Sitting of 9 December 1987

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

    Urban Development Corporations
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take powers to establish urban development corporations in areas of dereliction in major conurbations in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): The powers to establish urban development corporations contained in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 apply equally in Scotland.
    Mr Steen: The fact that one represents a constituency a few miles south does not mean that one has not had the opportunity—
    Mr. Foulkes: Get on with it.
    Mr. Steen: —to appreciate the excellent work done in some of the Scottish urban areas, particularly in Glasgow—
    Mr. Foulkes: Ask a question.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall be able to conduct this Question Time in good humour and in good order.
    Mr. Steen: I have not started to ask my question. I said that the fact that one represented a constituency a few miles south did not mean that one could not appreciate the wonders of Scottish urban redevelopment. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important things in urban regeneration is to encourage vacant public land to be privatised and to get some of the dead land moving in private enterprise?
    Mr. Lang: I was most interested in what my hon. Friend had to say, given his well-known expertise in this subject. I entirely agree with him. We believe that the private sector has a very important role to play in the initiatives that we are proposing in urban areas in Scotland.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Has the Minister considered the fact that Strathclyde regional council and Glasgow district council are doing their desperate best to help decaying urban areas such as my constituency? If the private sector is dying to invest in Maryhill, where is that money? Why do we not see some of it?
    Mr. Lang: I hope that in due course, as we bring forward our proposals, the private sector will become
    420
    increasingly interested in them. We certainly look forward to working with Strathclyde regional council and Glasgow district council in pursuing this worthwhile initiative.

    Shop Premises (Amusements)
    Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to regulate the growth of fruit machines, slot machines and video machines in shop premises and the number of amusement arcades in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Local authorities have power to control the number of fruit machines and slot machines in shops and the number of amusement arcades in their areas. Reports on these facilities, commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, are expected shortly. We will then consider whether the law requires to be amended.
    Mr. Marshall: I welcome part of the Ministers reply, but it does not go far enough. He greatly underestimates the problem and the strength of feeling in communities in which amusement arcades are located. Furthermore, it seems that every appeal to the Secretary of State by an applicant is upheld, despite local objections and opposition. Why will he not give local authorities every necessary power to control and monitor the situation and take the necessary action when and where it is needed?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and I should mention that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced in May that he had set up a research project to examine the use that young people make of machines in amusement arcades. In addition, he asked the Gaming Board for Great Britain to prepare a report on amusement arcades and a further announcement can be expected when the work has been completed— it is hoped to be before Christmas. I would mention one brief point concerning children. The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 gives local authorities wide discretion to attach conditions to licences, and there is no reason why they should not impose an age restriction.
    Mr. Canavan: Has all this emphasis on fruit and gaming machines anything to do with the so-called enterprise culture that that bumptious balloon in 11 Downing street is trying to foist on the people of Scotland?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That sort of comment does not help at Question Time.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has raised a valid and serious point. It will be considered seriously, as he wishes.
    Mr. Harris: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is considerable anxiety about this issue, whether it relates to Glasgow, Shettleston or to the far west of the United Kingdom in my constituency of St. Ives? While I greatly welcome my hon. Friend's reference to the Home Secretary's comment, will he and all other Ministers take account of the widespread feeling on this issue?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Most certainly. One important point is that a fruit machine involves a game of chance, whereas a video games machine can involve a test of skill. Many matters require close examination, and that is being given.

    Maternity Services (Grampian Region)
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the future of maternity services in the rural areas of Grampian region.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): None recently.
    Mr. Bruce: May I assure the Minister that he will receive some representations in the near future? In the light of Grampian health board's proposals to close no fewer than six maternity units in the rural areas of Grampian, thus leaving no provision outside the city of Aberdeen and the town of Elgin, does the Minister accept that the position is unacceptable? These proposals have been out for consultation several times previously and public opinion has been clearly stated, but the health board is effectively ignoring it. Would it not be better if the Minister got on with the business of having elected health boards as a matter of urgency, rather than school boards which people do not want?
    Mr. Forsyth: The health board has not even issued its consultative paper, so it is premature for the hon. Gentleman to say that people have not had a chance to make representations. There is no proposal for a closure at Elgin. The pressure on maternity facilities is at Aberdeen maternity hospital, where the board proposes to build a new 56-bed unit. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that, instead of pleading the case for facilities which have had occupancy rates of between 16 and 33 per cent.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is genuine anxiety on this issue, that we are dealing with people, not just numbers, and that those in rural areas deserve as much consideration as those in urban areas? Will he recognise that it is not just a question of the number of babies delivered in these areas, but of the useful post-natal and other gynaecological services required? If submissions are made to him, will he please think about the matter constructively, sensitively and sympathetically?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and I assure him that the health board will consider all representations before any decisions are taken. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will consider carefully any submission that my right hon. Friend makes. It cannot make sense to maintain units that are so underutilised that the quality of health care for my right hon. Friend's constituents and others who are expecting babies in the Aberdeen areas is prejudiced.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: As the maternity services in Grampian region and throughout Scotland depend largely on nurses, does the Minister think it fair that he will pay only £300 in poll tax from his £40,000 a year income, while nurses must pay £300 from their small salary?
    Mr. Forsyth: I do not think that we can take any lectures from the hon. Gentleman or his party on nurses' pay. The Labour Government cut nurses' pay by 20 per cent. and this Government have increased it by 30 per cent. in real terms. We have also increased take-home pay by cutting taxes, which he and the Labour party have opposed at every opportunity.

    Nuclear Waste
    Mr. Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had and proposes to have with Nirex regarding nuclear waste disposal.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I have met Nirex representatives from time to time to be briefed on their work. I have at present no plans for a further meeting.
    Mr. Welsh: Does the Secretary of State expect that if Nirex goes ahead with any preliminary investigations it will follow exactly the procedures adopted in England, without any short cuts? Will he ensure that the Scottish public will be informed if any on-site investigations take place? Does he accept that the Scottish public have an absolute right to be informed of any such activities?
    Mr. Rifkind: Nirex's present investigations are concerned with determining what type of site is geologically suitable, whether underground, under the sea, or tunnelled out from the land. It will be a considerable time before it thinks in terms of any individual location in any part of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. and learned Friend meets and consults Nirex, will he draw its attention to the fact that there is great anxiety in parts of Scotland as a result of the mis-statements and misinformation that have come from the Scottish National party? I draw his attention to the fact that Schiehallion in my constituency was named as an area where nuclear waste would be dumped. There is no substance to the story, which came from the SNP.
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend should take some comfort from the fact that no constituency in Scotland has not been told by the SNP that it has been chosen as the location for nuclear waste.
    Mr. Doran: Will the Secretary of State advise the House in simple terms what steps he will take to stop Scotland becoming the nuclear dumping ground for the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should realise that all parts of the United Kingdom use nuclear power and are responsible for the production of nuclear waste. The location for the deposit of nuclear waste should be chosen on geological grounds that are consistent with the requirements of public safety.

    Rail Services (Strathclyde)
    Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Strathclyde regional council on the effect on Strathclyde's economy of the proposed reduction in rail services.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. and learned Friend has received no such representations.
    Mr. McKelvey: Then it is just as well that I asked the question. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that there was a debate on the matter in the early hours of this morning as the snowflakes were falling outside. Has the Secretary of State received information from his surrogate, who was present to hear a debate opened admirably by my colleague, friend and ally — on this issue — the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro)? There is increasing

    423
    anxiety and alarm about the proposed cuts on the Kilmarnock-Carlisle-Dumfries railway line and the effects that they will have on the social and economic life of the area. Scottish Members are increasingly worried that decisions on cuts in British Rail services in Scotland are being taken in London and are then foisted upon Scottish managers, although they are willing to accept the role of lackey.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Government have agreed with British Rail performance objectives designed to achieve a significant increase in efficiency and requiring an overall improvement in services. It is for British Rail to determine how to achieve those objectives, but I understand that some extra InterCity services will be laid on.
    Sir Hector Monro: We are all grateful to my hon. Friend for coming to the House early this morning and listening to the debate. Did he appreciate from the debate the strength of feeling in south-west Scotland about the economic problems that will result if the railway service is downgraded to the extent proposed by British Rail? Does he accept that the Government must bring home to British Rail the fact that their overall policy of bringing jobs to south-west Scotland will be adversely affected? He cannot leave it to British Rail to make such a decision.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have met the manager of ScotRail and made it clear to him that many hon. Members believe that we need a high standard of service. I understand that British Rail will provide services connecting Dumfries with a sleeper service at Carlisle.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Minister accept that his response is entirely inadequate? On Monday my hon. Friends and I met the Minister for Public Transport and put our case very strongly. In my constituency, which, with that of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), has the highest unemployment in the country, a railway station has just been opened at Auchinleck. Now British Rail is cutting services from that station. Strathclyde region wants to reopen New Cumnock station, but there will be no services for it if British Rail continues in this way. Should not the Scottish Office take some action to force British Rail to reconsider the matter?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should say that the introduction of sprinter trains to the line next year will improve services by offering more trains and shorter journey times. I stress to the hon. Gentleman that there are no current plans to stop running passenger services on the line.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Under-Secretary examine carefully the rates of return and capital that InterCity especially is expected to produce in the Government's current programme? Will he undertake to reconsider the matter with Ministers at the Department of Transport? The east coast route is of special concern to me. Services will inevitably be prejudiced by the penal rates of return which British Rail and ScotRail are expected to achieve on their InterCity services.
    Lord James Douglas Hamilton: I shall draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport to the matters mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that a major influence on economic development in the
    424
    Strathclyde region is the incompetent and high-cost policy of Strathclyde regional council, under which 25 per cent. of pupils leave school with no qualifications, and council house repairs are 35 per cent. more expensive than anywhere else?
    Lord James Douglas Hamilton: We are in favour of both high standards of efficiency and high standards of service.

    Rating Reform
    Mr. Douglas: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on consultations that have taken place between his Department and local authorities with regard to the appropriate training programme for canvassers engaged on the preparation of the register for the poll tax.
    Mr. Lang: The training of canvassers is a matter for community charges registration officers.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister accept that what we are embarking on in Scotland is the compilation of a national register, which will detail every individual from birth to death? In addition, will he give some information and guidance to local authorities about the dangers of disclosing information, obtained for poll tax purposes, for other purposes, put a prohibition or restrictions on those gathering that information, and introduce appropriate penalties for disclosure for purposes other than the community charge?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. We are not contemplating the compilation of a national register or one that would last from birth to death. The regulation on the registration process is out to consultation and local authorities have an opportunity to give us their views on that. We shall take full account of the consultation process before making the regulation.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in these matters, helpful advice might come from apparently unlikely quarters? May I refer him to column 198 of Standing Committee A on the Local Government Bill, when the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, recommended that the administrative arrangements for the community charge in Scotland should be privatisecl? Will my hon. Friend therefore, at all times, pay appropriate attention to recommendations from Opposition Members?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion. It is important that the register be compiled as efficiently as possible.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Minister explain why a leaflet and publicity campaign costing £130,000 and more has been launched in Scotland on the community charge, saying that people on and below the poverty line will pay 20 per cent., when in a written answer to me he revealed that in some parts of Scotland those on basic incomes will have to pay 41 per cent. of the community charge, including the community water charge?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is giving a misleading picture. The leaflet was published as an information document. Its need is justified not least by the fact that so much misinformation is being put about by the Labour party.
    Mr. Maxton: Does the Minister agree that if the canvass for the register is to be done in sufficient time to allow the tax to be brought in on 1 April 1989, as is proposed, it must start on 1 April 1988, or soon thereafter? If that is so, how many regulations will have to be laid before the House for that process to start? How many canvassers will have to be advertised for and appointed, and what training will have to be carried out? Does the hon. Gentleman have any hope that the process of making regulations, and advertising for, appointing and training staff, can be completed by 1 April 1988?
    Mr. Lang: We intend that the process should start on 1 April 1988. Three or four regulations will need to be tabled by that date, and we expect that that will happen. The other points raised by the hon. Gentleman are matters for the registration officer.

    Nuclear Waste
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when officials of his Department will next meet Nirex to discuss plans for nuclear waste disposal in Scotland.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Scottish Office officials have no specific plans to meet Nirex, but they will attend the Nirex seminar for local authorities to be held in Edinburgh on 14 December.
    Mr. Salmond: Is the Under-Secretary aware, even if the Secretary of State is not, that the Nirex document "The Way Forward" makes it clear that Scotland is a No. 1 target for nuclear waste disposal? Furthermore, will the hon. Gentleman give us a guarantee that any such proposal for waste disposal will face the rigour of a full public inquiry, and that such an inquiry will not be limited in scope in the way that the Dounreay inquiry was rigged?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I certainly can give that assurance. A planning application will be required before any site investigations on land. Subsequent procedures have yet to be determined. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that if there were a proposal to build a repository in Scotland a public inquiry should be held. The purpose behind the document is to look at geologically suitable areas in Britain.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does my hon. Friend recognise that many of us welcome the publication of that document and the opportunity that it gives for informed debate? Has he noticed that the Scottish National party shies away from any form of informed debate? Will he point out to the SNP that much of the low-level and medium-level waste comes from medical sources? Why does it not support the use of nuclear materials for those good purposes?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for setting the matter in perspective. We are concerned about the safe storage of intermediate and low-level nuclear waste. We believe that the Nirex document is a useful step forward in that process.
    Mr. McAllion: Does the Minister agree with the decision taken by Nirex in advance of the consultation process to opt for a single national disposal facility? Is it credible to have one such facility, given the present level of radioactive waste, and the future level because of the Government's commitment to a massively accelerated
    426
    nuclear programme? Scottish Labour Members will not tolerate Scotland being used as a dumping ground for the nuclear waste of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should like to set the facts straight. Sellafield is to be investigated by British Nuclear Fuels plc as part of the Nirex programme. It has been made clear that no decision has been taken on sites for investigation other than Sellafield. That is the present position.
    Mr. Kennedy: I echo the plea of the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) for informed public debate. Will the Minister instruct his officials, when they attend the 14 December seminar, to echo to Nirex the plea for informed debate? That would involve making maps available to hon. Members representing constituencies such as mine. We believe that drilling has taken place on the isles of Raasay and Rona. Like the Isle of Skye, neither island appears on the map of Britain that Nirex published in the report.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's point to Nirex.
    Mr. Harris: Does my hon. Friend agree that those of us who were in the House in the early hours of the morning and who listened to a debate on this subject, prompted by the Welsh nationalists, now realise the sheer hypocrisy of the nationalist parties in Wales and Scotland? Today the Scottish nationalists say that Scotland is the prime target for a nuclear dump, whereas last night the Welsh nationalists said that Anglesey was the prime target for a nuclear dump. We completely reject this scaremongering by the nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I am sure that there is potential opposition to any proposed investigation of a site. Nirex seeks public comment on its approach to site selection and will publish a report on comments received.
    Mr. Dewar: I wish to reinforce the plea for an assurance that there will be no question of slipping through vital decisions about sites without full consultation and discussion in the localities concerned. Does the Minister accept that there is a strong case against dumping intermediate waste in the way suggested in the Nirex report? Does he agree that the identification of possible sites can lead only to uncertainty and understandable fears? Is not a more sensible management strategy on-site storage in stable conditions, which can allow constant monitoring?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Our experts and international experts strongly believe that on safety grounds it is much wiser to store intermediate and low-level waste in this way. I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance about there being the fullest possible public information and consultation on this subject.

    European Regional Development Fund
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total value of grants Scotland has received from the European regional development fund in each of the past three years.
    Mr. Lang: Scotland has received grant commitment from the European regional development fund of £103 million in 1984, £69 million in 1985, and £84 million in 1986.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend think that those grants have been sufficiently well publicised? If not, what steps is he taking to ensure that their size, scale and nature are properly publicised in Scotland and that the benefits that accrue to Scotland are made known to the people?
    Mr. Lang: As my hon. Friend will know, it is always difficult to obtain publicity for good news. However, his question enables me to publicise the fact that, among national programmes of Community interest, in 1985 Glasgow received £68 million, and we hope that this year West Lothian will be successful with a bid of £27 million. We are also hoping to succeed with a bid for Strathclyde, as an integrated operation, that will be worth £300 million over the next five years.
    Mr. Steel: Is the Minister not well aware that areas of Scotland such as Galloway and the Borders do not qualify for assistance under the European regional development fund because they are not defined as assisted areas by the national Government? As the European Community is reconsidering the guidelines for that fund, with a view to opening it to rural development, irrespective of assisted area status, will the Minister assure us that the Scottish Office will support such a change?
    Mr. Lang: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the arrival of Spain and Portugal in the Community has made pressure on funds that much greater. Therefore, we cannot be sure that we will receive as large a proportion in future as we have in the past. However, the Scottish Office will do its best to ensure that Scottish interests are well advanced within the Community.
    Sir Hector Monro: Is my hon. Friend aware that we welcome the tremendous help for the infrastructure of Scotland from that fund? Will he consider the issue of forest roads used in the extraction of timber, especially for those areas that do not have assisted area status? Will he discuss with other Departments and within the European Community the possibility of including that sort of development?
    Mr. Lang: I shall certainly consider that point. As my hon. Friend knows, any regional authority that approaches the Government for capital allocation in that context can rely on having the matter sympathetically considered.
    Mr. Buchan: Is the Minister aware that during the last year for which figures are available, 1986, we had a net loss in the Common Market of £1·7 billion—the equivalent of about 20 days of the regional fund? Would it not be better if that £1 billion were spent on development in Britain, rather it being poured into the food mountains of Europe?
    Mr. Lang: That is a perfectly worthwhile negotiating stance. However, it would be wrong to analyse each individual fund and try to ensure that this country made a profit from each and all of them. That is not what the Common Market is about.

    Secondary School Pupils
    Mr. Allan Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimates he has made of the number of pupils in secondary schools in Scotland for each of the next five years.
    Mr. Rifkind: The estimated numbers in each of the years 1988 to 1992 are 328,000; 313,000; 306,000; 305,000; and 308,000 respectively.
    Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving those figures, which I am sure he agrees point to the need for rationalisation of secondary schools in Scotland. No one suggests that rationalisation is ever easy, but is he aware of the concern of a number of my constituents who exercised their right under the parents' charter to send their children to Paisley grammar school, which is now targeted for closure, apparently precisely because it is popular with parents?
    Has my right hon. and learned Friend received a report from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary following his visit to that school? Does he agree that the wider implications of the threat to Paisley grammer school point to the need for opting out provisions to be included in the forthcoming Scottish Education Bill so that Scottish parents can have the same rights as English parents?
    Mr. Rifkind: Given the high degree of overcapacity in schools in the Strathclyde region, we all understand that it is appropriate for Strathclyde regional council to reduce the number of schools commensurate with the total school population. We hope that in pursuing that policy it will take into account the views of the parents and the academic achievements of individual schools. I have no doubt that if it does apply such criteria there will be a powerful case for the continuation of Paisley grammer school, which clearly meets that criteria in an impressive fashion.
    Dr. Reid: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is the height of hypocrisy that, when he is pursuing policies that force cuts in education in Scotland, his henchman turns up here to ask a question under the pretence of fighting for the preservation of school places?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should realise that the rationalisation of schools has little to do with the size of resources and everything to do with the size of pupil populations. In case he is not aware of the fact, Strathclyde regional council estimated that, out of a total capacity of 590,000 pupil places, over 200,000 places were surplus to requirements in 1985. That will be true, irrespective of the level of resources. It would be absurd to suggest that there is not a need in Strathclyde, as in other regions throughout Scotland, to reduce overcapacity. The point at issue is not the need to close some schools but, in making that choice, whether the schools with a proven academic record of great achievement should be put on such a list.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Minister will know that parents in my constituency are going through a worrying period. Some have children at primary and secondary schools that could be under the axe. Does he not consider that if his colleague the Minister is to go on television and single out one school, he should be evenhanded and look at every school in Strathclyde? Paisley grammar school is important to some hon. Members and to the parents in the region, but other schools are just as important.
    Mr. Rifkind: I have no doubt that all schools are important to the parents whose children attend them. That is why I have stated that I believe that the relevant criteria are parents' wishes and the proven achievements of the school in question. It seems sensible to take into account whether a particular school has a remarkable record of achievement with regard to the academic qualifications of those who attend it in determining whether it would be sensible to close such an establishment at such a time.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: As the money that is spent on surplus places could be better spent on children in schools, will my right hon. and learned Friend say how much is presently being wasted on empty places?
    Mr. Rifkind: I cannot give a precise figure, but it goes without saying that if only about two thirds of the accommodation presently available for schoolchildren in Strathclyde is utilised, enormous savings are clearly available to the regional council to be used on the education of children in a way that is more useful to them than the heating of half-empty buildings or the maintenance of unused buildings.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will prevail upon the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), to desist from meddling in matters that are not his direct responsibility? Does he agree that the Under-Secretary's visit to Our Lady and St. Francis' high school in Glasgow was mischievous and that his visit to Paisley grammar school was calculated to make life difficult for the education authority which is seeking to fulfil its statutory requirements? Such irresponsible actions serve only to use and abuse parents who are genuinely concerned for their children's future education.
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend was perfectly entitled to respond to parents' invitations to visit the school and to see it for himself. Given that the Scottish Office provides the resources that are used, which cover a substantial proportion of the costs of maintaining such schools, it is absolutely appropriate that my hon. Friend should have visited them. I cannot help but notice the hon. Gentleman's embarrassment at the fact that the high quality of certain schools is brought to the forefront of public attention.
    Mrs. Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot take a point of order now. The hon. Lady may wish to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of that unsatisfactory reply I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Schools Management
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what extra resources will be made available for the implementation of the schools management proposals.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: My right hon. and learned Friend takes account of changes in local authorities statutory responsibilities in determining the provision for local authority current expenditure each year. I do not expect, however, that these proposals will give rise to significant additional costs.
    Mr. Wallace: The Minister is bound to be aware that COSLA estimates that it will cost at least £15 million a year to set up and administer the school boards that are envisaged under his proposals. Does he not agree that that would be an enormous and wasteful drain on scarce resources that could better be used in classrooms rather than on financing his ideological white elephant?
    Mr. Forsyth: I was interested to see the COSLA estimates, which started at £12 million and after a few days increased to £15 million. Those estimates were based upon an assumption that costs that will be incurred by local authorities in bringing new systems for financial control into effect will be part of this process. Even if we take the COSLA approach of "think of a number and double it", relative to the total education budget that is broadly equivalent to an extra two or at most three pupils at an average secondary school.
    Mr. Galbraith: I have asked the Under-Secretary of State three questions on schools boards, none of which he has answered satisfactorily. In particular, he will never say how much support exists for the ceiling proposals. Will he admit to the House that he will not answer me because there is no support for the ceiling proposals whatsoever, and in view of that will he remove them from the legislation?
    Mr. Forsyth: I say to the hon. Gentleman in the House that we have embarked upon the biggest consultation exercise ever undertaken by a Government Department. We have had a marvellous response, which we are now analysing. Most people have been sufficiently thoughtful in their response as to preclude us from being able to carry out the kind of crude for and against analysis for which the hon. Gentleman asks.
    Mr. Douglas: That is the height of deceit.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I heard "deceit". I do not know who said it, but it is not a parliamentary word. Withdraw, please.
    Mr. Douglas: In view of your stricture, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw, but the information concerned—
    Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Member.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend, when he is considering resources for school boards, bear in mind that some of us support the ceiling proposals, myself included? Will he also bear in mind that many of the comments made about parents being unsuitable and untrained to take part in school boards could just as easily be made about unsuitable or untrained councillors or Members of Parliament? That is the kind of nonsense that we have been getting from the Opposition Benches.
    Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. I assure him that while there are differences of view about the extent to which the ceiling powers should be available to school boards, it is important to remember that the proposals in the consultation paper made it clear that school boards could get ceiling powers only if they are requested and are able to persuade the local authority to give the powers to them.
    Mr. Maxton: No.
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says "No". There was provision for the Secretary of State to have a general power to raise from floor to ceiling, and we have made it

    431
    clear throughout the consultations that we envisage using that in the circumstances where many schools had opted for ceilings.

    Housing Associations (Rents)
    Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the increase in rents for housing association dwellings arising from immediate enactment of the proposals in the Scottish housing White Paper.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Our White Paper proposals would make tenancy arrangements more flexible for new lettings and enable housing associations to set appropriate levels of rent, depending on the funding arrangements agreed. Our proposals envisage that subsidy arrangements for new developments would be geared to rent levels which average working households in a particular area could pay.
    Mr. Worthington: That reply is at some distance from frankness. In my constituency the rents on a rehabilitated, typical 16-unit tenement, at the 30 per cent. housing action grant level, would go up by 225 per cent., and at the 70 per cent. housing action grant level would go up by over 100 per cent. Is the Minister aware that that is typical of the rent increase that will occur in the west of Scotland? Does the Minister agree with that statement?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No, Sir. What I would say is that there are some housing associations where private sector funding is, not likely; for example, certain kinds of housing for disabled associations and special interest groups. It is tremendously important that traditional clients should continue to be catered for. I envisage that 100 per cent. public funding could come from a combination of housing association grants and loans, but we envisage the private sector coming in in other circumstances.
    Mr. Forth: What can my hon. Friend tell the House about the historic level of rents in Scotland, compared to that in England, bearing in mind that the average income in Scotland is now the second highest in the United Kingdom, second only to London?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Average rent levels in Scotland are lower than those in England; there is no question about that.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Since housing association rents are already 30 per cent. higher than council rents in Scotland, what possible justification can there be for a formula which is likely to double the rents of housing association tenants in Scotland? Since housing benefit will not protect all the tenants who are the hardest hit by the new mechanism, is it not yet another example of ministerial weasel words for such a mechanism to be described as affordable rents?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It most certainly is Government policy that rents should be affordable and within the reach of tenants. I reject the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave. I cannot speculate about the rent levels for individual lettings, but under the new arrangements rents will relate to the cost of providing and maintaining property, taking account of the assistance available. Housing associations will continue to meet the needs of their traditional clients.

    Further Education (Funding)
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet representatives of regional authorities to discuss the funding of further education.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: My right hon. and learned Friend meets representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities regularly to discuss local authority expenditure. The most recent meeting was on 4 December, when the rate support grant settlement for 1988–89 was discussed.
    Mrs. Ewing: Will the Minister advise the House whether he intends to meet representatives from Grampian regional council in view of the urgent need to assure that area of Scotland that there is a long-term future for the college of commerce, which was recently closed because of structural problems? Does he accept that the 8,000 students, most of whom are represented by hon. Members from the Grampian region, want to be assured that there is a long-term future for them? Will he advise us whether he is considering a special grant to ensure that the college of commerce is rebuilt speedily?
    Mr. Forsyth: The question of the Aberdeen college of commerce is a matter for the Grampian region. Students are able to continue to attend their classes in different locations, and for those students who are taking advanced courses I have ensured that grants continue to be paid from the Scottish Education Department. It is for local authorities to determine their own priorities within the capital programme. [Interruption] If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, my right hon. and learned Friend will take account of the special problems that have occurred in the Grampian region when deciding upon allocations. It is not possible at this stage to anticipate them.

    Unemployment and Health
    Dr. Moonie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will commission a study on the effects of long-term unemployment on health in Scotland.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so. To date, research has not identified any clear relationship between long-term unemployment and health.
    Dr. Moonie: I am amazed at the Minister's response, considering that a report published by the DHSS in 1981 on unemployment and families cited no fewer than 47 references which underline the relationship between longterm unemployment and poverty. Perhaps ex-Tory Members of Parliament in Scotland would be a suitable case study.
    Mr. Forsyth: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not read the British Medical Journal. If he did, he would know that in January and April there were a couple of articles about the research commissioned by the Medical Research Council on that matter. None of that research provided evidence to support his theory. Experts agree that people can help themselves and their families to stay healthy by making simple changes to their life styles. [HON. MEMBERS: "Like getting a job."] A healthy life style does not depend on a high income. I am disappointed that Opposition Members seem to think that the matter of health in Scotland is so amusing.

    Earnings
    Mr. Irvine: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent figures he has available for average weekly earnings in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rifkind: The average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees on adult rates in Scotland in April 1987 were estimated at £187·90. Only those in the south-east and the north-west of England had higher gross earnings.
    Mr. Irvine: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that those highly satisfactory figures reflect the success of the Scottish economy in moving away from the excessive reliance on the declining industries of past years towards the industries and services of the future?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is quite correct. It never ceases to amaze me how Opposition Members cannot decide whether to be upset or disbelieving when such information is provided for them.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Secretary of State accept that the low wages that contribute to the average are reprehensible, whether they are paid in Ipswich or Inverness? Will he also accept that there is an individual Scottish life style—including the need to accept climatic conditions—which means that, for example, it costs 20 per cent. more to heat the average house in Glasgow than it does in Ipswich? When will the Secretary of State bat for Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: Of course, with regard to low wages, everyone looks forward to the day when wages and salaries can continue to increase to improve the real standard of living of the population as a whole. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate that it would be counter-productive to the interests of the unemployed to insist on wage levels that meant that they could not be employed in the first place.

