that number several had very casual and ad hoc arrangements or permitted appeal only by professionals. In fact, only a handful had anything approaching a formal complaints procedure.
The purpose of the amendment, as has been said, is to see that parents have an opportunity of making their complaints. I do not believe that most of the Committee would have wanted to go as far as the Bill originally did in giving more power to the courts, but I believe that if we do not give more power to the courts and we leave these powers with the local authority, it is only right and fair that we should create some sort of procedure. I do not think that either the noble Lord, Lord Meston, or myself has sought to define what should be the nature of the appeal procedure, but we believe that every local authority should have one.
Baroness Trumpington: Although I accept the spirit of the amendment and recognise the concerns which lie behind it, I cannot support it. This is a major amendment which would place on the local authorities a new duty on which they have not been consulted, and we are reluctant to proceed with this subject in advance of our own child care legislation. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced on 1st May, the Government intend to publish a White Paper in the autumn setting out proposals for child care law, and
952
this issue will be covered in these proposals. The Government believe that this Bill should meet only the most pressing needs in this area in advance of this planned major legislation.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that each local social service authority should have an established procedure for handling complaints about all its services. In general this is a matter for local government rather than for government prescription. The Lambeth model is a good example of a local government doing its own thing. Local government has recognised the need for general guidance, and the Representative Body for England (the local government body that oversees their ombudsman) and the Commission for local Administration (the local ombudsman) have jointly issued to authorities guidance on complaints procedures. What we shall need to consider is whether the position of children is such as to justify an exception from this general policy.
I ask the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Ennals, whether they will withdraw their new clause in the light of what I have just said.
Lord Meston: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for his authoritative support for the amendment. I must admit that I am a little disappointed at the Government's response, although I appreciate the welcome of the noble Baroness for the spirit of the amendment. I venture to suggest that the new clause would not have imposed an onerous duty on a local authority and would simply have provided a general framework. But, as the noble Baroness reminded us, there is an excellent precedent in the Lambeth model, which shows what can be done, and such procedure can be successfully set up. We shall have to await the White Paper. She will understand that this is no more than a probing amendment. I have no wish to overburden or to jeopardise the Bill. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Appeals]:
On Question, Whether clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Ennals: I had not previously heard the date on which the White Paper will be published. I very much welcome the statement that the Secretary of State will be publishing it in the autumn. That will enable many organisations that have concerns about various aspects of child care to be consulted and, if they wish, they will in advance be able to put forward proposals to the Secretary of State, though I know that he has a whole pile already on his desk. I entirely agree that it would be unwise to press an amendment, short of those which are proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, but I want to welcome the statement made by the noble Baroness.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Parties to care proceedings]:
Baroness Lane-Fox Baroness Lane-Fox moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 26, at end insert—("and 'grandparent" in relation to a child means a grandparent whether of the blood or by affinity and includes, where the child is illegitimate, any person who would be such a grandparent if the child were the legitimate child of his mother and father." ")
The noble Baroness said: I hope that this amendment will be more welcome to the Government. Under Section 107 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 the definition of a guardian is someone,
"who … has for the time being the charge of or control of the child".
It would be unusual for the putative father to be in that position.
Clause 3(2) permits in certain circumstances a grandparent to become a party. I realise that there is no statutory or long-established judicial definition of a grandparent. In whatever way the policy is decided, the Bill should make clear whether it is intended to include grandparents whose relationships derives through the putative father of the illegitimate child.
To avoid ambiguity, my amendment defines "grandparent". And it reflects the policy that the grandparents, even of an illegitimate child, should be included. I realise that it may seem odd to confer the possiblity of representation upon the grandparents when it is not being conferred upon the father through whom the relationship comes. I believe that apparent oddity is justifiable.
I said on Second Reading that I recognised that the question of illegitimacy was complex and one which has been the subject of a major report by the Law Commission. That report proposes major reforming legislation and a draft Bill is attached. Its overall conclusion was that the status of illegitimacy should not be abolished, but that all the legal disadvantages of illegitimacy should be removed so far as they discriminate against the illegitimate child. The Law Commission did not think that parental rights should vest in the father of illegitimate children without prior scrutiny of the child's interests by the courts.
The question of illegitimacy and the rights of the putative father are not only complex but contentious, bound up as they are with such questions as society's attitude to marriage. The Bill therefore should not trespass on to those separate and complex questions. The DHSS working party's review of child care law has made proposals on that point. I hope they will be reflected in the more major legislation which is still to come.
I see no reason why we cannot deal now with the grandparents of the illegitimate child. The Bill makes provision for grandparents, and so that nettle has to be grasped. I understand that many of these cases concern illegitimate children, and grandparents of such children are often just as caring and concerned about them as if they were legitimate. Where parental relationships are not stable, the grandparents on the paternal as well as the maternal side can have a great deal to offer the child, including sometimes even a permanent home.
The Bill gives no automatic right to grandparents to become parties. They can only be joined with leave, on grounds to be presribed by rules of court. The grounds will presumably relate to whether the grandparents are concerned and have had or could have an important role to play in the child's life. If there are such grounds, it seems to me that whether the child happens to be legitimate or illegitimate should not be relevant. I am
954
sure that my noble friend the Minister will agree that no matter what is the situation behind it we are concerned with the reality of the child's life and its welfare. Accordingly, I hope that my amendment can be accepted, and I now beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: I appreciate the concerns which led my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox to table these amendments. Like my noble friend, I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. One lives and learns. At first, my instinct was to go down the same path as my noble friend Lady Lane- Fox. I am sorry that I cannot do so. My main reason is that at present the natural father of an illegitimate child has no right to participate in care proceedings as a parent unless he qualifies as a guardian. That includes cases where he has the charge or control of his child.
The legislation and case law relating to child care and to adoption and fostering recognise only the mother of an illegitimate child as a parent; the natural father is regarded as a relative. The amendments before us, then, would allow greater rights to the parents of the natural father of an illegitimate child than to the natural father himself. These amendments, in allowing such a situation to arise, would be anomalous and would add extra complexity to the law.
My noble friend Lady Lane-Fox mentioned the future question of the whole issue of illegitimacy that is currently under review. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has already announced his intention to legislate at the earliest opportunity on the Law Commission report on illegitimacy. It would be premature at this stage to take action which would have implications for a wide-ranging review in this area. Moreover, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has already announced, the Government intend to publish a White Paper later this year setting out proposals for child care law reform and I hope there will be an opportunity before too long for noble Lords to consider a major comprehensive Bill on child care.
In the Review of Child Care Law, the proposal was made in chapter 14.5 that "parent" should include a putative father who wishes to take over custody of the child and in chapter 14.8 that any other person such as a grandparent should be able to take such part in proceedings as the court directs, including being granted party status. How these recommendations will be handled in the White Paper, I cannot of course now tell the Committee.
I think therefore that it is right that we should avoid introducing complex change to this already very complicated area of law at this time. The Government believe that the Bill, as it received a Second Reading on 4th June, is a worthwhile measure which meets the most urgent needs in this area. More major changes are best left to the comprehensive legislation which the Government wish to introduce as soon as is practicable.
I should like to take the opportunity to say a little more about the rules of court, as I indicated at Second Reading. The detail will need to be worked out but I can say that our intention would be for a grandparent who wished to be joined as a party to make an application

955
to the court in writing stating why it would be in the child's best interests for him or her to be made a party. The criteria would be, first, that the grandparent had had the actual custody of the child or young person for such and such a time; secondly, that the court considered that the grandparent had exercised some or all of the parental rights on behalf of a parent or parental duties as related to the person of the child or young person and had maintained a continuing interest in that child or young person; and, thirdly, that joining the grandparent as a party was in the child's best interests.
I hope that this information will be helpful and that my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox will withdraw her amendment on the principle of reculer pour mieux sauter—another day.
Lord Ennals: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, replies, I must admit that I had supposed that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, was going to say yes to her noble friend. I suspected that the amendments might not have been tabled unless the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, expected to get a more positive response. I wish therefore to say that I support the amendments very fully. I know that they will not go through.
One of the great advantages of what is acknowledged as a modest piece of legislation is the recognition of the role of the grandparent. It seems to me that to recognise the role of the grandparent but to deny that same role to the grandparent of an illegitimate child is unfortunate. There are strong feelings and indeed a campaign to deal with many troublesome aspects of illegitimacy. This would have been a very nice, little, inoffensive, but very helpful measure if the noble Baroness could have brought herself to accept the proposal of her noble friend.
Baroness Trumpington: Before the noble Lord sits down may I ask him a question? Would he wish for the grandparents of an illegitimate child to take precedence over the father? That is what would happen as things stand.
Baroness Lane-Fox: Yes.
Lord Ennals: A direct question was put to me. I believe that an illegitimate child is at a very considerable disadvantage, in most cases, by not having a father able to act in any of the normal ways in which a father can act. That is not always so, but it is very often so. Therefore I would not object to seeing a grandparent playing a father substitute role, which is one of the reasons why I warmly supported the amendment.
Lord Meston: Surely the answer to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, is, yes, in circumstances in which the father is a ship passing in the night and the grandparents are potential mainstays for the child in question.
Baroness Trumpington: I do not wish to proceed with this argument. But, quite honestly, if the noble Lords will read with care what I said, they will see that the answer is no.
Baroness Lane-Fox: I must say I am disappointed, though I understand a good deal that the Minister has said to us tonight. She has suggested that we can look forward with a great deal of hope to what is coming. I am prepared, sadly, to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): The Question is that I report the Bill to the House without amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: I hate to interrupt the Lord Chairman, but there are still something like 100 amendments to be discussed.
Baroness Trumpington: My noble friend is on the wrong Bill.
Lord Skelmersdale: I apologise.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I think that the noble Lord, as the Minister has said, is on the wrong Bill and it is best if he keeps quiet, if I may say so.
The Question is that I report the Bill to the House without amendment.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill
9.34 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Masham of Ilton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD STRABOLGI in the Chair.]
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Appointment of authorised representatives of disabled persons.
.—(1) In this Act "authorised representative", in relation to a disabled person, means a person for the time being appointed by or on behalf of that disabled person (in accordance with regulations made under this section) to act as his authorised representative for the purposes of this Act.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide—

(a) for the manner in which the appointment of a person as an authorised representative is to be made; and

(b) for any such appointment to be notified to the relevant local authority (as defined in the regulations) if made otherwise than by that authority.

(3) Any such regulations—

(a) may provide for the parent or guardian of a disabled person under the age of 16 to appoint himself or some other person as the authorised representative of the disabled person (but shall not permit a person under that age himself to appoint a person as his authorised representative); and

(b) may, in accordance with subsection (4), provide for the appointment of a person as the authorised representative of

957
a disabled person to be made by, or under arrangements made by, a local authority in a case where the disabled person appears to the authority to be unable to appoint a person as his authorised representative by reason of any mental or physical incapacity;

(c) may contain such incidental or supplementary provisions as the secretary of State thinks fit.

(4) Regulations under paragraph (b) of subsection (3) may make provision—

(a) for requiring a local authority, for the purpose of enabling them to determine whether a disabled person is unable to appoint a person as his authorised representative as mentioned in that paragraph, to obtain the opinion of a registered medical practitioner;

(b) for authorising a local authority, where they determine that a disabled person is so unable, either—

(i) themselves to appoint a person as the disabled person's authorised representative, or

(ii) to make with any voluntary organisation, person or persons approved by them for the purpose such arrangements as they think fit for such an appointment to be made by the organisation, person or persons concerned;

(c) for requiring or authorising a local authority, before determining the question specified in paragraph (a), or (as the case may be) before making any appointment of an authorised representative, or any arrangements, in pursuance of paragraph (b), to consult any of the following, namely—

(i) a person or persons appointed by them for the purpose, or

(ii) a person or persons falling within any class or description specified in the regulations;

(d) for requiring a local authority, in such circumstances as may be specified in the regulations, to review the case of a disabled person whose authorised representative has been appointed in pursuance of paragraph (b) (whether by the local authority or under any arrangements made by them for the purpose of determining whether he is still unable to appoint a person as his authorised representative as mentioned in subsection (3)(b).

(5) Subsections (2) to (4) shall apply, with any necessary modifications. in relation to the termination of the appointment of a person as an authorised representative as they apply in relation to the making of such an appointment.
(6) It is hereby declared that any person exercising under Part II of the 1983 Act or Part V of the 1984 Act—

(a) the functions of the nearest relative of a disabled person, or

(b) the functions of the guardian of a disabled person received into guardianship under that Part of that Act.

may, if appointed as such in accordance with this section, also act as that person's authorised representative.").
The noble Baroness said: This new clause, like other amendments tabled jointly by myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has been the subject of detailed discussion between my department and the Bill's sponsors. I am grateful for the constructive part which the Bill's sponsors have played in these discussions, and I think that if the Committee accepts the amendments we have jointly proposed we shall finish up with a first-class Bill.
This new clause contains all the provisions previously contained in Clause 1 concerning the appointment of authorised representatives for disabled people. Clause I has been split into two—otherwise, with all the new material it would be inconveniently long. Subsections (1) to (3), (5) and (6) are substantially the same as the provisions in the existing Clause 1.
Subsection (4) sets out in more detail (as promised at Second Reading) how the regulations prescribing the arrangements for the appointment of representatives will operate in the situation where a disabled person cannot appoint a representative because of mental or physical incapacity.
I draw the attention of the Committee to the following particular features of subsection (4). First, the Secretary of State is to be enabled to require local authorities to get a medical opinion before deciding that a disabled person is unable to appoint a representative because of mental or physical incapacity—subsection (4)(a). But he is also to be enabled to require them to consult other people as well; for example, relatives or carers—subsection (4)(c). Exactly how these powers will be used will be the subject of further consultation.
If a local authority determines that a disabled person is unable to appoint a representative, there will be a power to authorise them in regulations either to appoint representatives themselves—subsection (4)(b)(i)—or to set up schemes under which voluntary bodies can do so—subsection (4)(b)(ii). If local authorities appoint representatives themselves, it will be possible under the regulations to enable or require them to consult people appointed by themselves for the purpose or, for example, some sort of local panel, before doing so.
I accept that in an ideal world one would not want the local authorities—the providers of social services—also to be in the business of appointing representatives to argue disabled persons' cases for the provision of such services. But, given the practicalities, I hope that the Committee will accept that local authorities will have to be involved in the appointment process where disabled people are not able themselves to appoint, and that the safeguards provided should be sufficient to produce a satisfactory system.
Subsection (4)(d) will enable the Secretary of State to require local authorities to review their decision that a disabled person is unable to appoint a representative if they have reason to believe that his circumstances have changed. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has some amendments later on which are relevant to this clause. However, I preferred to move the clause on its own in order to allow him to move his amendments before I spoke to them. That seemed to be a courtesy.
I commend the new clause to the Committee. I think that it provides a workable framework for the appointment of authorised representatives of disabled people. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: First, I must thank the noble Baroness for her courtesy because I shall want to move certain amendments later on. However, I wish to welcome most warmly the initiative in the tabling of this amendment both by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton. I should like to pay tribute to those officials not only within the department but also of the voluntary organisations who have taken a very active interest in the matter. As I am in a sense speaking as the chairman of MIND, which has a very close interest in this matter and whose clients stand to gain greatly from what has been done in Clause I, I should like to mention William Bingley, John Healey and Peter Mitchell of MIND and RADAR who have played very important roles and spent many hours producing this great improvement to the Bill.