    State Security
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Lord Advocate will now authorise Strathclyde police and the procurator fiscal of Glasgow to return to BBC Scotland all tapes, recordings, documents and other material seized from BBC Scotland on Sunday 15 February in relation to the Zircon programme; and if he will make a statement.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No material relating to the programme concerning project Zircon was removed by Strathclyde police from the premises of BBC Scotland, Glasgow, on Sunday 15 February.
    Mr. Dalyell: What, then, were the supposed reasonable grounds for suspicion that allowed the Special Branch to go into Queen Margaret drive and eject from their beds, at 3 am, senior executives of the BBC? What is the explanation for that now?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman must be quite clear that I have to answer on behalf of the Lord Advocate and ensure that the law is properly carried out, enforced and that the correct procedures are involved. I believe that the hon. Gentleman's question goes beyond my sphere of responsibility—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—and I believe that it goes to the root of intelligence matters that are the responsibility of others.
    Mr. Galloway: Mr. Brian Barr, the programme maker of distinction who made the Zircon programme, is one of my constituents. For nearly one year he has had a cloud of suspicion hanging over him that he might have been party to undermining the security of our country. He has been harassed by unwilling and embarrassed policemen acting on Government instructions. Legal edicts flew across the Atlantic to harass his colleague, Duncan Campbell, as far away as San Francisco—
    Mr. Oppenheim: What is the question?
    Mr. Galloway: The question is, will the Minister have the grace to apologise to Brian Barr, Duncan Campbell and their colleagues for the besmirching of their reputations that this investigation has caused? Now that the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Now, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not answering this question. It is for the Front Bench to answer.
    Mr. Galloway: Now that Mrs. Thatcher — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.
    Mr. Galloway: Will the Minister accept that we need a bit of glasnost in this country in relation to official secrecy and do something about that soon?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should make it clear that on 27 November the Lord Advocate announced that, having considered a number of reports from the procurator fiscal in Glasgow, he had instructed —following consultation with the Attorney-General and having regard in particular to public interest— that no criminal proceedings would be instituted in Scotland—[Interruption]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I believe that that is the information that the hon. Gentleman asks me to confirm this afternoon. I do not consider that any action taken by the Law Officers or the police in this connection has had the effect suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that if security is compromised most people in this country would say that no one is above the law, not even the BBC?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is obviously the duty of the Lord Advocate to see that the law is properly enforced as it now stands.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Have the Government learnt any lessons from this rather squalid episode? As the Minister either cannot or will not respond to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), will he tell the House which Minister is responsible for this aspect of policy and who will answer the fair question put by my hon. Friend?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This matter has been fully debated and the Lord Advocate is satisfied that the proper procedure for obtaining the search warrant was followed, and that the involvement of the procurator fiscal and the sheriff was in accordance with the established law of Scotland.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Foreshore Pollution
    Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received representations from Edinburgh district council about his policy towards controlling pollution of the foreshore; and if he will make a statement.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. and learned Friend has received no such representations from the council.
    Mr. Brown: Although I recognise that the capitalist system stinks, why does the pong linger along Granton foreshore, an area which the Minister knows well? Is it the fault of the Lothian chemical works, or does the responsibility lie elsewhere? I remind the Minister that it is a serious matter and not to be sniffed at. We want an answer quickly.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The prime responsibility lies with the Forth river purification board and the district council. The industrial pollution inspectorate is undertaking monitoring as part of its enforcement role. Measurements have been made around the Lothian chemical company and the results were satisfactory, but, obviously, a close watch is being kept on these matters.

    Regional Aid
    Mr. McLeish: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on current regional aid to industry in Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: The net provision for regional assistance by the Scottish Office in 1987–88 is £120 million.
    Mr. McLeish: A recent opinion poll in Scotland suggested that 70 per cent. of Scots do not believe that the Government care, especially about jobs in industry. Does the Minister acknowledge that there has been a dramatic cut in regional development grant over the last few years from a peak of £339 million in 1982–83? Is he also aware of the chronic problems facing some sectors of the Scottish economy and some areas because of the need to restructure their industrial base over the next two or three years? Will he take seriously the problems of industry in Scotland, have discussions with Lord Young of Graffham, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and come up with an effective regional policy that will start to reduce in number the 330,000 Scots who still languish on the dole queues eight years after the Government were elected?
    Mr. Lang: I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the dramatic success of the Government's economic policy in reducing unemployment in Scotland by some 55,000 this year. So far as regional assistance is concerned, this party needs no lessons from the Labour party, which slashed the regional assistance budget for Scotland in one year by 46 per cent. when it abolished the regional employment premium.
    Mr. Millan: Will the Minister confirm that it is part of regional policy to attract the head offices of major corporations to Scotland and to maintain in Scotland the
    436
    head offices of major corporations that are already there? In view of the Government fiasco over Guinness and Distillers, may we have an assurance that the same thing will not happen over Britoil? Is he aware that just a year ago the chief executive of Britoil told Glasgow Members that the company would not welcome a takeover, that it wanted the protection of the so-called golden share for at least five years, and that it was committed to staying in Glasgow? If the BP takeover succeeds, all that will be prejudiced. May we have an assurance that the Government, who can stop this takeover, will stop it?
    Mr. Lang: I was not aware that BP had made a takeover bid for Britoil. It is desirable for company headquarters to remain in Scotland. Sadly, the nationalisation of many fine old Scottish companies took the headquarters of those companies forth of Scotland to the south of England. However, we are now developing the enterprise culture, as a result of which the number of companies in Scotland is expanding rapidly, and those companies will have large headquarters in Scotland in the future.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite the fact that the standards of living of the Scots are far higher than those of people living in the east midlands, taxpayers in the east midlands, including my constituents, have to pay a huge subsidy to the Scots in the form of regional aid, which is not available to my constituents? Is it not time that Opposition Members stopped whingeing and wrote letters of thanks to my constituents, who are subsidising them?
    Mr. Lang: It is certainly the case that the share of regional assistance going to Scotland has risen from 21 per cent. in 1979 to 31 per cent. of the total, but that reflects the special Scottish circumstances that have made it necessary. We are concerned to achieve value for money for United Kingdom taxpayers—and there, I am sure, I am at one with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Lambie: When will the Minister carry out an investigation into abuses of regional aid in view of the correspondence that I recently sent him on two firms in the Cunninghame district?
    Mr. Lang: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter that is being closely considered at the moment. I hope to be able to write to him about it shortly.

    School Boards
    Mr. Galbraith: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many officials in his Department are currently engaged in assessing the merits of the response to his consultative document on school boards; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: It is for Ministers to make judgments about the merits of the arguments put to them.
    Mr. Galbraith: Once again the Under-Secretary of State avoids the question. Will he say what criteria he uses to assess these responses and when he is likely to tell us the result? Will he once again confirm that in the responses there is no support whatever for the ceiling proposals and that these will be left out of the later legislation?
    Mr. Forsyth: I can do better than that. I can direct the hon. Gentleman and anyone else who is interested to the

    437
    House of Commons Library or to St. Andrew's House, where I have arranged for copies of all the submissions, other than those marked "confidential", to be available. There is no secret, and I think that the hon. Gentleman will find, after he has spent some days examining these responses, how impossible it is for us to make the kind of crude analysis that he requests.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: No. I will take points of order after the statement.

Public Expenditure (Scotland)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the allocation of my public expenditure provision in the next three years.
I plan to raise net expenditure on the services for which I am responsible to £8,505 million in 1988–89. This is some 6·9 per cent. more than planned expenditure for the current year, and nearly 5 per cent. more than was planned for 1988–89 in the last public expenditure White Paper. In each of the following two years expenditure provision is to grow by over £100 million.
Within the total figures, the provision made for the services within the Scottish block has been enhanced in the normal way by the consequences of applying the territorial formula to changes agreed in the survey for comparable English programmes. An annotated table giving the allocations for each service is available in the Vote Office, and I am arranging for it to be published in the Official Report.
Provision for industry next year will be increased by £25 million, or over 10 per cent. compared with the plans published in January. Within this, £10 million will be allocated to the Scottish Development Agency and £5 million to the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which should allow increases in gross expenditure in real terms, and £7 million to direct grants to industry. I have also decided to increase the funds available for tourism in Scotland by £1 million.
My planned provision for housing continues to concentrate resources on capital investment in improving public sector housing rather than indiscriminate subsidies. It will also continue to deal with the backlog of payments of private sector improvement grants. The total planned resources for the Scottish Special Housing Association and the Housing Corporation in Scotland will be increased, allowing the SSHA to plan on the basis of some £55 million in total expenditure, and similarly £132 million for the HCIS, for projects including housing co-operatives. Further provision will be available later for suitable new urban regeneration housing projects. Extra provision is included for the establishment of Scottish Homes and its build-up in the later years. Subject to final decisions on the level of subsidies, the planned increase in resources for housing investment in 1988–89 will be about £30 million. This will be the third successive year in which investment has increased.
Expenditure on agriculture and fisheries will increase by £11 million, £16·5 million and £13·7 million over the three years of the survey period. In particular, provision is made to encourage developments under the agricultural development programme.
Planned spending on education will rise to £2,186 million next year, or 9 per cent. more than this year, reflecting the priority that I attach to this service. This will provide principally for current and capital expenditure by local authorities. I look to them to make the most effective possible use of this money in delivering the education service, especially the introduction of standard grade, for which central support will continue to be available.
I intend to increase spending on the health programme by about £130 million next year to £2,393 million, and by over £100 million in each of the following two years.
440
Within this increased provision, there will be over £1,660 million for hospitals and community health services next year, £85 million more than this year's level of funding. Health boards will also be able to retain the resources released through their economy and efficiency programmes, which should amount to over £20 million next year. This should enable them to meet pay and price inflation, develop in new directions for breast cancer screening and treating AIDS sufferers, and to improve their services in line with national policies and priorities.
Provision for family practitioner services is to be increased by almost £35 million to £475 million next year and to £540 million by 1990–91. This takes account of expected growth in public demand for these services, and of the proposals set out in the Government's White Paper "Promoting Better Health".
I am conscious of real pressures on social work resources from demography and new demands, so I have increased provision by just over 12 per cent.
My plans provide £680 million in 1988–89 — an increase of 9·5 per cent. over this year's provision—to meet the needs of law and order services. This should be sufficient for an increase over present police establishments and for the cost of the new working practices under the fresh start agreement, which have just been introduced in the prison service. Capital expenditure over the three years will be £154 million, which is intended to provide for a continuing programme of refurbishment of the prison estate, for new or improved court houses and the needs of police and fire services.
Planned provision for transport will he £12 million above that planned for 1987–88, which followed several years of high relative levels of provision. Provision for 1988–89 will, however, necessarily be £8 million below the level forecast in the last White Paper because of the need to transfer resources within the block to local authority current expenditure. Nevertheless, the resources available will enable investment in trunk roads to be maintained broadly at current levels, with important bypasses being given priority. A start will he made on the upgrading of the A74 in the later years, but my provision will still leave room for other worthwhile projects.
I have been able to increase provision for the other environmental services programme, which maintains essential public services and functions, mainly by local authorities. It includes an increase of £6 million for the urban programme, which is a prime means of directing Government funding into the regeneration of our inner cities. The development of industrial infrastructure in the new towns, which contributed to over 4,000 new jobs in 1986–87, will also be able to increase significantly.
Provision for expenditure on the arts within the Scotland programme will rise by just under 6 per cent. This should enable local authorities to respond constructively to the Miles report on museums in Scotland, and will support Scottish national institutions in making further improvements in their infrastructure. It will also allow planning of the second phase of the new Causewayside building for the National Library of Scotland to proceed.
The increase that we are entitled to under the formula for local authority current expenditure in 1988–89, is less than the extra cost of the generous rate support grant settlement that I announced to the House in July. This is because of the higher level of local authority spending in Scotland compared to England and Wales. I have therefore made up the balance from the rest of my block,

441
so the amount available for local authority capital expenditure and central Government expenditure in 1988–89 is lower than it would otherwise have been. I have no plans for a similar transfer in the later years, in the hope that local authorities will control their current expenditure and thus avoid diverting resources from their capital programmes and other important services within the block.

1987–88

1988–89

1989–90

1990–91

1Cm56-II

1Cm56-II Provision

2Revised Provision

1Cm56-II Provision

2Revised Provision

Net

3Gross

Net

3Gross

Net

3Gross

Net

3Gross

Agriculture

186

187

187

200

200

190

210

210

210

210

Industry

257

295

241

266

297

250

260

290

260

290

Tourism

13

13

13

14

15

10

20

20

20

20

Transport

601

602

621

613

614

630

660

660

680

680

Housing

695

868

702

639

882

730

700

910

720

920

Other environmental services

610

684

633

693

773

650

710

790

740

820

Law, order and protective services

621

624

642

680

683

660

690

690

710

720

Education

1,956

1,961

2,041

2,186

2,190

2,090

2,230

2,230

2,290

2,290

Arts and libraries

82

82

84

87

87

90

90

90

100

100

Health and social work

2,605

2,658

2,714

2,829

2,837

2,830

2,950

2,950

3,070

3,080

Other public services

118

118

122

125

125

120

130

130

130

130

LA current expenditure not allocated to services

124

124

127

40

40

130

40

40

40

40

Nationalised Industries external financing

87

87

-20

134

134

-170

-70

-70

-190

-190

47,954

8,301

8,108

8,505

8,875

8,220

8,610

8,950

8,770

9,090

Note: Figures for 1989–90 and 1990–91 are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

1 White Paper (Cm56-II) figures adjusted for pre-Survey changes.

2 Figures reflect Survey changes and changes since the Autumn Statement. Some figures may be subject to detailed technical amendment.

3 Gross provision consists of total net provision plus capital receipts.

4 The figure differs from the net outturn figure of £8,220 million shown in the Chancellor's Autumn Statement for 1987–88; the main differences are continued spending by local authorities above the level provided for; NHS pay settlements; and higher than expected Electricity Board costs.

AGRICULTURE
The expenditure plans will permit development of the Government's agriculture and fishing policies, with particular regard to the environment and the rural economy.
INDUSTRY
Overall provision has been increased by £25m — 10·4% — in 1988–89 compared with last year's White Paper. Provision remains broadly constant over the forward years. The increased provision will allow increased spending by the SDA and HIDB both of which will have increased spending power, in real terms, in 1988–89 compared with 1987–88 and on direct grants to industry.
TOURISM
Total provision for 1988–89 has been increased by about 10% compared to the level in last year's plans and is planned to increase by about a further 20% over the forward years. The major part of tourism expenditure is undertaken by the Scottish Tourist Board which will be enabled to increase both its marketing effort and the grants it makes for tourist facilities.
TRANSPORT
Provision planned for (excluding grants to transport nationalised industries) will be £12m more than planned for 1987–88 albeit £8m less than planned provision for 1988–89 set out in last year's White Paper. This level of provision will enable investment in the trunk roads programme to be maintained at broadly current levels, with important bypasses given priority. Substantial increases have been made in provision for current expenditure by local authorities, although this constrained the amount available for capital
The allocation that I have announced today reflects the priority that I attach to the needs of the different services in Scotland in exercising my discretion within the Scottish block. The increases that I have announced demonstrate the Government's continued commitment to meeting Scotland's needs. We have been able to do this because of our successful management of the economy, which has allowed public expenditure to be increased substantially at the same time as its share of national income has been reduced.
Following is the information—
expenditure by local authorities. The Government remain committed to subsidising shipping services and civil aviation facilities in the Highlands and Islands. Provision for the later years has been increased over the levels provided for in Cm 56. A start will be made on the promised upgrading of the A74 in the later years, but the programme will still permit other worthwhile projects to proceed.
HOUSING
The increased provision for Housing is concentrated on capital investment which is planned to increase by £30m and deal with the backlog of private sector improvement grants; and provide the SSHA and Housing Corporation in Scotland with the resources for their mainstream and urban information work.
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
The Other Environmental Services programme maintains essential public services (mainly by local authorities) concerned with health and safety, and environmental crimes. Increased provision has been made in the total programme including in particular £6 million for the Urban Programme to direct funding into the re-generation of inner cities; and £15 million extra capital provision to assist local authorities in implementation of the Community Charge in 1988–89 (in addition to extra current expenditure for this programme which the Secretary of State announced in July). The development of new industrial expenditure and jobs in the New Towns will also increase significantly. (Over 4,000 new jobs were created in the Scottish New Towns in 1986–87).
EDUCATION
Provision has been increased by £180·1 million or 9 per

443
cent. Within this figure local authority provision has been increased by £164·1 million, including £90 million which is unallocated to particular services pending the review of staffing standards. Central support for education reforms has been maintained (Standard Grade) or established (£0·8 million for curricular development, assessment and management planning). Increased provision for higher education (£8·5 million) will significantly ease the running cost pressures on the centrally funded sector.
LAW, ORDER AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES
Plans for the prison service give full cover for the cost in staff and supplies of the expected inmate population; provide for the costs of keeping Low Moss Prison open until 1989 and for the cost of introducing new working arrangements for prison officers in accordance with the Fresh Start agreement. For the police, provision will meet fully the expected cost of the service with a modest annual increase in manpower and will maintain central support for the Scottish Crime Squad and its Drugs Wing and to the Scottish Criminal Records Office. There will be continuing support for crime prevention measures. The plans also allow for higher levels of demand for legal aid services and for increased running costs in the Courts. £154 million of capital spending is planned over the next three years, on new or improved court and prison buildings including the replacement of Peterhead Prison, and on the needs of the police and fire services.
ARTS AND LIBRARIES
Provision for local authority expenditure on Arts and Libraries has been increased by £6·1 million (or over 10 per cent.) compared with 1987–88. Central government provision reflects completion of phase 1 of the National Library of Scotland and planning for phase 2.
HEALTH
Expenditure on the National Health Service in Scotland will be increased by about £130 million next year, which is about 5·8 per cent. above this year's level of spending, and by over £100 million in each of the two following years. The provision for hospitals and community health services will be increased by £85 million, or 5·5 per cent., to over £1,660 million. Health Boards will also be able to retain the resources released through their efficiency programmes, which should amount to over £20 million next year. Plans for the Family Practitioner Services allow for expected increase in public demand and for the proposals for improving the services set out in the Government's White Paper "Promoting Better Health". Capital spending on the health service will total about £370 million over the next three years.
SOCIAL WORK
Total provision for Social Work is planned to rise by some £47 million primarily for local authority current and capital expenditure. The figures reflect the transfer of responsibility from the Secretary of State to local authorities for certain court disposals of children.
OTHER PUBLIC SERVICES
The expenditure covered by this programme is to provide for the administrative costs of the Scottish Office, including the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, and of three smaller Scottish departments: the General Register Office (Scotland), the Scottish Record Office and the Department of the Registers of Scotland.
Mr. Donald Dewar: I note that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's press department has been hard at work in anticipation of today's events. One result was an item in the latest issue of the Sunday Times, which talked of a significant boost to Scotland's share of Government spending and produced a most tempting list of goodies.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the final product that has been unveiled today does not live up to the
444
advertisement, and that this kind of creative journalism does nothing for his credibility or for the standing of politics in Scotland?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman states that he intends to raise expenditure to £8,505 million. The House will be somewhat underwhelmed, as the Autumn Statement announced a figure of £8,510 million. The difference is no doubt accounted for by the fact that in the Autumn Statement we tend to even up the figures. The truth is that the figure is the same as was announced in the Autumn Statement. If we take that figure, allow for inflation and compare it with the expected outturn for 1987–88, one finds that there is a cut in real terms of between £80 million and £85 million, and not the increase that was so enthusiastically trailed by the Secretary of State.
It is a complicated set of figures, presented in a slightly different way this year. I should like to ask the Secretary of State about some of the specific totals. Is it not true that, on housing, taking the net figure for 1987–88 against the net provision for 1988–89 produces a cut in cash terms of £56 million and in real terms of £87 million? If we take the gross figure for 1987–88 and compare it with that for 1988–89, including the expected capital receipts from the sale of public sector housing, the cut still remains at £25 million in real terms. Is that not an abdication of responsibility, given the scale of the housing crisis in Scotland? The Secretary of State talks about the concentration of resources. Is that not a cruel euphemism for another significant cut in the already savaged housing budget?
Will the Secretary of State admit that, although he spent more than £300 million on industry last year, £206 million on regional aid, and just under £100 million on the Scottish Development Agency, he is planning to spend in net terms only £266 million next year and £260 million in the two years to follow? To put into perspective the rather extravagant claims that he has been making, is it not true that he spent in current terms just over £330 million as recently as 1985–86? Why does the Secretary of State boast so shamelessly of success in negotiating on Scotland's behalf in the Cabinet when he will spend less next year than he did in the current year? Will he give us a specific guarantee that Scotland will not be affected by any alterations in regional aid policy dreamed up by his noble Friend Lord Young?
I shall now deal with the health and social work budget. In net terms for 1987–88, the budget was £2,605 million. It is now rising in net terms for 1988–89 to £2,829 million. I concede that that is an increase in real terms of £107 million. Does the Secretary of State really think that that is adequate? Is there not an element of sleight of hand, as in the real terms increase of £107 million we have to accommodate the £130 million increase in cash terms in the health budget to which he referred and the 12 per cent. increase in the social work budget that he is also parading in his statement?
Whatever happens to the figures, does he not admit that they simply do not deal with the major problems facing the Health Service in Scotland and certainly will not face up to the problems referred to by the president of the Royal College of Physicians in Edinburgh? Professor Michael Oliver said that Ministers "won't or can't hear" and that it will take a "few deaths, a few scandals" to move them. Will that view not be confirmed by today's announcement?

445
The figures seem to be totally inadequate and no amount of juggling with the totals can disguise the fact that this is a disappointing performance by the Secretary of State. I repeat that, if one takes the outturn figures given by the Government in the Autumn Statement for this year and the expected expenditure figures for the Scottish Office, the total budget for next year is cut in real terms by over £80 million and that cannot be good news by any standards.
The Secretary of State has made minor adjustments to individual spending totals within a budget that has declined overall in real terms. Much though he may try to make of it, I wish that he would pay more attention to the problems facing Scotland — the problems that will continue to trouble the people of Scotland—and less to the sort of political sleight of hand and packaging that has been a mark of the Secretary of State's performance in recent weeks.
Mr. Rifkind: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me saying that, if the worst that he can say about my statement today is that it was disappointing, that shows its worth in terms of the real benefits that it will bring the people of Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman confirmed that the amount referred to today was the same as in the Autumn Statement. Therefore, perhaps he should attach more importance to these matters than to speculative items in newspapers, which he seemed to assume to be holy writ.
The hon. Gentleman said that there was a reduction in the net amount available for housing. He will be aware that what matters to people in Scotland is how much is to be invested in the housing stock of local authorities, the Scottish Special Housing Association and the Housing Corporation. Whatever the hon. Gentleman says, he cannot avoid the fact that, as I said in my statement, £30 million more will be available for investment in the public sector housing stock in Scotland, which will be highly beneficial. [Interruption.] It is the gross figure that shows how much will be spent on the improvement of the housing stock and on building new sheltered or special needs housing, and that represents a substantial increase which will be available to the various recipients.
The hon. Gentleman will be content to know that the Scottish Development Agency will receive resources higher than it has received at any time in its history, enabling it to carry out more excellent work on urban regeneration.
On regional policy changes, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to keep his patience for a while. I can assure him that any policy developments in regional aid will have been come to in the full consideration of how we can best boost employment and economic development in the various regions of the United Kingdom.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for conceding that my announcement today represents an increase in real terms in health expenditure. [Interruption.]That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman said. I listened to him, even if his hon. Friends did not. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for conceding that.
I must also point out to the hon. Gentleman, and, indeed, to others in Scotland who point to the continuing needs of the Health Service in Scotland, that their views will carry more weight if represented in a more balanced fashion. For example, if they pointed to the fact that since
446
1979 new capital investment in the NHS in Scotland has resulted in the completion of 51 major new hospital developments, providing over 5,770 beds and some 481 day places, and to the fact that 32 major developments are now under construction or in planning, that would represent a balanced view of the situation affecting the Health Service in Scotland at present.
Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, with the excellent announcement last week on Ravenscraig, today's financial statement is more good news for Scotland? Is he aware that the continued high expenditure on trunk roads is most welcome, and will that include the Dumfries bypass? Finally, does he further agree that the 9 per cent. increase in education is excellent news towards increasing the quality of education and the facilities required to that end?
Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Yes, I can confirm that the proposed construction of the Dumfries bypass will be going ahead. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the important extra help that we are giving to the development of education, particularly standard grade, in Scotland.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is no real news in this statement? Of course, it adds flesh to the bones of the Autumn Statement, but it takes us no further. Does he accept that he led the House to expect that there would be advances beyond the Autumn Statement? Is there not a real need for a rural development agency within the SDA, or however erected, particularly having regard to the troubles of Scottish agriculture, since that will enable some stability and long-term planning in that sector?
On prison and hospital services, does the Secretary of State really think that the figures that he has announced this afternoon will adequately measure up to the real and acute problems that these important sectors face? Does he accept that there is the whiff of an underlying theme in the statement that the Government are moving directly away from the local authorities and the provision of services through the local authorities in Scotland? Surely, if that is the Government's policy, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have the courage to say so openly and not in this underhand fashion.
Mr. Rifkind: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that no further information has been provided that did not appear in the Autumn Statement. The global amount available to the Scottish Office was announced in the Autumn Statement and as in previous years this announcement deals with the distribution of that sum to the various functional responsibilities of the Department. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman now has the exact details that he requires. He knows how much will be available for health, housing, education and the various other aspects of Scottish expenditure. Had the hon. Gentleman been listening to the statement, he would be aware of that fact.
Rural development is a matter to which I attach very considerable importance. The Scottish Development Agency has a responsibility for the whole of Scotland, and I believe that the extra resources available to the agency will help it to carry out activities in rural areas. In addition, the extra resources being provided for the Scottish tourist board will be of particular importance in rural areas because tourism is clearly one major source of potential further employment and growth.