959
I want to press strongly that the sooner representatives are recognised in the terms of this Bill in relation not only to social services provided by local authorities but also health authority services, to which I shall come later, the better it will be. Therefore, I am pressing for speedy action. Not only is this a good new clause, but I want the action to be taken on it as quickly as possible.
If and when representation is extended to health authority services, it is crucial that the arrangements for the appointment, and the termination of that appointment, notified to the relevant authorities are as
960
simple as possible. When a representative has to be appointed for a disabled person I hope it will be possible, for instance, for such an appointment, say by a local authority, to be recognised by any relevant health authority without the latter feeling obliged to go through the appointment process themselves, so that once we have been able to establish who is the representative this will be able to apply both for local authorities and also for health authorities. This is an important key concept of representation for disabled people, whether they have mental or physical incapacities, and I warmly welcome the initiative to bring about this compromise.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: In my over-zealousness to be polite to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I totally forgot to say that I was moving No. 1 with Amendment No. 15 which is a purely technical amendment to go with Amendment No. 1.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): I must remind the noble Baroness that, while she can speak to No. 15, she must not move it at this stage. She will have to move it when we come to it. I hope she does not mind my pointing that out to her.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: May I speak to Amendments Nos. 1 and 15? I warmly welcome the new "Before Clause 1" and the consequential amendment tabled in the names of the Minister, the noble Baroness, and myself. I should like to pay tribute to the Minister and her department for their co-operation on this complex and innovative clause. For the first time in United Kingdom legislation, a legal framework is provided for disabled people to appoint representatives if they choose to do so.
Representation, or advocacy as it is sometimes called, does not mean that disabled people will be suddenly represented by litigation-hungry lawyers. Representatives will not be paid, and in most cases they will be friends or relatives appointed by the disabled persons to assist them put their points of view to social services departments. The fact that this Bill recognises the importance of the development of representation for disabled people is a legislative landmark, and I have no doubt that it will be welcomed by disabled people, their families and friends, and professionals as well.
Like all primary legislation, especially when it is concerned with an issue as complex as this, much is to be left to regulation. While welcoming the new clause, I should like to take this opportunity of raising with the Minister one important issue. I know that behind the scenes much attention has been paid to the difficulties of representation for that small group of disabled people who arguably are most in need of a representative: those who are unable to appoint a representative for themselves.
Lord Mottistone: I cannot welcome this as much as perhaps I should because there has been so little time to consider it. It has not been possible for me to consult with the people with whom I normally consult on these matters, and I have to speak more or less straight off the cuff. I cannot be sure that I shall not have to try to put down some amendments at Report stage. However, I shall do my best, being really rather distressed that we have not had time to consider these matters. It is all very well for some people to get together with the Minister to produce what is virtually a rewriting of the Bill, but I think it would have been helpful if we could have had greater knowledge of what was happening.
962
As my noble friend said, she was speaking also to Amendment No. 15. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 16 and 18, both of which will not be called if Amendment No. 15 is accepted by the Committee. With regard to Amendment No. 16, I should be most grateful if my noble friend the Minister could reassure me whether the sense of what I am saying in Amendment No. 16 is covered. If it is not, I hope that if she cannot tell me now she will be able to write to me on that point so that I may put down an amendment at the next stage to have that made public.
Amendment No. 18 would naturally—if it had been possible for me to do it—come into this part of the Bill. When my noble friend was referring to the new subsection (4)(c), I think she said that this would include carers, nearest relatives and those kinds of people. I should be grateful if she would confirm for me that subsection (4)(c)(ii) covers what she has in mind as the classes and descriptions of people to be included in the regulations.
I welcome subsection (6), but it is not quite what I should have hoped to see because there is no suggestion here of consultation. It is just a bland statement that if the nearest relatives are appointed in accordance with this subsection they can then act as a person's authorised representative. But there is no suggestion that they should be brought into the discussion. It is possible that subsection (4)(c)(ii) will meet the Bill. I should be grateful for reassurance on that.
On another point altogether, the Committee may remember that at Second Reading I expressed concern that when these new regulations have been made they could put an extra burden on the existing hard-pressed local authorities. My noble friend reassured me, at col. 1250 of Hansard on 14th May, that it was not the intention to implement all these clauses immediately, but only those for which resources were known now to be available. She did not mention Clauses 1 and 2. I should be grateful for reassurance that that would cover also this new clause we are discussing and the new clause in Amendment No. 52.
I have a feeling that these new duties will add a burden on the local authorities which they may not be wholly ready for at the moment. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said "Let's get this going as quickly as possible". Of course one sees why and it would be a good thing if we did, but there is no good in getting it going if the resources are not there to implement it. We must be quite certain that that is well accepted by the Government.
I am sorry to cast a blight on what was starting to be a happy affair. I am sorry to take up the Committee's time. I am sorry that that will be necessary as we go on, but we have virtually a new Bill thrust at us and I am very sorry about that.
Baroness Trumpington: I am also very sorry that my noble friend feels the way he does. This clause was actually printed on Monday, and so I think there has been sufficient time.
Lord Mottistone: Two days.
Baroness Trumpington: Exactly. The noble Lord asked about the effect of Amendment No. 15. It is to remove from the Bill subsections 1(5) to 1(8) which have now been introduced in amended form before Clause 1 of the Bill, but it simply—
Lord Mottistone: I did not ask for Amendment No. 15 to be described. I asked for Amendments Nos. 16 and 18 to be considered.
Baroness Trumpington: I think that my noble friend did mention Amendment No. 15. He mentioned it in the context of my taking it with Amendment No. 1. I was going to get to Amendment No. 16 in due course, but before I do so I shall repeat that Amendment No. 15 is a technical amendment to remove subsections 1(5) to 1(8) from the Bill because these provisions have been included in amended form in a separate clause.
With regard to Amendment No. 16, which the noble Lord says he will not move, the provision is unnecessary because I can give him an unqualified assurance that nothing in Clause 1 or anywhere else in the Bill would diminish the effects of those sections of the Mental Health Act listed in the amendment. So when we come to Amendment No. 16 it is up to my noble friend to make up his mind what he wants to do then.
My noble friend asked whether subsection (4)(c)(ii) included consultation with carers and relatives. This will be a matter for consideration in the regulations, on which there will be full consultation. My noble friend also asked about the implementation of the clause. This again will be the subject of full consultation, and resources are something which we will certainly bear in mind. I should be grateful if my noble friend would permit this rather battered Baroness to write to him on Amendment No. 18.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I think it would be useful for the Committee if we were to stick with the groupings that we have been given, otherwise, I can see we might get into some muddles. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, whether she would agree with this since the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has not kept to the groupings.
Lord Mottistone: Perhaps I may explain. I am sure the Lord Chairman would agree with me that when he calls Amendment No. 15, which, assuming the Committee accepts this one, will go through on the nod, he will have to say that if he calls No. 15 he will not be able to call Nos. 16, 17 or 18; so therefore it could not be spoken to.
Lord Swinfen: There is one small point which I think is quite important for disabled people. Can the noble Baroness the Minister assure the Committee that disabled persons will not be forced to have a relative as the official representative when they are themselves trying to be as independent as possible? We all know how, with ordinary able-bodied young people, very many parents try to hang on to their children and will not let them get away from the nest.
964
It is far more difficult for a physically disabled person or indeed, a mentally diasabled person, to flee the nest. Yet they have the same need. Can my noble friend on the Front Bench give us this assurance?
Baroness Trumpington: I would gladly give that assurance if I could, but I cannot as things stand. I remind my noble friend that the local authorities will be in the business of appointing representatives. If the noble Lord requires any further information, I shall have to write to him.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: When the regulations are drafted, it would be well to distinguish clearly between powers of representatives and those of someone with power of attorney.
Baroness Trumpington: I must protest about the noble Baroness who has put her name to this amendment and therefore must not ask me as the co-sponsor of the amendment for explanations. It is too much.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1 [Authorised representatives of disabled persons]:
10 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 6, after ("authority") insert ("and health authority")
The noble Lord said: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to take Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 5 together. They all say the same. They all deal with the same issue concerning representation for disabled people so far as local authorities are concerned. Frankly, I do not see any logic at all in not including health authorities. I have therefore in Amendment No. 2 sought to ensure that,
"A local authority and a health authority shall permit the authorised representative of a disabled person".
I have sought to do the same in Amendments Nos. 3 and 5.
I am especially concerned with this as it affects all people, of whatever age; and there is, as I say, simply no logic in the present situation. We are talking about young people who move back and forth. We are talking about people who may spend a hunk of their lives, if they have long lives, in a psychiatric hospital and then move into a local authority area. We are speaking of people who may be in the community for a while and are then admitted to hospital. There is a certain continuum about the way in which a local authority and a health authority treat a disabled person. It seems to me to be very strange that we have not been able to get an agreement which includes the health authority.
The second aspect I am particularly concerned about is young people. Children and young people in particular seldom have anyone to speak up on their behalf. The Mental Health Act Commission, in their recent report, said about the plight of children and young people:
"Such patients however have none of the protections afforded by the Mental Health Act. Particular dangers for them are that they tend to get lost in the system: having been 'volunteered' by parents

965
or guardians for treatment at an early age, they remain as 'voluntary' patients for the rest of their lives; and in some places their care and treatment tends to receive a low priority".
The Health Advisory Service—and I am not going to quote this in full—have also expressed their concern about the absence—I do not say there is any neglect—of any advocacy for young people who are in hospital:
"In recent years HAS teams have repeatedly found serious shortcomings in the way services are provided to adolescents and particularly those manifesting abnormal behaviour".
I could go on at considerable length, but I shall not, arguing the absolute logic of the case.
There are so many ways in which through joint planning and joint financing we try to bring together the health and social services, and this is no more so than in the field of disabled people whether they be physically disabled, mentally handicapped or have suffered a mental illness. If the noble Baroness says, "We couldn't get agreement on this because of resources", I would point out that she has already said that about local authorities. She has said that her right honourable friend the Secretary of State can bring this into operation only when resources are available. That argument was used by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, when I said, "Please let us get on with the job".
If the argument is simply one of resources, it is one which would apply to health authorities and social services. But if we are going to pass a Bill which is creating some new rights for disabled people, and we have all enormously welcomed it, we want to see that the Bill is right, even if it takes a year, two years or whatever it is for the resources to be found. We are not going to see another Bill like this for another few years: we have not had a Bill like this since the 1970 Alf Morris Bill in which as a Minister I had some involvement. This Bill will not be right until, in this respect of representation, health authorities as well as local authorities are included.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling these amendments, as it gives us a further chance to seek clarification of the Government's intention in regard to subsection (9). Several people and organisations, especially in response to the Government's consultation document on the Bill earlier this year, expressed concern that the Bill only recognises the representative in relation to social services provided by a local authority. The Bill allows for the Secretary of State to extend this recommendation to health authority services and to other local authority services after a consultation exercise has been carried out. I am sure your Lordships would agree that one of the main purposes of representation is to prevent disabled people falling through the net of services which are increasingly provided by different authorities. It makes little sense to limit the scope of a representative to social services only.
I should like to ask the Minister therefore to give, first, an undertaking that the Government will use their powers under subsection (9) to consult on extending the scope of the representative; and, secondly, to give an indication of when she hopes to initiate that consultation.
Baroness Trumpington: The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, expressed the hope in his speech on Second Reading that the Secretary of State would use his powers in the Bill to extend the provision of Clause 1 to the health service and to other local authority services and also that he would not drag his feet about this.
The noble Lord is now seeking to ensure that my right honourable friend has no choice in this matter. I accept that in the responses to the Government's consultation paper on the Bill issued in February, a lot of support emerged for extending the provisions of Clause 1 to services provided by health authorities. The Government brought forward an amendment to the Bill at the Report stage in another place to respond to that view. The reason why the amendment was framed in the particular way it was is that in the time available it was not possible to carry out detailed consultations with health authorities, professional organisations and others about the practical implications of extending the representation provisions to health services or other local authority services.
I should say that there are a number of potentially difficult areas here. Some of these were highlighted in the Government's consultation paper and both the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and I had copies before Second Reading of a letter from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, re-emphasising some of the problems. In particular, there might be difficulties in drawing distinctions in the health service context between disabled people who had the right to appoint representatives and other patients who did not. We may need to think further about the implications of the principle of representation for the clinical relationship between a doctor and his patient.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked me about this, further consultation will be undertaken on this matter if the Bill becomes law, with a view to possible activation of Clause 1(9). I do not think it would be right to extend the principle of representation to services provided by health authorities until that consultation has been carried out. Further to what I have said—I hate to tell the noble Lord, though he can imagine what I am going to say—the amendment is technically defective. For these reasons, I hope that he will agree not to press his amendment.
Lord Ennals: Almost any amendment that I draft is technically defective. It is an argument which, during long years as a Minister, I always used as a means of arguing against something that I did not like. It is always within the ability of the Government at the next stage then to bring in an amendment which is technically not defective. But the Minister did not say that she would do so.
I am not really impressed by the argument that she quoted of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, that there were some problems of definition. After all, this is a Bill which is providing services and representation for people with mental or physical handicap or mental illness. So far as concerns mental handicap and mental illness, there are a number of pieces of legislation, particularly the Mental Health Act, as amended, which have sought to draw a definition.

967
This is a definition which enables the Mental Health Act Commission to operate effectively, and I am not suggesting—and I am certain that the Royal College of Psychiatrists are not suggesting—that this should be a right that is offered to every patient in every hospital. This Bill is just about disabled people and I do not believe that there should be a difficulty about definition.
The noble Baroness is right. I recognise that I am seeking now to oblige the Secretary of State to do what I said I hoped he would do and what he has powers to do. I shall not press these amendments to a Division, but I wanted to air this issue because I want to urge most strongly upon the Secretary of State that he should enter into negotiations, discussions, consultations, so that we have these two things brought together. Otherwise, we shall have a Bill which is dealing with only half the problem. But with the assurance that I think the noble Baroness gave me—I do not think my hearing is as defective as that—that it was the intention of the Secretary of State to consult in order to fulfil a right that he has within the Bill, I shall not press my amendment further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before I call Amendment No. 4, I have to inform the Committee that in the penultimate line of this amendment the word "the" should be added at the end.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 4
Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
(" (2A) In relation to a disabled person whose authorised representative has been appointed by virtue of subsection (3) of section (Appointment of authorised representatives of disabled persons), subsections (I) and (2) above shall each have effect as follows—

(a) if the appointment was made by virtue of subsection (3)(a) of that section, the words "the parent or guardian of shall be inserted after the words "if so requested by"; and

(b) if the appointment was made by virtue of subsection (3)(b) of that section, the words "if so requested by the disabled person" shall be omitted.")

The noble Baroness said: This makes a drafting change, which is somewhat ironic after the drafting change from the Chairman, consequent upon the splitting of the existing Clause 1 into two separate clauses. It also makes clear that, in the case of a disabled child under 16, the representative can only act if requested to do so by the child's parent or guardian. The Bill already provides that only the parent or guardian can appoint a representative in the case of a disabled child. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
10.15 p.m.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 6
Page 2, line 19, after ("likely") insert ("on medical grounds").
The noble Lord said: Clause 1(3) permits a local authority to prevent the presence of an authorised representative at any meeting, or part of a meeting, or
968
to decline to supply to an authorised representative any information or documents if they are satisfied that to do so would be likely to be harmful to the interests of the disabled person. This is a fairly sweeping power. I understand it is intended that it should be used in rare circumstances only. That is the intention, but will it always be the practice? The amendment is intended to restrict the use of that power to occasions when on medical grounds the local authority felt that it would not be in the disabled person's best interests. The aim is to prevent this power being used for purposes of purely administrative convenience. I am not sure that it has been made entirely clear in what circumstances it is intended that this power should be used. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I am not convinced that this amendment is necessary or desirable. I am sure there would be scope for a lot of argument as to what constituted medical grounds and there could be circumstances where it would be desirable to withhold information on purely social grounds—for example, when a wife or a husband is acting as representative of a disabled person and sexual matters are at issue. It might well be harmful to the interest of the disabled person to discuss such matters with the spouse, at any rate without first getting specific clearance from the disabled person himself or herself. But this would hardly constitute medical grounds.
The requirement that disclosure should be,
"harmful to the interests of the disabled person"
is a pretty tough one and I am not convinced that further amendment is necessary. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Banks: I take it that the sponsors of the Bill agree with the Minister as they have not spoken in a contrary sense. It seems to me that there could be as much argument about what was the interest of the disabled person as about what are medical grounds. It is left extremely vague and wide. Nevertheless, in view of what has been said, and in view of the time, I shall not pursue this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 23, at end insert ("and by his nearest relative.")
The noble Lord said: This is a small probing amendment. "Nearest relative" is a technical term and is included in my Amendment No. 101, which relates to mental patients. This part of the clause to which I have added it applies to all sorts of disabled people. But I should like reassurance from my noble friend that when the decision is taken in subsection (3) that in determining the matter the authority,
"shall have regard to any wishes expressed by the disabled person",
in the case of mentally ill people they should also consider the wishes expressed by the nearest relative. It would seem sensible. But I appreciate that the amendment itself is probably defective. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: As my noble friend Lord Mottistone said, this is the first of a series of

969
amendments which he is proposing. My noble friend has links with and does a great deal of work for the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, and is rightly concerned to preserve the rights of relatives. I acknowledge the role of relatives in caring for disabled people, and I can understand my noble friend's concern that the representation provisions in the Bill should not undermine relatives or cause them to be bypassed.
I make the general point that there is of course nothing in the Bill to prevent a disabled person appointing a relative as his authorised representative. That is a matter for the disabled person himself where he is capable of appointing a representative. It may also in practice often be a relative who is appointed representative by the local or health authority in the case of disabled people who are not capable of appointing a representative themselves. We shall be considering and consulting on what provision should be made for consulting relatives when we come to draft regulations under this clause.
We have some difficulties with regard to this amendment. It would require the authority, in determining whether the admission of the authorised representative to a meeting or the supply of information to him would be harmful to the interests of the disabled person, to have regard to the views of the nearest relative as well as those of the disabled person in all cases, whether or not the disabled person fell within the incapable of appointing his own representative category or was currently, or had been, detained under Mental Health Act provisions. It would seem inappropriate to require the involvement of the nearest relative in the case of mentally able disabled persons. I think that I will leave it there.
Lord Mottistone: Good enough.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: This is the first amendment tabled by the noble Lord that seeks to give powers to the nearest relative as defined in the Mental Health Act. I shall reserve most of what I have to say for Amendment No. 19, but, as a disabled person myself, I find this amendment particularly objectionable, inasmuch as it would give, for instance, my noble kinsman as much say as myself in matters that may affect only me. How much worse if my nearest relative happened to be someone who I really disliked or who disliked me. It shows how very complicated the Bill is, because it stretches over so many different people who are disabled by different disabilities.
Lord Ennals: I simply echo that point, though not in relation to the noble Baroness's noble kinsman, because I do not want to touch upon the relationship between them. However, I feel that the assumption that the nearest relative is always the right person to represent the interests of the disabled person is fundamentally wrong. The choice must be that of the disabled person concerned.
There is no doubt that there are some situations—sad though they may be and understandable though they may be—where the nearest relative has played a significant part in ensuring that the disabled person was sectioned and placed in a mental hospital. Under
970
those circumstances, it might very well be that the nearest relative would be the least suitable person to act as a representative. As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has said, whenever that argument is used I shall not necessarily get up and argue against it, but I shall in my heart be totally opposed to it.
Lord Swinfen: That which has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, adds emphasis to the point that I raised earlier. I shall be most grateful if my noble friend the Minister will give the matter her very serious consideration when preparing the letter that she said she would write to me and when the regulations are being prepared in due course. It is a very important point so far as disabled people are concerned.
Baroness Trumpington: I take note of what my noble friend has said.
Lord Mottistone: I said that this is a probing amendment, so I do not propose to argue the point with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, at this stage. I said also that I was aware that the amendment was defective and did not apply to all types of disabled people. It certainly does not apply to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, because "nearest relative" is only a technical term which, if one refers to Amendment No. 101, comes from the Mental Health Act.
The amendment has had a good airing. I shall return to the charge because, whereas the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, may consider that I go too far in one direction, I believe that he goes too far in another. I should like to debate the point but we do not want to waste too much time on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before I call Amendment No. 8, I must inform the Committee that the amendment is in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Trumpington and Lady Masham of Ilton, and not in that of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, as printed on the Marshalled List.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert—
("(aa) in hospital accommodation provided by the Secretary of State under section 3(1)(a) of the 1977 Act or, in Scotland, in hospital accommodation (other than accommodation at a State hospital) provided by the Secretary of State under section 36(1)(a) of the 1978 Act, or").
The noble Baroness said: I am sorry that I was not present when my noble friend Lord Mottistone opened the Marshalled List and saw that he was to move this amendment.
The amendment is necessary to provide a right of access for an authorised representative to a disabled person who is resident in health authority accommodation. This issue might arise particularly if the provisions of the Bill are extended to health authorities. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: This is a most important amendment, which will greatly assist people seeking to

971
move from hospital into the community. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 9.
Page 2, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) in a community home as defined by section 32 of the Child Care Act 1980.")
The noble Lord said: It will be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13, which apply to the same point.
On page 2 of the Bill, in subsection (4), there is a certain listing of where disabled persons may be residing. Since we are also dealing with young disabled people, it is important—and perhaps even more important for a young disabled person—to have someone who can represent them and advise them. Therefore, in this series of five amendments I have sought to list a number of other places where a young person might be.
As at present drafted, the Bill excludes many places where children and young people are—community homes, voluntary homes, private homes, community treatment centres and schools. It appears to me that if these places are not included in the Bill it may well prove extremely difficult for a representative to gain access to the disabled person.
There is total logic in this amendment. The noble Baroness may say that there are a few others which ought to be added to the list, and if she does I will happily go along with her. However, as I have been sitting quietly here I have been trying to think of what conceivable arguments the noble Baroness could find for not being in favour of these five amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: Extension of the representative's right of access to children in residential care would give rise to a number of problems. In cases where a parent had appointed himself as an authorised representative he would have right of access to the child if he or she was in residential care but not if the child was placed with a foster parent. We try to achieve equity between children in residential care and those in foster homes.
Secondly, such provision could conflict with a local authority's right, in the best interests of the welfare of the child, to restrict or terminate access by a parent (again, if he or she had appointed himself or herself as the child's representative) to a child in care who was a subject of a parental rights resolution or court orders. I am advised that such provision would have a "knock on" effect on other child care legislation.
Finally, we have doubts about the desirability of other representatives—albeit appointed by the parents—having access to a child without necessarily the parent being present or even aware that such contact was being made. I doubt whether in practice the problem of access to a disabled child on the part of his or her representative should be a major one, although I will study carefully what the noble Lord has said. In the light of what I have said, I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I have great sympathy for the amendments, but, having listened to what the noble Baroness said, the matter seems a bit more complicated than it at first looked. In the debate on the previous Bill she said that there was to be a major child care Bill and perhaps the provision could be incorporated in that. Will she do her best to accommodate children in that Bill?
Lord Ennals: I did not find the answer given by the noble Baroness in the least bit satisfying. I do not think that she expected that I would. I shall not press any of these amendments to a Division. The only little bit of hope that I received from her lips was the assurance that she would think about what I said. If that thought is reflected in the child care legislation that we discussed earlier, tabling the amendments will have been worth while. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 10 to 13 not moved.]
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 45, at end insert—
("(4A) In paragraph (b) of subsection (4) "voluntary organisation" in relation to England and Wales includes a housing association within the meaning of the Housing Associations Act 1985.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is to ensure that a representative has a right of access to a disabled person resident in accommodation provided on behalf of a local authority by a housing association, as well as by any other type of voluntary organisation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I have to point out that if Amendment No. 15 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 16, 17 or 18.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, leave out lines 1 to 34.
The noble Baroness said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) If a nearest relative is not appointed as an authorised representative, the facilities in subsection (2) above shall be afforded to the nearest relative unless the local authority has convincing reasons for withholding them.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to extend the facilities that are given in Clause 1(2) to the nearest relative, as well as the authorised representative if the nearest relative is not performing that function. There may be many cases in which that would be a good thing. But it has the proviso that the local authority may have convincing reasons for withholding the facilities. That brings me back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was making, that there are cases in which it would be as well if the nearest relative was not involved. That is why I have

973
put in that the local authority should have discretion, but in normal circumstances the nearest relative should have the same access to the information that is being provided to the disabled person and the authorised representative.
I hasten to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. that the nearest relative in this case is as defined in my amendment, Amendment No. 101, and so the provision would not apply to her but only to mental patients. I think that that is clear.
I should he most grateful to hear what my noble friend has to say. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I have a good deal of sympathy with the intention behind this amendment, though once again we have a few difficulties of a drafting nature. It does not seem unreasonable for the nearest relative to have access to documents and information on the same basis as the representative if, as the existing wording of this subsection already makes clear. the disabled person wishes. One difficulty is that this amendment would seem to call for consequential amendments to subsection (3) of this clause, which deals with the circumstances in which a local authority may refuse to disclose information to a representative. It would seem necessary to make further provision in the subsection to prescribe the circumstances in which disclosure should not be made to the nearest relative. That would include where disclosure would be harmful to the interests of the disabled person and perhaps also to those of the nearest relative.
There could well be circumstances in which information which would not be harmful to the disabled person or his representative would be harmful to the nearest relative—for instance, references in a document to marital infidelity by the disabled person. That is rather like the previous amendment.
Other points I should note are that we are not altogether sure that "convincing" is the right word to use because it is not clear what it means in law. We should also want to look at the effect of the close links that subsection (2) has with subsection (1). We should need to ensure that we had a definition of "nearest relative" which worked for the purpose of the provision.
In view of what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw the amendment. I shall be happy to discuss this proposal with my noble friend and the Bill's sponsors to see whether we can arrive at a workable provision and one which is acceptable to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, in time for a later stage of the Bill. I fear, however, that in view of the shortness of the time I cannot give a commitment on the outcome of those discussions.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and the noble Baroness said. She clearly indicated that she is sympathetic to Amendment No. 19, which would give the nearest relative the same rights as the authorised representative has under subsection (2).
I foresee difficulties, especially in circumstances where the disabled person has already appointed a representative. There may well be information which it is appropriate to disclose to a disinterested represen
974
tative but which might cause harm to the disabled person and the relative if the relative were told. That would put a local authority in a difficult and invidious position.
I am also not certain that it is helpful or appropriate to single out the relative in a Bill which is interested more generally in disabled people and those who care for them. The nearest relative often has the most power over the disabled person, and I am not sure that that power should be increased in this way. Nevertheless, I shall listen most closely to other noble Lords on this issue. I should be happy to talk further with the noble Lord and the Baroness the Minister before Report, but without commitment, because I believe that the issue is rather more complex than it may seem at first sight.
Lord Mottistone: I am most grateful, to my noble friend the Minister for her sympathetic acceptance of the thinking behind the amendment. I note with great care what the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said. The difficulty is that there may be circumstances in which the nearest relative is causing the trouble. and the provision would not be appropriate. However, there are many cases where it would be most unfortunate if the nearest relative were pushed too far out of the picture when he or she can still help. I am not talking about physically disabled people; I am talking solely about mentally ill people, because I am only advised about them.
I am grateful to my noble friend. Whether there will be time to do all that she suggests is another matter. I shall rush to her aid if she is going to call a meeting on this subject. With the undertakings that have been given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees: I have to point out that if Amendment No. 20 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 21.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 37, after ("appropriate") insert ("and such other bodies as appear to him to be concerned")
The noble Baroness said. The amendment merely recognises that other bodies may have an interest in being consulted before the Secretary of State extends representative provisions to health authorities or other local authority services. This amendment provides for such bodies—for instance, professional bodies and voluntary organisations—to be consulted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 4, line 2, at end insert—
(" (9A) An order under subsection (9) may provide for any provision of regulations made under section (Appointment of authorised representatives of disabled persons) to have effect for the purposes of the order with such modifications as may be prescribed by the order, and in that event the reference in subsection (1) of that section to regulations made under that section shall be read as a reference to any such regulations as may have effect in accordance with the order.")
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos 23, 24 and 25. Amendment No. 22 is to ensure that if the Secretary of State decides to extend the Bill to health authorities or other local authority services by making an order under subsection (9), the provisions of any regulations made under the new clause relating to appointment of authorised representatives can be applied to them with the necessary changes. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 23 to 25:
Page 4, line 3, leave out ("subsection (9))—") and insert ("subsections (9) and (9A)")
Page 4, leave out line 8.
Page 4, line 9, at beginning insert ("and in subsection (9)")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Assessment by local authorities of needs of disabled persons]:
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 4, line l5, leave out ("On any occasion when") and insert ("Where—

(a) on any assessment carried out by them in pursuance of any provision of this Act, or

(b) on any other occasion,")

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 28, 30 and 34. Although the amendments to Clause 2 may look complete, I can assure the Committee that they are all most welcome and are designed to meet suggestions made by noble Lords on Second Reading. Broadly speaking, they ensure that a disabled person or his representative may receive a written statement if they request it after any assignment and may ask for review of any decision in any circumstances. The Bill, as it stands, was seen to be unnecessarily restrictive and would probably have caused more problems for local authorities if there were arguments as to whether a disabled person was entitled to a review or not.
Amendment No. 26 is purely technical and simply represents a change of mind by the draftsman on the appropriate wording. Amendment No. 27 is more important as it gives a right to a written statement even if there had been no representation by a disabled person or his representative before the assessment. Amendment No. 28 requires the statement to specify the needs of the disabled person as well as the services to be provided to meet them.
This may seem a minor clarification, but it will prove useful if there is a dispute as to how the needs are to be met: for example, the common choice between a stair lift or downstairs adaptations on which there is often disagreement between disabled people and the social services. In combination with Amendments Nos. 30 to 34 it provides the right to review on any matter included in the statement. I believe that these
976
amendments fully cover the purpose of Amendment No. 29 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 4, line 26, leave out from ("(1)") to ("the") in line 29 and insert (", or the period mentioned in that subsection has expired without any such representations being made, and the authority have reached a decision on the question referred to in that subsection (having taken into account any representations made as mentioned above)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees: I have to point out that, if Amendment No. 28 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 29.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 4, leave out lines 32 to 34 and insert—

("(a) either specifying—

(i) any needs of the disabled person which in the opinion of the authority call for the provision by them of any statutory services, and

(ii) in the case of each such need, the statutory services that they propose to provide to meet that need,

or stating that, in their opinion, the disabled person has no needs calling for the provision by them of any such services; and

(b) giving an explanation of their decision; and

(c) containing particulars of the right of the disabled person or his authorised representative to make representations with respect to the statement under subsection (4).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendments Nos. 30 to 34:
Page 4, line 40, leave out from ("services") to end of line 43.
Page 5, line 2, leave out from ("matter") to ("that") in line 3 and insert ("included in the statement supplied under subsection (2)").
Page 5, line 5, leave out ("further").
Page 5, line 6, leave out ("the particular need in question") and insert ("that matter").
Page 5, leave out lines 9 to 11 and insert—
("(a) consider (or, as the case may be, reconsider) whether any, and (if so) what, statutory services should be provided by them for the disabled person to meet any need identified in the representations; and")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 5, line 15, after ("Where") insert ("(a)").
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 35 to 39 clarify the right of either a disabled person or his representative to assistance if either or both have a communication handicap. I should mention that Amendment No. 75 extends this right to communication assistance to carers during a local authority assessment of the disabled person. New subsection (6A), introduced by Amendment No. 38, attempts to meet some of the concern expressed by our British Deaf Association which was raised on

977
Second Reading by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). In determining both the need for communication assistance and the nature of that assistance the local authority must have regard to the views expressed by the disabled person or his representative who are uniquely qualified to identify this. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: There is one point on this amendment. It is not just the deaf who have difficulty in communication. There are a number of people with speech defects of such a nature that there are a very limited number of people who can understand them. It is absolutely essential that the local authorities, when providing the necessary services, make certain that those very few people are used for the interpretation. Sometimes the officials may not be aware of who the relevant person is to do the interpreting. Will they please make certain that they make any necessary inquiries and not just assume that a mentally capable physically disabled person is considered to be mentally disabled purely because they cannot communicate properly?
Baroness Darcy (De Knayth): May I also welcome this group of amendments, very briefly. As my noble friend has already said, this is something that I brought up at Second Reading. Amendment No. 38 deserves particularly warm thanks in that it ensures that any views expressed by the disabled person or his representative as to the need for interpretation services, or what form those services should take, will be taken into account. Perfection would have been if people with communication difficulties were given the same degree of control as a disabled person is given when appointing his representative. But I feel that we have been given very much more than half the loaf—much more like three-quarters of the loaf. I should like to say to my noble friend that the British Deaf Association, who had been worried, welcome this amendment most warmly. The members of the BDA are likely to be the biggest single group affected by subsection (6); but, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has already pointed out, there will be many severely physically handicapped people, and those with multiple handicaps, who have communication difficulties also. I should therefore like to thank the Minister and my noble friend for making it possible for all these people to have a little more control over their lives.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment Nos. 36 to 39:
Page 5, line 17, ("writing") after insert ("(or in each of those ways)")
Page 5, line 18, after ("incapacity.") insert ("or
(b) both on those persons are in that position (whether by reason of the same incapacity or not),")
Page 5, line 25, at end insert—
("(6A) In determining whether they are required to provide any services under subsection (6) to meet any need of the disabled person or his authorised representative and (if so) what those services should be, the local authority shall have regard to any views expressed by either of those persons as to the necessity for any such services or (as appropriate) to any views so expressed as to the services which should be so provided.")
Page 5, line 28, leave out from ("both") to end of line 39.
The Chairman of Committees: With the permission of the Committee, I put Amendments Nos. 36 to 39 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Services under s.2 of the 1970 Act: duty to consider needs of disabled person.
. When requested to do so by—

(a) a disabled person,

(b) his authorised representative, or

(c) any person who provides care for him in the circumstances mentioned in section 5.

a local authority shall decide whether the needs of the disabled person call for the provision by the authority of any services in accordance with section 2(1) of the 1970 Act (provision of welfare services).")
The noble Baroness said: We recognise that there may be some uncertainty about the duties placed on local authorities under Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. This section of the Act places a duty on local authorities to "make arrangements" where they are satisfied that there is a need for a service or services (such as practical assistance, holidays, telephones etc); however it does not make it explicitly clear whether a local authority has a duty to determine what the needs of a disabled person are. Therefore it has been put to us that the duty to "make arrangements" could be interpreted as applying only after the local authority are satisfied that such arrangements are necessary in order to meet particular needs and that a local authority may refuse to come to a view as to what the needs are.
We are sure that local authorities are interpreting Section 2 of the CSDP Act in the spirit in which it was passed—that is to say determining what the needs of a disabled person are. However, during the Second Reading debate in this House the subject was raised by a number of noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Banks, Lord Mottistone and Lord Allen of Abbeydale—and I agreed to look into the matter and if necessary bring forward an amendment at a later stage.
We are not convinced that in practice there is a problem but we agree that the matter should be put beyond doubt. The new clause will place a clear duty on a local social services authority to decide whether the needs of a disabled person require the provision of welfare services under Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. A local authority will be required to make this decision when requested to do so by a disabled person, his authorised respresentative or a carer.
I have noted that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, whom I do not see in his place, has tabled Amendment No. 76. I hope that, having listened to what I have said about the new clause, he will in due course feel able to withdraw his amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I am particularly pleased that this new clause will he part of the Bill. Although the best legal advice and, indeed, the departmental circular issued in August 1970 has always maintained that a local authority has a duty to

979
assess the needs of a disabled person for any of the services listed in Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, it is not stated clearly in that section. As recently as February 1986 a disabled person received a letter from a chief executive's department, from which I should like to quote one or two extracts. The official wrote:
"I cannot agree that under Section 2 of the Act, the County Council has a duty to assess the needs of disabled people for the services mentioned in the Section … there is nothing in the language of the Act to suggest that the making of such an assessment on receipt of an application is mandatory on the council … If it were the intention of Parliament to impose upon the Council not only a duty to provide a service or services where need for the services had been determined but also a duty to determine whether such need exists, Section 2 would not have been worded in the way it is".
I would say immediately to noble Lords that I believe that statement to be entirely misconceived. Nevertheless, I believe that it is in the interests of disabled people throughout the country for the matter to be put beyond doubt. With the new duties imposed by Clause 2 of this Bill, it may well be that the other rogue authorities would be moved to use the same argument to evade these duties.
The other major aspect of the new clause is the explicit mention of carers. The right of carers to ask for an assessment was one of the major issues at the Report stage in another place, and I am delighted that this is being included in the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Persons leaving special education]:
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 6, line 9, after ("time") insert ("with the consent of the parent or of the disabled person if aged 16 or over").
The noble Lord said: Like the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, I am delighted by Clause 2, and I just draw the attention of the noble Baroness to Amendment No. 40, which says:
"When requested to do so by—