447
I have indicated the resources that will be made available for prisons and hospitals. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) conceded, the figures represent increases in real terms in both categories. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) would have acknowledged that.
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Do not the opposition parties' questions show a total inability to recognise what is good news for Scotland? Conservative Members recognise the achievements of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on behalf of Scotland, which will also be recognised in Scotland. Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that the improvement of the A94 Perth-to-Aberdeen road to dual carriageway standard will go ahead as planned?
Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I can confirm to my right hon. Friend that most of the trunk road developments currently envisaged will be going ahead because the overall resources for the trunk programme are being maintained. The particular projects and allocations will be announced in due course, but I would not expect any significant changes in the trunk road programme. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his earlier comments.
Mr. Bruce Millan: Why does not the Secretary of State answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) about totals? The figures that my hon. Friend cited were absolutely accurate and were taken from the Government's own document. The outturn for the current year is expected to be £8,220 million. The figure announced for next year is £8,505 million—an increase of only 3·5 per cent. in cash terms, which is less than the rate of inflation. The figures announced in today's statement represent a cut in expenditure in real terms in the next year.
Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman is incorrect. The figures that I announced represent an increase of 6·9 per cent. over planned expenditure for the current year and an increase of nearly 5 per cent. over what was planned for 1988–89 in the last public expenditure White Paper. I realise that Opposition Members are desperate to find grounds to criticise the statement, but they will find it very difficult.
Mr. Allan Stewart: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend, especially on his last reply, which confirmed that, while public expenditure is increasing in real terms it is falling as a proportion of gross domestic product — in Scotland as in the rest of the United Kingdom — as a result of the success of the Government's economic policy.
Can my right hon. and learned Friend say anything about new towns industrial infrastructure? I am not sure whether I missed that part of his statement. On trunk roads, I take it that I am correct in assuming that it goes without saying that major route improvements will go ahead in the trunk road programme, but can my right hon. and learned Friend say anything about the structural maintenance of trunk roads?
Mr. Rifkind: The development of the industrial infrastructure in the new towns can be increased significantly and the road maintenance programme can be maintained at a high level. There will be a reduction in the
448
local authority capital programme on roads, but that will not affect the maintenance programme, particularly with regard to road safety matters.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State help the House by telling us whether he has resolved the dilemma in the Cabinet? If the enterprise culture is indeed coming to Scotland, should he not announce dramatic decreases in public expenditure? On the other hand, if, as we suspect, the enterprise culture is there, but needs dramatic subventions from the Treasury, these subventions, particularly those on urban aid, are inadequate. A £6 million increase in urban aid is wholly inadequate, not just to deal with the burdens of a central city, but to deal with areas such as the mining communities, which have been decimated for many years. We need a re-assessment of the amount and the criteria for urban aid, so that those areas come within its orbit.
Mr. Rifkind: The figures that I have announced do not represent some dramatic increase in expenditure purely for Scotland; this year we have had an announcement of increases in Government expenditure in the United Kingdom as a whole. The figures that I have announced today are figures to which Scotland is entitled on the basis of the formula which has been used for several years to determine appropriate levels of provision.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the enterprise culture is found significantly in Scotland in areas of tourism? Does he agree that the Government recognise that, which is a reason why they have increased the funding to assist the pump-priming of tourism which will create many new jobs in rural areas? Can he confirm that the Scottish Office has spent about £670 million on trunk roads on major routes throughout Scotland since 1979? Will he confirm that the expenditure on education announced today will make it possible for the schemes that his hon. Friend the Minister is introducing to come to pass?
Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I can confirm those points. An additional £1 million is being made available for tourism, primarily for the Scottish tourist board, and I can confirm the substantial road infrastructure improvements, to which he referred.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: May I remind the Secretary of State that, during the general election campaign, he called a press conference and declared that part of his party's manifesto was to upgrade the A74 to M74 status? Today we hear that that has again been postponed for later years. I have 32 miles of this inadequate A74 running through my constituency. How many men, women and children will be slaughtered on this unsafe road before the Secretary of State carries out his manifesto commitment?
Mr. Rifkind: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman knows little about road construction. He should appreciate that one cannot simply start the construction of a new motorway within weeks of announcing one's intention to do so. The planning and design work is already in preparation and we intend to upgrade the A74 to motorway status in order to connect the motorway network of Scotland with that of England and Wales. The announcements that I have made today will enable us to continue to make good progress towards achieving that objective.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Secretary of State accept that he is better at news management than at winning budget increases for Scotland? It has already been pointed out that the totals announced today are exactly the same as those in the Autumn Statement. We are only hearing about a rejigging of the programmes within that.
If we examine the details of provision for 1990–91, the picture becomes even worse. In 1990–91, £8,770 million will be provided, but at 1986–87 prices that is £7,550 million and compares with £7,577 million in 1979–80. Can the Secretary of State explain how, with a succession of apparent triumphs in Cabinet, Scottish public expenditure will be less in real terms in 1990–91 than it was in 1979–80?
Mr. Rifkind: I am somewhat amused and disconcerted by the great surprise among Opposition Members that the grand total of the announcements that I have made today is exactly the same as the grand total contained in the Autumn Statement a couple of months ago. As the purpose of today's statement is to announce how that money is to be distributed, it should have come as no great surprise. In each of the years during which the Government have been in office, expenditure in Scotland has remained at the same proportion of comparable expenditure in England. The fluctuation from year to year has been very small.
Mr. Eric Forth: My right hon. and learned Friend is to be congratulated on continuing, in his usual excellent way, the privileged position of the Scots in the United Kingdom. Will he confirm that public expenditure per capita in Scotland is still 20 per cent. or more above that in England? Will he confirm that public expenditure as a percentage of gross national product is 48 per cent. in Scotland as opposed to 41 per cent. nationally? Does he believe that, in future, the Conservative party will obtain a response and gratitude from Scottish people as it has in the past?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct to highlight public expenditure. He will be aware that, not just as between Scotland and England but within Scotland and within England, we must vary expenditure according to need. Just as public expenditure varies in different parts of England, so it does in parts of Scotland. It is not always entirely helpful to use all-Scottish and all-English figures other than as a method of statistical presentation.
Mr. Alistair Darling: The Secretary of State will appreciate that the distribution of funds is important. May I test his good news? Will he assure the House that the health authorities that have been required to cut expenditure this year will have those cuts restored in the next financial year? Although Lothian health board has £18 million-worth of capital expenditure this year, will the Secretary of State assure the House that the board will receive additional funds to rebuild the Royal infirmary so that it need not rely on Victorian endowments simply to patch and mend?
Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Member for Garscadden conceded, I have announced today real increases in the provision for the Health Service in Scotland. The provision of individual health boards will be determined in due course and I cannot comment now on the amount that will be available to Lothian health board.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Not during questions on a statement.
Mr. David Harris: Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to reject the whining, whingeing and synthetic indignation from the Opposition to which we have become accustomed? Does he accept that many hon. Members who represent English constituencies —mine is in the far south-west—have gained the distinct impression that Scotland is almost being force-fed with public expenditure? In support of that, may I point out that we do not even have a development agency, whereas the budget of the Scottish Development Agency has just been increased by 10 per cent? Despite what Opposition Members say, expenditure on tourism is expected to increase by more than 20 per cent. in Scotland. May we have similar treatment for England?
Mr. Rifkind: Similar industrial and environmental work to that of the SDA is carried out in the areas of England, albeit in different ways. Although there is no development agency for England, the work of industrial assistance and environmental improvement is carried out by organisations such as English Estates. The main advantage of having an SDA is not the amount of resources that it attracts, but the opportunity that it provides to co-ordinate the responsibilities of several Departments, which in Scotland are all the responsibility of the Scottish Office.
Mr. David Lambie: Now that the Secretary of State is providing money to upgrade the A74—which I welcome, since it is the main road from Scotland to England—is it not time that he considered other roads, including the main A737 through the Garnock valley connecting Irvine new town and Hunterston with the main motorway system in the Glasgow area? The construction by the Finnish company, Caledonian Paper, of a new pulp paper mill will cause a tremendous increase in traffic. The Clyde port authority has published new plans for further development at Hunterston. Is it not time for the Secretary of State to stop blaming Strathclyde regional council, and instead give it the money to upgrade this road, which will be necessary in the development of all of north Ayrshire?
Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming our proposals for the A74. Strathclyde regional council must determine its priorities for non-trunk roads.
Mr. Tony Marlow: May I be the first to represent the interests of the taxpayer in discussion of this boondoggle? Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House why this slush fund has been welcomed with so little gratitude by the recipients on the Benches opposite? Can he tell the House why, when we have a Conservative Government, those who are most Socialist receive the most public money? Will he also tell my constituents how much subsidy, on average, they pay per capita to each constituent represented by hon. Members opposite?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the response of the Opposition is almost exactly the same as the response to the statements of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and others who represent Departments involved in such matters. The

451
expenditure is not paid for solely by my hon. Friend's constituents: it is paid for by taxpayers throughout the United Kingdom, including my constituents.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Minister mentioned urban renewal. A project in my constituency — the conversion of Spiers wharf warehouses into houses—has the support of Strathclyde region, Glasgow district and the SDA. Those houses are on the bank of the Forth and Clyde canal. It appears that the British Waterways Board is receiving no support from the Department of the Environment in cleaning that canal. Since the project depends on the renewal of the 12 miles of canal from my constituency to Kirkintilloch, will the Secretary of State meet his opposite number in the Department of the Environment to see what can be done to improve matters?
Mr. Rifkind: The most appropriate action that the hon. Gentleman could take would be to raise those matters directly with the relevant Minister at the Department of the Environment. If it has responsibility for such matters, that would be the sensible way of pursuing his constituency interest.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: I was surprised to hear my right hon. and learned Friend say that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) was unhelpful. In my experience, my hon. Friend is one of the most helpful Members of the House, and I thought that he made a good point on behalf of the taxpayers of England.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, in 1986–87, public spending per head in England was £1,968 and public spending per head in Scotland was nearly one third greater, at £2,519? Will his statement today improve that disparity? Will public spending per head in Scotland be brought down towards the level in England? Does not this annual rattling of the begging bowl in Scotland tend to give the Scots a sense of inferiority?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend will be the first to appreciate that expenditure should take into account need. That factor has long been recognised as justifying different expenditure in different areas of the United Kingdom. Many parts of England receive higher expenditure than do parts of the south-east. Conservative Governments have always attached great importance to such matters, because it is crucial to ensure that our provision takes into account the requirements of an area. I believe it to be entirely justified.
Mr. Norman Buchan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to drift from net to gross, and from gross to net, according to which matters he is dealing with. Will he turn his attention to what he said were the preferable figures — the gross figures? When one looks at them, one sees an immediate collapse in direct spending on industry in Scotland. Is that not disgraceful, given the level of unemployment that we have?
Mr. Rifkind: What I announced today was an extra £25 million for industry in Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman does not see that as an improvement, it is difficult to know what would impress him.
Mr. Harry Ewing: In view of the insults thrown at the people of Scotland by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), will the Secretary of State advise the Scottish tourist board to spend some of the additional
452
money that it has—the £1 million—on telling the people of Scotland not to go to St. Ives for their holidays? The hon. Gentleman's constituency could not survive without the thousands of Scots like myself who spend their holidays there. Does the Secretary of State agree that the hon. Gentleman's constituents who run hotels and boarding houses will not be happy tomorrow when they read what the hon. Gentleman has said about the holidaymakers who go to St. Ives?
Mr. Rifkind: I look forward to many thousands of Scots continuing to visit St. Ives, and I also look forward to many residents of St. Ives continuing to visit Falkirk.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Does the Secretary of State accept that the answers that he gave to his four hon. Friends — the foolish foursome —about public spending in Scotland were too difficult for them to understand because there were too many big words? Perhaps he should give a clearer explanation in a writ ten answer. The reason why there is more public expenditure in Scotland is that there is more unmet need and higher unemployment than in the south. One has only to look at the constituencies with the highest unemployment and the lowest pay to see that. Conservative Members should look at the figures. The Secretary of State has an educational job to carry out. Conservative Members should think about that and not spend their time tiresomely insulting Scotland.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Lady might appreciate that there might be less irritation, perhaps misunderstanding, about the requirements of her constituents, if occasionally she was willing to recognise that, far from her constituents being deprived as a consequence of the Government's decisions, they have benefited from a recognition of the differential levels of need.
The hon. Lady should realise that the constant refusal to acknowledge that her constituents receive differential levels of expenditure, and that that has continued under the Government, means that perhaps she has herself and her colleagues to blame, when there is evidence of such frustration among hon. Members from other constituencies. I must say to the hon. Lady that it is not lust hon. Members from constituencies south of the border, but hon. Members with constituencies elsewhere in Scotland, who sometimes feel concerned at what they see as the differential levels of expenditure in constituencies such as that represented by the hon. Lady. If there is a refusal to recognise support when it is being provided, that may be part of the explanation for the concern.
Mr. John McAllion: The Secretary of State has shown today that he is incapable of distinguishing between levels of planned expenditure and outturn expenditure in terms of public expenditure in Scotland. However, I hope that he is capable of recognising that, in Tayside, the efforts to provide proper community care services have been hamstrung by the inability of Tayside health board or Tayside regional council to find sufficient resources from within their present budgets, which are under the continual pressure of cuts. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that the level of spending on health and social services that he announced today will be sufficient to enable both those bodies to provide the funding that they are seeking? If he receives future representations from those two bodies for extra funding, will he grant those extra funds?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that in most years — virtually every year — outturn expenditure tends to be higher than planned expenditure. Therefore, if one is trying to make any attempt at a valid comparison between Governments proposals this year and proposals in previous years, it makes sense to compare planned provision with a planned provision announcement at a comparable time in a previous year.
Mr. Henry McLeish: Will the Secretary of State reflect—[Hon. Members: "Reading."]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to hold a note in his hand if he wishes, as long as he does not read it.
Mr. McLeish: The behaviour of certain Conservative Members is eloquent testimony as to why the Tories have done so badly in Scotland.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman talk about the real economy in Scotland, not the one that he would like us to believe exists? His statement on the industry increases is slightly misleading because our calculations suggest that there is a £2·6 million reduction in the budget. Indeed, if one takes the juggling of figures between the SDA and the HIDB in direct grant, it may well be that some parts of the industry budget are suffering to accommodate an increase in other parts.
The Secretary of State should also reflect on this. We hear about whingeing. What about the 320,000 Scots who are whingeing on the dole queue? What about the 100,000 Scots who are whingeing on Government special programmes? Will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman take seriously the fact that investment in industry, jobs and the economy in Scotland does not measure up to the problems that we face?
Finally, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reflect on one other development, which the Secretary of State for Employment may or may not have told him about? We shall have an extra 40,000 places next year on the Government's new adult programme. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman provide resources in the statement so that those concerned can embark on projects that are worth while and provide effective training—or is that to be a workfare scheme on the cheap?
Mr. Rifkind: With regard to unemployment, the hon. Gentleman should recognise that there is unemployment
454
in Scotland, as there is elsewhere in the United Kingdom, but he might have referred to the fact that unemployment in Scotland has fallen by some 55,000 since January this year. If that decline in unemployment continues at that rate, we can look forward to unemployment ceasing to be the serious problem that it continues to be at present.
Mr. Sam Galbraith: Does the Secretary of State agree that when one looks at Health Service expenditure and applies the National Health Service prices and wages deflator, which is the correct deflator, one sees that the increase is under 1 per cent? One needs 1 per cent. to stand still, but we have an increase of under 1 per cent. As we are already budgeting for an increase in primary care, that means that there will be effective cuts in the hospital service. Where will those cuts be in the hospital service?
Mr. Rifkind: I do not concede for one moment that there is to be a cut in health expenditure in Scotland. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the views expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden.
Mr. Tony Worthington: Does the Secretary of State agree, looking at the housing figures, that the capital allocation for next year remains below the level, in real terms, of the capital allocation for 1979–80? Does he further agree that the way in which the increase on last year's figures has been achieved in the capital allocation comes about by including the total cost of covenanting schemes within one year's allocation instead of, as is more appropriate, spreading it over the life of those covenanting schemes?
Mr. Rifkind: I remind the hon. Gentleman, if he is going back to 1978–79—[Interruption.] I can see why the hon. Gentleman does not want to go back to 1978. As he will recall, it was the previous Labour Government who were responsible for a massive cut in capital expenditure on housing in Scotland. That is a fact that we shall not let the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends forget. Capital expenditure on housing in Scotland has gone up over the past few years. Today I have announced further provision, which will mean extra investment in capital expenditure on housing in Scotland of some £30 million. That can be only for the benefit of those who depend on that north of the border.

State Security
4.18 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer to question No. 16, on the Zircon affair. I contend that it was an orderly question, otherwise the Table Office would not have allowed it. There was no attempt by Ministers to transfer it. Indeed, on the rota, the Secretary of State answers on behalf of the Lord Advocate. It will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that I asked a careful and orderly supplementary question which, incidentally, I discussed with Professor Anthony Bradley, professor of constitutional law, and Professor Robert Black, professor of Scots law, at the university of Edinburgh. I think that the supplementary question was equally in order. Therefore, how can the Minister answering say that it was not within his sphere of responsibility? In whose sphere of responsibility would it be?
Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for answers in this place, provided they are in order. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has made a pertinent point and his best course is to take up the matter with the Minister concerned.
Mr. Donald Dewar: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I recognise your difficulties, but I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). There is no Law Officer in the House—I make no complaint about that; it is the chance of electoral fortune. It was specifically arranged that the Secretary of State would answer for the Lord Advocate. When a direct and proper question is put, it is an abuse to say that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, who speaks for his lord and master, is not responsible for answering for the Lord Advocate's actions. He must be responsible. The matter must be satisfactorily resolved.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. At no time was there any suggestion that the question originally tabled by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was not an appropriate or proper question. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State correctly pointed out that the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question drew attention to matters that were not the responsibility of myself as Secretary of State for Scotland or of the Lord Advocate, and he therefore properly declined to comment on it.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. If what the Secretary of State says is right, the matter can be the responsibility, as I have suspected for many weeks, only of the Prime Minister and Mr. Ingham. They were the only people who could then take responsibility for the Zircon affair and for what happened in the raid on the BBC in Glasgow, when executives were thrown out of their beds at 3 o'clock on a Sunday morning. We all know now that no charge of substance has been laid. This is a great attack on liberty by the Government. If the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State for Scotland are not responsible, the Prime Minister must be.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member does not expect me to adjudicate on such matters. One point about which I am totally clear is that this is not my responsibility.
Mr. Dewar: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise a serious point. The supplementary question was specifically about the criteria applied by the Lord Advocate in making an important and controversial decision. It must be right that the House can question the Lord Advocate's actions. If you cannot help us as to who is responsible, perhaps you can help by advising us of the proper machinery, because the Government seem reluctant to answer these questions.
Mr. Speaker: The best way out of the problem would be to direct this to the Government Front Bench which will have time to consider it, before business questions tomorrow.

Local Government Bill
4.23 pm
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you can give the House some guidance. The Local Government Bill, as amended by Standing Committee A, was printed today. I understand that it is to come before the House on Report on Monday. There are a number of important issues of principle in the Bill. We hear that the Government intend to amend the Bill to give effect to the demands of the Commission for Racial Equality.
The Bill proposes that certain services, at present given exclusively by local government, should be subject to tender. It is proposed that the conditions upon which outside bodies may tender should be governed by the Bill. Clause 18 (10) proposes that a concession should be made in respect of section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976.
Important issues of principle arise, but those of us who wish to table amendments will not have time to do so. I hope that you will think that this is an occasion on which you can state in advance through the usual channels that some delay would be appropriate. A personal matter is involved as well. The Secretary of State may wish to have more time to prepare his speech, because he was one of the six Tories who voted against the Second Reading of the Race Relations Bill on 4 March 1976. He has a proud position of being opposed to all this nonsense. I am sure that he would wish to have more time to reconcile his position on 4 March 1976 with what may be proposed on Monday next week.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Government revealed that they might wish to bring forward amendments on Report in respect of matters— including provisions transferring the control of stray dogs from the police to local authorities—on which they were not then in a position to finalise their view. It would be helpful if Government amendments on these matters and on others with which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) dealt — although I may take a different view—were introduced on Report in this House rather than be seen by this place only after their introduction in the other place. It seems that there is likely to be a substantial amount of local government business in the House next week — by all reports, at least two days on the Local Government Finance Bill. It would be appropriate, therefore, in order to allow hon. Members the opportunity to consider these

457
matters, to postpone the Report and Third Reading of the Local Government Bill at least until the first week after the new year.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that it is usual in a Bill of this significance and magnitude, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said, to have at least a week between the Bill finishing Committee and coming back to the House on Report. This is a significant matter, as my hon. Friend said, especially since some of us believe that it is possible that the Government have been rolled over by the Commission for Racial Equality. The nature of the proposed amendment is, through the tendering process,
"to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups."
If that authority is given to local government, it will negate the vast purpose of the Bill. Many Conservative Members would be most uneasy about that. A period should be allowed to elapse so that not only the usual channels can operate but the Government can obtain feedback from their supporters as to how unsatisfactory such a measure would be.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a great deal of business before the House. If the proceedings are delayed, those hon. Members who wish to be called will not be called.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I make a brief plea on behalf of Scottish Members. The Leader of the House will know that the Bill has ramifications for Scottish legislation. Scottish Members were not able to get on the Standing Committee—[Interruption.] We were not able to get as many as we would have liked on the Standing Committee. We should like the opportunity to consider the matter properly on Report and Third Reading.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The timing of business in the House is not a matter for the Chair. The Leader of the House is on the Government Front Bench. There is a business statement tomorrow, and I am sure that he has heard what has been said and will carefully consider it.

BBC (Injunction)
4.28 pm
Mr. John Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I inquire whether there has been an application from the Prime Minister or the Attorney-General to make a statement on the Government's litigation in the courts against the BBC?
Mr. Speaker: I have had no indication of any statement of that kind.
Mr. Morris: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware of the matter which I raised on Monday, when I asked specifically whether, if I mentioned the name of Mr. Peter Day, the media might be in difficulty in reporting that name? You replied that it was a hypothetical matter. I am informed that on Monday evening, when "Today in Parliament" was reported, part of my observations dealing with the name of Peter Day was excluded on legal advice. That, therefore, is the reason why the Government returned to the High Court today to ask for a variation in the order that they obtained on Friday. Even this Government realised that they had encroached far too much on the liberties of this House. What happened on Monday exemplified exactly what I surmised might happen—that it would put the BBC in fear of being in contempt if it reported that name.
Does the Government's right hand know what the left hand is doing? The Government obtained an injunction on Friday regardless of the injunction that had been changed in the House of Lords on 30 July, when a proviso was allowed so that proceedings in Parliament could and would be reported. Is that an indication of the way that the Government are, either deliberately or in ignorance, muzzling this House?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I can confirm that in the High Court this morning judgment was reserved, but a proviso was added by consent in these terms:
"Provided that this Order shall not prohibit—

(a) fair and accurate reporting of proceedings in open court in England and Wales;

(b) fair and accurate reporting of proceedings in either House of Parliament whose publication is not prohibited by that House;

(c) publication of any facts concerning the Security and Intelligence Services, including the identities of present or former members, already made public with the authority of the Crown.

Until further Order."
Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may remember that on Monday, when these points were raised with you, you said that it was for the broadcasting authorities to decide what they reported. Clearly, they were acting under legal advice —hence the variation order. Surely the points that were raised on Monday by my hon. Friends and myself are of crucial importance in the preservation of parliamentary reporting and, indeed, parliamentary democracy.
Now that the Government have been forced to retreat, will you, Mr. Speaker, use your good offices to ensure that on no future occasion will the BBC again be placed in the position—as it was today when reporting "Yesterday in Parliament" — of not being able, on legal advice, to report the remarks of a Conservative Member of Parliament? At a time of growing Government censorship

459
of the media, it is absolutely essential that what is stated in this House can be reported in the media, including the BBC. Clearly, that was not the position until the variation order was obtained in the High Court. It is a disgrace.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I inform you that it was I who, last night, tabled a parliamentary question asking for the injunction to be varied in the way that it then was in the application made by the Government this morning? In part, that derives from a difficulty that I raised with you a week and a half ago, when I asked for a public ruling on a point of order. You very kindly wrote a reply —
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not refer to a matter of privilege about which I have written to him.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I had not intended to do so, Mr. Speaker, but only to refer to a date that you gave in your reply of 30 July. I followed that through, and in the injunction that the Government took out against The Observer and The Guardian at the end of July I found a proviso under paragraph 3. I then examined the injunction taken out last Friday and found that that proviso was missing. It was on that basis that I tabled a question asking for the inclusion of that proviso.
Had it been possible for your ruling to have been public, Mr. Speaker, I believe that much embarrassment could have been avoided because we would earlier have been able to identify the fact that the proviso was missing. It was because of that that the BBC felt embarrassed and could not publish freely in the way that perhaps you, Sir, thought that it should.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman wrote to me on a matter of privilege and I replied to him in terms that he well understands.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful if you could confirm that under the terms of the altered judgment—which, as the Leader of the House made plain, was a judgment by consent—the position of the House has not changed by consent between the Attorney-General and a judge—or, indeed, any member or all of the judiciary. The statement by the Leader of the House implied that the consent was an agreement to restore the position of absolute privilege for hon. Members of this House and qualified privilege for the newspapers and broadcasting media to report the terms of our debates, which may contain the use of our absolute privilege. It would be a tragedy—as I am sure you would agree, Mr. Speaker—if it was thought by anyone that the terms of this House could be agreed by consent between the Attorney-General and a judge in an attempt to give some sort of legal status to a power that they do not have to change our position in this House. Our position is that we have absolute privilege to speak as we like, without fear of libel actions against us, and that the media has qualified privilege to report those terms.
I seek your support, Mr. Speaker, in confirming that position, and to stop the Government attempting to erode, by legal means, the powers of this House. We represent an important bulwark against any Executive trampling on the rights of this House and, through it, the people outside.
Mr. Max Madden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As matters develop, it is becoming increasingly clear that there is widespread concern about the consistency of public policy on confidence in the security services. There is also increasing concern about attempts, through applications for writs, to impose censorship on the newspaper and broadcasting media.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, on Monday I applied for a debate under Standing Order No. 20, together with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), whose application was heard. You indicated that if applications were made later this week, you would listen to them with concern and interest. Following the statement by the Leader of the House, will you accept from me an application under Standing Order No. 20 to discuss a matter that is specific and important, and which should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the applications for writs that stop the media giving the public information about the organisation and activities of the security services"
Mr. Speaker: Order. No, I would not accept such an application at this juncture.
Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are dealing not only with an attempt at censorship, but with incompetent censorship. Had the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) been taken up, the Government's embarrassment now would not be such as it clearly is.
When I originally raised this matter with you, Mr. Speaker, on Monday, and asked whether the BBC would be absolutely free to broadcast in its programmes "Yesterday in Parliament" and "Today in Parliament" anything appertaining to the matters surrounding the injunction and the programme "My Country, Right or Wrong", you said that it was hypothetical and that, therefore, you could not give a ruling. Notwithstanding what we have heard from the Leader of the House, will you either make a ruling today—or consider giving such a ruling·that makes it absolutely clear that the BBC is at complete liberty to broadcast anything said in this House if it so chooses, and that the only determination bearing on its choice should be that of editorial discrimination and freedom and not the terms of an injunction awarded by a court to the Government?
Mr. Speaker: We can deal with the matter. I confirm what the hon. Gentleman has said. The privileges of the House are absolute. There should be no doubt about that. I fully accept the concern that was expressed earlier this week about this matter. The media do not have absolute privilege, as the hon. Gentleman correctly said. They have to consider what they put out or publish. That is riot a matter for me.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. A new point is developing in this mini-saga. We have absolute privilege, and we would turn to you, Mr. Speaker, if any attempt were made for that privilege to be qualified in any way. If the Government are to trample on democracy in the way that they have done in relation to this case, it seems that they have some responsibility to report to Mr. Speaker when they take steps that may lead to that privilege being qualified.
It is one thing for the Government to try to qualify that privilege, but they have other interests in the matter. They

461
just want to get their own way. I should have thought that Mr. Speaker has the responsibility to ensure that, at all times, that privilege is unqualified. Therefore, it would be within the bounds of decency for a Government spokesperson to go to Mr. Speaker and say, "By the way, we are taking action in the courts today or tomorrow. The result may be that we shall qualify privilege in the House of Commons. Since we are decent chaps, we thought we should let you know."
This business has shown that those on the Treasury Bench, including the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House, do not give two hoots about democracy and are not interested in Mr. Speaker, either.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hypothetical matter that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned were to occur, I should be the first to come back to the House and report it. It has not occurred. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will never occur as far as I am concerned. It is my duty to ensure that the absolute privileges of the House are always maintained.
Mr. John Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will the Leader of the House now respond and further consult with either the Prime Minister or the Attorney-General so that we may have a proper explanation before the House rises and so that we may know why there has been a variation and what the Government's general position on censorship is?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Such matters can properly be canvassed tomorrow.

Companies (Political Donations)
4.42 pm
Mr. Derek Fatchett: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to ensure that shareholders in public companies are balloted before a company assumes political objects.
In the first six months of 1987, companies donated more than £2 million to the Conservative party and Right-wing front organisations for the Conservative party. When end-of-year figures are produced, that amount will be considerably greater than £2 million, because 1987 was an election year. British industry does not donate simply to the Conservative party; it also donates a little to the alliance. That is a sign that British industry does not always back winners and has a soft spot for those who will inevitably be losers.
The top 10 donors in 1987 are United Biscuits, British and Commonwealth Holdings, Trusthouse Forte, Kleinwort Benson, Lonsdale, George Weston Holdings, Hanson Trust, Northern Engineering Industries, Newarthill, Willis Faber and Trafalgar House. They have two characteristics in common. First, not one company consulted its work force before it decided to donate to the Conservative party. Yet their work forces create the wealth that allows such companies to make political donations. The very party to which such companies donate often acts against the interests of their employees. Secondly, not one of the companies balloted its shareholders before a decision was taken. So much for the rhetoric of company democracy and popular capitalism.
I mentioned that the alliance parties have also benefited. Alliance Members tell us that the alliance is particularly keen on ballots of employees and shareholders before companies make political donations. Consistent with the alliance, they are inconsistent with principle on the matter.
Of 23 political donations made by companies to the alliance parties, 21 were made without any reference to democracy or ballots. Again, in practice, alliance rhetoric is found to be threadbare and vacuous. Principles are not applied in practice. In ony two cases out of 23 did the companies hold ballots before they donated money to the alliance parties and, more important, before the alliance parties accepted the donations.
We have a record of no democracy in British companies. In addition, there has been a new and much more sinister development in British politics, and that is the development of bought influence in the House of Commons. It is a development of the past few years, but it has become very deep in that time. It shows itself in consultancies and directorships on the Government Benches. Many Conservative Members now find themselves bought by companies to a great extent. My constituents have a right to know why Conservative Members vote in a certain way and what influence is upon them when they cast their votes.
In addition—you will recall it with some feeling, Mr. Deputy Speaker — there was the naked exercise of bought political influence in the House only three weeks ago, when the P and O company offered to take Tory Back Benchers to various hotels to put on various parties and to offer various video shows. The only matter of concern was which video was to be shown to hon. Members and their partners before they were asked to vote for that company and that company's interests.