(a) a disabled person,

(b) his authorised representative",

and so on. I am therefore talking about consent. Consent is an integral part of the Bill. In particular, I feel that the identification of someone as a disabled person should be with the consent of the disabled person if that person is 16 and over, or with the consent of the parents or the guardian. There is no compulsion within the Bill to take up services, and it seems unduly restrictive not to allow consent on this point. In Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 we are dealing with Section 7 of the Education Act and a statement of a child's educational needs:
"the authority shall at that time require the appropriate officer to give to the authority his opinion as to whether the child is or is not a disabled person."
I simply want to ensure that he should be required to do so with the consent of the parent or the disabled person if aged 16 or over. I do not want there to be statements made on issues like this, particularly if it is a mental disability, unless it is done by consent. I hope
980
that the noble Baroness will think that since this is my last amendment I have at last won her over.
Baroness Trumpington: I am afraid that once again I am a big disappointment to the noble Lord. The line 9 amendment would require an LEA to obtain the consent of the child, if 16 or over, or his parent prior to requiring the appropriate officer of the SSD to give his opinion as to whether the child was a disabled person. The line 11 amendment appears to require the appropriate officer similarly to obtain consent before he gives his opinion. I am sure this is not what the noble Lord intended. I assume he intended only the one consent requirement: two would clearly be a nonsense.
At present, LEAs are required, under paragraph 3 of the Education (Special Educational Needs) Regulations 1983 to notify the SSD when they intend to carry out an assessment under Section 5 of the Education Act 1981. The Bill is designed in such a way that the request to provide the opinion required in Clause 3(1) can, for most children, form part of the notification when the mandatory reassessment of their needs is carried out in the 12-month period following the age of 13 years 6 months. No separate approach is necessary. To add a requirement that the LEA obtain consent before requiring the opinion will in most cases mean an additional and an unnecessary bureaucratic step.
There is no obligation on the parent (or guardian) or the young person, if appropriate, to agree to an assessment of needs under subsection (4). The Government's amendment at subsection (4B) of Clause 3 provides that a parent or young person over 16 may request that no such assessment should be carried out. This subsection has been drafted in this way to make it consistent with Clause 4(3). Drafting in this manner ensures that a child cannot be deprived of his rights under this clause simply because he, or his parent or guardian, fails to respond to an invitation to give consent. The dilemma that LEAs may experience if they fail to get any response to a request for consent is avoided. There is no intention that a family should be subjected to an assessment they feel unnecessary or do not wish for. The government amendments at subsection (4B) make this perfectly plain.
These amendments are unnecessary in so far as the point is more effectively met elsewhere in the government amendments. Further, the line 9 amendment is also inconsistent with drafting elsewhere in the Bill because it fails to include the child's guardian where this would be appropriate. And the line 11 amendment either duplicates the line 9 amendment or generates a double dose of unnecessary bureaucratic procedure. I am sorry that the Government cannot support either of these amendments, and I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw them.
Lord Ennals: I am tempted to withdraw the congratulations that I gave to officials for their excellent draftsmanship at an earlier stage of the Bill. Instead of doing that, I shall simply withdraw my two amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
11 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 6, line 27, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
("(3) Where an opinion has in pursuance of subsection (1) or (2) been given in the case of a child that he is a disabled person and it subsequently appears to the responsible authority—

(a) that the child will cease to receive full-time education at school on a particular date and will not subsequently be receiving full-time education at a further education establishment, or

(b) that the child will cease to receive full-time education at such an establishment on a particular date,

and (in either case) that he will be under the age of 19 on the relevant date, the authority shall give to the appropriate officer written notification for the purposes of subsection (4) of the date referred to in paragraph (a) or (b); and any such notification shall be given not later than the relevant date and not earlier than four months before that date.
In this subsection "the relevant date" means the date falling 8 months before the date referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) above.
(3A) If at any time it appears to a local education authority—

(a) that a person has on a particular date ceased to receive full-time education as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (3) or will cease to do so on a particular date falling less than 8 months after that time, and

(b) that no notification of that date has been given to the appropriate officer under that subsection with respect to that person, but

(c) that, had that or any other authority (as the responsible authority for the time being) been aware of his intentions 8 months or more before that date, they would have been required to give notification of that date under that subsection with respect to him,

that authority shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable, give to the appropriate officer written notification for the purposes of subsection (4) of that date.
(4) When the appropriate officer receives a notification given with respect to any person under subsection (3) or (3A), he shall (subject to subsections (4A) and (4B)) make arrangements for the local authority of which he is an officer to carry out an assessment of the needs of that person with respect to the provision by that authority of any statutory services for that person in accordance with any of the welfare enactments, and any such assessment shall be carried Out—

(a) in the case of a notification under subsection (3), not later than the end of the period of 5 months beginning with the date of receipt of the notification, or

(b) in the case of a notification under subsection (3A), before the date specified on the notification, if reasonably practicable, and in any event not later than the end of the period referred to in paragraph (a) above.

(4A) If—

(a) a notification has been given to the appropriate officer with respect to any person under subsection (3) or (3A), but

(b) it subsequently appears to a local education authority that that person will be receiving full-time education (whether at school or at a further education establishment) at a time later than the date specified in the notification,

the authority shall give written notification of the relevant facts to that officer as soon as is reasonably practicable; and on receiving any such notification that officer shall cease to be required under subsection (4) to make arrangements for the assessment of the needs of the person in question (hut without prejudice to the operation of that subsection in relation to any further notification given with respect to that person under subsection (3) or (3A)).
(4B) Nothing in subsection (4) shall require the appropriate officer to make arrangements for the assessment of the needs of a person—

(a) if, having attained the age of 16, he has requested that such arrangements should not be made under that subsection, or

(b) if, being under that age, his parent or guardian has made such a request.

(4C) Regulations under paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Education Act 1981 (assessments and statements of special educational needs) may, in relation to the transfer of statements made under section 7 of that Act, make such provision as appears
982
to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with the preceding provisions of this section.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment deletes the existing subsections (3) and (4). It substitutes a requirement, in subsection (3), that LEAs shall notify the appropriate officer (in the social services department) of all children leaving full-time education, whether in school or an establishment of further education, at a date not earlier than 12 months and not later than eight months prior to the expected leaving date. The requirement to notify embraces all children who have not reached their nineteenth birthday on the date the notification is due.
Subsection (3A) provides that where a child or person decides to leave full-time education at short notice, the LEA shall notify the appropriate officer as soon as possible. It covers the case where the individual concerned moves to the area of a new LEA and ensures that authority gives the requisite notice to the new appropriate officer.
Subsection (4) places a duty on the appropriate officer, on receipt of a notification, to make arrangements to carry out an assessment of the needs of that person in accordance with the welfare enactments. The assessment is to be carried out within five months of the date of receipt of the notification, or, in cases of late notification, before the person leaves full-time education if practicable but in any event within the five-month period stipulated for other assessments.
Subsection (4A) provides that where a person changes his mind and decides not to leave full-time education as anticipated, the LEA shall notify the appropriate officer as soon as possible. The appropriate officer will then not be required to complete the arrangements for an assessment in accordance with the welfare enactments until a further notification giving a revised leaving date is received. Even in the case of individuals who move to the area of a new LEA the obligation will operate.
Subsection (4B) discharges the appropriate officer from making arrangements for an assessment in any case where a person over 16, or his parent or guardian if he is under 16, has requested that no such arrangements be made. Subsection (4C) gives the Secretary of State power to amend the Education (Special Educational Needs) Regulations 1983 in respect of the transfer of statements. The provision is designed to enable the Secretary of State to amend paragraph 12 to place a duty on the LEA which made the statement on a disabled child to transfer it to a new LEA in the case of children who move areas and for whom the new LEA have not had time to make a statement or obtain the necessary opinion as to whether he is a disabled child to provide information on opinions which have been received and notices which have been sent. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees: I understand that there is a misprint in the last line of the new subsection (3) where it reads "8 months". It should read:
"8 months before the date referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) above".
Lord Ennals: In supporting the noble Baroness, may I suggest that on future amendments—since all of us have studied the Bill with such care—she should feel

983
the necessity to explain the amendments only if there is a question or a doubt raised by a Member of the Committee. This would save both time and her throat.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I just briefly want to say that I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the intricacies of the amendments to Clause 3 so clearly, even though her throat sounds bad. There are one or two outstanding matters which I hope will be covered in guidance. I am concerned particularly that students who are over 19 on the relevant date, the date eight months before they leave, are excluded from the Bill. I hope strongly that guidance to both LEAs and the social services departments will ask for them to be included, albeit on a non-statutory basis.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard moved Amendment No. 44.
Page 6, line 40, at end insert—
"( ) In making or causing an assessment to be made under the said sections, the local authority or their agents shall consider whether the disabled person may have—

(a) a need for information about and training in independent living skills; or

(b) a need for technical aids and equipment to assist independent living.")

The noble Lord said: May I say to the noble Baroness that I have limited my intervention so far to this one amendment, first of all because I think the Bill has been much improved, for the reason stated by my noble friend Lord Ennals at the beginning, by the background work done between Second Reading and this Committee stage. It is a better Bill than it was then, and I certainly have no intention to impede the Bill any more than is necessary, but I feel fairly strongly about this particular amendment. I am sure the noble Baroness will recognise that it arises from the short debate we had a few weeks ago on the question of young disabled people and their problems.
As I see it, Clause 3 is a crucial section of the Bill so far as that was concerned because it focuses attention on the needs of young people making a transition in their lives, and at the same time a transition from one network of services to another network of services. In the experience of the organisations like the Spastics Society that I mentioned in that previous debate, many disabled young adults slip through the net. This is the problem at the crucial transition from leaving school and starting to lead an independent life in the community. This clause and this amendment seek to remedy that problem.
Two key factors contained in the amendment are, in my view, the determining factors in how successful this transition will be for a disabled person. The first is the necessary information and training to be able to take up opportunities to live independently, including further training in living skills and training for employment or useful occupation. The second is information and provision of the necessary aids and equipment to help make independent living a reality. This amendment would seek to ensure that support is made available to achieve the aims of independent and integrated living by writing these two parts into the Bill.
On employment, all the evidence shows that disabled young people suffer disproportionately from unemployment as compared with their able-bodied counterparts. Changes in arrangements at Jobcentres make it very difficult to get any meaningful statistics, but let me try to provide some indication of the problem, taken from MSC statistics. In October 1982 41 per cent. of unemployed disabled people under 25 had been out of work for more than a year compared with 24 per cent. of all unemployed people under 25. In the period October 1980 to October 1982 unemployment amongst disabled people under 25 rose by 58 per cent. compared with a rise of 46 per cent. in unemployment among all people under 25. These are the statistics of the MSC.
The report by the Spastics International Medical Publications—that is the report to which I referred in that previous debate—found much evidence that unemployment and underemployment among young handicapped people had a serious damaging effect. They reported that this included a reduced chance of obtaining employment; feelings of resentment and defeat in the handicapped person; stress for the carer; and a greater dependence on state benefits. Clearly, these factors would militate against the chance of successful independent living.
Yet much could be done in the form of carers' advice, extra training and assessment to ensure that young people entering the labour market are better eqiupped to make a smooth transition from work to school. Hence the reason for the first point in my amendment.
Secondly, on aids and equipment: independent living depends upon having the appropriate environment. Although many thousands of young disabled people have been helped by assistance given both by the health and social services and by aids provided through the provisions in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, there is often more that could be done. The same report to which I have just referred found that there was increasing dissatisfaction amongst disabled people with the standard of service available. Hence the need to include this in the assessment procedure. A recent survey of young adults with cerebral palsy showed that over half were living in accommodation considered unsuitable for the severely physically handicapped; bathroom, bedroom and toilet were all inconveniently situated on the upstairs floor, yet the necessary aids including stair lifts had not been provided in many cases. Transport facilities to attend hospitals and clinics and general aids to use in the home were also found to be vital for independent living, yet often were not provided for.
In looking to the future more account should also be taken of the technical advances now being made and how these can be used by young disabled people. There are many new aids which may be of use to disabled people which are not known to them. Computers are starting to play a larger role in the lives of disabled people, and yet they need help, advice, and training to know how they can live a more independent life with the help of these new developments.
This amendment is important and is needed. The needs of these young disabled people in the two areas I have mentioned are specific and if they are neglected,

985
as they have been in the past, they could cause a great deal of suffering. I hope that the noble Baroness will find it possible to accept this small amendment which will mean so much to youngsters trying to make this difficult transition. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and 'Disabled Persons Act already covers the provision of practical assistance to a disabled person in his own home and the provision of any additional facilities designed to secure his greater safety, comfort or convenience. The noble Lord's amendment would seek in effect to add to that section specific references to a need for information about and training in independent living skills and a need for technical aids and equipment to assist independent living. I applaud the intention of this amendment and accept the importance of the concept of independent living for disabled people, which is very important. But "independent living" is not a clearly defined concept and to improve the proposed statutory duty on local authorities would represent both a constraint on the manner in which they carried out their duties and, in some cases, a possible substantial additional cost. The existing provisions of Section 2 are broad enough to achieve what the noble Lord seems to be wanting and I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stallard: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her considered remarks and her tacit support for the implications of my amendment. I am not entirely satisfied with the section of the Disabled Persons Act that she mentioned. It does not operate in the way that I would like to see it operate; hence my reasons for putting down this amendment. However, in view of what she has said—and I dare say that it will be brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 45 to 51:
Page 6, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 on page 7 and insert—
(" "the appropriate officer", in relation to the child or person referred to in the provision of this section in question, means such officer as may be appointed for the purposes of this section by the local authority for the area in which that child or person is for the time being ordinarily resident")
Page 7, line 12, leave out ("college of further education") and insert ("further education establishment")
Page 7, leave out lines 14 to 17.
Page 7, line 17, at end insert—
(" "the responsible authority"—

(a) in relation to a child at school, means the local education authority who are responsible for the child for the purposes of the Education Act 1981:

(b) in relation to a child at a further education establishment, means the local education authority who were responsible for the child immediately before he ceased to receive full-time education at school;

in each case whether any such opinion as is mentioned in subsection (3) was given to that authority or not;")
Page 7, line 18, leave out ("expressions used") and insert ("other expressions used in this section and")
Page 7, line 18, after ("1944") insert ("(and not defined in this Act)")
Page 7, leave out lines 20 to 22.
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 45 to 51 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 52:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Review of expected school-leaving dates of disabled children.
.—(1) A local education authority shall for the purposes of section 3 above keep under review the dates when the following children are expected to cease to receive full-time education at school or (as the case may be) at a further education establishment, namely—

(a) children for whom that authority are responsible for the purposes of the Education Act 1981 and in the case of each of whom an opinion has been given in pursuance of subsection (1) or (2) of section 3 above that he is a disabled person (whether it was given to that authority or not): and

(b) children at further education establishments for whom that authority were so responsible immediately before they ceased to receive full-time education at school and in the case of each of whom any such opinion has been given as mentioned in paragraph (a).