463
Hon. Members should contrast that with the treatment of trade unions. What do trade unions have to do if they are to make political donations? They have been bound by law and by statute since 1913. In the Trade Union Act 1984 they were forced to ballot their members every two years so that they could decide whether their trade union should continue to have political objects. There is no such right for shareholders or employees. In addition, individual trade unionists have the right to opt out of paying a political contribution. I do not have the right to opt out of paying a political contribution when I buy a pint of beer from the firm that subsidises the Conservative party. Why do similar rights not apply in relation to shareholders, consumers and employees?
The Educational Institute of Scotland recently balloted its members about setting up a political fund. Would it not be nice to see companies being bound by the same sort of rules before they give their money to the Conservative party?
We hear a great deal from Conservative Members about the language of popular capitalism and shareholder democracy. If that is the way ahead, why are Conservative Members not consistent? Why do they not provide shareholders with the right to hold ballots—to have a voice — before their companies decide to donate politically? What justification can there be for not consulting shareholders about such a crucial decision? In the Financial Weekly of July this year, a PR spokesman for Distillers gave the reason why the company did not bother to ballot before it donated to the Conservative party. That anonymous PR spokesman said:
"The company made its first political contribution last year. But this is a subject that we don't talk about."
It is wonderful to have public relations people who do not talk about particular issues. Then we have the paternalism and arrogance of the chairman and chief executive of Hill Samuel, Mr. Christopher Castleman, who said:
464
"Whatever we do we consider to be in the best interests of Hill Samuel's shareholders. But we do not think that they should be balloted."
That is somewhat different from the language that applies to trade unions, which are required by law to ballot their members, and have done so for many years. Why cannot the shareholders of Hill Samuel and other companies be similarly balloted?
The Bill is modest. I am not trying to stop companies from donating to the Conservative party or alliance parties, however many parties there are now in the alliance. I am trying to make donations by companies to political parties legitimate, because at the moment they are made without democratic support, and in my eyes and the eyes of the public that is illegitimate.
If the Bill is not opposed by Conservative Members, they will agree with shareholders' charters and shareholders' democracy. If they are silent and do not oppose the Bill, I hope that they will make every effort to ensure that it has an easy passage through the House next year, so that shareholders will be able to control the political objects and activities of their companies.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Derek Fatchett, Mr. Terry Davis, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Ms. Jo Richardson, Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Martin Flannery, Mr. John Battle, Ms. Hilary Armstrong, Dr. Lewis Moonie, Mr. Joseph Ashton and Mr. Ernie Ross.

Companies (Political Donations)
  COMPANIES (POLITICAL DONATIONS)
  Mr. Derek Fatchett accordingly presented a Bill to ensure that shareholders in public companies are balloted before a company assumes political objects: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 April 1988 and to be printed. [Bill 68.]
Orders of the Day

  Rate Support Grant (England)
  4.51 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move,
  That the Rate Support Grant Report (England) 1988–89 (House of Commons Paper No. 163), a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.
  I announced to the House in November, following consultation, my decisions on next year's rate support grant settlement. Hon. Members will therefore be familiar with the report's contents.
  However, I must remind the House that we have provided a generous settlement for local authorities. The aggregate Exchequer grant of £13,775 million is an increase of £750 million and 5·75 per cent. more than for 1987–88. Provision for local authority current expenditure, at £27,538 million, is 7 per cent. more than this year.
  No doubt Opposition Members will complain about those figures. They go on about the £18 billion that they say we stole from local authorities. Let me nail that figure once and for all. In 1979–80, the last rate support grant settlement of the Labour Government, grant totalled £8,101 million. At 1988–89 prices, that is equivalent to £14,691 million, whereas in this settlement we are providing £13,775 million, which is £916 million less— not the £18 billion we so often hear about.
  Dr. John Cunningham: How does the Secretary of State reconcile what he has just said with the parliamentary answer he gave me, using his Government's figures, which pointed out that the accumulated reduction in rate support grant since 1978–79 in England, at 1987–88 prices, is £3,896·2 million? He then listed all the figures and gave the cumulative total of £21,573 million.
  Mr. Ridley: Because the hon. Gentleman asked what would be the difference if the rate support grant percentage had been maintained, despite the vast increase in local authority spending, so of course he gets a figure like that. I am giving him the true figures, not the ones he asked for. It is just as important to get the question right as the answer.
  The settlement will allow non-rate-capped authorities to hold their spending broadly steady in real terms. Education authorities are enabled to increase their spending by rather more because of the additional allowance we have made for schoolteachers' pay.
  Our expenditure plans make realistic provision for local authority expenditure. There is, of course, plenty of scope for authorities to make savings—for example, by taking advantage of the savings brought by competition, and implementing the efficiency savings identified by the Audit Commission. Authorities continue to spend more than I believe they should: the settlement therefore provides for a margin between the total of grant-related expenditure — authorities' need to spend — and the level of expenditure provision.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to amend the figures on the education component of the rate support grant for Bolton council and check his other calculations?
  Mr. Ridley: I understand that there has been a miscounting of the number of schoolchildren in Bolton. Those figures are in the report, and at the first supplementary opportunity the figures will be put right and money can be adjusted immediately afterwards.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister believe—
  Mr. Ridley: I have not given way.
  Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman could give way now, if he wants to.
  Mr. Ridley: I do not know that I do want to.
  In making the settlement I have borne in mind the need for stability. The mechanisms for distributing grant and the methodology for calculating grant-related expenditure are therefore broadly the same as in the current year. This has been widely welcomed.
  The 5p safety net at ratepayer level provides an important protection against grant losses and the lop cap at authority level on grant gains prevents what would otherwise be an unreasonable effect on the distribution of block grant. How much rates will rise will of course depend upon how much local authorities decide to spend. But ratepayers in areas where local authorities choose to budget sensibly should on average receive rate bills which increase by around the rate of inflation.
  I refer to the storm damage which occurred last October. I have now completed my consultation with local authorities and the associations about my proposal to exclude from total expenditure — in effect, to relieve from grant losses—that 25 per cent. of an authority's spending on clearing up after the storms in October above the Bellwin threshold but not met by special assistance. I announced my conclusions in a written answer yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price). It may help the House if I explain them in more detail now.
  Authorities have pressed three points about the proposed exclusion. First, there are substantial costs which fall outside the Bellwin scheme. I had expected authorities to treat those costs as capital expenditure, but some do not believe it would be right to do so, although in some cases it must be cheaper for them to do so. If they treated it as revenue spending, they would lose grant as things stand at present. Secondly, if they decide to go down the capital route, they do not believe it is right that they should lose grant on the servicing costs. Thirdly, they cannot complete the emergency repair work required by the October storms by the deadline of 31 January.
  They have argued that, despite the special assistance we have made under the Bellwin scheme, and the total expenditure exclusion I had proposed, the Exchequer would stand to make a profit from the storm. Whilst they were content to meet their own costs, subject to the special financial assistance, they believed it was wrong that they should lose grant on such exceptional, emergency expenditure.
  Throughout, it has been the Government's intention to assist local authorities to meet the costs of the quite exceptional storm on 16 October. It has been no part of our policy that the Treasury should somehow make a profit as a result of expenditure which authorities could not have allowed for. In the light of local government's comments, I have decided to propose a wider expenditure

  467
  exclusion which will remove any possibility of such a profit occurring as a result of authorities spending above the Bellwin threshold.
  I propose to exclude from total expenditure not just the authorities' share of expenditure eligible for special financial assistance, but all revenue spending above the Bellwin threshold on clearing up the storm, and, in addition, the costs of servicing capital expenditure. It does not mean that authorities will be left with no burden to shoulder. They will be required to meet the full costs and grant consequences of their spending up to the Bellwin threshold, plus the 25 per cent. above the threshold not met by special assistance and any spending which is ineligible for Bellwin.
  Dr. Cunningham: Does what the Secretary of State has just said mean that he is being less than candid with the House? If local authorities still have to bear the consequences of a I p rate, they will still be liable to pay grant penalties on that expenditure, and many of them will have to do just that.
  Mr. Ridley: On 21 October, I explained that we assumed that authorities had made some provision for contingencies, including grant losses, which might occur. Over and above those contingencies assistance has always been available, to which I have constantly referred.
  That is my revised proposal, on which I will be consulting local government. I have also been asked to extend beyond 31 January 1988 the time during which authorities may undertake Bellwin-type eligible work, or to dispense with a deadline altogether.
  We are bound to impose some deadline if extra Exchequer assistance is to be granted prudently and correctly for works carried out in response to what is an emergency on a particular date. I am anxious, however, to respond, as flexibly as I can, to the comments of the authorities affected and to hon. Friends who have approached me on this matter. Accordingly, I am proposing a new date of 1 March 1988. I have also been asked to provide additional GRE against the costs of servicing capital expenditure on storm damage. My proposal to exclude servicing costs from total expenditure would make such an addition to GRE inappropriate.
  Following my announcement, local authorities will have a clear idea of how the Government are prepared to help in the work of putting right storm damage. To make it absolutely clear, we are providing 75 per cent. grant on eligible spending above the threshold. This is cumulative, so that if another Bellwin emergency occurs this year, or later this winter, eligible expenditure on that emergency can be added together to claim grant. We are proposing to exclude all revenue expenditure above the threshold, whether eligible or not, on the clearing up operation for the calculation of grant loss. We are proposing to exclude all debt charges incurred as a result of storm. We are allowing an extra month for authorities to complete the necessary emergency work for which grant can be claimed. We have also offered extra capital allocations.
  It is, I believe, a generous package, which meets the legitimate demands of local government. The next step is for local authorities to make their claims, whether for special assistance or for capital allocations, and my Department will deal with them as quickly as possible. Today's debate is principally about the settlement for 1988–89. However, I am today also sending authorities our
  468
  proposals for supplementary reports for earlier years. I am planning to make three supplementary reports shortly after Christmas. These will he the reports for 1983–84 and 1984–85, based on audited figures, and a further interim report for 1986–87. The main purpose of those reports is to adjust grant entitlements in the light of the latest information about authorities' expenditure in each of ,:he years concerned. If the House approves them, they will be implemented in April.
  As the House will be aware, in each of those years there was grant recycling. That means that, if one authority gains grant because it has reduced its expenditure, then other authorities which have not reduced expenditure will lose grant. The amounts involved in recycling can be quite large. That is particularly so for 1986–87, because for that year the slopes used in the formula for calculating entitlements were steepened to provide greater pressure against high spending. That was to compensate for the removal of targets and holdback. In aggregate, authorities' returns now show their estimated expenditure in 1986–87 to be some £208 million less than they returned last June. If that represents the true picture, it is welcome news.
  A few authorities have increased their expenditure, and will lose grant. Those authorities which have reduced expenditure by proportionately more than average will gain grant. But those authorities which have reduced their expenditure, but by less than the average, will find that they also will lose grant. This is an unsatisfactory feature of grant recycling, and indeed is one of the reasons why we decided to scrap it for the current financial year and the next two years. However, the law requires the system to operate for earlier years as was intended. The House will have an opportunity to debate those reports in January. If they are approved, they will be implemented in April.
  Four other reports will be made in 1988–89. Among other things, we will use these reports to correct an error made in the 1986–87 settlement concerning the Greater London council's expenditure on highways, known as the "Bromley error". The Local Government Finance Bill published last Friday includes a clause which will amend my powers so that the error can be corrected. In order to do that, I will need to determine new multipliers for authorities in supplementary reports for 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89.
  Grant changes resulting from correction of the Bromley error for 1987–88 and 1988–89 will be implemented as soon as possible after the supplementary reports are made. The implementation of the 1986–87 report will be held over to 1989–90. Ratepayers in Bromley, Kingston and the other boroughs affected can be sure that, in due course, they will receive their correct grant entitlement.
  On the related matter of rate limitation, the House will also wish to know that I have reached decisions on the applications from the only two authorities—the London boroughs of Southwark and Tower Hamlets — which asked for their expenditure levels for 1988–89 to be redetermined at a higher figure. In the case of Southwark, I have decided not to increase the expenditure level but to confirm it at the original figure of £134·193 million, which I determined in July this year. In the case of Tower Hamlets, I have decided that a small increase of £2 million would be appropriate — bringing its expenditure level next year to £126·033 million. Associated with 'hat increase for Tower Hamlets is a requirement that the authority reports to me at intervals about the steps it is taking to improve its efficiency in certain areas identified

  469
  in its application. The other 15 authorities selected for rate limitation in 1988–89 chose not to apply for a redetermination, so their expenditure levels remain as originally determined in July.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the Secretary of State's acceptance of the case put by Tower Hamlets when it asked for redetermination, although he will not be surprised that I regret that he could not do the same for my borough of Southwark. What was his view on the application for redetermination of ILEA and those of the joint boards which also asked him to set a higher limit?
  Mr. Ridley: It is typical of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that he welcomed the increase in the limit for Tower Hamlets without mentioning his regret that the ratepayers of that borough will have to pay more money, but I shall let that pass. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and for Transport and the Home Secretary will make their final decisions and publish them to the House on the services for which they are responsible.
  Indeed, I am announcing today, in a written answer, the proposed rate limits being notified to all 17 of the authorities designated for 1988–89. Those limits are based on the expenditure level for each authority and take account of the amount of block grant it is estimated to receive and, where appropriate, the position of its financial reserves. I should emphasise that, under the terms of the Rates Act 1984, the limits are still provisional at this stage. I hope that most of the 17 authorities will agree the proposed limits. If not, they will be able to make representations and I will consider the matter further. Finally, if there is still no agreement on the limit, an order will be laid before the House for it to determine the matter in the new year.
  The effect of the proposed rate limits varies at individual authority level from an implied increase of 11–5 per cent. in the local rate in Tower Hamlets to a reduction of 43·5 per cent. in Ealing. The overall effect of the limits is an average reduction across the 17 authorities of just over 9 per cent. in local rate levels—equivalent to some £140 million less in rate bills when compared to those faced by ratepayers in those areas in the current year. Overall, therefore, this represents very good news for domestic and business ratepayers in those areas of high local authority spending.
  In addition to the 17 authorities subject to rate limitation, the Inner London education authority and the 19 joint authorities in London and metropolitan areas are also subject to precept limitation in 1988–89. As I said to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), details of the expenditure levels and proposed precept limits for those authorities will, as usual, be announced in due course by my right hon. Friends, when they are ready to do so.
  I recognise that this is not very exciting stuff. Indeed, I fear the heyday of RSG debates has probably passed already and there is likely to be only one more such debate. Domestic rates and RSG have become endangered species. This is the last but one settlement of this kind. Few if any will regret their passing—not even the hon. Member for
  470
  Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) who said last week that he was not interested in defending the status quo. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that.
  Next week we will start to consider the new system—hon. Members may regard today either as the lull before the storm, or the hour before the dawn, as they wish—subject to a three,line Whip. Under the new system, we will get away from slopes, thresholds, nets and caps, holdback, targets and grant forfeit. We say farewell to them with few regrets.
  There will be two major simplifications. First, grant entitlement will not be related to actual expenditure. Grant will be allocated at the beginning of each year, and will not subsequently change. We shall no longer need supplementary reports going back three, four or five years to make final adjustments.
  Secondly, there will no longer be resource equalisation based on rateable values. It is equalisation that moves large amounts of grant around the country, and produces results that are often impossible to explain to hon. Members, let alone for them to explain to their constituents. In future, need will be the only factor which influences the distribution of grant. That will not only be simpler, but it will also be fairer. Next week I will invite the whole House to support those proposals. In the meantime, I commend these proposals to the House as the right ones at this time.
  5.12 pm
  Dr. John Cunningham: It is the Government's assertion that the British economy is strong, that the country is prospering and that we are doing rather well. Yet today we are asked to approve the same mean and aggressive Government proposals for financial support to enable local authorities to maintain public services as we had to do in recent, more difficult years. Apparently, our asserted prosperity makes no difference to the Government's judgment about how they should support ratepayers.
  I had to smile at the intervention of the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and the Secretary of State's reply, which more or less summed up the Government's attitude. The Secretary of State often gets his sums wrong when he is giving grant away, but he always seems to get them right when he is taking money away from local authorities.
  No attempt has been made to ease the burden on ratepayers. That burden has been increasing consistently, often dramatically, and always deliberately in every year since the Conservative Government came to office in 1979. Instead of masquerading as the friend of the ratepayer, the right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind — he must know this—that the average, rebated domestic rate bill in 1979–80 was £155; in 1987–88 it will be £428. That represents an absolutely staggering increase since the Government came to power. Since 1980, domestic rates have, on average, increased by no less than 13·6 per cent. every year. That is the effect of the rate increases. When I intervened earlier the Secretary of State rather disarmingly said that he was giving me the right figures — I assume that all the figures are the right figures because they all come from parliamentary answers given to my questions. From the Government's figures it is clear the average rates increase each year over the past eight years has been 13·6 per cent.

  471
  Those increases have occurred because the Government have deliberately, dramatically and consistently reduced their support to local authorities and to ratepayers. That is the most obvious and important reason why rates have become a significant problem for those on small incomes, those with fixed incomes and people livimg in inner city or rural areas.
  The proposals before the House make no attempt to tackle the problems of the inner cities. In spite of the complexities and deficiencies of the rate support grant, it remains a good way of providing extra cash to help in the necessary, but under this Government neglected, attack on poverty, unemployment, discrimination and dereliction in our urban areas. Again, we see that the authoritarian, central powers of the Rates Act 1984 are used to enforce legally the Government's political judgments on local authorities and that is in direct conflict with the decisions of the local people in local elections. Today we have witnessed the Secretary of State's continuing attempt to mislead people about the Government's inadequate response to the unavoidable costs faced by ratepayers following the extraordinary storms in October. I shall deal with each of those aspects in turn.
  The Government's proposals for rate support grant for 1988–89 have the familiar features and purposes of Government policy — a failure to meet the established spending needs of local councils to maintain decent and effective levels of service and the Government's decision to impose again a Treasury clawback tax when councils spend above the Government's arbitrarily-imposed expenditure limits.
  The system will work to increase grant when services are reduced in quality and range and when expenditure is cut. Against that well-established background, it is not surprising that various local authority associations—the Association of County Councils, the Association of London Authorities and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities — have serious objections to the Government's proposals. The Secretary of State has talked about the huge sums involved, but it is worth reflecting on the fact that the block grant figure of £9,482 million works out as little as £201 per head of the population in England. It is not true that this vast sum, which it is difficult for people to imagine, means huge financial support for the population. These are relatively modest amounts based on the sum per head of the population.
  Mr. Max Madden: Will my hon. Friend tell us what reduction has taken place since the Government were elected in 1979 in the proportion of local government expenditure covered by central Government? Will he draw attention to the problems of Bradford which emphasise what he is saying? Uniquely, Bradford has an increasing population, yet it is being penalised by loss of grant and has seen a reduction in rate support grant since 1979 of more than £70 million.
  Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is referring to the question that I asked the Secretary of State this afternoon. In 1979 the Labour Government provided rate support grant at a level of 61 per cent. of relevant expenditure. That figure has been systematically reduced to 46 per cent. under the Conservative Government since 1979. Although I do not have the figures for the city of Bradford in my head, I know that, as a result of those reductions, the accumulated national loss of grant is £21,573.6 million,
  472
  using the figures provided by the Secretary of State. In spite of what the Secretary of State said, I assume that those, too, are real figures.
  The provision for local authority current expenditure—the measure of expenditure which determines the level of services provided—represents an increase of less than 4 per cent. over the current year's budgets. That is a more meaningful measure than the 7 per cent. increase in the provision for 1987–88, quoted by the Secretary of State. That provision was an unrealistic assessment of what authorities were likely to spend in the current year. The 4 per cent. increase is less than the Government's latest estimate of general inflation in the year 1988–89 and fails to reflect authorities' likely year-on-year increases in costs.
  The expenditure groups—the bodies made up of civil servants and local authority administrators—forecast that local authorities will need to spend slightly in excess of £29 billion in the coming financial year simply to maintain current service levels. There is, therefore, a £1·47 billion current expenditure shortfall in what the Secretary of State is asking the House to accept. Those are the best available figures and they have been arrived at by civil servants in the Department of the Environment and by officers of the local authority associations. The Secretary of State knows what those figures are, yet he insists that what he is recommending is fair and generous. Of course, it is not. It is a serious shortfall in maintaining the status quo.
  Mr. John Maples: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the only way that local authorities can reduce their spending is by cutting services, but that is palpably untrue. Does he agree that rate-capped authorities have enormous scope for making savings by cutting waste and increasing efficiency?
  Dr. Cunningham: I was not making that assertion. I was making a different point: that the Secretary of State's recommendation falls a long way short — £1·47 billion short — of what is needed just to maintain current programmes.
  Mr. Ridley: I am a little astonished by this point. If, by some misfortune, the hon. Gentleman ever finds himself in my shoes, doing the job of Secretary of State, will he give an undertaking to let local authorities have, both in provision and grant, as much as they ask for on every occasion?
  Dr. Cunningham: No, I shall not give such an undertaking. It is Labour policy to allow grant to grow at the rate of growth in the economy and so bring additional support to local authorities for services and to ratepayers. That is a reasonable and practicable proposition, but we could not guarantee that every year local authorities would get exactly what they asked for. However, that system would be far more likely to meet their legitimate needs and demands than has the system operated by the Government for the last eight years.
  Mr. Thurnham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his party was thoroughly defeated at the general election because the electorate would not accept the way the Labour party accepted profligate and illegal spending by extremist Left-wing councils?
  Dr. Cunningham: No, I do not accept that. There were many reasons why the Labour party was not successful in the election. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion.

  473
  The reason that he gives may have been a factor, but it was not the only reason. However, this is not the occasion to go into the reasons. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to attend some of our listening conferences, we could debate those issues then.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government's response to local authorities' demands is to say that this year there must be a cut in the current committed expenditure of 5 per cent., or £1·5 billion, and that there will be a cut in the areas of greatest deprivation, including the inner cities which they claim to be helping? They will suffer most. They will get the smallest slice of the cake and they will be most heavily penalised.
  Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is right. That is indicative of the internal conflict within the Government in this respect. The Prime Minister said, virtually on the day of victory, that the Government would give priority to helping communities in the inner cities, but they continue to deny local authorities the necessary resources to tackle the job more effectively.
  I want to support my comments, as the Secretary of State disingenuously expresses some surprise about them. He knew those figures before we did. That view is endorsed by the Association of County Councils and is shared by all local authority associations. In a recent letter to me, the ACC said:
  "To the extent that shire counties seek to protect services and to implement much needed service developments, they will suffer severe block grant losses. Present indications are that over £200 million of shire counties' block grant will be returned to the Treasury; this alone will cost the equivalent of a 5p rate and will necessitate precept increases which, on average, will exceed 10 per cent. The AAC would accept the Government's right to form a global judgement on what the economy can afford by way of aggregate local authority expenditure. However, if, as on this occasion, that global view falls well short of the 'present policies' forecast of the Expenditure Steering Groups, Ministers must recognise the practical implications of this at local authority service level."
  That is an emphatic answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The Association of County Councils' comments are exactly in accord with the views of all the other local authority associations.
  The 1988–89 settlement represents little change, and little change in methodology, compared with the current year, but the Government are maintaining their severe grant regime designed to increase grant when services are cut and penalise authorities which increase expenditure. The Government are, in effect, planning a 5 per cent. cut in local authority expenditure, and it could be even worse than that.
  I come again to the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, that it makes nonsense of Government claims that they want to bring additional resources and more help and support to the people of the inner cities, when all that they are doing is making the problems of those local authorities and communities even harder to resolve. It would have been quite within the power of the Secretary of State to recalculate grant-related expenditure assessments and thus bring more resources to the inner cities. It would have been one of the quickest
  474
  ways in which the Government could respond to the challenge posed by the problems of the inner cities. Yet the right hon. Gentleman has deliberately chosen not to do it.
  Mr. Richard Holt: Will the hon. Member care to comment on the fact that the urban development corporations have already brought in money from the private sector, which the local government sector simply would not have done? In Teesside this already amounts to £100 million worth of private money.
  Dr. Cunningham: Yes, of course. It is incontestible that urban development corporations have brought extra resources to inner cities—and a lot of it is in the form of public expenditure. But we are not in favour of this creeping corporate state approach to our towns and cities. We have just seen an announcement this week. Disgracefully, it was not made in the House, so no hon. Member was able to question the Secretary of State about his decision — a quite cowardly way to announce Government policy. The Secretary of State laughs. If he had the guts and the courage to believe that the House would support what he was doing, he would announce his decision here and hon. Members would have an opportunity to discuss and ask questions about it. He seemed not to want to do that or to subject himself to the judgment of the House.
  I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that, in respect of that announcement, in at least one case—that of Leeds —the Government's decision on policy is likely to result in less investment, because existing plans already in train are threatened by that decision. Much more by way of investment, including private sector investment, already in the pipeline will be completely blocked by the Government's decision, which seems to have been taken without any proper consultation, any thought or any understanding of the situation.
  Of course, it is true that urban development corporations will attract private sector investment and involvement, not least because of the public expenditure commitment—the servicing, the availability of the land and the freedom from planning controls. All those benefits are bound to attract investment. I would just caution the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), however, to read the words of the director general of the Confederation of British Industry. He has warned the Government publicly against by-passing local authorities in the inner cities, because, he says, that sort of approach will not solve the problems.
  There is, therefore, much room for argument about the Government's approach, but I certainly do not applaud either the nature of the recent decisions about urban development corporations or the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman announced them in a written reply on Monday.
  The Government's policy on grant distribution is objectionable. The Government's main aim still appears to be a reduction in the level of local authority services, despite the growing needs of the communities that those authorities serve. Unemployment may be falling generally, but it is still very high among people living in the inner cities in particular, despite the growth of jobs for people who commute into London. Many people in inner London are still subject to very high unemployment. There is still discrimination against people in black and ethnic minority communities and, what is more, the Local Government

  475
  Bill—in spite of our amendments, which have all been rejected—will not help that situation and could, in some respects, make it even worse.
  I am astonished by some of the implications of what the Government are doing. I want to make a particular point about the precise meaning of the Government's proposals on housing benefits. Representations have sought to clarify exactly what is suggested and what is meant by the Government's proposals.
  It seems to us that local authorities will be required to pay increased housing benefit, yet the increased expenditure that they incur as a result and that they cannot avoid may itself be subject to penalty. It is a preposterous state of affairs. I cannot understand why, in the consultation process, the Secretary of State has refused to clarify the situation.
  Let me illustrate what I am trying to make clear to the House. The Government suggest that they will make certain amounts available to local authorities for the statutory cost of their share of housing benefit. In 1986–87 they made available £237·5 million, in 1987–88 it was £250 million and they propose £289 million in 1988–89. But the actual cost to local authorities in 1986–87 was £252 million and it is estimated to be £262 million in 1987–88. There is no estimate available yet for the current financial year, but the trend is obvious. There is a gap between what the Government are making available and what local authorities are required by law to pay. If they incur that additional expenditure, they are likely in many cases to incur penalty on top of that. No one seems to have taken any account of that. I hope that we will be given some explanation from the Minister for Local Government when he replies.
  The Government have also consistently underestimated the provision required for the administration of housing benefit. A similar comparison demonstrates that point well. In 1984–85 they made available £82 million; the actual cost was £120 million. In the coming financial year, 1988–89, it is suggested that they will make available £187 million; the best available estimate is that the cost will be in excess of £190 million. I hope that we can have some explanation of the Government's position in that regard as well. It is quite intolerable for the Government to impose these legal requirements on local authorities, then not properly fund what they require the authorities to do, then penalise them for making the expenditure that they cannot avoid making—and then still claim that they are interested in protecting the ratepayers. It just does not add up.
  I turn briefly to what the Secretary of State had to say about the Rates Act 1984, because, here again, some important questions are unanswered. Will Ealing be rate-capped with an expenditure limit that is actually below its grant-related expenditure assessment? What can possibly be the justification for that? The grant-related expenditure assessment was introduced by this Government. It is supposed to denote what local authorities are required to spend to support an adequate level of service. The expenditure limit in Ealing is below that level. —[Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman is going to contest the figures, I will give way, but he seems to indicate that there is nothing wrong with that.
  Mr. Ridley: I am trying to help.
  Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman is certainly not helping the ratepayers of Ealing in taking the view that he does about the state of affairs in that borough.
  Will the right hon. Gentleman carefully and, I hope, properly discuss with the rate-capped authorities—in a way that he did not do on expenditure limits—the full implications of his announcement today? I should also like to repeat the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) when he made his statement on the rate support grant a few days ago. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not announce the criteria that he will use with regard to the Rates Act 1984? Why should the House and, more important, local authorities not be told exactly what criteria he will use? I suspect that it is for the same reason that we have always heard from the Secretaries of State of this Government —the Government want to rig the criteria and to fit them up to get the local authorities that they want for political and other purposes that suit their political ends. There are no legitimate or objective criteria in the right hon. Gentleman's mind.
  With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said about rate limitation—I am grateful to him for giving me a copy of the written reply that he is making today —why has he set a rate limit for Camden that does riot allow the authority to raise the revenue to reach the expenditure limit that he set? There seems to be at least a 5p shortfall in what will be required. Similarly, for Hackney there seems to be an even larger shortfall of 11p between the expenditure limit that the right hon. Gentleman is imposing and the rate limit that he is announcing today. What is the explanation of those differences? How does the Secretary of State expect those two boroughs, which are already financially hard pressed, to make up the shortfall? Will the Minister explain that when he replies to the debate?
  The right hon. Gentleman's comments about storm damage were far from frank and do not produce the result that he said that he intended. Local authorities will still pay over the odds for reparations that they must make because of the extraordinary storms in October; they will still pay penalty on expenditure. Before explaining the reasons for that, I should remind the House of what the Secretary of State said to the House:
  "I would be horrified and astonished if either my Department or the Treasury were to make a profit from any authority as a result of that night."—[Official Report, 30 November 1987; Vol. 123, c. 611.]
  Despite all the right hon. Gentleman's blandishments, that is exactly what will happen. The Treasury will make a profit out of ratepayers, whose local authorities will have to foot the bills for clearing up and making good damage to buildings, roads and parks. I can quote no better authority than the Conservative-controlled London borough of Barnet. I should like to know what the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). who represents Barnet, has to say about the matter. It would be interesting to know whether the right hon. Lady supports the view of her Secretary of State for the Environment or the Tory leaders of the London borough of Brent, who worked to get her re-elected in her constituency. In a letter dated 23 November 1987—the right hon. Gentleman has this letter—the chief executive and town clerk of Barnet says:
  "For Barnet the scheme requires a local contribution equal to the product of a penny rate, after which the Government will contribute 75 per cent. The effect is that the council will

  477
  have to finance the first £612,500 of the costs of rectifying the storm damage, together with 25 per cent. of the balance if the ultimate bill is above that figure. As the council's budget is in excess of its grant-related expenditure assessment, all additional expenditure will bring a grant loss of £70,000 for each further £100,000 spent. Thus, even at a 1p rate level, the effective cost to the council could exceed £1 million."
  Of that £1 million, six times the amount of that grant loss — £420,000 — will go to the Treasury in grant penalty. Of course the Treasury will make a profit out of the storm. That is the state of affairs even after the right hon. Gentleman's statement to the House today. They are the facts of the matter. It is true not only in Barnet but in a swathe of Tory-controlled local authorities and in some Labour-controlled London boroughs in inner and outer areas. Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman has said today will change that. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would be horrified if that were to happen, but it will happen. What will he do about it, apart from being horrified? Being horrified will not help the ratepayers of Barnet, Kent, Sussex or Surrey. Being horrified will not help anybody; it will not even help the right hon. Gentleman. I am not sure that we want to help him, but we want to help ratepayers and local authorities.
  The right hon. Gentleman's statement—even at the third attempt today—is not candid and honest about Government policy. It is quite the reverse. He is seeking to pull the wool over the eyes of his Back Benchers, which is not too difficult, but I do not know how he has the nerve or gall to try to get away with it. We shall obviously write to the right hon. Member for Finchley, ask her view and see whether she supports him. However, the right hon. Gentleman must do a lot better than his statement today to convince Labour Members that he is horrified about the implications of Government policies. We simply do not believe him.
  The miserable Conservative record of misleading ratepayers—this is only the latest example—for reasons of political dogma, to undermine collective provision of public services, to push people into paying more, to push them into opting out and accepting private solutions to their problems, is deplorable. It is a miserable prospect. Local government will be less fair and less accountable and will provide less adequate services if the poll tax and uniform business rate are introduced.
  I agree that the right hon. Gentleman was quoting me accurately. We hold no brief for the present ramshackle, contradictory and inefficient system. It is his and the Government's system; it is not ours. We denounce it, just as we denounce the proposed alternative of the poll tax.
  5.47 pm
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: One of the benefits of not holding office is that one can fully support one's constituents. My constituency is being unfairly treated by the Government at the present time. Brent was rate-capped in 1987–88, but it is not being rate-capped for 1988–89. According to the figures that I have been given, Brent's expenditure for this year is £183·6 million. Thus, it is not 12·5 per cent. but 11·7 per cent. over grant-related expenditure. If that budget had been more than £183·6 million and had been 12·5 per cent. over GRE, Brent would have been rate-capped. The real expenditure figure in Brent·I have been considering them with my council group and council leader—is £223·6 million, which is
  478
  well over 12·5 per cent. over GRE. That is £40 million more than the council intended to spend. Of that £40 million, £16 million has already been covered by creative accountancy, funny money or whatever the phrase may be, and £24 million was intended to be covered by the sale of the town hall and the schools. However, the banks that had been thinking of buying those properties and leasing them began to think twice about what they were doing. Therefore, that £24 million was not raised.
  There have been some cuts made by the hard Left Labour-controlled authority of Brent.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The right hon. Gentleman wants some more.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: The hon. Gentleman is right, I do want some more. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me. Perhaps that is the beginning of salvation on the Opposition Benches. The sensible Opposition Members would also like some more cuts.
  That intervention has forced me to mention the fact that there are now two Labour parties in Brent. There is the old Labour party and the new Labour party and there are two leaders. They fight one another when they meet in the council chamber. I would be glad to arrange a party to go and see them at some time.
  Mr. Tony Banks: That sounds rather like a description of what takes place in the House between Conservative Members when the ex-Leader of the Conservative party and ex-Prime Minister starts knocking seven bells out of the present Leader of the Conservative party. Why should the right hon. Gentleman be so surprised?
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: The difference is that Conservative Members listen to one another. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup has never had his seat in the Chamber taken over. When he spoke in the House last week he spoke from his usual seat.
  I did not intend to mention what has happened in Brent but Opposition Members desire to know. There was a vote and a new leader was elected for the Labour party in Brent.
  Mr. Elliot Morley: That is democracy.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: Yes, that is democracy. There are glimmers of advancement on the Labour Benches. Well done. Perhaps Opposition Members are learning something.
  I believe that the vote was 18 to 17, so the new, moderate leader was elected by only one vote. However, at the next council meeting, before the moderates could arrive, the hard Left had arrived along with thousands of others imported along with a man called Ted Knight. I do not know where he comes from but I have seen his name in the newspapers. They arrived with megaphones and took over the bench of the elected Labour leader. The mayor had to adjourn the meeting because it ended in uproar. There is no comparison between that and the cheerful agreements and disagreements among Conservative Members when they are seeking the truth. All Conservative Members, whether on the Left or Right of the party, are seekers of the truth. I may belong to the Left-wing of the party but hon. Gentlemen belong to the Right-wing. We discuss issues.
  I must not be distracted because I do not like that sort of thing being published in the newspapers. It does the Labour party no good.
  Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the Government rate support grant, which is putting councils such as Brent all over the country into situations in which they are forced to make a choice. They have to decide whether to increase the burden on ratepayers by increasing the rates to make up for the shortfall in grants or whether to make cuts in services. That is the difficult choice that many councils are facing. If the hon. Gentleman is arguing for cuts and rate-capping, he has a duty to say where he thinks the cuts should fall.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I have no doubt that if Brent was sensibly run it could work within its budget. I can give examples in the House of some of the expenditure that has taken place. Every committee chairman has a full-time political assistant at a cost of £15,000. I could cover the length and breadth of the expenditure in Brent at present.
  Before I was misled by the heartiness of Opposition Members, I was saying that Brent has spent £40 million in excess of the £183·6 million. That expenditure is well over the 12–5 per cent. GRE, which would bring it into the category for rate-capping if the right figures were used.
  Without rate-capping, the situation in Brent next year will be a nightmare. That has been the case this year in the borough covered by the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). After cuts the budget will be £240 million. That is £50 million over the £190 million settlement expenditure assumption. A total of £16 million of that £50 million will be covered by creative accounting, or funny money, but that will still leave £34 million to be raised from the ratepayers. I believe that the Government grant is £90 million and if the expenditure continues at its present rate Brent will lose £47 million of Government grant. In order to balance its finances, it will need a rate of 420p in the pound for 1988–89. That will mean a rate increase of 60 per cent. That is why I rise to ask my hon. and learned Friend the Minister at this late hour to rate-cap Brent for the sake of businesses and people in the area.
  Brent is already the fourth highest rated authority in London with a level of 256·8p in the pound. It is higher than Ealing, which will be rate-capped next year and it is higher than seven other London boroughs which will also be rate-capped next year, including Camden, Greenwich, Hackney, Lambeth, Lewisham, Southwark and Tower Hamlets. There are Conservative voters, Labour voters and even some Liberal voters who have been found in odd places from time to time. Those people do not talk about grant-related expenditure. I have never heard the figure of 12·5 per cent over GRE mentioned in the church halls or pubs. They compare the rates they are paying with those being paid next door. There are seven boroughs, eight, including Ealing, which will be rate-capped and they have rates lower than those in Brent. No man or woman in the street will believe that Brent is being given a fair deal. It is a nightmare.
  For the sake of the continuance of business in Brent and for the contentment of ratepayers there, whatever their political view, I ask my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to rate-cap Brent. We have produced petitions for the rate-capping of Brent and they have been signed by Labour voters on the doorsteps as well as other voters. They do not want to see the rates rise any more than do Conservatives.
  The Secretary of State referred to the lull before the storm, the break in the clouds or whatever imagery was
  480
  used. He was referring to the coming of the community charge. The search for something with which to replace rates has been like the search for the Holy Grail. King Arthur and his knights are still riding looking for a better form of rating system. In fact, the way in which it drops through grant-related expenditure suggests that it is a "holey" system.
  I do not believe that the community charge by itself, which is now being proffered as the new Holy Grail, will solve all the problems of the boroughs in London and elsewhere. We need other things as well. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members will have ideas as to what they believe should be done. We should look at the whole question of financing local government in this country and the responsibility of local government. It is time we set up a Royal Commission to study that. For example, responsibility for education is being taken away from local government through the opting out scheme and in certain cases the responsibility for housing and planning is being taken away from local government. The commission could look at the duties of local government and how its money should be used.
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: I should like to remind my right hon. Friend of the excellent report on local government produced by Lord Redcliffe-Maud. Unfortunately, when a Conservative Government enacted legislation to reform local government they did not go the whole way envisaged in that report. The recommendations in the report might provide a short cut and make unnecessary the Royal Commission, which otherwise my right hon. Friend is right to advocate.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention. I have that report at home.
  I disagree strongly with the size of local authorities. With the reduction in the responsibilities of local authorities we can bring down their size. Compared with France, with its 37,400 communes, we have almost semi-regional government. The local government reorganisations in 1964 and 1972 were disastrous for Britain. I said so at the time and I still hold that view.
  During the war, we took away the names of railway stations in case there was a German invasion. I think that we destroyed the names of places during the reorganisation of local government because we thought that we might be invaded from outer space and we did not want people to know where we lived. If anybody in Brent is asked where he lives, he says Kingsbury, Wembley or Willesden—not Brent.
  That local government reorganisation took people away from their organic units, within which they knew people and where they belonged. Both Conservative and Labour Governments were responsible for that. Independents within the parties had less chance when they had to depend upon the party machine to be elected. In many cases, the people elected were not local people.
  Those local government reorganisations took place at a time when we worshipped size. The tower blocks were going up along with the big comprehensive schools and the industrial conglomerates. The big tower blocks are now coming down and the big comprehensive schools and conglomerates are being broken up.
  We need an enabling Bill, although not for further Government-organised local government reorganisation. The Government always make a mess of whatever they reorganise. They only do something properly by accident.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The right hon. Gentleman has changed his mind.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I have always said that. I can recommend a book of mine to the hon. Gentleman. I shall send it to him tomorrow. I welcome disciples from anywhere, even from the east end of London, where I once taught.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: I want to help my right hon. Friend on the matter of the rates that Brent ratepayers are likely to pay as a result of the current settlement. Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has allocated some grant under the settlement because of its overspend, the Social Democratic and Labour-controlled council in Hertfordshire will probably receive no grant. At present that money will go straight back to the Treasury. I suggest that my hon. Friend asks for that money to go to Brent.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I am always delighted to have my hon. Friends helping me. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister has heard what was said and that by the end of the debate he will have found a way to make that possible. When I go back to Brent, the people will be waiting in the streets and I shall ride through the streets in a chariot with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells). —[Interruption.] I must not disagree with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister because he must have time to think. He is obviously in full agreement; he simply has to find the mechanism to make that possible, and I am sure that he will find one in the Department of the Environment in the next three hours.
  A commission is needed to look at all the responsibilities of local government. An enabling Bill should then allow those areas that feel that they have a unity of their own to decide for themselves how to organise their local government. As far back as the time of Chadwick and the Poor Law Reform Bill of 1834, when Britain was carved up into poor law unions, which took 34 years because people did not accept it, central reorganisation has been resented.
  However, in 1835 the Municipal Corporations Bill allowed areas with a certain population to petition Parliament to define their own boundaries in order to become municipal corporations. The communities decided on their own size. Indeed, at present there is a petition in my part of Brent, in Wembley, for a separation from Brent. I trust that when the boundary commissioners get to work on this, they will not just be the handservants of the Departments or bureaucracy, but that they will recognise people's needs. If they want to know what public opinion is, they should ask the people by means of a referendum. Already, 10,000 people have asked for their own authority. If 95 per cent. of people say in a referendum that they want a particular area, they should be allowed to have it so that the monstrosities that have been created can be broken up.
  Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend will remember that I was elected as an inaugural member of Brent council in 1964. At that time, we fought against amalgamation with Willesden. The strength of the petition then was even greater than the petition to which my hon. Friend has just referred. The Government did not have ears to listen then; I hope that they have ears to listen to what is said today.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: If the Minister has not been stirred by my words, he will doubtless be stirred by those of my hon. Friend, whose knowledge of Brent goes back further than mine.
  In conclusion, I am asking for three things. First, I should like Brent to be rate-capped and I would prefer that to be announced today rather than tomorrow—the sooner the better. Secondly, a commission on local government should be set up to consider what local government is doing and how. Thirdly, as soon as possible there should be a move towards smaller units in which people genuinely believe and with which they would be involved.
  Dr. Cunningham: Since the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward such profound and far-reaching proposals, is he telling the Government that they should set aside the Second Reading of the poll tax legislation until the matters that he raises have been dealt with?
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I would not say that, but it should be set aside until Brent has been rate-capped. When it has been rate-capped I shall settle for the continuance of the poll tax legislation. If that is not done, I shall have to agitate. It would be much more peaceful for Ministers if Brent were rate-capped so that we could settle down to a peaceful future.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: After hearing the speech of the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), perhaps we should expect an Order Paper with a new instruction to the appropriate Committee to consider a special procedure for the poll tax legislation next week. There is already one instruction on the Order Paper. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Brent, North will add another.
  It was rather paradoxical to listen to comments about disputes between former and present Prime Ministers and former and present leaders of Brent council when there is clearly a large difference of opinion between the former and present Ministers for Local Government.
  May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he and others have an opportunity to begin to argue, as I would with him, for a return to a smaller local government, because the boundary commissioners have asked for submissions by the end of December on the redrawing of boundaries within Greater London. They have extended the deadline. Therefore, there is an opportunity to raise that issue within their consultations and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make his submissions, together with others, by the end of the year, perhaps on Boxing day or some other equally under-occupied occasion.
  I tried to table a new clause to the Local Government Bill that has just come out of Committee to permit the setting up of urban parishes in London, but it was ruled to be outside the Bill's long title. Therefore, sadly, this change apparently cannot be debated in the context of that Bill which is shortly to return to the House. However, it is an important question which raises issues that go to the heart of local government accountability.
  There is another paradox about the substance of today's debate on the rate support grant settlement. Only last week we were debating the Urban Development Corporations (Financial Limits) Bill. The Government were moving, through the House, to abolish the

  483
  parliamentary procedure which controls the upper limit of grant expenditure of urban development corporations. Literally, within a few days, the Government took away Parliament's power to control urban development corporations and continued parliamentary control of a whole range of aspects of local government, including specific controls over the levying of money by rate-capped authorities. It should be the other way round. If anything, controls on democratically elected local government should be reduced and controls on unelected corporations, all appointed by the Secretary of State, should be increased.
  The Secretary of State, who is no longer in his place, pretended that today was another generous handout day for local government. There is, in a sense, more money, because things cost more than they did last year. The Minister and the House know well that in reality the Government propose a further real cut in local government funds and services. If the Government carry the day tonight, local government services will be reduced. The Government believe that local authority expenditure next year can be reduced to about £26 billion, even though the assessment of current expenditure is more than £1·5 billion more than that.
  The Government say that local authorities next year can cut out £1·5 billion— 5 per cent.—of waste. That does not even include the additional £1·5 billion that civil servants and local authority officials agree is needed to retain services at their present level. Therefore, on the smallest estimate, the Government's own, there is at least £1·5 billion difference between what the Government are allowing and what the local authorities will have at their disposal, and on the other estimate there is a difference of about £3 billion. That difference means cuts. Services will be cut and local government will suffer.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: The hon. Gentleman has not touched on the cuts in the London fire service. Is he aware of the dispute between the Home Secretary, who sets the maximum expenditure limits for the fire service in London and elsewhere, and the Department of the Environment, which makes grant-related expenditure assessments? Because of the dispute over the Departments' calculations, the fire authority in London will receive no grant whatever. The largest municipal fire authority in the world will receive no Government assistance. Unless the matter is resolved in time for next year's financial contribution, London could be 800 firefighters short. Since July, I have been asking for a meeting to be attended by the Departments' representatives of the area fire services committee and myself. That meeting has been cancelled once and has still not been held, despite promises from both Departments. That is scandalous.
  Mr. Hughes: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If present arrangements continue, the London fire service, like the Inner London education authority and other authorities, may receive no money from the taxpayer. The emergency services in London—the fire and ambulance services and the police force—are all underfunded. They are under great pressure and can only do their job—often well beyond the call of duty—because of their commitment. Unless they get more money, we shall be putting at risk the lives and well-being of the capital city. That is especially true of the ambulance service, as we were reminded in the debate in the early hours of this morning.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is disgraceful — it could be bordering on the hypocritical if one might use that word in the House—for the Prime Minister to go along with the television cameras and be seen walking up the scarred escalator at King's Cross when she is in charge of a Government who have made savage cuts in the very emergency services to which she pays tribute?
  Mr. Hughes: I share that view. While it is quite proper for the Prime Minister to pay such visits, they are barely acceptable when one considers that those who have been doing the hard work and going in to try to save lives know that they are being substantially starved of funds. Those in the emergency services are quite clear that they are being asked to do a job with horribly small resources. That should not continue, and a caring, concerned and responsible Government would not allow it to continue. I am afraid that those attributes have long been missing from the Government Front Bench.
  The settlement today means cuts and it has not fooled anyone in the know. The county councils — the shire authorities—and the urban councils all say that they are gravely unhappy. If one wants evidence on the suitability or otherwise of the settlement, one should perhaps look to those who will receive—or not receive—the money. Let me deal with them in turn. The Association of County Councils, speaking for the shire authorities, says that it is
  "particularly disturbed by ministerial comments which suggest that a 4 per cent. increase proposed for the shire counties represented a standstill in real terms. Quite apart from overwhelming evidence to the contrary from the Expenditure Steering Groups, the Government has itself claimed credit for making special provision, over and above general inflation, for teachers' pay and the police. If these commitments are to be accommodated within the overall figure of 4 per cent., then real reductions elsewhere are inevitable, particularly as the Government's own estimate of inflation for next year now stands at 4·5 per cent.;"
  and
  "Being labour-intensive, local authorities face higher inflation than the Government's figure, despite the fact that public sector pay awards generally are currently below those in the private sector."
  The shire counties are getting the best deal of all, so their comments are very important. They go on:
  "Present indications are that over £200 million of shire counties' block grant will be returned to the Treasury. This alone will cost the equivalent of a 5p rate and will necessitate precept increases which, on average, will exceed 10 per cent."
  Ministers must recognise that services will be reduced. Ministers should admit it because that is the reality and those are the figures. The Government's so-called extra revenue expenditure represents a shortfall, or a cut —however one likes to term it — of nothing less than billions of pounds.
  The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), who has just left the Chamber, also alluded to some ludicrous anomalies. Hertfordshire county council, which happens to be a balanced council, will not be the only county council to lose out. Surrey county council, which is controlled by the Tories, will lose out substantially, as will Oxfordshire, because of the caps and nets—because of the Government's curbs and restrictions. Such restrictions will not disappear under the poll tax system. They will remain, and they are entirely unsatisfactory and unhelpful.
  The urban areas have an even worse deal than the shire counties. Overall, the practical effect of the margin of

  485
  reduction of expenditure is to assist the lower-spending authorities rather than the higher-spending authorities. And it is the urban authorities which spend most because the need and disadvantage are greatest in their areas. I echo in different words the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) who said that the rate support grant is the most powerful individual tool that the Government have, in any year, to redress disadvantage. The Government could allocate money in such a way to help remedy disadvantage in our community. They do not do it, and they have not done it again this year. The pretence that they are helping the inner cities and the disadvantaged —even adding in other moneys—is a misrepresentation of the real position. The Government have been taking money out of the inner cities. They have capped rates and prevented local authorities from raising more money, which has meant a reduction in services to the deprived and disadvantaged. I have the figures. The Government want spending next year to be only 4 per cent. above this year's budget for the counties and less for other authorities. The figure for the districts is 2–32 per cent., for metropolitan districts it is 3·49 per cent., for outer London boroughs it is 1·89 per cent. and for inner London boroughs it represents a cut of 2·78 per cent.
  I know that the Secretary of State has made one concession and I expressed gratitude for that. Tower Hamlets, which is controlled by my colleagues and desperately needs money, has had its expenditure limit raised—not nearly enough, but we must be grateful for small mercies. However, my borough of Southwark desperately needs resources too. Its social services are strained to breaking point, but it is to get no more money at all. To other authorities in an equivalent position, suffering repeated crises in housing and social services, no extra money is forthcoming either.
  Although housing is not dealt with specifically in the allocation, it is a local authority prime service, particularly where most people live in local authority accommodation. The Government announced an extra £25 million capital allocation for dealing with the homeless this year. That, too, is welcome. However, housing capital allocations overall are to be cut by 14 per cent. next year, and many deprived boroughs will receive no extra money—even from the small extra allocation for homelessness. In addition, coming over the horizon is the new dawn that the Secretary of State told us about—the poll tax. The poll tax will mean that the local authorities will need many more staff. The administrative costs will be enormous. My borough, for example, estimates that in the first year it will have a bill for an additional £8 million and thereafter a bill for £5 million annually. I invite the Minister to disprove that.
  A non-party political body, the Rating and Valuation Association, together with the Association of District Council Treasurers — officers, not members — have produced a booklet entitled "Community charge—Poll Tax: The Facts", in which they state:
  "Poll tax will require four times as many transactions between the public and town halls as at present. About 300 million additional receipts will have to be issued. Jobs will have to be created for cashiers, typists, rent collectors … housing benefit staff and bailiffs."
  We are talking about a requirement for massive extra staffing, yet local government Ministers say that local authorities must reduce expenditure above all by cutting
  486
  staff, and that that is the key. That is completely inconsistent and ludicrous. I should welcome an explanation.
  The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard): Has the hon. Gentleman asked the London borough of Southwark for its estimate of the costs of administering a local income tax, which is his party's policy on these matters?
  Mr. Hughes: I have not, but I am willing to do so. A local income tax could be incorporated completely with the national income tax system. The computers exist. The difference is that the Minister's poll tax requires a different register and is differently compiled by different staff. It will require additional systems to those at present run by local or national Government. I am happy to take on the Minister on that issue because his Department's recent press release distorted and misrepresented the position. We shall undoubtedly come to this in our debates on the poll tax.
  Although this may be the penultimate year for rate support grant statements in their present form, yet again the Government are screwing local government and clamping it in their stranglehold, which after seven years is growing no weaker. Local government is meant to provide local services. This year's rate support grant settlement means that local government will be less able to do what it is meant to do, even according to this Government, which is to serve local people by providing the services which they require. Local government will be less able to do that next year and in many aspects it will not be its fault; it is the Government's fault. The Government insist on running the country according to an economic theory administered by Ministers who do not understand what deprivation is. It means that local authorities are prevented from doing adequately what they are historically, constitutionally and socially required to do, which is to provide services, meet needs and work to serve their local communities. This is an unacceptable settlement and it should be rejected by both sides of the House.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Harry Greenway: First, I ask the indulgence of the House if I leave shortly after speaking. There is to be a special mass for a distinguished deputy head of Our Lady of the Visitation school in Greenford who is retiring after 41 years and it is important for me to be present.
  When my hon. and learned Friend the Minister replies, will he let me know whether the notification of the proposed rate limit set for Ealing for 1988–89 at 125·6p is consistent with the original determination?
  Rates are unquestionably an unsatisfactory tax. One matter is certain and that is that the Labour party's proposal to base rates on the current valuation of houses would be extremely damaging to the people of Ealing and the south-east generally, where house prices have risen enormously. That would present them with much higher local taxation than any community charge or any other charge that can be envisaged. The policies of Opposition parties, including the Liberal party's policy of a local income tax, are unsatisfactory.
  Mr. John Heddle: My hon. Friend has touched on an interesting point which needs to be