(2) Subsection (5) of section 3 shall have effect for the purposes of this section as it has effect for the purposes of that section.").
The noble Baroness said: The aim of this clause is to require LEAs to establish a procedure which keeps track of disabled children and thus permits them to have available the necessary information to enable them to comply with the notification requirements in Clause 3. The safeguard is a sensible one and I hope the Committee will welcome it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Persons discharged from hospital]:
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 7, line 25, leave out ("a").
The noble Baroness said: With Amendment No. 54, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 55, 58, 60 and 62 to 65. The amendments to Clause 4 standing jointly in the names of the Minister and myself are all most welcome additions to the Bill. They clarify and confirm the procedures for ensuring that people who have been in mental handicap or psychiatric hospitals for more than six months have an assessment of their needs before they are discharged. I am sure all noble Lords and noble Baronesses will agree that in these days an in-patient stay of six months' treatment is a very long one. Most if not all such patients will encounter considerable difficulties in re-establishing themselves within their families and communities.
Together, the amendments more than meet the original aspirations of the sponsors. They give body to the spirit of the agreement reached in another place. I am happy to report that they have the agreement of the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the National Association of Health Authorities. These of course are the main bodies representing the authorities who will put this clause into practice.
Amendments Nos. 54, 55, 58 and 60 require the hospital managers to send written notification of the date of discharge to the local authority of the area in which the patient is to live and also to the district health authority and the local education authority if the patient is under 19. I should say in explanation that in most cases the hospital managers will be a district health authority, and there are exclusions throughout the clause to prevent them informing themselves or consulting themselves if the same district health authority will continue to be responsible for the patient.
Following notification, Amendment No. 64 ensures that each authority will be required to take action as follows. Under subsection (2)(a), the district health authority must assess the patient's need for services under the National Health Service Act 1977, in consultation with the hospital managers. Under subsection (2)(b) the social services department must assess the need for services under the welfare enactment, and of course in this case Clause 2 of the Bill will also apply. Subsection (2)(c) also places the additional duty on each of these authorities to cooperate with each other in making the arrangements for assessments.
In many cases, authorities may wish to undertake joint assessments, but we do not feel it is right to tie their hands in primary legislation and to tie their practical arrangements to a precise formula which may not be appropriate in all circumstances. Subsection (2)(d) requires both assessments to be undertaken before the discharge or as soon as possible after discharge, following the order of a mental health review tribunal or, in Scotland, the Mental Welfare Commission or the sheriff. Where a discharge is properly planned there should be no fear of its being held up by this clause. As the Mental Health Act Commission asserted in its first biannual report in 1985, discharge should be a process, not an event. Where the temptation might be to make an overnight decision to discharge someone, the clause will ensure that adequate planning for that person takes place. In any event, subsection (3) in Amendment No. 65 allows a patient to waive his right to an assessment.
The duty on the local education authority is not so clear. I understand that if the patient is under 16 the procedures under the Education Act 1981 will apply. The local education authority will either initiate an assessment of the child's special education needs or amend an existing statement. What will happen if the patient is over 16 but under 19 is less clear, but perhaps the noble Baroness can clarify this point.
Subsection (3A) in Amendment No. 65 is a technical amendment to stop assessments being triggered by transfers between hospitals, and also to confirm that time spent in different hospitals will be added together for the purpose of the six months mentioned in subsection (1). I apologise for the length of my speech, but these amendments are complex and most important. I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: If I may have the advice of the Chairman of Committees, the noble Baroness said that she was speaking, among other things, to
988
Amendment No. 65. I think I am right in saying that, if the Lord Chairman were to call Amendment No. 65, he would warn us that he then could not call Amendment No. 66. Would it be appropriate—
The Chairman of Committees: I would not. No, you can have No. 66.
Lord Mottistone: Amendment No. 66 refers to a subsection (3) which is being left out.
The Chairman of Committees: My advice is that I can call No. 66.
Lord Mottistone: Good. We will wait for it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 7, line 27, leave out from ("discharged") to end of line 35 and insert ("the managers of the hospital shall give written notification of that date—

(a) to the health authority in whose district or area it appears to the managers that that person is likely to reside after his discharge (unless the managers are that authority),

(aa) to the local authority in whose area it appears to them that that person is likely then to reside, and")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 7, line 35, leave out ("and")
The noble Lord said: If I may, I will speak to Amendment No 59, also for which Amendment No. 56 is a paving amendment. The argument I advance is that it should be the case that the manager of a hospital should consult not only with the local authority and the appropriate authority, in relation to people under the age of 19, but with the nearest relative. That is very much the case here, because we are talking about mental patients anyhow. In this instance, it can be most difficult and alarming if somebody is discharged into the community without the nearest relative knowing that the person is coming. It seems to me that this is a case where the nearest relative needs to be bracketed with the other authorities mentioned in Clause 4(1). I hope that my noble friend the Minister can give me a helpful comment upon that. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: May I add a quick word on that? I think this is quite an appropriate amendment, because in a number of instances the young person under the age of 19, because of the good feeding we have had in the last few years, is considerably larger than the mother and, often, the father, and if there is any disagreement as a result of the mental disorder, serious damage could occur to the parents.
Baroness Trumpington: We acknowledge that there is a clear case for relatives, particularly those who will be directly caring for the patient after discharge, to be involved in the assessment process and decisions emerging from it. But, while we are sympathetic to the intention behind this amendment, I think we can best deal with the issues raised in guidance to authorities at such time as this clause is implemented.
Lord Mottistone: That is not subject to a later order. It is going to be the law. It is on the face of the Bill. Am I to understand that we are to rely upon guidance from the department to hospitals to make the point? Is that good enough? Perhaps my noble friend will comment.
Baroness Trumpington: I was trying to deal with this in shorthand in view of the lateness of the hour, but the noble Lord has challenged me and so I must detain the Committee a moment longer. This amendment presents difficulties. On the one hand it seems to put relatives on the same footing as the authorities who are required by subsection (1) to make the assessments, which they are clearly not.
More seriously the amendment opens up a whole series of questions about the involvement of relatives in the process of making decisions about the care of mentally disordered people after discharge, and such questions apply equally to carers who are not relatives. It is difficult to see how we could fully examine these questions without further consultation with representatives of the statutory authorities, professional organisations and interested voluntary organisations. On that basis I hope my noble friend will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: That is very much more acceptable. I thank my noble friend and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 7, line 36, leave out ("the age of 19") and insert ("the relevant age").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 67, 68, 69 and 73. All of these five amendments are technical and are needed to reconcile this Bill with existing legislation. On behalf of my noble friend Lord Davidson—and perhaps I should say here that I am acting in loco parentis—I beg to move.
On Question amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington: moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 7, line 37, after ("date,") insert ("to")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 7, line 37, at end insert—
("as soon as is reasonably practicable after that date is known to the managers.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 7, line 42, at end insert ("the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland or by")
The noble Lord said: I am doing it again for somebody else, it appears. This amendment corrects an omission from the Bill as drafted in its application to Scotland. Clause 4 (2) (a) properly recognises that the provisions of Clause 4(1) concerning the assessment of patients' needs prior to discharge from hospital after a continuous period of not less than six
990
months treatment for mental disorder cannot apply where discharge of such a patient is ordered with immediate effect. In Scotland this is most commonly on the order of the sheriff where a patient makes a formal appeal to him under provisions in the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 against detention and that appeal is upheld.
It is nevertheless also possible for discharge to be ordered with immediate effect by the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland. This commission is an independent body set up under Section 2 of the 1984 Act which has a duty to exercise protective functions in respect of persons who may by reason of mental disorder be incapable of protecting themselves or their interests. While its powers of immediate discharge are infrequently used, it would be inappropriate for the Bill not to recognise this eventuality. This is thus a potentially important amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington: moved Amendments Nos. 62 to 65:
Page 8, line 2, leave out ("in a hospital")
Page 8, line 5, leave out from beginning to ("subsection") in line 7 and insert ("the managers of the hospital shall give written notification of that person's discharge in accordance with paragraphs (a), (aa) and (b) of")
Page 8, line 8, at end insert—
("(2A) Where—

(a) a health authority receive a notification given with respect to a person under subsectiion (1) or (2), or

(b) the managers of a hospital from which a person is to be, or is, discharged as mentioned in subsection (1) or (2) are the health authority referred to in subsection (1) (a),

that authority shall (subject to subsection (3)) make arrangements for an assessment of the needs of that person with respect to the provision of any services under the 1977 Act or 1978 Act which the Secretary of State is under a duty to provide; and in making any such arrangements a health authority falling within paragraph (a) above shall consult the managers of the hospital in question.
(2B) Where a local authority receive a notification given with respect to a person under subsection (1) or (2), the authority shall (subject to subsection (3)) make arrangements for an assessment of the needs of that person with respect to the provision of any services under any of the welfare enactments.
(2C) A health authority and a local authority who are by virtue of subsections (2A) and (2B) each required to make arrangements for an assessment of the needs of a particular person shall co-operate with each other in the making of those arrangements.
(2D) Any assessment for which arrangements are required to be made by virtue of subsection (2A) or (2B) shall be carried out—

(a) where the notification in question was given under subsection (1), not later than the date mentioned in that subsection, or

(b) where the notification in question was given under subsection (2), as soon as is reasonably practicable after receipt of the notification.")

Page 8, line 9, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
(" (3) A health authority or a local authority shall not be required to make arrangements for an assessment of the needs of a person by virtue of subsection (2A) or (2B) if that person has requested them not to make any such arrangements.
(3A) Nothing in this section shall apply in relation to a person who is being discharged from a hospital for the purpose of being transferred to another hospital in which he will be an in-patient (whether or not he will be receiving medical treatment for mental disorder) but any reference in subsection (1) or (2) to a person's having received medical treatment for mental disorder as an in-patient for the period mentioned in that subsection is a

991
reference to his having received such treatment for that period as an in-patient in one or more hospitals (any interruption of that period attributable to his being transferred between hospitals being disregarded).")
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move.
The Lord Chairman of Committees: I think the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, was quite correct in saying that Amendment No. 65 pre-empts Amendment No. 66. Perhaps we can discuss Amendment No. 66 now if the noble Lord so wishes.
Lord Mottistone: I thank the noble Lord the Lord Chairman. Perhaps we can look at Amendment No. 66 in relation to the new subsection (3) in Amendment No. 65. There may be circumstances in which the person may request that the arrangements referred to should not be made, but they might be subject to an assessment under Section 117 of the 1983 Act which relates to aftercare in relation to people who are detained under Section 3 and certain persons who are criminals. I would have thought that it was sensible to include such a provision in the Bill in its new place, at the end of subsection (3).
11.30 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: The Committee is discussing this amendment with the others, so the noble Baroness may speak to it.
Baroness Trumpington: This amendment is not as shipshape as I would have expected from my noble friend. While there is a duty under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 for health and social services to provide aftercare for detained patients, there is no corresponding duty laid upon ex-detained patients to accept such aftercare services—nor should there be, except in the case of restricted patients; for example, those who have been conditionally discharged, for whom provision already exists.
It follows that people who are about to be discharged should not be required to co-operate in the preceding stage of assessment if they do not wish to do so. If a patient refuses to co-operate, that could have a bearing on the decision whether or not he is discharged from detention. Removing a patient's freedom in that respect could remove a valuable indicator of the patient's likely reaction to much greater freedoms once discharged. In view of what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I have listened to the noble Lord's argument but I am not convinced that it is right to exclude the small number of detained patients from the right to refuse an assessment. I am not convinced that they should be treated any differently.
Lord Mottistone: It depends on the circumstances. I accept the statements of my noble friend the Minister but I am not quite so happy about the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. However, it is late and I shall not pursue the point. We might return to it on Report.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees: If the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will allow me to say so, I cannot now call Amendment No. 66.
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 67 to 69:
Page 8, line 16, after ("authority") insert ("or, in Scotland, an education authority").
Page 8, line 18, after ("authority") insert ("or (as the case may be) education authority").
Page 8, line 20, after ("where") insert (", in England and Wales,").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 57. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendments Nos. 70 to 72:
Page 8, line 22, at end insert—
(" "health authority"—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, means a District Health Authority, and

(b) in relation to Scotland, means a Health Board;").

Page 8, leave out lines 23 to 33.
Page 9, line 3, leave out ("within the meaning of the 1978 Act").
The noble Baroness said: These are technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 9, line 19, at end insert—("and
"the relevant age"—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, means the age of 19; and

(b) in relation to Scotland, means the age of 18").

The noble Lord said: This amendment also goes with Amendment No. 57. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 9, leave out lines 20 to 23.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Duty of local authority to take into account abilities of carer]:
The Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 76 should precede Amendment No. 75, but I believe that it will not be moved.
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 9, line 36, at end insert—
("(2) Where that other person is unable to communicate, or (as the case may be) be communicated with, orally or in writing (or in each of those ways) by reason of any mental or physical incapacity, the local authority shall provide such services as, in their opinion, are necessary to ensure that any such incapacity does not prevent the authority from being properly informed as to the ability of that person to continue to provide care as mentioned in subsection (1).
(3) Section 2(6A) shall apply for the purposes of subsection (2) above as it applies for the purposes of section 2(6), but as if any reference to the disabled person or his authorised representative were a reference to the person mentioned in subsection (2).").
The noble Baroness said: I am happy to move this amendment as it meets a commitment made by the Government at the Report stage of the Bill in another place. The purpose of the amendment has already been explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Information]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 9, line 39, leave out ("Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970") and insert ("1970 Act").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 78 to 80:
Page 10, line 1, after ("for") insert ("the words").
Page 10, line 2, after ("substituted") insert ("the words").
Page 10, line 4, after ("inserted") insert ("the words").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Reports to Parliament]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 10, line 28, after ("stay;") insert—
("( ) separate analyses of the needs of persons assessed in sections 2 and 4 of this Act, showing the numbers of persons in each category of needs and the trends of such numbers;").
The noble Lord said: It has been represented to me that the statistics relating to persons assessed under Clauses 2 and 4 of the Bill could be much improved and could aid my noble friend the Minister greatly in her planning. It is a technical point and I informed my noble friend the Minister by letter some time ago. I shall be grateful if she will comment on it. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I have the briefest of comments. This amendment would require the collection of data on each and every assessment carried out under Clauses 2 and 4. It would be a considerable task and have substantial resource implications. I am sorry, but I must resist the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: Would it be possible for my noble friend's statisticians to be put in touch with the people who know about statistics and who might be able to help them?
Baroness Trumpington: On behalf of my department, I resent those remarks.
Lord Mottistone: That is not a very happy reply. However, I shall write to my noble friend on the
994
matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 82 to 84:
Page 10, line 35, leave out ("within the meaning of that Act").
Page 10, line 39, leave out ("within the meaning of the 1984 Act").
Page 10, leave out line 40.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Amendment of section 29(2) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 11, line 3, leave out ("Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970") and insert ("1970 Act").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 11, line 10, after ("persons") insert (", or").
The noble Lord said: This clause introduced by my right honourable friend in another place puts beyond doubt the position of persons suffering from mental disorder under the chronically sick and disabled persons legislation in Scotland. This provision, I am happy to say, was warmly welcomed by local authority interests in Scotland, the sponsors and by honourable and right honourable Members in another place. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 11, line 12, leave out ("under section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968") and insert ("to whom section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 applies").
The noble Lord said: The same applies to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 11, line 14, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) In section 2 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (social work committees and functions referred to them) in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) after the word "Act" there shall be inserted the words "as read with sections 1 and 2(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986".
(3) The foregoing provisions of this section extend to Scotland only.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment repairs a technical omission to the list of provisions containing functions which stand referred to the social work committee of regional authorities in Scotland under section 2(2) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and also adds a reference to the present Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 89:
After Clause 9 insert the following new clause—
Persons leaving special education: Scotland.
("9A.—(1) Before an education authority make a report under section 65B(1) of the 1980 Act on a child they shall require the appropriate authority to give an opinion as to whether or not the child is a disabled person.
(2) Where the appropriate authority have given an opinion that the child is a disabled person, the education authority shall make a note of this opinion in the Record kept under section 60(2) of the 1980 Act and in the report made under section 65B(1) of that Act.
(3) Where an education authority—

(a) intend to record a child or young person under section 60(2) of the 1980 Act (recording of children with special educational needs) after the period mentioned in section 65B(2) of that Act; or

(b) after making a report under the said section 65B(1) on a child or young person who was not at the time of the report a disabled person, become aware of a significant change in the mental or physical condition of the child or young person giving them reason to believe that he may now be a disabled person

they shall before opening the Record, or, as the case may be, on becoming aware of the change, require the appropriate authority to give an opinion as to whether or not the child or young person is a disabled person and if the appropriate authority give an opinion that he is, this opinion shall be recorded in the Record and (where applicable) the report.
(4) Where the appropriate authority have given an opinion that a child or young person is a disabled person it shall be the duty of that authority to make an assessment of the needs of that child or young person with respect to the provision by the authority of any statutory services for that person in accordance with the welfare enactments, and for that assessment to be carried out—

(a) in the case of a child in relation to whom a report is made under section 65B(1) of the 1980 Act, within the period mentioned in section 65B(2) of that Act; and

(b) in the case of a child or young person who is considered to be disabled under subsection (3) above, as soon as is reasonably practicable (but, in any event, not later than 6 months from the time the appropriate authority was asked for an opinion as to whether or not the child or young person was a disabled person)

and to make a report thereon.
(5) Where the appropriate authority have given an opinion that a child is a disabled person and it subsequently appears to the education authority—

(a) that the child will cease to receive full-time education at school at a particular date and will not subsequently be receiving full-time education at an establishment of further education; or

(b) that the child will cease to receive full-time education at such an establishment on a particular date

the education authority shall, not later than 6 months before that date, record the date in the report or (if no report has been made) give written notification of the date to the appropriate authority.
(6) If at any time it appears to the education authority—

(a) that a child or young person who has been recorded as being disabled has ceased to receive full-time education; and

(b) the authority did not at the appropriate time—

(i) record that date in the report made under section 65B of the 1980 Act; or (as the case may be)

(ii) give notification to the appropriate authority; and

(c) a copy of the report has not been sent to the bodies mentioned in section 65B(6) of the said Act

they shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable, record the date in the report and send a copy of the report to the appropriate authority or (if no report has been made) give written notification of the date to the appropriate authority.
(7) The education authority and the appropriate authority shall keep under consideration the cases of all children and young persons on whom a report has been made under section 65B of the 1980 Act or, as the case may be, under subsection (4) and shall at such times as they consider appropriate review the information contained in the report.
(8) Nothing in subsection (4) shall require the appropriate authority to make an assessment of the needs of a child or young person—

(a) if having obtained the age of 16, he has requested that such an assessment should not be made under that subsection; or

(b) if, being under that age or unable to make such a request by reason of any mental or physical incapacity, his parent has made such a request.