  487
  broadcast wider than it is at present and that is the policy of the official Opposition. Does he agree that to base a form of local revenue on capital valuation amounts to nothing less than a wealth tax?
  Mr. Greenway: I wholly share my hon. Friend's view that that would be a universal wealth tax. The point being made by my hon. Friend, with his background, is further reinforcement.
  My constituents in Ealing have suffered a 65 per cent. domestic rate increase this year which has caused, and continues to cause, immense suffering. In particular, many elderly people are going without food to pay for the increase. Let nobody, whether a Labour supporter or a hard Left Labour supporter, minimise the suffering or be in any doubt about the suffering that that rate increase has caused.
  The 58 per cent. industrial increase has also affected my constituents seriously. Factories have closed and jobs have been lost. People who were interested in coming to the borough to set up in business have not come. We have lost jobs because of that appalling, sudden increase. The fact that the borough council did not go through the legal consultation processes required of it with industry makes the position worse. That would have been the burden of the case which my constituents wished to put in the High Court against this excessive rate increase, had it been possible to raise sufficient money to do so. New jobs have not come to the borough and others have been lost on account of this high rate increase.
  Mr. Tony Banks rose—
  Mr. Greenway: I have given way once and the hon. Gentleman knows that I am in a hurry to get to my constituency, so I ask him to understand if I do not give way.
  The high rate increase also took purchasing power away from the community, so there is less business for the shops which were also faced with high rate increases. Factories, such as the Lyons group, faced a rate increase of £750,000, so prices on porridge, tea, coffee and other products had to he increased to meet the sum required by the council. Some jobs were lost. Therefore, there was a combination of high prices and lost jobs.
  Mr. Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Greenway: In addition, my constituents faced higher prices for smaller items, such as hair-cuts which increased by 50p. That is a large sum for pensioners, especially on top of increased rates, and their suffering cannot be imagined.
  Mr. Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) has made it clear that he will not give way and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) should desist.
  Mr. Greenway: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  My constituents welcome rate-capping for Ealing and note that Ealing council did not seek redetermination of the rate-capping announced by the Secretary of State in July. What are Ealing's rates likely to be under rate-capping in 1988–89? Can my hon. and learned Friend the Minister give me the estimated reduction in rates from their present level in the coming year, so that my
  488
  constituents know where they stand? Does he see the need to cap not only rates, but expenditure by councils, such as Ealing and Brent, as a means of stopping their tricks with creative accounting and so on? Will he meet that need?
  Already my constituents have on their backs for years to come a negotiated deferred loan of £100,000 million, as well as much more through tricks by which leases have been arranged which will involve future repayments of a high order. We do not want any more of that. By capping council rates the Government are demanding a certain level of expenditure, but are not achieving it because expenditure is not capped. Councils get away with spending more than they are officially allowed to spend by the devices that I have described.
  High rates have brought excessive suffering to the elderly and few benefits to Ealing. The council has 143 committees now compared with about 40 under the Conservative administration. I cannot imagine what they all do. A couple were abolished this week: the antiapartheid committee has been rolled into another race committee, so we shall never again see direct evidence of £12,000 being spent on anti-apartheid activities, as we saw in July this year. But no doubt the new all-purpose race committee that has been set up will find a way to spend the money. The council has also abolished the police committee, which has existed for 18 months, despite the fact that the council is obliged by statute to have a consultative police committee. The committee in Ealing was anti-police, but even it has gone. The council has not had the courage to abolish the gay and lesbian working party, but we shall keep trying to get rid of it.
  I understand that the council has doubled allowances to councillors to £16 a time. With 143 committees, some of whose meetings will last for only 30 seconds, councillors could make a great deal of money. Some councillors are making 400 per cent. more than they were. Indeed, I understand that some are making as much as £6,000 a year in expenses, which represents a great deal of money to my constituents.
  Cleaning in the borough has been deprivatised, at a cost of £1 million a year to ratepayers, and complaints have increased enormously. People are always writing to me saying, "Our road has not been swept since deprivatisation." Since 15 October, the council has been able to say that it had to divert all labour to deal with the effects of the hurricane. But it is time that that excuse was put aside. It is nearly two months since the hurricane and, in any case, street cleaning must continue whatever happens.
  Five Ealing Labour councillors are employed by other Labour-controlled boroughs. In its turn, Ealing council employs five Labour councillors from other boroughs. It seems to be new form of mutual aid. It is pretty deplorable, and my constituents do not think much of it.
  Ealing, like all councils which have been rate-capped, will try to blame the Government if it has to reduce expenditure. We are sure that it will not reduce expenditure in the proper areas. It will not get rid of the large office block at the Great Western centre, which is more commonly known as the Kremlin, for obvious reasons—
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: Why?
  Mr. Greenway: That expenditure of £5 million a year could be ended tomorrow.
  Mr. Soames: Why is it called that?
  Mr. Greenway: There are good reasons. My hon. Friend must use his imagination. Expenditure could be reduced, although not in sensitive areas such as the provision of home helps. There is no need to reduce home helps or the number of teachers and other staff employed in schools. Rate capping could be met by reductions in areas where so much expenditure is not needed.
  The people of Ealing, who have had to endure sudden enormous increases in rates, are worried because they cannot get information about council expenditure in some areas. When the council stopped libraries stocking The Times and The Sun, it was involved in a legal action which it lost. Costs were awarded against it. The council has spent a large sum of money on that, but, despite my efforts and those of my constituents, we have been unable to discover how much. The council invested £250,000 in the News on Sunday—we believe against legal advice—and that money has been lost because the paper has collapsed. My constituents, especially retired people, who will lose money because of that collapse, have not even had the satisfaction of an explanation from the council.
  The House must consider ways in which ratepayers can take councils to court if they suddenly impose massive, unjustified rate increases. I helped some of my constituents to set up a fund against excessive rates which aimed to take Ealing council to court because of what we believed to be its illegal imposition of such a massive rates increase. We raised £35,000, and we ran our campaign to raise money alongside the ratepayers of Waltham Forest, who wished to take their council to court after a 62 per cent. rate increase. They lost their case on a technicality, and at that point we found it impossible to raise the full £50,000 that we needed. We had to drop our legal action against Ealing council, but we do not drop the charge that that rates increase was excessive and unreasonable. The fact that we cannot take the council to the High Court, although we have been given permission to do so, is a serious defect in our system of local finance and administration.
  Council expenditure as well as rates should be capped. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) that there should be a complete reconsideration of local government expenditure and that teachers' salaries should be taken out of local government expenditure. Sudden sharp increases in rates are unjustified and cause massive hardship to individuals and businesses and they should be prevented.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Unlike the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), I shall not spend 20 minutes telling fairy stories. I was delighted to see you take the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it meant that I might be called to speak in the debate. Last week, I sat through the debate on the Education Reform Bill for six hours and was dismayed not to be called. But the last time that I was called to speak, it was by you. I am extremely grateful.
  Council policies are governed by central Government. Local democracy is almost obsolete. Councils must fit their policies into financially restrictive guidelines laid down by central Government. Councils are given target figures for expenditure which are completely unrealistic. For years, most authorities—of all political persuasions —have accepted that the targets were inadequate. But when targets were increased, even at miserly rates which failed to meet inflation, grant was still cut. With targets
  490
  increasing and grants decreasing, it is no wonder that local authorities must increase rates even to maintain their present services.
  Minister after Minister has blamed local authorities for high spending and condemned rate increases when, in fact, it is the Government who have forced local authorities into impossible positions. It is not local authorities that have forced up the rates, but the Government and their policies. That fact has been substantiated by the Government's own Audit Commission, which clearly stated that it was not councils that were overspending, but that the structure of local government finance was to blame, and was in a shambles.
  Even as far back as 1984 — to be precise, on 17 January—in an interview on the BBC's "World at One", the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), an enlightened Tory and a former Tory Minister, said:
  "The reason the rates go up every year is because the central Government rate support grant is cut."
  Sir Robin Day, that well-known interviewer, responded:
  "That is what the Labour Party says."
  The right hon. Gentleman replied:
  "It is not a matter of what the Labour Party says. It is the truth!"
  Rates have risen unnecessarily under the Tories, by billions of pounds.
  I now wish to be parochial. As the ex-chairman of the finance committee of Durham city council, I wish to make a few observations about my constituency and district council. When block grant was introduced in my constituency in 1981, the city of Durham, which is a small district council, received £2·8 million in rate support grant, in other words, about 52 per cent. of its expenditure. The rates collected were £2·08 million, in other words, about 38 per cent. of the total sum that was spent. By 1986, the rate support grant had been changed to £2·051 million, which was less than 38 per cent. of expenditure, and the rates increased to over £3·5 million, in other words, to over 60 per cent. of expenditure. That was a loss of grant from central Government of over £600,000, which is almost a 25 per cent. cut. That was the equivalent of a rate increase of about 8p.
  Furthermore, the cumulative grant loss since 1981 for the city of Durham council is a staggering £2·5 million. I know that it is only a small district council, but when one loses £2·5 million over that time, one cannot take that without increasing the rates.
  I ask hon. Members: who has forced up the rates? Labour councils have won, and win, their elections on the strength of imaginative and caring manifestos, but they find it exceedingly difficult to succeed when grant is reducing and penalties are becoming more punitive over the years. Our crazy grant system works against an authority that spends to its approved target because authorities are rewarded for destroying services and spending less money.
  Durham city council has always attempted to keep exactly to its targets. The councillors have been very good boys, but it has done them no good at all. They have had no rewards. To spend less would have meant spending below what the Government regard as their correct level of expenditure. In the years since 1981 in Durham, if grant had not literally been stolen from us, there would have been few, and small, rate rises.

  491
  The present grant system has forced up the rates nationally by over 150 per cent. and robbed Durham city of over £2·5 million. The 1988–89 rate support grant for Durham city is a disaster, once again. Durham's GREA has increased by only £50,000 from £4·157 million to £4·202 million. The target has been increased by £163,000, from £6·071 million to £6·234 million. Again, its grant has been reduced by a further £165,000, from £2·051 million to £1·886 million. Of that £1·886 million, £1·178 million is safety-netted, leaving the city council's true grant at a meagre £708,000.
  A comparison between Durham and Hove in east Sussex, which has a similar population, demonstrates the ludicrous state of the rate support grant. For example, Hove's GREA has increased by £429,000 this year, from £7·524 million to £7·953 million. Its target, for some inexplicable reason, has increased by £2·066 million, from £6·209 million to £8·275 million. Its grant has increased by £1·575 million, from £6·025 million to £7·6 million. Hove gets almost a 100 per cent. grant for its expenditure. In fact, it could easily be 100 per cent.
  Hon. Members should not misunderstand me. I do not begrudge Hove what it gets, but how can it be justified? The two district councils have basically the same populations but there is a discrepancy in grant and GREA. How can a grant system be fair and just when a district such as Hove receives such a high percentage of grant through the Minister giving it a favourable multiplier?
  Mr. Heddle: Is not the hon. Gentleman making out a case for root-and-branch rate reform? Before he concludes his speech, will he remind the House of what he said at the beginning, that there was little accountability in local government at present? Will he tell the House how he proposes to improve that accountability? Will he explain, particularly to doubters such as me, how the introduction of a wealth tax, combined with a local income tax, which the Labour party proposes, will increase local accountability and make the system fairer for the ratepayers of Hove as well as those in his constituency of City of Durham?
  Mr. Steinberg: I do not believe that accountability is in question at present. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The rating and grant systems are absolutely absurd, but the present grant system was introduced in 1981 by the Conservative Government. It is in disarray. If there were a tax on capital values of property, at least that would be a fair distribution of wealth, with regard to those who can pay. It is no good introducing taxation for people who cannot pay. That is what has been happening. We now have an unfair system, which has been clearly proven by two similar district authorities.
  I do not suggest for one moment that, in his allocations, the Minister makes political decisions. Hove council has 22 Conservative councillors, four Labour councillors, three Liberals and one independent. I do not suggest that that has anything to do with or any bearing on the allocation—
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: And Hove has a Conservative Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Steinberg: I forgot about that. But the system must come into disrepute when power is handed over to one single person—the Minister.
  Mr. Tony Banks: There are some other points about Hove that my hon. Friend might not know about. It has
  492
  high unemployment and, indeed, some of the worst social service provision in the whole of that part of the country. Despite the favourable treatment that this Tory Government are giving to a bunch of Tory stooges in Hove, the council is still not giving the level of services that hard-pressed London boroughs are giving.
  Mr. Steinberg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me that information. I did not know that. It is typical and what one would expect.
  Although a decision has not yet been made in Durham city this year, it seems certain that its rates may have to rise next year by about 10 per cent., just to stand still. With that 10 per cent., there will be little increase in the provision of services. The rates rise will be purely to compensate for the loss of grant—the same old story.
  Rates in Durham city have increased from 24p to 43½p since 1981–82, simply because of the loss of grant and the iniquitous way in which GREA is calculated. That is an 81 per cent. increase, yet actual expenditure in Durham is up by only 11 per cent., while the retail price index has increased by only 33 per cent. Grant-related expenditure assessment components are nonsense and, as an example, I shall again compare Hove with Durham city. Hove receives £7 per head of population for private housing whereas Durham receives £1·37 per head. Hove spends £140,000 a year on concessionary bus fares and receives £13·54 per head of population, yet Durham spends £312,000 a year on concessionary fares and receives only £2·50 per head. That is ridiculous and must be regarded as crazy. Why should the GREA be different for authorities that appear so similar? Surely there must be something wrong with the system.
  The Secretary of State recognises that the system is a shambles or he would not have targets, or "expenditure assumptions", as they are now called. The Government have put local government finance in disarray, and the Secretary of State today ridiculed it. Now the Government plan to make it worse by introducing the poll tax. They introduced the block grant, which was a tremendous fiasco. Now the poll tax is to be introduced, which will be an even bigger disaster. It has taken the Government eight years to get local government finance in total chaos, so introducing the poll tax is probably a natural progression for them. The only trouble is that local authorities and residents have been and will continue to be the sufferers — unless, of course, one lives in a £750,000 house in Dulwich or, better still, has two houses, as many Cabinet Ministers have.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: I shall not take up the points made by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), especially his comparisons with Hove, which is well represented by a friend and political neighbour of mine. I hope that the hon. Gentleman informed my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) that he would compare the statistics as he did, because that would have been only a courtesy.
  I contest the hon. Gentleman's contention that the Conservative Government have been eroding the amount spent on local government. One need only cast one's mind back to the days of runaway inflation at the end of the last Labour Government to see that the value of money given to local government, as to everything else, was eroded dramatically year by year.

  493
  I emphatically endorse the idea, put forward yet again and most sensibly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) of a reassessment of the role and functions of local government. New methods of financing, however good they may be, are not the whole story. Local government will not be positioned correctly to do the job that it is meant to do for those whom it represents until there is the sort of reassessment advocated by my right hon. Friend.
  I warmly welcome in a way that no hon. Member has yet done the statement made yesterday, and confirmed today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in announcing the Government's special help to those parts of the country so devastated by the 15 October storms. Those who have not visited the south of England—the county of my constituency, East Sussex, the neighbouring counties of West Sussex and Kent, north to Surrey and across the waters to Suffolk — cannot appreciate the devastation of that night. Everyone who has visited the area is astounded by the devastation, with trees broken off or blown over and houses damaged. The Government's help is welcome.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I am following the hon. Gentleman's remarks closely. I agree with him entirely. I regularly travel to Hastings, and it is depressing to see, as one drives along the roads or travels by railway, how many trees in Kent and Sussex were uprooted by that storm. Is the hon. Gentleman wholly satisfied that Kent and East Sussex are receiving adequate resources from the Government to deal with the problems arising from the storm?
  Mr. Rathbone: If the hon. Gentleman held his horses for a moment, he would be all the wiser.
  We very much appreciate the ability to charge to revenue building works up to the end of next March without losing grant. I commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State because after March the revenue costs of borrowing to repair damage will not incur grant loss for three years and the deadline for Bellwin grants of 75 per cent. has been extended from January to 1 March.
  I should like one small aspect of the extension to be considered. Some of the major repairs that must be made cannot be completed within that time scale. The rebuilding of Tideway school in Newhaven, which was devastated, leading to the whole school being evacuated, has meant considerable extra costs in providing temporary rented accommodation for schooling and extra costs in transporting pupils to the school. That will continue until the end of the summer term. The rebuilding will not be completed until some time in the summer, but the extra Bellwin-type cost will continue until the end of the summer term. The cost is estimated to be about £200,000, so we are not talking about small amounts. I ask my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Local Government, who is carefully making a note of this point, to reconsider that expenditure, which is important for a county such as East Sussex.
  I should like to correct an impression given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when referring to the first 1p of rate which is paid by councils before the Bellwin formula applies. My right hon. Friend said once again, as he has said before in our positive conversations with him, that that was the amount that a good council would put aside. I wish to cite some figures as background. The 1p
  494
  rate to be paid by the East Sussex county council produces £1·4 million, and expenditure at that level loses grant of £700,000 even if it is paid for out of a contingency fund. Had that money been notionally spent on such a fund, it would have meant a grant loss when the fund was formed.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State advocated the establishment of a contingency fund, but that would have meant the county council losing grant — mainly because of mistreatment in previous years—of £700,000 from the beginning of the year, whether or not it had spent that fund. The council will now lose grant from the moment that it expends from the contingency fund that must be established. The fact is that at no time since the Bellwin rules were introduced has the East Sussex penalty been lower than it is now, so that setting up such a contingency fund would have been even more costly to the ratepayers. I want to put that point on the record.
  We are talking about huge amounts of money. The total expenditure envisaged by East Sussex is estimated to be £12 million—that is the financial measurement of the devastation caused by the storm. Under the new rules, the council can expect a grant from the Government of £3·5 million, decreasing the amount to be found by the council to £8·5 million. To that, however, must be added the loss of £700,000 grant, so that the total to be found by the council will be £9·2 million. I cite those figures to give the House an idea of the enormous damage in my part of the country.
  I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the way that East Sussex is being treated this year, compared with previous years. Nevertheless, it is a low threshold of praise, because I am really thanking him only for no further suffering. Nothing has been done to put right the sufferings of previous years — although following them, even the status quo is a more comfortable state for the council.
  In a year's time, when the last rate support grant is announced, as a grand finale — a form of fireworks, perhaps — some of the moneys owed to East Sussex should be returned as a recognition of its being one of the best-run counties, if not the best run. That would be some recompense for its good housekeeping.
  I fear that yet again this year I must join in what has become an annual bashing of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I must raise the problem of the rate support grant settlement for Lewes district council, the major district council in my constituency. When grant-related expenditure was announced, it showed an increase of 0·83 per cent. compared with 1987–88. That caused enormous concern and I wrote to the Secretary of State about it in the middle of last month. I have not yet received a reply, but I appreciate the burden of work on his Department in recent times.
  When the rate support grant was announced, we found that it was £311,000 below the figure for 1987–88. We were told that the methodology for calculating GRE was to be generally the same as for 1987–88. It is expected that between 1987–88 and 1988–89 the population of Lewes will increase by 2,642, or 3·1 per cent. The estimated increase in net committed expenditure—net of expenditure by towns and parishes — for 1988–89 compared with 1987–88 is £211,000, or 5·4 per cent. That is an interesting comparison with the increase of 5·75 per cent. in rate support grant nationally that was announced by my right hon. Friend.

  495
  The 5·4 per cent. increase in expenditure is within the suggested rate rise limit, especially if we discount the allowance for a 3·1 per cent. increase in population. However, the loss of £311,000 rate support grant will raise the estimated increase in expenditure from £211,000 to £522,000.
  After allowing for inflation of 4 per cent., the 5·4 per cent. estimated increase means, in fact, only a 1·4 per cent. increase in growth, which is more than accounted for by the expected 3·1 per cent. increase in population. That shows that Lewes is an extremely efficient council, in stark contrast to some of the councils to which my hon. Friends referred earlier.
  I shall write to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister setting out those details, and asking whether he will meet a delegation from the council, when I hope that he and his officials will explain the mathematics. I hope that he will reconsider the grant in view of the extremely efficient way in which the council is run.
  It is, perhaps, almost an historic occasion to be participating in the wake for rate support grant, grant-related expenditure, rate capping and so on. I am somewhat less sanguine than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the planned community charge —a subject which will be tackled in debate next week.
  I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise important, if local, points.
  7.7 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I have some sympathy with the points made by the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) about the halcyon days of local government before the introduction of legislation that rather aptly came into effect on April fool's day in 1974.
  At that time, the system of rate support grant allowed local government to operate on a firm and sensible basis, and it is vital that we return to that position. An excellent urban district council in my constituency was abolished by the Local Government Act 1974. It fought rigorously for the interests of its people in Clay Cross. At that time, there was a "moderate" Government under the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). The position in the area has worsened considerably and a strong fighting policy needs to be adopted.
  The Clay Cross urban district council was replaced by the moderate North-East Derbyshire district council. Its modesty has been shown by one of its leaders defecting to the SDP-Liberal alliance, following which there was a Conservative council, and then its last leader defecting to the Union of Democratic Mineworkers and the "moderate" Labour party. He was then soundly defeated at a by-election in Clay Cross.
  A council with that tradition—it now has a collective leadership to avoid such problems—will not be seen to be too excessive. In the Prime Minister's terms, it will be seen to be prudent and reasonable. Yet the prudent and reasonable authority is being dealt with in a most harsh fashion by the rate support grant arrangements and by the Government's failure to respond to the problems that it faces. In their context, its problems are as serious as the gale damage problems that are faced by authorities in the south of England.
  In north-east Derbyshire, there has been an underground fire in C'allywhite lane in Dronfield. It is on a private estate, although the district council has been obliged to take action
  496
  to rectify it. At the moment, costs amount to £500,000. Various losses, legal and other charges will also be involved. This year, the council will be obliged to instigate a 25 per cent. rate increase to rectify the problem. There has been no movement on the part of the Government, despite repeated requests by the North-East Derbyshire council and hon. Members.
  Furthermore, north-east Derbyshire faces the threatened closure of Renishaw Park pit. The closure of the pit and other businesses within the region will reduce the rateable value of the area. Subsequent job losses will mean that the local economy will suffer and less money will be available for local government purposes.
  When I first came to the House, I tabled an early-day motion to attempt to get the Department of the Environment to meet a delegation about the Dronfield fire. We have heard that the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) hopes that a delegation from his district council will meet the Minister. It was only after considerable pressure and the signing of early-day motions and other measures and actions that the Minister agreed to meet the Dronfield delegation. We were given tea and sympathy. When the Minister asked what was sought, a delegate told the Minister, "We want sympathy and support." The Minister's reply was, "You have certainly got sympathy." We have always had a smiling face and smiling responses but we have had no support or assistance.
  In my maiden speech to the House, I referred to the details of the fire and the seriousness of the problems involved. Consequently, court action obliged the council, rather than the firms concerned, to take action. Funding has been sought to handle the crisis. That was the subject of an Adjournment debate, and there was a subsequent response from the Under-Secretary of State. We were told that we could not use the derelict land legislation to find funds. However, I suggested other measures to the Minister. He did not respond to them. I have elicited a "no" response from the Minister to a written question. One avenue for funds is the Bellwin scheme. It does not refer only to gales. It states:
  "To provide special financial assistance to local authorities who, as a consequence of an emergency, would otherwise incur an undue financial burden in providing relief and carrying out immediate works to safeguard life or property or prevent suffering or severe inconvenience to affected communities."
  Those provisions apply exactly to this case and other cases that hon. Members could put forward. There have been deputations from Strabane about the floods on Northern Ireland. They were united deputations, involving Ulster Unionists and Sinn Fein members coming to the House to state their position. The Government should respond to that sort of unity and concern. There is a common interest whether there is gale, flood, or fire damage. Such matters should be responded to.
  I also suggested that the Government could set up an emergency fund additional to the Bellwin scheme arrangements so that the entire amounts could be recovered. There could be some alteration to the public health legislation, under which councils are obliged, when there are safety problems, to take action to cause firms to act. Such firms may be driven into bankruptcy because they cannot handle a matter. The council must then take action and carry the costs. Adjustments of that nature must be responded to and seriously considered.

  497
  I asked a written question of the Secretary of State to find out the situation in respect of funding, since various points were not answered in the Adjournment debate. The Secretary of State replied:
  "As I have told the House, it would not be appropriate to make central Government financial assistance available to help fund the remedial works necessary to put out the fire.
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, has considered North-East Derbyshire district council's request that unrecovered expenditure it incurs in dealing with the fire should be excluded from the definition of total expenditure, and has decided not to include it."—[Official Report, 2 December 1987; Vol. 1430, c. 629.]
  That means that, apart from using this opportunity, I have now had to present a ten-minute Bill that will refer not only to the underground fire at Dronfield but to other underground fires and disasters to show that there should be funding provided.
  In addition to my constituents having to face a high rate increase to handle the emergency, they also face wider problems that affect the whole of Derbyshire. Derbyshire now faces grant capping, which will seriously affect it. The object of the grant cap is supposed to be to limit grant charges from year to year. In other words, an authority's proper grant entitlement is calculated and then a separate factor is applied to reduce that grant entitlement to an arbitrary limit that is set by the Secretary of State. The benefit of the reduction in grant is then shared out in small measure between all other authorities in the country who are not subject to a cap. By next year, the cap will cost Derbyshire ratepayers almost £70 million. It was introduced as a transitional measure in 1986–87, following the Government's abolition of the targets and grant penalty system. The important point to understand about the grant cap issue is that it is completely unrelated to the council's spending policy and that there is nothing that the council can do to eliminate the cap. No cuts that it may impose, nor other action that it may take, will eliminate the measure.
  Should Derbyshire ratepayers continue to be penalised at a rate of £20 million a year so that a small benefit can then be provided for other authorities? The annual national value of the cap is equivalent to around only 0·5 per cent. of the block grant pool that is available to other authorities. Its continued use can no longer be justified.
  North-east Derbyshire residents are additionally in a difficult position in regard to the fire. The barrier that the council provided at considerable expense seems to have been breached in one area. The fire is extending towards gas supplies in south Yorkshire. The crisis still exists and funding is still required. I ask the Government to look seriously at the position to see whether assistance can be given, and to consider the other points raised on the grant cap in Derbyshire.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. George HowarthUnfortunately, the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) is no longer in the Chamber, but I was interested in his remarks about the past and the possible future of local government, particularly as I served on an urban district council in the early 1970s, which has now gone the way of many of those bodies since the Local Government Act 1974. I look back on those days with rosy and warm feelings, no doubt in the same way as other hon.
  498
  Members do, but it strikes me that the reduction of the size of local government would be a major undertaking and not quite as simple as the right hon. Member for Brent, North, even with his vast experience, might imagine.
  For example, what would we do with education? Would we move it up or down a level? Other considerations would make the changes somewhat more complicated than the characteristically populist solution described by the right hon. Member. Nevertheless, I am sure that his sentiments were genuine. While I empathise with his looking back to the rosy days before 1974, it is not as simple as that. The time is approaching when we should look at the functions and size of local government, although I am not sure whether now is the right time.
  The rate support grant settlement will affect urban areas, particularly Merseyside and my constituency. The Government, with their much trumpeted initiatives on the inner city and urban areas —I hope that that includes outer areas—have made a small but significant shift in the settlement away from metropolitan districts, where most stress areas are. Those stress areas will have an increase in funding of 7·4 per cent. The Government have taken a slightly meaner approach to metropolitan districts than to the rest of the country, which is somewhat strange when the Government claim to be helping urban and stress areas. It is strange that metropolitan districts should be under attack.
  Currently, about four of the 36 metropolitan districts are spending less than the grant-related expenditure assessments, which means that 32 are spending more. Are the Government saying that those 32 have got it wrong and the four have got it right? If so, that is a strange way of approaching relations with local government, and the matter should be reconciled.
  The rate support grant settlement for Merseyside will be increased by 6·7 per cent., which is significantly less than for the rest of the country, which will receive an increase of 7·5 per cent. Whatever may have taken place in the past to affect the Government's relationship with some constituent authorities in Merseyside may not have had any bearing on the changes, but I think that all hon. Members would concede that Merseyside has major problems caused by the demographic and industrial changes which have taken place over several decades and longer.
  Successive Ministers, including the Prime Minister on one or two occasions, have been to Merseyside to look at the problems. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) has taken a great interest in Merseyside. Most people have accepted the evidence of their own eyes. There is considerable decay and many problems.
  I do not go along with the school of thought that we should whinge about everything on Merseyside because everything is so bad. There are many good things on Merseyside. There are some good things in local government and good things caused by local government having allowed the voluntary sector to undertake certain functions. I do not agree that we should always bleat about Merseyside, but anyone looking at the problems would have to concede that the solution must involve the central Government directing resources into stress areas of Merseyside, including parts of Liverpool, Knowsley and Birkenhead. The stark truth is that anyone looking at the problems of urban dereliction and inner cities must concede that point.

  499
  I concede that local government must sometimes take different and radical approaches to tackle problems. In Knowsley, the settlement is slightly more than 7·9 per cent., which is higher than that for the rest of the country and more than the rate support grant settlement for Merseyside. At first glance, I thought that I should have to congratulate the Secretary of State—until I started to analyse the changes that the Government expect local government to take on board and how those changes will affect the settlement.
  First, the administration of changes to the housing benefit, recently passed with some opposition from Opposition Benches, will cost my local authority some £300,000. That is a considerable sum of money, which is necessary if the changes are to be administered humanely and decently. We are still waiting for the debate on the rights and wrongs of the poll tax, but it is estimated that my local authority will have to employ 90 staff to deal with its introduction, which will cost approximately £1·5 million for additional accommodation, administration and staff.
  The introduction of competition is another factor. As recently as yesterday, the borough of Wirral, which was controlled by the Conservatives, re-let the privatisation of cleaning services. An in-house tender from local authority staff has succeeded in replacing the private contractors who have been doing the work for two or three years. The Minister may say that that is competition and that the Government do not object to local authorities winning tenders, provided they are competing with private enterprise. The Liverpool Daily Post reported this morning that the Conservative leader attributed the success of the in-house tender to the changes in the way in which local authority officers had done their jobs and had prepared the in-house tender so that it would be acceptable.
  That confirms a problem in my constituency. The preparations for the introduction of competition are estimated in next year's budget to cost something like £220,000. The local authorities used consultants to do that. Local authorities will have to cover those additional costs which result from measures that the Government have introduced, and which will not be met by the rate support grant settlement.
  Another problem which is common to all local authorities is that of pay awards. I do not object to the various pay awards—far from it. In my local authority, two thirds of the costs of all services involve salaries and pay. They vary from the administrative and technical grades which were given about 7 per cent. to the pay award to manual workers which was about 10 per cent. In regard to the teachers' pay award, there is a residual amount to be paid from a previous award and the current year's pay award still has to be settled, but it appears that the overall increase in the cost of teachers' pay will be over 10 per cent. That means that there will be a settlement of 7 or 8 per cent. If we add up all those problems, and the cost of pay awards, we see that the Government proposal is likely to be inadequate, even in my borough which does comparatively well compared with others on Merseyside.
  Another of my worries is that the grant at GREA level will be £48·6 million. If we assume that we will spend something like 8 per cent. above GREA, the grant will be reduced to £46·2 million, a loss of £2·4 million. I know that the Government have accepted the inconsistencies and problems, and have promised to change the system, but, having accepted the need for change, why will they not
  500
  change the system straight away, this year? Why do they not say, "We will make the change now, and we will set the level of expenditure at GREA and we will not penalise those who are on the threshold, or just on one side of it"?
  All those problems, and their financial consequences, do not mean much until we examine the problem on the ground, and what it means to live in an urban area. We have heard some graphic illustrations of the effects of storm damage, with which I have some sympathy. I travelled in south-east England and I was moved by the fact that lots of trees were lying beside the road. I sympathise with hon. Members who have such problems. The truth is that in areas such as Knowsley, urban and industrial decay are facts of life. They were not created by the people who live there. They are the result of structural changes in the economy, the recession, regional policy and the lack of industry being directed into such areas. Industrial and urban decay are common everyday experiences.
  We need to improve education. I do not think that the education system is wonderful. I do not agree with the Government's proposals, but I believe that changes can be made in the education system in Britain and in my constituency, which will not necessarily cost a lot of money. If young people who live in my constituency are to have an equal chance in life, more money needs to be spent on their education. That will not happen under the present proposals.
  We also need extra resources to improve the environment. Nothing is so impoverishing as to drive around some of the housing estates in constituencies such as mine and look at the problems, some of which have been created by local authorities. Those problems involve the design of the estates and the resources that are available to improve and maintain them. It is an impoverishing experience to live in an area where the environment is poor and getting worse. As a result of the RSG settlement there will be no additional resources to deal with those problems.
  I accept that there are many things wrong in the country. However, the malicious attitude that the Secretary of State has adopted towards local government will do more harm than good. I accept that things go wrong in the management of local authorities. I spent 14 years working on a local authority and such organisations employ many people and are involved in the operation of complicated procedures, some of which have been introduced by legislation. It is inevitable that, in those circumstances, local authorities occasionally get things wrong. I believe that there is always scope for increased efficiency within a local authority. I do not believe that there is anything anti-Socialist or anti-citizen in saying that —certainly most of my constituents would agree.
  Things are not improved by the bashing approach that has been adopted by the Secretary of State. Improvements are made as a result of consent and discussion and by respecting the fact that local authorities represent the true, elected voice in their communities. I believe that the Secretary of State is mistakenly — the RSG settlement reflects that — managing the whole national process of local government with a mixture of malice and, on occasions — as demonstrated in this debate — incompetence. I find that breathtaking, but, more to the point, I find it deeply disappointing.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Barry Field: I make no apology for being parochial because I believe that I am correct in saying that I am the only hon. Member who speaks for an entire county council.
  All the political parties on the Isle of Wight have recognised the problems caused to that island by the rate support grant. That consensus goes back to the days of my predecessor but one, Mark Woodnutt. Certainly, in the days when the constituency was represented by Stephen Ross—yesterday he was ennobled in another place—he did a considerable amount of work in endeavouring to convince the Association of County Councils of the merit of the island's case. Indeed, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was Secretary of State for the Environment he agreed to take up the island's case. It is a matter of much sadness to the island that, at that time, the ACC refused to allow adjustments to be made that would have benefited the island.
  The island is unique in a number of instances. Over the years the council has continually made applications for assisted area status, but has failed to convince the Government that the island should be such an area. I believe that the stumbling block may be that the decision is judged on a regional basis. Despite our high unemployment, our infrastructure and local government difficulties, the problem is that the island is judged against the backdrop of one of the most prosperous regions in the United Kingdom.
  As a result of the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas and the Development Commission, the island enjoys rural development area status. I believe that that is unique for an entire county. The county is also designated as a travel-to-work area by the Department of Employment. I am not an expert, but I venture to suggest that that is rather remarkable when one considers that the island is 60 miles wide. I do not believe that many travel-to-work areas in the country cover such a distance.
  The island suffers considerable difficulties because it is an island. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment should consider that, under the present RSG settlement, the Isles of Scilly are given special treatment. That treatment reflects the consideration given to the finance of those islands, the small population and the dislocation caused by that archipelago. Although we have consistently failed to persuade the Department of the Environment of the merits of our case, we should receive similar treatment to that afforded to the Isles of Scilly and to the Scottish islands.
  Plant and machinery costs a great deal more, as do materials, because they must come across to the island by ferry. Although the island is only 88 miles from London as the crow flies, it has been estimated that that round trip is equivalent to a journey of 300 miles when the time on the ferry is taken into consideration.
  Let me give my right hon. Friend an illustration of the difficulties faced by local government on that island and the increased costs that we must bear as a result. I especially direct my right hon. Friend's attention to a serious fire that occurred last night on the island. Unfortunately, that fire has led to the temporary loss of 60 jobs. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will appreciate that, when such a fire occurs, there is no way in which a fire engine can board a ferry—the journey takes some 40 minutes and that assumes that the fire engine would be
  502
  waiting for that ferry when the fire broke out. As it is impossible for the island to rely on back-up facilities from other counties, the authority has the extra cost of supplying additional fire appliances.
  There is a well-known joke about being a long-distance lorry driver on the Isle of Wight. We do not have any motorways or trunk roads—it can be argued that our roads lead to nowhere. The island loses out substantially because of our transportation difficulties.
  Hon. Members will be aware that this year the ACC made a representation to my right hon. Friend for the abolition or the safety net. I believe that I am correct in saying that if the net were abolished only three county authorities would lose as a result. Yet again, the Isle of Wight would be one of those authorities. Therefore, we are delighted that my right hon. Friend has decided to keep that safety net. It offers a considerable advantage to the island.
  I received a letter today from my right hon. Friend about a matter that I had previously raised with him regarding the short-sightedness of the Treasury valuer in not asking for a reduction in the rates on an area covered by the prison that is currently unoccupied—in fact, that part of the prison is uninhabitable at the moment—and for those prison officers' houses that have been sold either to the local authority or on the open market. The amount that is required to be repaid to the Treasury dates back to 1982–83. In the normal course of events, when such an amount is discovered on a year-on-year basis, an adjustment is made to the rate support grant. I drew my right hon. Friend's attention to the matter because, if the sum must be repaid in the current year—we very much hope that we may find a way around that—it will be equivalent to a charge of £2 per head of population of the island. It is a substantial sum of money for our local government to find.
  I am anxious about the longer term because the measure may have an effect on the base level of our community charge, although I welcome that charge. The unified business rate in both boroughs will drop substantially, by over 7 per cent. in one borough and by 4 per cent. in the other. We must not incur any extraneous expenditure that might have a detrimental effect on the base level for the community charge.
  We have had the promise of a payment of some £55,000 for the storm damage caused by the hurricane. If we judge this on the sum per head of population, we see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has treated the Isle of Wight generously. I am delighted that he should have done so because our county motto is, "All this beauty is of God" and we are looking forward to restoring that beauty. My right hon. Friend visited Osborne house earlier this year. He will appreciate the devastation caused by the severe weather and he saw the island at its best.
  When we made our annual deputation to my right hon. Friend to discuss our rate support grant, we discussed the storm damage and asked whether a form was available to make application for compensation. We were told that there was not, but that we should write and request additional capital allocation. We did and were told by the Department of the Environment that we should fill in the appropriate form. We received a letter on 20 November, telling us that a form was available. In the reformation of rate support grant, which we all welcome, perhaps the Isle

  503
  of Wight will have played a tiny part in history as it made the Department of the Environment invent a form to apply for compensation for storm damage.
  7.47 pm
  Mr. William O'Brien: The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) may represent a whole county, but several hon. Members can speak on behalf of their counties. I can speak about issues affecting the five districts which make up the area of west Yorkshire. He referred to several issues regarding local authority administration on the Isle of Wight. We share his concern, particularly about the fire service.
  The hon. Member said that the Isle of Wight had assisted area status. We wish that we could obtain such assistance for areas of industrial dereliction where unemployment is high, yet Wakefield, which is in my constituency, is denied assisted area status. The hon. Member is fortunate to have such Government assistance. However, I am disappointed that local government has little to look forward to in the rate support grant report presented today by the Secretary of State.
  When I look at the report and the detail of what is quite an extensive document, I see that it is signed by the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Transport and has the consent of two of the Lords Commissioners to Her Majesty's Treasury. I am disappointed that there is no reference to anyone from the Home Office. When it comes to fire service and civil defence provision, the Home Office has the responsibility for setting standards, as it has for police forces. The Department of Health and Social Security is involved in provision for joint financing between local authorities and health authorities. Then there are community services: a good many people have been transferred from Health Service provision to local authority provision, but there are no extra resources of any significance in this document to assist either community services or joint financing. It means that in many cases the local authority must carry the full burden of schemes which had originally been jointly financed between it and the health authority. The fact that councils now have to make total provision for these jointly financed schemes means a tremendous call on local resources.
  It' the Secretary of State is to judge the worth of those schemes, we must have services that give value for money. To do that, local authorities must be helped. There must be some examination of the level of local authority expenditure which will allow them to provide the services that people demand, in my area as in other areas.
  In my area there is a great demand for the services that the local authority provides. Every weekend I am approached by constituents who have problems arising from social services, and from housing, particularly for the elderly and disabled. People look forward to meeting their local authority representatives so that they can put their case for better services. Yet because of the restrictions applied by the Secretary of State to local authorities, my constituents and those of other hon. Members are denied the services to which they are entitled.
  What gives me the greatest cause for concern is the provision of fire cover in the west Yorkshire area. This area covers five district councils — Leeds, Bradford, Kirklees, Wakefield and Calderdale. Special provision must be made to ensure that we get a proper fire cover to the standard laid down, in the main, by the Home Office.
  504
  The Home Secretary lays down certain standards of fire cover which are then passed on to the fire services in west Yorkshire and to the joint committee that administers them, yet we have the ridiculous situation in which the Secretary of State for the Environment decides what the level of expenditure must be, thereby making it very difficult for the fire services to provide the necessary cover to the correct standard.
  In February 1985 the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council published a report entitled "Report of the Joint Committee on Standards of Fire Cover". Among its conclusions and recommendations, the report said:
  "We emphasise the importance of proper categorisation of risk for the operation of meaningful recommended standards of fire cover, and recommend that fire authorities should, on receipt of revised composition guidance from the Home Departments, review the categorisation of risk in their area in the light of it".
  In other words, fire services were requested to examine areas of fire risk and to build up to the recommended cover.
  In west Yorkshire in 1988–89 the amount required to reach the required standard of cover is £39·2 million. The initial expenditure limit announced by the Department of the Environment is £36·4 million, so when it comes to providing the necessary service in west Yorkshire we have a shortfall of £2·8 million. There are areas in west Yorkshire where the fire risk is exceptional and where the resources of the fire service are so stretched that it is difficult to ensure that the necessary standards are achieved and maintained. The fire services' authority is faced with such a dilemma that representations have been made to the Home Office, asking it to approve the maximum possible amount to ensure that proper standards of service are achieved.
  An initial expenditure has been announced at £36·4 million. Yet the amount required just to stand still, taking into account inflation and so on, for the west Yorkshire civil defence and fire authorities is £37·8 million, so we have a shortfall of £1·4 million, even though we are just standing still. This is a devastating situation where, to meet the standards of fire cover laid down by an advisory body which was established to make recommendations and advise authorities, it will cost £39·2 million. Yet the difference between that figure and the initial expenditure limit that has been announced is £2·73 million.
  Mr. Allen McKay: Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that the south Yorkshire fire service, which also made recommendations to the Home Office and to the Secretary of State, is in a similar position? It is in danger of having to take appliances off the road. The problem is compounded by the fact that the adjacent services in each area cover for one another in the event of a major fire. This means that someone has to decide whether that cover can be given, because, if it is, it tends to dilute the fire cover that it is possible to give in an individual force's area.
  Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) for drawing attention to the fact that south Yorkshire is facing similar problems as those of west Yorkshire on fire cover. My hon. Friend is correct with regard to the cross-boundary service that supplements fire cover on the boundaries.
  If something is not done to help fire authorities in west and south Yorkshire, the service that people are entitled

  505
  to will deteriorate. When a catastrophe occurs there will be no point in the Prime Minister or any other Minister coming to the area to offer condolences. The Government have a responsibility to ensure that an adequate level of service is maintained.
  The standards of the service are set not by the fire service in west Yorkshire or by the joint committee but by an official, established body, which ensures that in a high fire risk area there is proper cover. We in west Yorkshire are concerned—I am sure that the same applies to south Yorkshire — that there are areas of high fire risk in which there is doubt about the level of cover.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will note the problems facing local fire and civil defence authorities. In west Yorkshire, six special appliances have had to be demanned. A further reduction in financial resources to that extent is equivalent to the demanning of five pumping appliances, 12 specials or a combination of either. If the expenditure levels that are needed to provide proper fire cover are not agreed by the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Home Secretary there will be a further reduction in fire cover in the area.
  For the service to stand still in the coming year it would require an additional £1·3 million, or a 3·8 per cent. increase over and above the announced limit. The base budget for 1987–88—I hope that the Secretary of State is noting these figures; I notice that he is doing some jottings, but I shall supply him with them if he wishes—is £34·6 million. The commitment for increases in pay up until March 1989 will require a further £2·3 million. The services pension commitment will require £274,000. Expenditure over and above the influence of the authority —loan charges—amounts to a further £120,000. Phased recruitment, which will take into consideration wastage, will cost £278,000, and the increment for public holidays will cost £221,000. Total expenditure for the service to stand still is £37·8 million.
  Provision must be made for the appointment of uniformed personnel, in accordance with the establishment scheme. That scheme is reflected in the standard of cover that has been suggested and laid down by the body that I referred to earlier. In accordance with the establishment scheme, the total cost of appointed uniformed personnel is £792,000.
  Loan charges on capital plant are inescapable and will amount to £261,000 for 1988–89. The maintenance of buildings to prevent further deterioration will cost £300,000.
  Taking those figures into consideration, the service requirement to ensure that the standard of cover is adequate to meet the recommendations laid down by the authority is £39·2 million. As I said earlier, there is a shortfall of £2·7 million. A 7·5 per cent. increase is required to maintain the standard of cover to which people are entitled.
  With regard to capital expenditure, there are a number of issues that the fire service cannot ignore, such as fire appliances and equipment, which cost £912,000. Other vehicles must be replaced to ensure that the standard of service is maintained. The authority must undertake major refits of equipment. New pumping stations must be established, because where there is development and an extension of local authority services they are a necessity. North-west Leeds is scheduled for a new pumping station.
  506
  With regard to the provision of water supply and hydrants, there must be capital expenditure of £60,000 by the west Yorkshire fire authority to maintain these services. I have grave reservations that unless assurances are given in the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill, which we are considering in Committee, or unless provision is made in that legislation that will give proper and adequate cover for fire services, problems could develop. If the Secretary of State runs true to form, we shall have to pay for water and services for fire cover. If that happens, the West Yorkshire fire service and the joint committee will have burdens placed on them over and above the matters to which I have referred.
  The energy conservation programme for west Yorkshire has cost £100,000. There is a wealth of evidence that the authority is doing all that it possibly can to obtain value for money. The report on the standard of cover makes it clear that a detailed review of fire risk categories must be carried out for the entire area. The west Yorkshire fire authority has undertaken an extensive exercise in that regard. Certain areas in west Yorkshire have been identified as being in an high-risk category. I plead with the Secretary of State to take note of the position and to ensure that we have adequate fire cover to meet the problems that our fire services committee envisaged. This district audit service is supportive of the authority's case. In its report on the accounts of west Yorkshire it concludes:
  "Though the failure to meet Home Office standards and guidelines on attendance at incidents has no direct financial cost to the Authority, there is, nevertheless, potentially a cost to the community if, by such failures, life and property is needlessly and avoidably lost. The Fire Authority should, therefore,

  (a) continue to press the Home Office to approve the proposed established plan, and

  (b) seek redetermination of its expenditure limits based on the approved plan."

  That is the purpose of my appeal to the Secretary of State this evening. When he is dealing with rate support grant he should bear in mind the protection of life and property in west Yorkshire. The standards that are set by the Home Office should be given some serious thought. The Secretary of State and his officials should be considering the representations made by west Yorkshire and should lift the expenditure limit to the £39 million for which it is asking.
  Again in its report, the audit office said:
  "Any reduction from the redetermination bid submitted by the authority means that the recommended standards of service cannot be implemented in West Yorkshire."
  I want to put that on record in the House. If the Secretary of State does not take into consideration some of the important issues that are being reflected by the Home Office, the people who audit the accounts of west Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority and the joint committee, I want to ensure that the responsibility for any failure that may occur in west Yorkshire because of the lack of resources is the clear responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Environment. Everyone involved in fire cover in west Yorkshire believes that there should be some redetermination of the level of expenditure. Anything less than that redetermination is the responsibility of the Secretary of State and the consequences that follow will also be his responsibility.
  I referred earlier to the search for value for money. The authority has been trying to become more efficient and effective. Pumping appliances have been reduced from 94

  507
  to 79. Special appliances have been reduced from 43 to 38. Control room personnel have been reduced from 90 to 58 and the proposals put forward in the current year to try to obtain value for money suggest a further reduction in pumping appliances from 79 to 77 and in special appliances from 38 to 36.
  Many other initiatives have been pursued vigorously which have resulted in reduced resources employment. The reserve appliances have been reduced from 20 to 16. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone said, we have reserves so that if there is a call from a neighbouring authority the vehicles and equipment are ready. However, the authority in west Yorkshire has said that a saving of £250,000 can be made by reducing the reserve appliances from 20 to 16.
  There is also the question of increased efficiency. There is a reduction in the premises available. The capital investment in energy conservation is an effort to increase efficiency and obtain better value for money. There is a training school in west Yorkshire which has increased the fees charged to external clients with a view to increasing the income by a further £250,000. Therefore, there is extensive involvement by the people in the west Yorkshire area and those on the joint committee, which, as I have said, comprises representatives from the five authorities I have mentioned.
  Having taken all that into consideration, there is the question of the shortfall of £2·7 million from the requirement to ensure that the standard of cover is maintained. There is also the question of the provision that has been made in the budget we are considering now. If the Secretary of State is not prepared to redetermine the expenditure level of the fire cover in west Yorkshire, I fear for some of the people who depend upon that fire cover.
  There is also the problem of the reduction of the services provided by the health authorities. There has been a reduction in the provision of resources from the regional health authority to the Wakefield and Pontefract area health authorities. As a result, there are now additional calls upon the local community services. Unless there is additional funding for those community services there will be a further fall in the services provided by the Wakefield local authority. I ask the Minister and the Secretary of State to redetermine the expenditure level of local authorities and to redetermine the grants being made available, particularly the rate support grant. Let us have some realism back in local government.
  I served in local government for over 30 years before coming to the House. At no time has morale been as low as it is now. I ask the Minister to realise that. The Government should take into consideration the work being done in providing services more so now than ever before. They should ensure that the resources are provided so that the services can be maintained. I would consider anything less than that to be a criminal act against the people who depend upon the local services.
  I appeal to the Minister and the Secretary of State to give some careful consideration to the provisions in the Local Government Bill. Anything less than that would not be in the best interests of the communities we all serve.
  8.19 pm
  Mr. John Marshall: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said when he opened the debate that this would be the penultimate debate on the rate support grant. Everyone who has been in local
  508
  government will say amen to that. It has been said that the Schleswig-Holstein question was once understood by three people, one of whom was dead, one of whom had gone mad and the third of whom had forgotten all about it. It would be fair to say that the rate support grant is equally well understood.
  I was chairman of a local government finance committee when the rate support grant system was introduced. It seemed to me then, and subsequent events have confirmed, that this system is unfair to different local authorities. It was based on the assumption that expenditure in a particular base year bore the same relationship to need in different local authorities, but that is untrue. Certain local authorities, such as Barnet under the energetic leadership of councillor Leslie Pym, heeded the advice of Socialist Secretaries of State of the Environment that the party was now over. But many other local authorities completely ignored that advice and continued to spend, spend, spend.
  Within London, a number of local authorities, such as Wandsworth, Ealing and Hillingdon, had changed control in 1978, and there was still a substantial amount of fat to be taken out of the system, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State did with such conspicuous success in Wandsworth. When I was chairman of the finance committee in Ealing, we found that we could make a substantial reduction and still provide adequate services which would give the ratepayers a good deal. The success of our policy is confirmed by the fact that the Leader of the Opposition was happy to live in Ealing during those years, enjoying the services that we provided and paying the rates that we charged.
  As the system has developed, it has become difficult for authorities such as Barnet, which had economised over the years and had got rid of the fat in the late 1970s, while others still had a substantial reservoir of excess cost that could be taken out of the system.
  The grant-related expenditure assessment system is based on many variants and manages to cover its subjective approach by a veneer of precision. To tell local authorities that a figure is going up by 9·1 per cent. rather than 9 per cent. implies a spurious accuracy. However sophisticated computers may be, and however large the variables may be, we cannot be as accurate as that. To Conservatives, it is an alien philosophy that the Government should tell a local authority, of whatever political persuasion, that its expenditure should go up by a certain percentage. That implies a knowledge of the local scene which the bureaucrats in Marsham street will never have.
  We are discussing tonight the rate support grant for 1988–89. Whatever decisions local authorities may take in the light of that grant will have only a limited impact upon expenditure in the financial year 1988–89. If, as a result of these grant decisions, the London borough of Barnet were to recommend the closure of a school, by the time the consultative procedure had been completed, it would make no difference to expenditure in 1988–89. At best, it would make only a limited difference.
  Parents would have to be consulted and the Secretary of State for Education and Science would have to make a decision, and by the time all that procedure had gone through the next year's rates would not be affected. One must remember that decisions taken in local government will have a limited impact in the next financial year and

  509
  the real benefit will come somewhat later in the local authority's life. The system did not take that into consideration either.
  All Conservative Members will look forward with relish and enthusiasm to the Second Reading of the Local Government Finance Bill next Wednesday and Thursday because that Bill will get rid of much of the nonsense that has affected local government for too long.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman is rather anticipating what we shall be debating next week. We have not yet had the business statement.
  Mr. Marshall: I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but certain rumours are going round the House, which may be right or wrong, that we shall be debating that legislation next week. I think that in his opening remarks my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that it was likely that we would be debating the subject next week. Therefore, I was merely showing the great care with which I listened to what my right hon. Friend said so brilliantly when he opened the debate.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I shall listen with great care to what the Leader of the House has to say tomorrow.
  Mr. Marshall: Shall we take a wager about whether I am right or wrong?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I am not a gambling woman.
  Mr. Marshall: I am glad to hear it, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Let me deal now with certain factors affecting the London borough of Barnet. My right hon. Friend referred to the Bromley case. That case affects several London boroughs, of which Barnet is one. As a result of the Bromley case, we in Barnet have been deprived of grant which it is, and always was, the Government's intention should come to Barnet. It would be helpful if, when my hon. Friend replies, we could be told what percentage of the Bromley error will be made good before rate fixing in 1988. Clearly that is an important factor in determining the Barnet rate next year.
  Barnet has had an actuarial valuation of its superannuation fund which shows that the fund is already heavily overfunded. We do not see why we should be encouraged to put even more money into that next year. Currently, superannuation funds are subject to quinquennial review. But the stock market, even with the recent downturn, has been so buoyant in recent years that more frequent reviews might well be justified to ensure that funds are not overfunded. I hope that when my hon. Friend replies he will be able to give us an assurance that within the next few months the Government will be able to make a statement on that matter.
  On behalf of the London borough of Barnet, I welcome the comments made about storm damage. We should now suffer less than we might otherwise have done, so we welcome that statement.
  Let me deal now with competitive tendering in local government. I may be anticipating the debate which I now understand will take place next Monday night, of which we have had due notice, but it is fair to say that in looking at the rate support grant report one must consider the way in which local government spends our money. In all my 17
  510
  years in local government I have always been convinced that competitive tendering between the private and public sector gives the ratepayers a much better bargain than they would otherwise get.
  I well remember being a member of Aberdeen town council at the same time as the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond). At that time, we had a debate about whether the old police station should be knocked down by direct labour or by a firm selected through competitive tendering. I voted for competitive tendering. Needless to say, the hon. Gentleman voted for direct labour. We had a vote in committee, which I won, and we went out to tender. The private contractor offered to do the work for 20 per cent. less than the in-house organisation. However, by then the hon. Gentleman's party had a majority and it voted for the acceptance of the in-house tender.
  I am glad to say that the then Labour Secretary of State for Scotland ordered Aberdeen town council to give the work not to the in-house organisation but to the private contractor. I was glad to see that even a Socialist Secretary of State could opt for a private contractor. Since then, in the London borough of Wandsworth, under the energetic leadership of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, we have seen how competitive tendering can work well.
  The experience of the London borough of Ealing was similar. For example, we found that our school meals service could run much more efficiently with an outside contractor, saving hundreds of thousands of pounds. One day my son came home from school and said, "Daddy, why are the meals so much better now?" I said, "My boy, you are learning a basic political truth. The meals are now provided by an outside contractor. It is saving the ratepayers money and you, the consumer, have told me that you are getting better meals." I suspect that a similar story could be told right across the country.
  We know that competitive tendering has saved the Health Service £100 million a year. When the Local Government Bill receives the Royal Assent, we shall save the local authorities just as much. The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) said that it would cost his authority £220,000 to prepare for that Bill becoming law. I suspect that the savings will be out of all proportion to that small additional cost. He told us about the Wirral case, in which the in-house tender had been successful. I listened with interest to what the hon. Gentleman said, and what he did not tell us was whether the in-house tender had been less than it would have been before competitive tendering was introduced. The fact that he did not tell us leads me to suspect that there has been a saving to the ratepayers in the Wirral, which everyone must welcome.
  It is not just by competitive tendering that local government can get better value for money and produce a more cost-effective service. The Audit Commission has produced many examples of savings that local authorities can make—particularly in education. Throughout local authority areas in England and Wales — it was confirmed at Scottish Question Time today that the same applies in Scotland — far more school places are provided than are needed. That is bad both educationally and economically. It means that we have a large number of schools providing an inadequate range of choices. Pupils cannot get the fully comprehensive education that a comprehensive school should offer if the number of children entering the school is very small. It is bad

  511
  economics to keep open schools in which the ratios tend to be wrong and to heat classrooms that few pupils will use. That is the economics of the madhouse.
  I hope that I have demonstrated that there is scope for local government to save substantial sums and produce better services for ratepayers. I look forward to that process continuing as a result of the Local Government Bill and to reasonable rate increases across the country this year as a result of the rate support grant settlement for 1988–89.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. Pat Wall: I shall address most of my remarks to the difficulties of Bradford metropolitan district council, which I understand are shared by only four other local authorities— Birmingham, Sunderland, Cleveland and a local authority in Derbyshire. Before I deal with that problem, which arises from the Government's use of the so-called multiplier, I should like to take a general look at the background against which this debate is taking place.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) estimated that, since 1979, the percentage of local authority expenditure accounted for by rate support grant has fallen from 61 per cent. to 46 per cent. According to an excellent document produced by the local government officers, the figure in London has fallen from 65 per cent. to 40 per cent. The penalty imposed for so-called overspending over that period has now reached a staggering £29 billion.
  All this has taken place at a time of growth in unemployment, hitting urban and inner-city areas in particular. The consequence of the economic facts after eight years of Conservative government has been a massive increase in the problems associated with social deprivation. About 43 per cent. of our population would be classified as poor by any civilised standards. This process has placed increased burdens on many local authorities. While there is a desperate need for increased provision of social services, housing and urban renewal, the Government continue their attack on the rate support grant and thus on local authorities' ability to grapple with the problems.
  The so-called beneficiaries of Thatcherite popular capitalism have not escaped, either. In a desperate attempt to maintain services, councils have resorted to massive increases in rates. The more prosperous 53 per cent. of our community, as well as many of the poorest, have had to make their contribution by finding the money for those increases. Contrary to Conservative Members' propaganda, high rates also represent a reduction in living standards. The Government have forced local authorities into a terrible dilemma. They have to choose between adding to the already appalling unemployment figures and cutting services to desperately needy families, and cutting people's living standards by increasing rates above the cost of living or the average increase in earnings.
  The Government boast of an increase of £750 million for the coming financial year, yet the local authorities estimate that they need £1·2 billion if they are to stand still. That will mean even further reductions in the standard of services over the coming 12 months.
  The debate takes place against the background of attacks on local government arising out of other legislation to be introduced by the Government. Howard Davies, the controller of the Audit Commission, estimates that if all
  512
  the Government's legislation on education, housing, social services and privatisation goes through, local authority expenditure will drop from around £30 billion to £20·9 billion and that manpower requirements will fall by 37 per cent. That figure represents 500,000 employees.
  When I hear Conservative Members and irate ratepayers say, "Sack some of those idiots at the town hall," I must ask them to consider the problem in human terms. In most areas, the local authority is the largest employer. When one talks about making cuts by reducing the number of staff in local government, one is talking about sacking one's neighbour. A teacher talking in those terms would be talking about sacking fellow teachers. It is like going into a pub and saying to someone employed in the accounts department of a local authority, "Your job should go; otherwise my rates will be increased." If we consider the problem in those human terms, we see what nonsense such remarks are. The report estimates that less than half of those 500,000 employees will find a job in the private sector. That means adding 250,000 people to the unemployment figures.
  Mr. Irvine Patnick: The hon. Gentleman says that people will not get jobs in the private sector. How does he know? On what facts are his remarks based? What report does he have?
  Mr. Wall: I have used the figures cited by Howard Davies, the controller of the Audit Commission. He should have a fairly good insight—certainly more than the hon. Gentleman or me — into local government manpower and the effects on it of privatisation of education and housing as well as direct privatisation in local authorities.
  Mr. John Marshall: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those figures can be true only if there is substantial overmanning in local government? Why should other industries which have ceased to be overmanned stall pay for the overmanning of certain local authorities?
  Mr. Wall: The hon. Gentleman is assuming that under this process the services will remain as good as they are today, but my hon. Friends and I feel that they will deteriorate enormously, as have services to British Telecom customers, and the cleaning and canteen services in hospitals. The poorest in our society — hospital cleaners and catering workers—were forced to bargain their pitiful wages against the prospect of losing their jobs. If that is the sort of society that the hon. Gentleman wishes to justify in order to cut costs, he can justify it. I want no part of it; nor do my colleagues.
  Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman gibe way?
  Mr. Wall: No, it is getting late and other hon. Members wish to speak. It would be most unfair of me to take up the remaining time that is available to them.
  The whole object of this process, even of those who get a job afterwards, is to drive down the average level of wages.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham rose—
  Mr. Wall: Let me finish.
  The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy estimates that, under the Government's housing proposals, rents will increase by between 20 and 30 per cent. The report estimates that rents will increase in the City of London by 125 per cent., in Hackney by 160