(9) In this section—
"appropriate authority" means the local authority for the purposes of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 failing to perform functions in relation to the child or young person;
and expressions used in the 1980 Act have the same meaning in this section as in that Act.
(10) The foregoing provisions of this section extend to Scotland only.").
The noble Lord said: When this Bill was in another place my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave an assurance that he would make arrangements to bring forward for Scotland provisions relating to persons leaving special education which were similar, in effect, to Clause 3. The new clause now before us does just that.
In considering this clause we had to have regard to the very different statutory provisions covering children and young persons with special educational needs in Scotland. For example, we have had to have regard to the fact that in Scotland arrangements already exist for these children to have their future needs assessed. This assessment, made under Section 65B of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, takes place during the period when a child is aged between 14 years and 15 years 3 months. In bringing forward this new clause we have taken care to ensure not only that there should be no duplication of effort, which could easily occur if the two assessments needed are not carefully co-ordinated, but also that we build upon existing arrangements in a way which both improves them and makes the extension of assessment more effective. I am confident that those objectives have been achieved in this clause and that no disabled recorded child will leave special education without the benefit of an up-to-date assessment by both education authority and social work departments of his future needs and welfare requirements.
I can tell the Committee that the Association of Directors of Education and Social Work, as well as CoSLA, have been consulted and have agreed these new arrangements in principle. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Assessment and recording of children and young persons]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 11, line 15, leave out ("Education (Scotland) Act 1980") and insert ("1980 Act").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 91 to 94 inclusive.
When Clause 10 was introduced in another place my honourable friend the Under-Secretary explained how subsection (5) corrected an anomaly. Section 63(1) of the Act gave rights to parents to appeal against the decision to record their child and for certain other matters but did not give a right of appeal against an authority's decision not to record a child.
Another place agreed that amendment, which applied to children, but I have to tell the Committee that a similar anomaly exists in respect of young persons. As the law stands at present those persons have no right of appeal against a decision of the education authority not to record their special education needs, which effectively may deny them the considerable benefit which might follow recording. The Government believe that that should be corrected, and the tabled amendment to Section 63(2) of the Act is necessary so to do.
The amendment substituting the words "1980 Act" for "Education (Scotland) Act 1980" is consequential and technical and related to the amendments that have been tabled to Clause 12. The other amendments are also technical and relate to cementing in the new provision on appeals. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 91 to 94:
Page 12, line 26, after ("persons") insert ("—(a)").—.
Page 12, line 30, at end insert—
("(b) in subsection (2) before paragraph (a) there shall be inserted—
"(aa) a decision of an education authority not to record the young person or, following a review under section 65A of this Act, not to continue to record him;" ").
Page 12, line 32, after ("paragraph (a)" insert ("—(a)").
Page 12, line 33, at end insert—
("(b) for the words ("(2)(a)") substitute ("(2)(aa) or (a)").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 91 to 94 en bloc. I spoke to them with Amendment No. 90.
The Chairman of Committees: I have to point out that in Amendment No. 91 there is a misprint. It should read:
Page 12, line 26, after ("persons") insert ("—(a)").—.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe moved Amendment No. 95:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Advancement of health of people of Scotland.
.—After section 13 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 there shall be added the following section.
"13A.—(1) For the purposes of section 13 above, and the duty under section 15 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 of health boards and local authorities concerned with provision of services for the disabled to co-operate with one another the following provisions shall apply.
(2) There shall be established for the area of each Health Board a joint planning committee.
(3) Every joint planning committee shall consist of representatives of the Health Board, of local authorities in the area of the Health Board, of housing associations, development corporations, voluntary organisations and of representatives of relevant consumers of health services in that area hereafter referred to as the committee's 'constituent Health Board, authorities and organisations') appointed in such numbers and on such terms as shall be prescribed in a scheme to be contained in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(4) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult with such associations of local
998
authorities and with such other organisations and individuals as appear to him to be appropriate.
(5) The general function of a joint planning committee shall be to improve through liaison, co-ordination and planning the effectiveness and efficiency of the services of common concern to its constituent Health Board, authorities and organisations.
(6) A joint planning committee shall:

(a) monitor the planning and development of services of common concern;

(b) establish procedures conducive to the implementation of those services;

(c) advise upon the making of payments towards expenditure on community services under section 16A of this Act.

(7) Every joint planning committee shall prepare and adopt every three years a plan (hereafter referred to as a 'joint plan') for the guidance of the committee's constituent Health Board, authorities and organisations in the performance of services of common concern.
(8) A joint plan shall contain:

(a) a comprehensive review of the provision and operation of services of common concern to the committee's constituent Health Board, authorities and organisations including those services in relation to disabled persons;

(b) the committee's proposals for the future provision of the said services.

(9) The Secretary of State shall make regulations governing the preparation and adoption of joint plans including provision for consultation with the public.
(10) The Secretary of State shall issue guidance in a code of practice to joint planning committees concerning the form and content of joint plans.".")
The noble Lord said: I am sorry to interrupt the rapid progress of the Bill in the past hour but the matter to which I shall speak is of great concern, particularly in Scotland. I am sorry that a Scottish Minister is not on the Front Bench, as he would understand the full implications of what I have to say.
From these Benches we have not so far spoken on the amendments and on the Bill. We have no intention of impeding the progress of the Bill and we add our congratulations to the officials and all concerned with the improvements to the Bill that have been effected at this stage. I might even add my congratulations to the individual who initiated the Bill in another place. I see him in the Gallery and he has been following the proceedings throughout. He is to be congratulated on drawing the first place in the ballot for Private Bills and also on guiding the Bill through another place and initiating the measure in that way.
The amendment draws attention to certain weaknesses in the consultation procedures. It was drafted by a group called the Care in the Community Working Party. It is a fairly representative group. It is comprised of Age Concern, Community Service Volunteers, the Society for the Mentally Handicapped and the Association for Mental Health. The fact that those bodies have combined to draft the amendment indicates the depth of their concern about this weakness.
In Scotland, the development of care in the community for disabled people, in particular, lags far behind that in England and Wales. There continues to be a much greater emphasis than south of the Border on long-stay institutional care, primarily in large, inadequate and often inaccessible and inappropriate hospitals. Anyone who has been reading the Scottish press in the past month and the revelations of the appalling conditions at Lennox Castle mental hospital will understand how serious is this matter.
The trouble is that there is an absence of concerted action at the local level across Scotland based upon joint planning and active collaboration among the local authorities, the health boards, the voluntary organisations, the housing associations and all who are concerned in these matters. The lack of substantial ministerial initiatives in Scotland to parallel the significant progress that has been made in England is disturbing. England and Wales are much ahead of Scotland in dealing with this matter of local collaboration by interested parties.
The problem is that instead of legislation in Scotland, successive Secretaries of State have had to rely upon mild exhortations in Scottish Office circulars, whereas in England the circulars governing this matter which are issued by the DHSS have some statutory backing and carry more authority.
The bodies which have asked me to raise the matter in this Committee feel deeply about it and feel that this is the opportunity for a draft clause to be inserted to correct the deficiencies of joint liaison and joint planning committees in Scotland which are being merged due to the absence of any statutory framework for co-operation. It is with that in mind that I commend the amendment to the Government.
The preparation of effective and agreed joint plans is a fundamental prerequisite if joint planning committees are ultimately to be of any real value to the people who need the services of the authorities concerned. It is because I wish to see this proposal implemented and to see the Scottish situation brought more into line with what has been achieved in England and Wales that I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: While I understand the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, I should remind him that the Government speak with one voice and on this matter at this time I am it.
On behalf of the Government I regret that I cannot accept the amendment, though I understand the genuine concern which underlines it. The clause is, I understand, identical to one introduced by the Bill's sponsors in Commmittee in another place. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary rejected the very detailed and prescriptive elements which it contained and the clause was removed on Report with the agreement of the sponsors, following my honourable friend's clear undertaking to introduce into the Bill when it was being considered in this Committee reserve powers in relation to the establishment of these committees and relevant aspects of their activities.
Now, as the noble Lord has told us, we have it back. With the Committee's permission I shall rehearse very briefly the outline of my honourable friend's case against the clause. While he wished to give the necessary encouragement for co-operation between health and social work authorities as in the present Clause 11 he could not at that stage accept the need for a statutory requirement to form joint planning committees as in subsection (2) of the new clause.
The membership requirements in subsection (3) were felt to be very unwieldy and having to seek the breadth of opinions required in that provision would
1000
undoubtedly delay the preparation of joint plans to a very considerable degree. Moreover the requirement to consult before making regulations as required in subsection (4) was seen as an unnecessary extra hurdle in discussions and debate which will be necessary anyway. The remaining provisions were, likewise, felt to be unduly bureaucratic and quite inappropriate for dealing with the variety of local circumstances likely to be encountered. In short, the clause was seen as cutting across the approach the Government were seeking to apply to joint planning and which, I understand, is beginning to produce encouraging results.
The arrangements preferred by the Government are now being implemented by health boards and local authorities, with the appropriate involvement of voluntary agencies. In urging the rejection of the same clause in another place, my honourable friend stressed that it would be senseless to make new requirements now and so lose what has already been achieved, thus branding the arrangements a failure without giving them reasonable time to produce results of the kind we expect.
On further consideration between Committee and Report stages in another place, he did however recognise that the present Bill provides an opportunity to secure a reserve power providing for the statutory regulation of joint planning in Scotland should the present administrative arrangements after all fail to show themselves properly effective following a proper period of trial. An undertaking was therefore given in the debate on Report to bring forward an amendment to Clause 11 as it now stands which would have provided a power to proceed in this way.
There was a difficulty, however, which was recognised in the other place and which I may say would equally affect the noble Lord's own clause. Any power taken in the present Bill can only be drafted in terms which apply to the classes of persons to whom the Bill in general relates. It could not, as matters stand, cover any range of priority groups for joint planning, still less joint planning as a whole.
As the sponsors of the Bill already know, attempts to secure an extension of the Long Title of the Bill for this specific purpose have not proved acceptable to the appropriate authorities. The Government have explored how this difficulty might be overcome, and I am advised that an effective solution has now emerged. An amendment on the lines previously envisaged containing the power relating to joint planning committees referred to above but covering all the priority groups and encompassing the provisions of the present Clause 11 will be introduced in the National Health Service (Amendment) Bill, which completed its passage in another place very recently and is now due to come before this House shortly.
I am sure that the Committee will accept that this change in arrangements is required on grounds which could not have been anticipated with any certainty two months or so ago, particularly given the speed with which last minute discussions had to be carried out.
I ask the Committee to accept that the proposal now before the Committee will provide a final outcome in no way different from that envisaged by my honourable friend in his statement at Report stage in another place. It is not proposed to move any

1001
amendment to Clause 11 at this time but, so that the House can consider this matter fully, we will instead include a repeal provision in the National Health Service (Amendment) Bill to take Clause 11 out of the present Bill, and cover this point in the latter Bill by an amended Clause 11 to this Bill.
This may seem a strange way of going about things hut, on reconsideration, we decided that this procedure was fairest to all sides. To avoid the Government being accused of asking the promoters of the Bill and indeed your Lordships to buy a pig in a poke, I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and the Committee will agree with this procedure.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I am sure that the Minister appreciates that I shall require time to study his comprehensive reply. I was rather disappointed at the reaction of the Minister. I thought that he was unduly complacent and unduly defensive about the present situation. That situation is intolerable in Scotland. I shall, however, study the new provisions included in the National Health Service (Amendment) Bill that the noble Lord has suggested might cover the points of concern not only to myself but also to the large number of organisations involved which have invited me to state their case tonight. I shall study them. If it is necessary, I shall return to this matter at Report stage. But if the situation which I have described is about to be covered in the new National Health Service (Amendment) Bill which is about to come to us then it is very acceptable.
I do not propose to take this to a Division tonight, but I must say this to the Minister. If he looks at the condition of the treatment of people who are mentally ill and mentally handicapped in Scottish institutions, it is a national disgrace and something will require to be done to ensure that there is appropriate joint planning so that local communities can express themselves and become involved in the changes which are necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Interpretation]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 13, line 18, at end insert—
(" "the 1980 Act" means the Education (Scotland) Act 1980;").
The noble Lord said: This is a purely technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 97 and 98:
Page 13, line 23, leave out ("1(5)") and insert ("(Appointment of authorised representatives of disabled persons) (1)")
Page 13, line 32, at end insert—
("guardian" except in section (Appointment of authorised representatives of disabled persons (6)) means a person appointed by deed or will or by order of a court of competent jurisdiction to be the guardian of a child;
"Health Board" means a Health Board within the meaning of the 1978 Act;
1002
"hospital"—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, means—

(i) a health service hospital within the meaning of the 1977 Act, or

(ii) any accommodation provided by any person pursuant to arrangements made under section 23(1) of that Act (voluntary organisations and other bodies) and used as a hospital; and

(b) in relation to Scotland, means a health service hospital within the meaning of the 1978 Act;")

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 97 and 98, and speak to Amendments Nos. 100 and 102. These are consequential and drafting amendments. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees: With the permission of the Committee I put Amendments Nos. 97 and 98 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 13, line 41, leave out ("sections 1 and 2") and insert ("section 1, as read with section 2,").
The noble Lord said: This is a purely technical amendment correcting an error in Clause 12. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 14, line 2, at end insert—
(" "modifications" includes additions, omissions and amendments;
"parents", in relation to England and Wales, means, in the case of a child who is illegitimate, his mother, to the exclusion of his father:")
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 14, line 3, at end insert—
(" "special hospital" means a special hospital within the meaning of the 1977 Act;
"State hospital" means a State hospital within the meaning of the 1984 Act;
"statutory services"—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, means services under any arrangements which a local authority are required to make by virtue of any of the welfare enactments, and

(b) in relation to Scotland, means services which a local authority find it necessary to provide themselves or by arrangement with another local authority, or with any voluntary or other body in connection with the performance of the local authority's functions under the welfare enactments;

"voluntary organisation" means a body the activities of which are carried on otherwise than for profit, but does not include any public or local authority;")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 14, line 10, after ("and") insert ("sections 7 and 8 of ").
The noble Lord said: This is another technical amendment correcting the definition of the welfare

1003
enactments in Clause 12 as it applies to Scotland. I beg to move
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Short title, commencement, regulations, orders and extent]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 14, line 17, leave out ("made by statutory instrument")
The noble Baroness said: This is a purely technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 14, line 19, at end insert (" , and different provision may be made under this subsection for England and Wales and for Scotland").
The noble Lord said: This amendment recognises that different circumstances regarding the implementation of Great Britain or United Kingdom legislation can and do arise north and south of the border and seeks to adapt the Bill's commencement provisions to the possible need for separate commencement of individual provisions.
It is likely that the Government will wish to see the various provisions of the Bill commenced simultaneously throughout the country. It must be recognised, however, that commencement will depend in practice on a number of factors, including the availability of resources (both financial and human). This point was made clear at the Second Reading debate and in another place.
I can fully assure the Committee that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has every intention of implementing the Bill as it finally emerges from consideration in another place just as quickly as can be done in the circumstances prevailing at the time and in the light of consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The resources available, however, may be subject to different pressures and priorities north and south of the border and a facility for separate commencement is clearly necessary to ensure that the provisions are commenced in Scotland at the time which is most appropriate in Scottish circumstances, and I commend the amendment to the Committee on this basis.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I very much hope that this Bill will be extended to Northern Ireland as the other countries have been mentioned.
Baroness Trumpington: Northern Ireland has a separate and distinctive structure for the delivery of health and personal social services. It is most notably a fully integrated service under the area health and social services board. It is important that there should be an opportunity for local consultation in Northern Ireland, and that that process should be able to take into account the quite different administrative
1004
structures and circumstances. Such consultation will of course, be put in hand if the Bill is enacted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 14, line 21, after ("and") insert ("(except in the case of an order under subsection (2))")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Town and Country Planning (NIREX) Special Development Order 1986
12.1 a.m.
Lord Holderness Lord Holderness rose to move, that an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the order [S.I., 1986 No. 812] be annulled.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I offer to those noble Lords who have been steadfast enough to remain to take part, and also to my noble friend Lord Elton, an apology for keeping them (in so far as I am responsible) at this late hour on a matter of some technical complexity. However, although technical, these proposals closely concern and greatly worry a number of ordinary men and women. While I can claim no expertise whatever in these matters, particularly in this difficult matter of disposing of radioactive waste, someone should ask simple and inexpert questions in the hope of receiving expert, comprehensive and, it is to be hoped, comprehensible answers.
Last month this order was approved in another place by a less than usual majority—a modest majority of 78. However, it was decisively approved and the significance of that decision will be evident to all Members of your Lordships' House. If one of these four sites were provisionally selected, I understand that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment would order a public inquiry before reaching any decision about future development. Therefore, my noble friend will probably assure me that there is no cause for immediate anxiety. However, although I would willingly certainly accept his assurance, looking back over my own political life, I am conscious of missing a number of opportunities by not voicing anxieties or opposition early enough before attitudes and proposals hardened into firm Government decisions.
Of the four sites, the one which I know best is at Killingholme on the south bank of the Humber. As I live in that county, I am better aware of the attitude of the Humberside County Council than of the other authorities affected.
No proposal of this kind can expect popularity. There are, after all, plenty of things that one does not want outside one's front door, outside one's back door, or even discreetly hidden at the bottom of the garden. Therefore, a proposal to examine a site of this kind for

1005
the possible storage of nuclear waste is virtually certain to attract the opposition of the vast majority of those who live near the site. That in itself does not necessarily prove the decision to be wrong. We can all think of a great many circumstances in which the national interest must take precedence over the natural protests of those locally affected. However, before conflicts of that kind between national and local interests can be resolved, there are always important questions to answer.
I should like shortly to come to the more general questions to which I urgently seek an authoritative answer from my noble friend. However, the local issues not only in relation to the site that I know best, but in relation to the other three sites as well, must be looked at in the widest possible context because it is in the vicinity of these four scheduled sites where the Government's intention, even to give consent to preliminary investigation, will have immediate and considerable effects.
I do not wish to exaggerate those effects but I have lived for a number of years close to the unemployment problems of Hull and its hinterland and the Humber estuary, and I know how delicately balanced industrial siting decisions can often be; for instance, between, on the one hand, the north and south banks of the Humber, and, on the other, alternative sites elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
The Government, to their great credit, have produced massive assistance towards the development of the estuary. If they are fully conscious of the threat to their own economic policy posed by the introduction of this order, but are nonetheless convinced, and can convince us, that there is an overwhelming case for including Killingholme among the four possible sites, then I myself should find it hard to argue that that site should not he investigated. But I shall remain profoundly worried on behalf of the county of Humberside unless my noble friend can assure me that the Government have taken account of all the facts, physical, environmental, economic and so on, before reaching even this first stage of decision, and that at a subsequent public inquiry, if one became necessary, at either Killingholme or the other three sites, the terms of reference will be equally unrestricted.
Turning to the wider issues, I myself find it hard to believe that there can be any logical connection between the disaster at Chernobyl and the search for a disposal site for low-level radioactive waste in this country. But I doubt whether this is the way it appears to men and women living very close to one of these sites, or even to a lot of people who live in other parts of the country. For a number of reasons, public opinion at the moment seems greatly rattled. It is far more apprehensive than I, with my limited knowledge, think it ought to be. But that really is not the point. Whether or not these apprehensions are justified, I think that the Government must take seriously the need to allay them.
Long ago when I was Minister of Power I enjoyed, or suffered, considerable responsibility for the nuclear generation of electricity. Fortunately for me, there was then relatively little alarm about nuclear matters, and it was not until a good deal later, as the Environment Committee of another place very well put it, that,
1006
"an awareness grew, that the benevolence of civil nuclear power was tainted by some of the malevolence of its parent, manifested primarily as radioactive waste.".
Looking back to those early 1960s before these nuclear fears revived, I doubt whether I, or responsible members of subsequent governments, gave sufficient—or sufficiently constructive—thought to the problem of disposal. And so here we are in 1986, some 40 years after the problem began, still apparently searching rather uncertainly for a solution. Drigg, in Cumbria, which is the major disposal site at present, is said to have a life of two decades or more. But the Environment Committee, to quote it again, firmly concluded that,
"it is not an acceptable model for any future site."
Therefore the Government seem to be looking for what I might call a superior Drigg, more efficiently and certainly more strictly organised but still based on the same philosphy of near-surface disposal. I fervently hope that my noble friend Lord Elton can convince me that the Government are right in judging near-surface disposal as the best solution. because research and experience abroad certainly suggests that it is not the only solution. In my opinion public anxieties are unlikely to be allayed by the pre-emptive choice of a shallow site and the rejection of any deep alternatives, particularly in view of the paucity of research by the present and past governments, the scepticism of many experts and the very different decisions reached by many other countries. Therefore I ask my noble friend whether this is really the time to go ahead with the investigations authorised by this order when foreign experience may convince us before long that the future choice of another near-surface site would be wrong technically, environmentally and in terms of public opinion.
Recently I have been very disturbed by the doubts expressed by people whose balanced and sensible judgment I greatly respect on the whole question of the continuation of the nuclear programme. I should hate to see it discontinued, but the doubters I have met will soon be multiplied unless the Government show themselves more willing and more ready to examine alternatives. Nor do I think that this responsibility can be delegated to any public body. I have no reason whatsoever to question the integrity or the professional competence of Nirex, but I know that governments, even at times of temporary unpopularity, nearly always inspire the greater confidence because they are ultimately answerable and therefore more sensitive to what electors think and also because—I am sure my noble friend will take this as a compliment—experts generally find it harder to win our trust than do the intelligent amateurs who, by and large, preside over our affairs.
Therefore I am convinced that the leading of public opinion especially in a complex matter of this kind must be the responsibility of the Government. It would be wrong, in my opinion, to seek to overturn a decision reached by a considerable majority in another place. But in return I fervently hope that my noble friend will recognise his obligation to explain as convincingly as he can the need to explore in the near future possible shallow disposal sites at a time when Drigg, however unsatisfactory, still has more than 20 years of life and at a time also when past experience of

1007
and present research into alternative solutions do not demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt (to put it in the most moderate terms) that the near-surface method of disposal is either the only choice or the best available to us. I beg to move.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Order [S.I., 1986, No. 812] be annulled.—(Lord Holderness.]
12.13 a.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the House is surely indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, for introducing this Motion to annul the order. I had the pleasure of close contact with him when he was Minister of Power and I was particularly struck then by the broad view that he took of energy problems. Listening to him speak tonight I notice that he still retains that breadth of view. He has raised a number of key issues arising from what might appear to be a relatively simple exploratory operation. As he rightly pointed out, public opinion is now profoundly disturbed about the whole nuclear issue, and it is important that there should be a period in which there can be some detailed explanation of the whole nuclear problem and such reassurance as can effectively be provided.
In these circumstances it seems unwise to be proceeding with this inquiry. The Drigg site, which plays a crucial part in this whole operation, is still capable of being used for more than 20 years. So the need for haste does not appear to be there. Would it not be wiser, therefore, to withdraw this order, to reconsider the various options for the disposal of nuclear waste to which the noble Lord referred, and then perhaps, in coming back to this, to proceed by way of normal planning procedures? By so doing, I believe that the Government could achieve some degree of reassurance in the public mind.
However justified the procedure now proposed may be, it nevertheless has created a great deal of concern, particularly in the areas affected, and until these inquiries are completed these areas will suffer as a result of the uncertainty to which they will be subjected. Then there is a long-running planning procedure to be followed in the case of that area which might be selected.
So long as the public is not reassured and convinced that shallow trenching is the right way to dispose of this particular category of nuclear waste, then I believe there is bound to be resistance. Would it not be worth while spending more time on such an inquiry? Most of the countries which have to deal with this problem are now using the deep-mine system of disposal. Some very impressive pictures were shown on television recently of the way in which this problem has been dealt with in Sweden. Comparing what we are proposing to do with what the Swedes are doing, it does look as if our approach is somewhat amateur. They seem to be taking a very professional and serious view of the matter. Obviously, the method they have adopted is much more costly, but, when one is dealing with matters of this degree of complexity and uncertainty, I should have thought that the more costly route might in the long run be the more effective route.
1008
What all this adds up to is that there really is a strong case for re-consideration before this inquiry into the four sites is proceeded with. I very much hope, therefore, that after other noble Lords have spoken, and when the Minister replies, he will be able to tell us that the Government are prepared to reconsider this issue.
12.17 a.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: My Lords, I also should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, for initiating this debate, and also to support many of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra has just made.
The two sites at South Killingholme and Fulbeck which is is proposed to explore are both in the diocese of Lincoln, and I know that I speak with the fullest support of the county councils concerned and of all the people in those areas. The Member of Parliament for Brigg and Cleethorpes has told me that whereas there is the usual vigorous and healthy cut and thrust over political matters in that part of the world, nothing has so united everybody of all parties as the proposals that are presently before us.
The first point that I should really like to make is one about timing. Why are the Government in such a hurry to make these explorations, hustling through the special development order when the very questioning report of the Environment Committee has not yet even been debated? We know that the United Kingdom lags behind in its research, and therefore there is all the more reason not to proceed with irresponsible haste in matters where many important scientific factors are not yet really understood and where the procedures for the process required are, as set out in the Environment Committee's report, quite inadequate. The report says—and the Minister will know this very well:
"The poor state of research in the United Kingdom means that it is impossible at this stage for us to recommend any disposal option with total confidence."
The point is also made in the report that the chairman of the CEGB himself has said that there is not really the haste that was once supposed, and not least, as has already been said, because the lifespan of Drigg is still two or three decades before us.
Surely it would be right that the many and varied questions that are posed by the Environment Committee report should be debated and engaged with before there is the exploration of any of these sites. It seems to me foolish to exacerbate public opinion in advance of convincing research. If the latter came first, in really convincing form, the inevitable problems of public relations would be very much more easily and very much more rationally dealt with.
The second point that I should like to make is about the political process involved. At the moment the main actors in the drama seem to be Nirex and the Government shuffling the whole matter around in a closed circle of their own. Nirex was set up in 1982 by the four public bodies concerned in response to a government White Paper, so that at least it can be thought of as an adopted child of government and, through the special development order, it is now able to make its applications direct to the Minister. This means that the local authorities on whom rests the main responsibility for the nation's planning are, over

1009
the important issue of the exploration of these sites, cut out of the picture.
I am told that Nirex in its 1986 and 1987 budgets has nearly a million pounds for public relations. Local authorities, on the other hand, are subject to very tight financial control and, anyway, are only allowed to distribute information and not to comment. Here again the important public debate is in danger of becoming damagingly ill-balanced. It is little wonder that the local outcry is so strong, not just because of what is being proposed but because of the way the proposals are intended to be handled.
In a democracy it is surely not proper that matters, just because they are complex and technical, should be taken so considerably out of public discussion as though ordinary local people were hysterical or ignorant. This is insulting to suggest, and it is felt to be so. And it is also not true. The people concerned in this matter in Lincolnshire and South Humberside fully recognise that there is a national problem of waste disposal, but they are demanding, through some very well-informed and technically able committees, the priority of the research which is needed.
There are among other things some scientific facts relating to possible re-entry into the environment of radioactive elements which are plainly not yet fully understood. I think that the Chernobyl disaster makes it quite clear that there are a lot of things that the experts do not yet understand and cannot yet handle. It is therefore all the more surprising that the detailed and well thought out proposals for handling the whole public opinion aspect of this matter put forward by the Environment Committee have, so far as I am aware, received no public mention by the Government.
The last point that I should like to make relates to this matter of criteria of site selection. The Environment Committee's report says about this subject:
"We therefore recommend that site selection criteria should be established in advance and published for each type of waste disposal route likely to be developed. Thereafter, the Department of the Environment should ensure that any possible future disposal sites identified by Nirex should satisfy the site-selection criteria for that disposal option. Thus, responsibility for final short listing of possible future sites should effectively rest with the Department of the Environment rather than with Nirex".
We in Lincolnshire and Humberside have no idea what criteria have been used in the proposed selection of these sites. The geology of both areas is such that it raises very serious questions as to whether the criteria used have been geological ones. Nirex says it has been given geological advice by the British Geological Survey, The BGS provided information about several hundred sites but did not among them recommend Fulbeck. Fulbeck and South Killingholme and, I believe, the other sites are in public ownership. Was this, then, the main criterion of choice which would conveniently cut out the need for compulsory purchase orders? I think we have the right to know from the noble Lord the Minister what criteria have been used in selecting these sites as possible areas for exploration.
12.26 a.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, no Member of your Lordships' House would doubt the depth of local knowledge which my noble friend Lord Holderness
1010
has of at least two of these sites: the one in Humberside and the one in Lincolnshire. I am certain that your Lordships are all very impressed with the arguments which have been advanced by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln. He, after all, knows the feelings of the people throughout his diocese. His whole life as Bishop of Lincoln has been devoted to expressing those feelings, and I think it is very significant that at almost the end of his tenure of that see he should come here tonight to tell us how very sincerely concerned the people of his diocese are about the proposal.
My only excuse for intervening in this debate is that two of these sites—the one at South Killingholme and the one at Fulbeck—bracketed my constituency in Gainsborough, which I was privileged to represent for some 28 years. I too know the grave doubts expressed by people in those areas, which have also been expressed by their Members of Parliament in the other place. However, I am very conscious of the fact that I myself have offered the Atomic Energy Authority a site for the disposal of intermediate waste. True, it was in what is so often nowadays called a wilderness area. I think we should be perfectly clear that the wilderness areas are mostly on granite, and granite is unsuitable for storing nuclear waste. We come down to the fact that we are advised that the best method of storing this very low-level nuclear waste is in clay, and two of the sites which have suitable clay happen to be in the county of Lincolnshire.
There is just one thing I should like to say, and it is this. I wonder whether we could look at the situation in France, where in some of the rural areas the disposal of low-level nuclear waste has become a good, sound, rural industry. I do not understand what the financial position is, but could Nirex not arrange for Lincolnshire County Council and the district councils involved to go to France to see how the storing of low-level nuclear waste is welcomed in the parishes in France in which it is now dumped? I think they would find that what is done for the people who live in those parishes is of immense benefit.
Of course the immediate worry of people who are faced with having this low-level nuclear waste dumped near their homes is the depreciation of the value of their property. I think that if we look at France we will find that over the period of the next few decades they will not have to pay any rates. I should like to suggest that Nirex should begin to enter into negotiations with the local community so that if one of these sites was finally chosen nobody should have to pay more than 10 per cent. of their rates for the next hundred years. I should like to think that the farmers within the parishes which adjoin the area might well get a payment of, say, £50 an acre, index linked, for the next hundred years for every acre in those parishes which adjoins the area where this low-level nuclear waste is stored.
You could get into an area where there was some public scare as a result of which all the crops in one year were unsaleable; so it would be a good comfort to think that for the next hundred years the farmer would get £50 an area, index linked, for the acres in those adjoining parishes.
As the electricity industry is the main beneficiary of the nuclear programme, could we not have cheap

1011
electricity for a considerable period in the parishes surrounding these dumping areas? I think my noble friend will find that that is certainly a concession which is extended in France. I mention these three points as opening the bar. If we are going to have low-level nuclear waste stored, could we not have a carrot by which a new rural industry could be profitably established in these areas which might make it a great deal more acceptable?
12.31 a.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Holderness, Lord Ezra, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln have made the case so well that there is little more I can do other than to dot a few "i's" and cross a few "t's". I live in the former constituency of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, 17 miles from one of the proposed sites as the crow flies—which is not my normal mode of travel—and 28 miles from one of the other sites. The distances by road are perhaps 25 per cent. greater in each case, so I do not think that development of either site would adversely affect property values in my immediate neighbourhood. However, if anything were to go wrong, if there were to be any sort of malfunction, one would have more serious things than property values to worry about.
It cannot be denied that there is a great deal of official scepticism about the safety and reliability of the proposed method of disposal, to say nothing of public scepticism. The right reverend Prelate has already quoted from the House of Commons environment committee's report. May I quote one further sentence? It reads:
"Considerably greater emphasis must be given in research, development and policy to sea-bed options, especially to the use of tunnels under the sea-bed from land."
It cannot be denied, either, that internationally there is a swing away from near-surface radioactive waste disposal, even for low-level waste. Belgium, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland and West Germany are all concentrating upon deep disposal. Indeed, the West Germans are actively contemplating burying their waste at a depth of up to 1,000 metres—that is to say, over 3,250 feet. In the United States,no fewer than 50 per cent. of the existing shallow burial sites were closed during the 1970s because of water infiltration, lumping of trench covers and erosion, which resulted in a dangerous leakage of radioactivity. The necessary remedial action cost millions of dollars. Who can put his hand on his heart and swear that a similar misfortune might not occur over here?
To a scientific layman like myself, such a possibility seems a distinct, even if statistically remote, possibility at one of the proposed sites, Fulbeck, if not in our lifetime, then at least in our grandchildren's lifetime or in our great-grandchildren's lifetime. Not being a metallurgist, I am unsure of the lifespan of steel drums but I have good reason to know that concrete does not last for ever.
It so happens that the Army used Fulbeck airfield as a training site, and the Army's records demonstrate that trenches when dug tend rapidly to fill with water, showing that for a good part of the year the groundwater level is extremely close to the surface. The risk of harmful material getting into the water
1012
system is thereby greatly increased. The UK Nirex Ltd. submission agrees that the first prerequisite for radioactivity from such a site to harm human beings is that water must reach the waste itself. At this particular site, there seems a statistically significant increase of such a possibility in comparison with a less waterlogged site, This possibility is heightened by seismic data which shows that Fulbeck happens to be in the above average zone of earthquakes of high intensity in the United Kingdom, and that there is an above average probability of earthquake return within a 200-year period in Lincolnshire as a whole. Echoing the right reverend Prelate, one fears that there may be some truth in the allegation that these four sites were shortlisted not for reasons of optimum safety but because they happened already to be in public ownership which makes things so much easier from any government's point of view.
My Lords, why the rush? On the basis of the Government's own estimates, there is no need for any additional disposal facility for low level waste until the year 2010–24 years from now. The pragmatic French tend to store their low waste near existing nuclear power stations, thereby concentrating the risks in areas where the population are already accustomed to the nuclear industry and have made their dispositions accordingly. This seems a better bet and is fairer than risking the long-term pollution of hitherto unspoiled areas.
But there is a better alternative still. I refer to the method of disposal developed by Dr. Wheeler which involves burying the waste in steel drums beneath the sea bed, which both the French and the Thai Governments happen to be actively considering at present. Surprisingly, the cost is estimated at only £4·10 per cubic metre compared with £6·20 per cubic metre for the shallow trench method on land favoured by the Government. The ocean floor method would be demonstrably safer, would be much cheaper (costing just over 66 per cent. of the method currently proposed), would be electorally vastly more popular, with a general election less than two years away—although I know that this is the last thing that is in the Government's mind.
For all these reasons, I hope that the Government will seriously think again, and at the very least that they will serious consider the interesting suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball.
12.37 a.m.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I, too, should like to join other noble Lords in expressing my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Holderness for enabling us to discuss this matter tonight. The whole question of the nuclear industry programme and the way in which it deals with waste is, I believe, of great concern not only to those people who live in proximity to the four sites which it is proposed Nirex will investigate, but to all of us in this country. The Chernobyl factor has of course only heightened that concern.
The special development order will do nothing to increase the public confidence in the general safety of the nuclear industry and its methods of disposal of waste. I say this because I believe that the sites have been selected not for their inherent suitable location in

1013
terms of road or rail links, geological strengths or depopulated areas, but because all happen to he in public ownership. This remark has already been made by other noble Lords.
Surely this is not the basis on which to build public confidence in the industry. Public confidence is one of the most important factors and one which we must attempt to build up. The report of the Select Committee on the Environment of another place states in paragraph 242:
"The industry's actions alone will convince the public, not its words. The disorder of the Sellafield site, the crudeness of Drigg, the remoteness of Nirex—these have created far more damage than any amount of facts, figures and PR work will ever repair".
We must have a totally credible and convincing plan for the disposal of all levels of nuclear waste. The responsibility we have in this area is colossal because some elements or fuels used in nuclear power stations have a half life of 24,000 years. I know that that is high-level waste and tonight we are debating low-level waste, but my suggestion is that we could apply one method of disposal to all levels of nuclear waste.
I believe that if we are to succeed in carrying the public with us, we must not only be safe but be seen to be safe. If the strategy is expensive and if it is overcautious, then so be it. What future generations will condemn us for using ultimate safety as the criterion for decision-making, rather than fiscal restraints? So I am in favour of the Rolls-Royce approach, as it is becoming known. I believe that the shallow trench system of disposal that noble Lords have already questioned has been discredited by leakages that have occurred at three such sites in America, which had to be closed down at a cost of millions of dollars.
The alternatives, as we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and other noble Lords, include the deep mining proposal, which is the option favoured by Belgium, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland. Another is the bore hole into the continental shelf in the North Sea, some 3,000 feet deep. We have also heard about that tonight.
As we have further heard, there is no immediate hurry. I should like to join with the other noble Lords who have spoken tonight in asking: why cannot we consider the other alternatives that are available to us and which Sweden, to take one particular country, has taken so much care to develop?
It is said that we are at least 10 years behind other countries with significant nuclear programmes in our consideration of funding of studies relating to geological disposal of radioactive waste. Is that not a little shaming? Surely now is the time for the Department of the Environment to become fully involved with the industry in setting standards for the future. I do not believe that the implementation of the special development order is the way to catch up with those lost years. I therefore support my noble friend Lord Holderness in his Prayer.
12.42 a.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, we, too, are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, for giving the House an opportunity to discuss the special development order. I believe we would all agree that the situation is very difficult. Low level waste must be disposed of and it will continue to have to be disposed
1014
of, whatever decisions are made about the future or the nuclear industry. Drigg will be filled in by 2010, which, although 24 years away, is really not all that distant when plans of this kind have to be made.
It is very easy to understand the fears and doubts of the local community, particularly at this moment, after the disaster at Chernobyl. It is not surprising that public confidence needs to be restored. I hope that the Minister will be able to do something about that matter, and about the methods being proposed, when he answers the debate.
The local authorities are upset, and that is not surprising. They feel that they have been bypassed once again and that their powers of planning have been taken from them. It is just one more example of central government taking over. However, I will admit that the Government, in their responses to the Select Committee's report, have shown some sensitivity towards the feelings of local communities, particularly in their responses to Recommendations 8 and 21.2.
I would ask, as almost everybody has asked, whether there really is such a need for haste. Is there not time for more research? Could not the decision be postponed, at any rate for a little longer? I may also ask the Minister this question: if the investigation of the four sites goes ahead, and if a site appears to be unsuitable, will that information be given very quickly to the public and the investigation stopped, so that possible planning blight—which is almost inevitable in the four areas concerned—can be removed as soon as possible and some reassurance given to the public? I think it is public concern and public confidence which worries us all. We very much hope that we shall have some reassurance from the Government tonight.
12.45 a.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for his tenacity, if nothing else, in providing an opportunity for discussing an important matter which we had on the Order Paper for yesterday and which we are now approaching, bright eyed and bushy-tailed, today.
I will try to be concise but my noble friend asked specifically for comprehensive and technical answers to his questions and I do not doubt that what I say will be quarried in the weeks to come for evidence of either neglect or excessive care according to who is doing the quarrying. I must therefore give a fairly full reply; but I will try to be concise.
My noble friend made a speech that reflects his intimate knowledge both of energy and of government and of what used to be called Yorkshire and what some people think is Yorkshire still and always will be. Before I reply to his questions I must put the special development order as well as the debate itself in the context of the Government's policy. It is a policy that dates back to 1976, when the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution produced its sixth report, on radioactive waste, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Rowers. The report was well received. Among many other things, it identified the need for national disposal arrangements for low-level and intermediate-level waste. Since then it has been the policy of successive governments to ensure that suitable facilities for disposal are provided. But it is not

1015
government which is responsible for the actual development of such facilities. That falls to Nirex, a public company owned by the nuclear and electricity industries. It is government's job to set the policy framework and the regulatory controls within which Nirex operates.
In 1982 this Government published a White Paper on Radioactive Waste Management. This concluded that new disposal facilities for low and intermediate level wastes were needed. It envisaged trench facilities for low-level and some intermediate-level wastes: and a deep mine or cavity for other intermediate wastes. In February this year Nirex announced four sites which it wished to examine as potentially suitable for a near surface or trench facility. Only one such site will actually be needed, but the Government asked Nirex to name at least three to ensure a fair and detailed comparison of alternatives. The sites are at Bradwell in Essex, Elstow in Bedfordshire, Fulbeck in Lincolnshire, and South Killingholme in Humberside.
Nirex has carried out desk studies on these sites. It now wishes to undertake detailed investigations of the geology of each. Before any site can be developed Nirex must have sufficient information to determine whether a site is suitable and can be defended at a public inquiry. A proper assessment of the sites' suitability and safety cannot be made without the investigations that the SDO would permit.
A facility, wherever it is established, will be based on the multi-barrier concept. This relies on a number of barriers to retard the return of radioactivity to man. One of these barriers is provided by the geology of the site itself. For the investigation of that geology Nirex needs planning permission. We hope to give it that permission by means of the special development order.
At this point I think I should remind some of your Lordships of what I shall be saying again in a moment in my catalogue of what has happened so far—that we are only talking about low-level waste. Some of the remarks by your Lordships will, on reflection, be considered by your Lordships appropriate not only to intermediate-level but to high-level and long-lasting waste. We are talking about items such as damaged equipment, protective clothing, air filters and ash from the burning of low-level combustible wastes; such items as telephone dials and emergency exit signs. We need to remember that what we are burying are not aggressively lethal materials which can cause great damage in a short time at a long range. We are talking about items which the day or week before may actually have been in a hospital laboratory being worn by a technician.
The next matter that I think I shall be asked to explain is why the Government consider that the special development order procedure is appropriate rather than the normal planning procedures advanced, for instance, by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. We considered whether those investigations should be subject to planning inquiry, to be followed by a further inquiry into any subsequent proposal to develop a site. The result might have been two long inquiries laid end to end which could have taken a number of years, several of them unnecessary. We believe that it would be wrong to subject communities to such a long period
1016
of uncertainty unnecessarily. We were strengthened in that belief by views pressed upon us by some honourable Members in another place.
Some noble Lords have criticised the Government for proceeding with the SDO before Parliament had an opportunity to debate the Government's full response to the environment committee's report. The government position on that is that we wanted to reduce to a minimum the period of uncertainty for the communities affected by the SDO. At the same time, we wanted to consider carefully all the committee's wide-ranging recommendations. That led us to set out in a first stage response our comments on all those recommendations that were directly relevant to the SDO, and I repeat all of them. The chairman of the environment committee himself recognised that that was a valid and proper approach when he spoke in the general debate on nuclear energy on 13th May, and a Motion which included an endorsement of that approach was subsequently approved in another place.
It is appropriate at that point to address the question of whether it is necessary to subject the communities to any uncertainty at all at this stage, because the Drigg site, for instance, will be available until after the end of the century. The site will be full, I am advised, between the years 2005 and 2010 as it is at present being used. But proceeding with a near-surface site, as we propose, is unlikely to provide a new site available for use before about 1992. The opening of a new site at least a decade before the Drigg is full will allow better use of Drigg, which can be reserved for wastes from Sellafield and which would, if there was no new facility, have to be transported round the country.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked whether we could not extend the period simply in order to conduct more research. But it is clear that as regards this low-level waste the amount of research that has been done is adequate for the risk and the technology in question.
The order that we are considering is not quite the one that was issued primarily to the local authorities and water authorities concerned for consultation in February. We received many comments, and my right honourable and honourable friends in the department met well over a dozen deputations to discuss the order. That is not exactly the closed circuit and secretive exchanges between government and Nirex that the right reverend Prelate felt was the procedure.
The most important change to the order reflects our decision to allow Nirex to carry out test drilling for the investigation of a site to take, as I have already said, low-level waste only. We have dropped the original intention that a near-surface site would take shorter lived intermediate-level waste as well. We took that decision because of the concern of communities around the site and because of views expressed by the Select Committee on the Environment of the House of Commons. I should emphasise that the best scientific advice we have is still that a near-surface facility would be the best option for disposal of some intermediate-level waste. However, pending the identification and development of a deep site, or until the radioactivity has decayed sufficiently for disposal at a low-level waste facility, both short-lived and long-lived intermediate-level waste will now be stored.
My noble friend Lord Liverpool suggested that everything should go into deep bore holes. He rightly

1017
called that the Rolls-Royce solution, because apart from being very good Rolls-Royces are extremely expensive. The idea of drilling holes 3,000 feet into the earth's crust to drop into them overalls and gloves from hospital laboratories seems a touch extravagant.
Other significant changes have been made to the order which should be of direct benefit to communities around the sites. For instance, the order as originally drafted was open-ended. As now drafted it will run for only five years. All Nirex's investigations will have to be complete within that time. Nirex expects its main work to be over within a year or 18 months, but if a site went before a public inquiry, the inspector could ask Nirex to take additional measures or measurements. That is why although we have introduced a finite period it is one which should overlap the inquiry.
A recommendation of the House of Commons Select Committee that is not reflected in a change in the drafting of the order is its first: that the department's classification of low-level waste should exclude alpha bearing waste and long-lived waste. The committee also recommended that shallow disposal should be limited to short-lived low-level wastes. This simple approach could lead to an unintentional absurdity. All natural materials contain trace amounts of natural long-lived radioactivity. Some granite contains about one part uranium per million, which is radioactive, long-lived and alpha-radiation emitting. If there were an absolute prohibition on shallow disposal of such radioactivity, we could not even put into the facility the granite chippings from the roads that lead to it. That gives your Lordships an idea of the levels about which we are talking.
The geological investigations in themselves should have neither a significant nor a permanent effect on the local environment. I think that your Lordships have seen enough of onshore drilling for me not to spend much time reassuring you about that at this time of night. If during investigations any of the sites is shown to be unsuitable, it will be dropped at once at that stage. Once results are analysed, Nirex will be in a position to decide which, if any, of the sites it wishes to develop. I am sure your Lordships will realise that a full public inquiry will of course be held into any planning application Nirex eventually submits.
My noble friend Lord Holderness was anxious about blight—and other noble Lords chimed in. I understand his concern about blight. I appreciate that Humberside has a fair share of hazardous industries, and that Grimsby Borough Council is trying to establish the area as a centre for food processing.
I have to say, however, that there is no good reason why a Nirex facility should blight an area, still less why a proposal to carry out investigations should do so. Industrial development around Bedford does not seem to have suffered, for example, even though Nirex's interest in Elstow has been known about for over two and a-half years.
Even if the site at Killingholme were to be developed, many firms already operate successfully in Humberside alongside industries far more dangerous than anything Nirex might propose.
I must say a cautionary word about unintentionally induced blight. If the risks of disposal of low-level
1018
waste are exaggerated, then the blight that everyone fears could be brought about. Noble Lords and the noble Baroness were right to say that the principal difficulty at the moment is public ignorance resulting in public fear. We do not want to mislead the public. By exaggerating the risks of disposing of these materials in carefully controlled conditions we may talk ourselves into an unnecessary blight. I can give my noble friend the assurance that he expected that the public inquiry will be as full as is necessary. An inspector has considerable discretion in deciding what should be discussed. Furthermore, we have laid down that Nirex must prepare for the inquiry a detailed environmental assessment for any site put forward. The assessment will be drawn up in consultation with relevant bodies and will address a broad range of factors, including physical, environmental, economic, safety and social considerations. I think that those were the points that my noble friend raised with me.
As to the criteria adopted by Nirex for choosing sites, it took into account a number of factors, including geology, demographic considerations, accessibility, proximity to national conservation areas and availability. These were not formal criteria, and there was no question of Nirex being allowed to look at certain individual sites only. I understand that private sites as well as publicly-owned ones were considered but Nirex concentrated its search on publicly-owned land because of its difficulties over the privately-owned mine at Billingham which was a potential deep site of which it has experience.
My noble friend asked whether near-surface disposal was the best solution and suggested that paucity of research and other countries' practice threw doubts on this, and referred to the limitations of Drigg. I think that I have probably said enough about research. Since your Lordships and others outside the House are concerned about Drigg, I would repeat that the present arrangements there pose no risk to the public but the site has been operating since 1959 and there is now room for improvement. From 1987, BNFL will be compacting low-level wastes from BNFL before interment. Loose tipping will be replaced by stacking in trenches. Old trenches will be capped to make them impermeable to rainwater, and the site drainage system is to be renewed.
My department recently completed a study of the best practicable environmental options for the management of low and intermediate-level wastes. This showed that, taking social and economic factors into account, near-surface disposal on land was the best option for low-level wastes.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, advocated disposing of wastes under the seabed. This is an interesting concept. I note what he says about Thailand and others. We consider it more appropriate to the disposal of intermediate-level waste. Nirex has commissioned two feasibility studies of this form of disposal for such wastes. The results are expected later this year. We think it unnecessarily elaborate and costly for low-level waste. Our recent study of options to which I referred confirms this.
A deep site on land would also be unnecessarily elaborate, and I have said enough about that already. I agree with my noble friend when he says that we must

1019
build up public confidence. We are convinced that the way to do this is to be as open as possible. Nirex, too, is aware of the need for openness. It has recently agreed to make an interim report of the site investigations available to the local councils concerned after the first six months. This will let local people see the sort of data being gathered and arrange for their own assessment if they wish. It will also publish the final report of the investigations and is currently considering other ways in which it can disseminate information. I hope that your Lordships will not feel that the fact that it has a public relations budget, as I think it was described, is entirely against the public interest, because the public must know. We also have to get across more forcefully than we have so far the fact that the Government have a whole range of stringent controls to ensure that disposal is handled responsibly and safely.
My noble friend Lord Kimball, to whom I am grateful for a robust and pragmatic approach and also for some interesting suggestions, proposed that there might be some form of compensation payment to the locals. That might form a difficult precedent. Many communities have dangerous or difficult works or developments in their midst. Government have said in their first stage response to the environment committee's report that its recommendation on this point will be seriously considered. And so will that of my noble friend.
The rest that I have written here is by way of an elegant and flattering conclusion. I hope that I have made the point that we are dealing with material that is a great deal less dangerous than popular myth suggests. I hope that I have made clear that it will be treated with a seriousness far beyond what it would appear to deserve.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Lord has mentioned so often the relatively little harm associated with low-level waste that it seems to be a crucial part of his argument. Grave doubts seem to be expressed in paragraph 17 of the environment committee's report about the classification of this waste. Indeed, there is a sentence at the end that I find rather worrying. The Committee said:
"no one was able to assure us…that harmful higher activity wastes, alpha-emitting and toxic radionuclides, could not find their way into Drigg and leach out into ground water".
This seemed rather disturbing to me. Therefore in addition to all this cast-off clothing and so on there might be lurking amid this something much more serious. That is what the committee seems to be suggesting.
Lord Elton: I am obliged to the noble Lord for that point. I think that I recognise the paragraph to which he refers. I think that I dealt with it in the reference in part to granite chippings; that is, that there is also a difficulty with the definition proposed by the committee in that it goes too far downwards. However, I think that rather than prolong these exchanges I ought to write to the noble Lord; and in order that my speech shall not have this loophole in it for public consumption, I shall place a copy of my letter in the Library in the usual way.
1020
The fact remains that we are not even going to be burying the intermediate-level waste, which my noble friend happily invited the authorities to deposit on his home ground. We are talking about something less dangerous than that. We are talking about placing it in impermeable clay at a great depth, surrounded by concrete. I hope that what I have said about both the method of disposal and the method of public inquiry and the research that has been done will encourage my noble friend to allow us now to let this order through.
1.5 a.m.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady David, noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln for having taken part in the debate and made very constructive suggestions.
Finally, I should like to thank my noble friend for what he said, and for providing some comfort and relief for some doubts that noble Lords and many people outside have. I am particularly grateful to him for his obvious considerable awareness of the need to reassure public opinion. He will be well aware that this is a task that is not going to be achieved or completed tonight, but it will have to be carried on very enthusiastically and energetically in the future. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at seven minutes past one o'clock.

  HOUSING: PUBLIC EXPENDITURE STATISTICS
  HOUSING: PUBLIC EXPENDITURE STATISTICS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: ARRESTS ON 3RD MARCH
  NORTHERN IRELAND: ARRESTS ON 3RD MARCH
  WAGNER COMMITTEE: TERMS OF REFERENCE
  WAGNER COMMITTEE: TERMS OF REFERENCE
  ROYAL ORDNANCE: FLOTATION
  ROYAL ORDNANCE: FLOTATION
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, JUNE 16TH–17TH
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, JUNE 16TH–17TH
  CHARITIES: STATISTICS
  CHARITIES: STATISTICS
  DEATHS OF YOUNG PERSONS IN CUSTODY
  DEATHS OF YOUNG PERSONS IN CUSTODY
  LIBYA BOMBING: SELF-DEFENCE RIGHT OF US
  LIBYA BOMBING: SELF-DEFENCE RIGHT OF US
  FYLINGDALES EARLY WARNING INSTALLATION
  FYLINGDALES EARLY WARNING INSTALLATION