  513
  per cent. and in Camden by 220 per cent. Yet in Hackney, where homelessness has increased 600 per cent. since 1979, Government cuts have meant that the council can employ only two extra members of staff to deal with that growing problem.
  Cuts have had other effects. The average earnings of street sweepers in Southwark have been reduced from £140 to £80 a week because of the abolition of bonuses. In Birmingham, the privatisation of direct labour organisations has reduced the number employed from 715 to 452.
  Earlier I pointed out that, in many areas, the local authority is the largest single employer. Even in the Greater London area, only 500,000 manufacturing jobs are left. The reason why local government has become the biggest employer is not because it has employed additional people, but because manufacturing industry has declined seriously during the past 10 years. In only two Greater London local authorities is the council not the largest employer of labour. That is around Heathrow airport and in Dagenham, where the Ford Motor Company employs the largest number of workers.
  Jack Layden, chairman of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, said recently:
  "Authorities stand to lose over £600 million in grants as a result of not being able to reach the Government's set figures. This will result in rate increases well above the forecast."
  The preliminaries to the community charge will also be most vicious and will hit the poorest most with the ending of the 100 per cent. rate rebate from April next year.
  I said that I wished to speak about Bradford, as I represent a Bradford constituency. Bradford has its share of the social and structural problems which abound in the north and many other inner-city areas. The European Community Commission in its recent report on the economic position of our area has shown that 35 per cent. of the working population continue to be employed in manufacturing, which is above the national average of 27 per cent. In services, our proportion is the opposite: 56 per cent. compared with the national average of 61 per cent. Even in our traditional manufacturing area, there has been a shift in employment from manufacturing to the service sector. That is due, not to any large increase in job opportunities in services, but to the catastrophic drop in total employment, amounting in the old Yorkshire heavy wool industry, which is part of Bradford and the surrounding area, to 15,000 people in 1979–81, which is 7·9 per cent. of the working population. Over the 10 years to 1981, textiles and engineering lost 17,000 jobs, and mechanical engineering lost 4,600 jobs.
  More than 30 per cent. of Bradford's schools were built before 1906. Forty per cent. of Bradford's sewers are more than 100 years old and we have constant problems of collapsing sewers which require renovation or renewal. Our backlog of housing repairs amounts to some £130 million, representing the sum that we would receive in 10 years from the total housing investment programme for our city. We are saddled with numerous ancient and outdated industrial buildings, mostly on sites now too small for modern development, yet we are one of the worst supported in terms of urban aid grants.
  Unusually, we have an increasing population, and thus increasing needs in education, housing and other areas. We have a large immigrant population, mainly of Asian
  514
  origin, and we urgently need measures to improve the facilities in which they live. We have 8,000 people on our housing waiting list. That is a formidable list of our needs, yet we are only one of five local authorities which face the maximum reduction under the Government's so-called multiplier, with a factor of 1·1.
  The Government's GRE works on the cosy assumption that rates will be equalised throughout the country if every local authority spends to the grant-related expenditure figure. That makes the broad assumption that all areas have similar problems and all have similar resources to finance the meeting of those needs.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: My hon. Friend has spoken about matters of deep human concern. Is he aware that many local authorities now have to choose, not which of their discretionary powers to use in favour of disabled people, but even which of their legal duties to fulfil?
  Mr. Wall: I am well aware of that. My right hon. Friend will recall that, when he first stood for Parliament, I was a teenage constituency secretary. I think that some of his interest comes from a meeting at that time with my sister, who happens to be handicapped. I know from the number of letters that I receive that people need showers, baths and all sorts of things, and I know of the incredible waiting lists. We are not fulfilling our obligations.
  Government cuts in rate support grants are to force down expenditure on staff and services in local government. The more an authority spends above GRE, the more it loses. The greater its efficiency on GRE, the more grant aid it gains. Because of the unfairness of that system, the Government then introduced the target system, supposedly based on historical spending patterns. For most local authorities, that figure was similar to, or a little above, GRE. For Bradford, it was considerably less. Therefore, the authority spent below GRE and was still penalised.
  We estimate that the authority has lost some £38 million since 1986–87 which has led to high and entirely unfair rate increases. The abolition of the target system last year led to great expectations, but the Government then introduced the multiplier, which meant that last year we received only part of the shortfall, further reduced following the revolt of the shire counties and the sympathetic hearing given to them by the Secretary of State.
  In answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on last week's statement on the rate support grant, the Minister said that Bradford had received £60 million extra. That received some publicity in the local press. I am assured by the local authority finance department that the figure was not £60 million but £16 million. The fact remains that we have lost £38 million over three years and we are still being penalised, even when spending below GRE.
  We are morally entitled to that money, and we are entitled to a fair evaluation of the needs of our metropolitan district. That £38 million is not merely an arithmetical device, or a theoretical nicety; it means that we must set a rate 10 per cent. above that of our neighbours—for example, those in Leeds—to achieve the same level of services. I am certain that my hon. Friends from the Leeds area do not think that they are particularly well treated. An extra £38 million will have

  515
  been collected from Bradford ratepayers over what would have been the case had we received our full entitlement to rate support grant. That is equivalent to a rate of 87p in the pound.
  It means that, over three years, Bradford ratepayers will have paid the following extra rates: £32 for a terraced house with a rateable value of £37; £146 for a pre-war semi-detached with a rateable value of £168; £174 for a post-war semi-detached house with a rateable value of £200; £348 for a detached house with a rateable value of £400; and £522 for a large detached house with a rateable value of £600.
  That represents an average for all domestic dwellings in the metropolitan district of £110 per ratepayer—this in the West Riding, which is No. 9 in the list of nine industrial areas which have the lowest rates of pay. Those are actual sums paid by ratepayers, so we can quantify the cost of Toryism and the Tory Government to ratepayers in Bradford. There are many more hidden costs in social deprivation, cuts in services and the sacking of people employed in local government. Over the years, more people are beginning to realise that, and more of them will see the need to change the Government.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am rather sorry to be following the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall). Had his predecessor been here, he would have been sitting on this side of the House and I would have had to follow someone else. We valued the contribution made by his predecessor, and I hope that he will return to the House before too long.
  If the electorate of Bradford, North stopped to think about some of the things that the hon. Gentleman said, they would be glad to change back to the former Member. His statement that earnings have been driven down because of privatisation does not square with the facts. Average earnings have increased at a record rate under this Government during the process of privatisation, and much faster than they did during the nationalisation from which we suffered when the Labour Government were in power. The hon. Gentleman talked about the catastrophic drop in manufacturing employment, but we must ask how much of that was due to the massive increases in rates that were imposed upon those companies.
  Mr. Stuart Holland: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to know that, in reply to a recent question from me, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that rates for industrial companies represent less than 1 per cent. of total costs. That must answer his question.
  Mr. Thurnham: That serves to illustrate the complete ignorance of Opposition Members about the importance of costs. The hon. Gentleman talked about 1 per cent., but over 10 years that would represent 10 per cent. of costs. No company could manage that burden year after year.
  Mr. Holland: The hon. Gentleman is talking about taking privatisation in the economy as a whole and the rate of wage increases in the economy as a whole. He should realise — I do not know whether he is a trained economist—that he cannot do that. It is a non sequitur. Even his arithmetic is wrong. He said that 1 per cent. a year over 10 years comes to 10 per cent. But less than 1 per cent. is less than 1 per cent.—that is less than the accounting errors of our best-managed companies. If the
  516
  hon. Gentleman wishes to give strictures to the Opposition, he should address himself to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) and not make such flatulent statements.
  Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman is driving himself further into a hole. If a company accumulates costs over a period, they become a substantial burden. The point cannot be escaped.
  I am delighted that we can say that this is the penultimate occasion on which we shall work our way through the machinations of rate support grant. It is some years since I was in local government, and I cannot say that I follow the basis of the calculations any more easily now than I did then. It is pleasing to know that the settlement is generous and will allow non rate-capped authorities to hold their spending broadly steady in real terms. The generalisation will allow some authorities to do better than others.
  I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his reassurance that the error in relation to students in further education will be adjusted. Perhaps it will go down as the Bolton error. We have heard a great deal about the Bromley error—of which I was previously unaware—but when we have our ultimate debate next year, we may refer to the Bolton error. I suspect that there may be some knock-on recalculations in respect of other authonties.
  It is a great delight to know that the era of capping, netting, holdbacks, targets, grant forefeits, slopes and thresholds will be relegated to the dustbin and that we can move to the much simpler and more beneficial system about which we may hear more next week if we have the debate that we all expect. Today's debate may not be terribly exciting, but the debate next week may provide the excitement that has been lacking today.
  The RSG provision allows for an increase in spending of 7·45 per cent., but my local authority discovered that its allocation was only 6·8 per cent. Even after allowing for the increase in the provision for the further education of students, Bolton's increase will be only about 7·1 per cent., so it will still have a shortfall. The authority believes that the highways budget is short by £470,000. It is admitted that the change in the method of calculating the highways grant has meant a reduction of £257,000, which is still far short of the sum which the local authority sought. Would it be possible to reconsider the provision of a safety net for that item? As my local authority is being penalised, compared with the average rate of increase for all authorities, a safety net may help.
  The authority was also worried that further adjustment may be needed in the calculation of the education component, especially in relation to teachers' wages. I am grateful that the Under-Secretary will meet a delegation from my council next week, when the points will be discussed in more detail.
  I hope that that visit will enable my hon. Friend to point out the great benefits of putting services out to tender. A reduction of more than 10 per cent. on those services could save £300 million a year nationally. On that basis, in my authority, putting services out to competitive tender would mean a saving of about £1 million a year. It has always surprised me that local authorities were not keener to follow the private sector, which has put services out to private tender as much as possible.
  For instance, a company as well known as Marks and Spencer in the high street does not manufacture any of the

  517
  goods that it sells. All those goods are put out to competitive tender. If ever there was a firm that could say, "Why don't we make all these things ourselves?" it would be a firm such as that. In some cases, it takes the whole of the output of a supplier. If it is wise for Marks and Spencer to put all its products out to competitive tender, surely it is wise for all local authorities to do exactly that. It is extraordinary that so many weird and wonderful arguments are produced about why it should not be necessary. Someone once said that it should not be necessary because these things are necessities. What could be more necessary than food and clothing?
  I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for giving us the opportunity to come to see him next week, and I hope that at that meeting we shall be able to explore some of the points that I have made.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) described the rate support grant as being understood by three people—one dead, one mad and one who had forgotten all about it. That sounded like the Department of the Environment team who are responsible for the rate support grant report. One cannot call them the good, the bad and the ugly because there is nothing good about the report, but there is plenty that is bad and ugly that will flow from it. There will be further cuts on a wide scale and at all levels in the public services.
  I have been speaking to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) who is the Labour spokesman for the disabled. He told me that local authorities will be forced to break the law by the Government. They cannot even choose between the discretionary duties that they wish to perform for the disabled. They have to choose between which legal duties they will carry out. Thus the Government are forcing the local authorities to break the law, which is a scandal. Waiting lists for help for the disabled will be made worse under the report.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Is my hon. Friend aware that the advice given to me as Minister for the Disabled was that waiting lists are illegal? To keep people who are severely disabled waiting for help, is really outside the law if they have been assessed as to their needs. It is a very serious matter if local authorities have to choose not just which of their discretionary powers to use, but even which of their legal duties to fulfil.
  Mr. Cohen: That is exactly the point. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It should be the Government who are before the courts when that law is broken, not the local authorities.
  The Association of Metropolitan Authorities described the effect of the report. It stated that the aggregate Exchequer grant
  "will represent just over 46 per cent. of relevant expenditure in 1988–89."
  That compares with 61 per cent. in 1979–80 when the Government came to office. Had that 1979–80 grant percentage been maintained for next year, the aggregate Exchequer grant would have been £4·4 billion higher than is now proposed. Rate bills up and down the country
  518
  would now be 25 per cent. lower had it not been for the reduction in Government grant to the local authorities. The AMA states further:
  "To meet the Government's target local authorities would be required to reduce the level of services by 5 per cent. or increase rates well above the rate of inflation. Such reductions in service levels are unachievable in one year even if they were desirable."
  In London, the Government are also forcing a downward spiral in public services in borough after borough. The Association of London Authorities says about the report and Government policy:
  "The Government's main aim appears still to be a reduction in the level of local authority services despite the growing needs of the communities they serve."
  That is particularly so for authorities with the greatest deprivation.
  The ALA also talks about the need for decent housing, and comprehensive social services, improving the quality of life, and giving an equal chance in life for the disadvantaged, but it says:
  "The Government consistently underestimates the level of service provision needed, and compounds that with savage grant penalties for any spending above the Government-assumed levels. Some of the most deprived authorities are rate capped as well, and no attempt is made to link the level of spending allowed by such authorities to what is needed to provide decent services for the most oppressed sections of the community."
  With this report and all their previous measures the Government are increasing poverty.
  They talk about rejuvenating the inner cities, where there are the greatest problems and the greatest poverty, but the report will increase the plight of inner cities and areas with inner-city problems in London. My authority has been rate-capped for the first time and the council's budget for next year will be based on a rate set by the Government. It will be limited to £142 million, which is a cut of one sixth. But the services have not diminished by one sixth; the community's need has increased in recent years. The Government have imposed a £30 million cut on Waltham Forest—equivalent to the whole social services budget for the area. Social services—the Government's supposed policy of community care will be a policy of community neglect because of these cuts — will be affected. Every service will be affected, but especially social services and education.
  Last year there was a rates rise of 62 per cent., caused by the neglect of the previous council—which was Tory-controlled, with Liberal support—and the £40 million stolen by the Government including penalties. Ratepayers were charged £1·63 for every £1 spent. That was a scandal. That was a Tory rates rise. It was a deliberate manipulative move to punish all those who had voted out Tory council members in a previous local election. It was made also for party political reasons connected with the general election. I believe that the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who made a big fuss and was a member of the Government who stole the £40 million from my borough, was never asked by the Waltham Forest ratepayers association about that money. If he was asked, his comments have not appeared in the columns of the local press. The right hon. Gentleman should have been made to answer.
  The Waltham Forest ratepayers association has been well financed, the Tories being among its main contributors, for their own manipulative reasons. The ratepayers association's case was thrown out of court. Its

  519
  lawyer accepted that a rates increase of more than 30 per cent. would be needed simply to stand still. What an indictment of the Tory Government's policy towards Waltham Forest, and what proof that they were responsible for the rates rise.
  Another reason for the Tory rates increase was to pave the way for Tory cuts. That is what the rate-capping robbery is all about. The rates will decrease next year, but so will the value for money for Waltham Forest ratepayers as more money is taken from the borough to be put directly into the hands of the Exchequer.
  I shall give examples to show how the Tories do not care a fig about Waltham Forest ratepayers. There is the poll tax, about which we shall hear much more in the House. Waltham Forest was cited as an exemption which would have to run two systems—rates and poll tax—for four to five years. When I asked who would pay the administrative costs of running two systems, last week the Government said, "The ratepayers of Waltham Forest." That shows that the Government do not care a fig for those ratepayers.
  What is happening about the storm damage? It is estimated that the storm damage will cost £2·1 million, but the Government grant will be only £700,000—a shortfall of £1·4 million to be found by the ratepayers. Even worse, the penalty imposed by the Government of £1·63 for every £1 spent will cost the ratepayers another £880,000.
  Mr. Holland: The Tories say it was an act of God.
  Mr. Cohen: The penalty is not an act of God; it is an act of the Tory Government.
  Rate capping will hammer the voluntary organisations. They have already suffered from the abolition of the GLC, which helped councils with grants. They are also being hammered because the Government have taken away the traditional urban aid. A small amount of money given to voluntary organisations produces enormous value for the community as a whole. It is pump-priming; it is self-help— something that the Government are supposed to want. It is all about providing local services that ease the burden on the National Health Service and the social services. The voluntary organisations help people to cope with the misery in the community. Age Concern, Dial-a-Ride and play groups for the under-fives will be hammered by rate capping. Education and social services will also suffer, but I will not mention those in detail tonight; I shall save that for a future occasion.
  Housing in my area is among the worst 2·5 per cent. in the country. There are enormous waiting lists and a serious homelessness problem. The general state of disrepair needs to be tackled. Yet for every £1 that the council spends on repairs, the Government charge it £1·63. The Government are the Rachmans in housing. There are thousands of jobs at risk, so it is no wonder that nine trade unions held a public protest, which affected every council department, against rate capping. The Government's policy in Waltham Forest is one of private payment for public squalor. I warn them that there will be increased public protest against rate capping, which is a bad and ugly policy that does nothing to help provide essential services.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Irvine Patnick: The hon. Members for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) have explained everything to the House.
  520
  The hon. Member for Bradford, North pointed out that since 1979 the sewers have collapsed, schools need major repairs — and on and on went his litany. The hon. Member for Leyton offered no alternative policy; he simply wanted more money, but with no improved efficiency, no changes and no value for money. He wants his council to continue with its old ways.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that this is the last but one rate support grant debate. When the new system is introduced in 1990 the level of local authority spending will be clearly and directly reflected in the level of community charges.
  Mr. Eric S. Heifer: What about services?
  Mr. Patnick: The hon. Gentleman seems to enjoy making such interventions. We cannot determine services until the system is introduced in 1990. However, I assure him that what happened in Liverpool will not happen in other cities.
  Mr. Heffer: What happened in Liverpool?
  Mr. Patnick: I leave that for the history books.
  The ratepayers in Sheffield want a rate freeze for the next two years and do not understand why the city has not been rate capped for 1988–89.
  Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman referred to Liverpool. The Liverpool district council built 5,000 houses, seven sports centres, a new park, and kept rents down. It kept rates down to 9 per cent. It also provided 4,000 new places for nursery school kids. It did more than any council in the country, and we are proud of it.
  Mr. Patnick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for regaling us with the story of how Liverpool went bankrupt.
  If Sheffield city council decides to put services out to tender before the local government legislation becomes law, it will save ratepayers' cash. It does not need to wait for the enactment of the legislation. It can do it now. The council seems to disregard the fact that more staff equals higher rates. Its payroll increased from 30,000 employees in 1980 to 33,000 in 1985. That was before the abolition of county councils.
  Sheffield council and others should have examined ways of reducing their rates bills. The level of rates will depend on the budget decisions made by each authority. All authorities owe it to ratepayers and to prospective community charge payers to do all that they can to keep spending down. This year, Opposition Members brought out a consultative paper called "Local Government Reform in England and Wales". It can be summed up in a few words. The policy was to end surcharges, disqualification of councillors and rate capping. It added up to more profligacy and extremist behaviour by Left-wing councils.
  The rate support grant will provide Sheffield with a block grant of over £114 million, if it keeps its expenditure broadly constant. It has been estimated that, in real terms, it will enable the council to reduce local rates by at least 80 per cent. next April.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said:
  "if they"—
  that is, local authorities—
  "do not spend more than the realistic provision that I have announced that we propose, the average increase in rate bills

  521
  for non-rate-capped authorities should be around the rate of inflation, though as always there will inevitably be considerable variations around that average." —[Official Report, 23 July 1987; Vol. 120, c. 498.]
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is a much maligned person. When he rate-caps cities such as Sheffield, some people think that he is wonderful. But when he does not do so, they think that he does not care about them.
  It has been obvious for a considerable time that something needs to be done about rates. The rate base needs to be widened so that the burden is not unfairly concentrated on too few shoulders. We must ensure that a substantial proportion of electors have a direct financial interest in their local authority's decisions. There should be a clear link between changes in expenditure and changes in local tax bills. At present, rate bills are a poor indicator of what is happening to local authority spending.
  This is the third time that I have enjoyed listening to a debate in the House. Sadly, for reasons best known to other people, I have not been called upon to speak previously. I have enjoyed listening to the fight. It would appear that everything that the Conservative Government have done is wrong. Opposition Members have rubbished every proposal, but no alternatives have been put forward. No thought has been given to the matter.
  How would Opposition Members cope with the matter except by spending more money? I have heard no alternative to the community charge. No great solution has been offered by any Opposition Member. It has been a yah-boo situation. The party of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has explained no policy on the matter. Opposition Members rubbish the Government, but do not put forward any alternatives because they want to enjoy the debate for sport. I should have loved to hear one solitary suggestion from Opposition Members that would enable a Conservative Member to say, "What a good idea. Why didn't we think of that?"
  9.19 pm
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) would probably disagree with me—
  Mr. Patnick: It is not about Sheffield?
  Mr. Rooker: No, it is not about Sheffield. It was agreed between the Department of the Environment's civil servants and the local authorities associations' civil servants that local government in the next financial year would have to spend not less than £29 billion to maintain services at their present level. The Secretary of State has fixed that expenditure at £27·538 billion. There is a shortfall, which I raised with him when he made his statement about a week ago, of £1·47 billion. Nobody disputes those figures.
  Mr. Ridley: I do.
  Mr. Rooker: The Minister disputes them. That is fine; I will be glad to hear what he says when he winds up the debate.
  The Government will cut by 5 per cent. the amount they should spend to maintain the present local government services for the next financial year. The Secretary of State stated that local government services were spending too
  522
  much, but central Government will not decide what services should be cut. The Minister offered no examples today of where services should be cut.
  Many of my hon. Friends referred in their excellent speeches to local authority social services, which, unlike the police services, do not receive special treatment in their budgets. The cuts in the National Health Service place a greater burden on local authority social service budgets than on any other sector of local government. The cuts affect people who must be cared for by their family, relatives or neighbours, who require home help services, and tuck-you-in and get-you-up services. People who are unable to have operations and have to stay in their own homes need more services, but they are unavailable because the Government have imposed further cuts on local authority social services. The Secretary of State can say only that it is not very exciting stuff. It is not exciting to Conservative Ministers because they neither understand nor care about the consequences of their policies.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) referred to the effect on housing benefit and the penalties imposed by the Government on the provision of housing benefit services by local government. From April 1988, the 100 per cent. rent rebate system will disappear for everyone who currently enjoys it because their income is so low. Questions asked by hon. Members about where the income support will come from for people on the lowest incomes are fobbed off to the DHSS, and the shortfall as from 1 April next year, when the cuts will come in, has not been explained.
  The present rating system—this must be repeated ad nauseam so that there can be no misunderstanding—is not the one inherited by the Government from the Labour Government. It is not the system that operated from 1974 to 1979 — the one that has been wholly discredited by the Government, who seek to rubbish it and make it more complicated at every opportunity so that they can make their alternatives seem more popular. The present system is of the Government's own making. They have made a mess of the present rating system. Any fool, even those fools, have shown that income tax can be cut —[GOVERNMENT MEMBERS: "Fools?"] Yes, the Government are fools. Anyone can cut income tax by placing a burden on the ratepayers.
  The nation is more highly taxed than ever before. The tax burden on the British people has never been higher under any Government that any hon. Member cares to name. One of the reasons for this is the direct effect of trying to cut tax on one section of the community and shifting the burden onto another, the ratepayers. As one of my hon. Friends said, the average rate increase in England since the Tories came to power is 13·6 per cent. per year. The direct effect of central Government withdrawing the rate support grant to local authorities has been, whatever the Secretary of State might argue, £21 billion.
  Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rooker: Not at the moment.
  The direct effect this year is that the average rates bill for dwellings in England is £5 a week higher than it need be. That £5 a week is a direct result of the Government rigging the rate support system during their years in power. The Government show that they have no understanding of the issues in larger cities. The inner-city

  523
  areas and the outer estates of those large conurbations have suffered more than the rest of the country from the withdrawal of central Government support. Ministers boast about getting the private sector to invest by bribing them with public money, but that cannot stand up as a policy. It will not work. The private sector will not invest unless it can see some strategy. It will not invest on a scale that will replace the withdrawal of public money by Government diktat unless there is a strategy for those areas. That strategy can come only from the elected local authorities. No business man in his right mind will invest money, even if he is bribed to do so by Government grants, unless he can see a plan for the area where his investments are to take place—not just for the road or the few acres of his investment.
  The Government have a specific aim — the rate support grant adds to it — to drive local government away from dealing with our larger cities. We know that that is the case. It is the stated position, not necessarily of the Department of the Environment, but of the Department of Trade and Industry. Ministers have said that the Government cannot afford to waste time on Labour-led local authorities. When Cabinet Ministers say that they will not waste their time simply because local authorities are Labour-led, we know that that is re-buttressing the Prime Minister's avowed public pledge to attempt to snuff out of existence a political party which she happens to dislike. In a democracy, the Prime Minister has publicly voiced her intention to snuff out a political party simply because she does not like it. It happens to hold more local power than the party in government.
  When that publicly voiced intention of the Prime Minister is repeated by members of her Cabinet, it is little wonder that bodies such as the CBI, which is led by someone who knows a thing or two about local government, say that we cannot ignore the local authorities. Mr. Banham has often been quoted as saying that the councils were efficient and effective in many respects. He said:
  "The answer is not to bypass councils, but to make them work properly."
  The Government seek simply to ignore them because they are Labour-led.
  We have had many references to the effects of storm damage, first from my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland and repeated by many hon. Members, and to the effect on local authorities. The Secretary of State thinks that he has moved to meet some of the demand. Indeed, the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who sought to intervene, welcomed the Secretary of State's statement today, in so far as it affected the London borough of Barnet. I am not certain whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland opened the debate. If he was present, he must have been reminded of his own local authority chief executive's letter to the Secretary of State on 23 November.
  That letter made it absolutely clear that the London borough of Barnet was, in effect, going to be fined £420,000 simply because of its efforts to deal with the storm damage. The letter said that the penny rate in Barnet is £612,500. However, that authority does not have a piggy bank. The Secretary of State seems to believe that local authorities should have such a bank of contingencies. He is penalising those authorities that do not have such a piggy bank. He has penalised Barnet and made a profit
  524
  from that borough of £420,000. The Prime Minister will remain silent about this matter, but why on earth is the hon. Member for Hendon, South welcoming such a statement?
  Mr. John Marshall: Did the hon. Gentleman riot hear my right hon. Friend say that, where storm damage is capitalised— the London borough of Barnet will be able to do that: indeed, the leader of that council confirmed that this morning — no penalty will be charged on the interest relating to that capitalisation? Will the hon. Gentleman tell me how he squares his statement that we are now more heavily taxed than ever before with his oft-repeated statement that we spend far too little money on every social service?
  Mr. Rooker: I will send the hon. Gentleman his own Government's parliamentary answers about the rise in the tax burden. In real terms, the average tax burden on the British people was £30 billion higher this year than it was in the last year of the previous Labour Government—the so-called "high-taxing" Labour Government. I can give the hon. Gentleman chapter and verse on exactly how that figure is made up.
  Mr. Ridley: What about a cut?
  Mr. Rooker: The London borough of Barnet will suffer a cut in expenditure. What the hon. Member for Hendon, South fails to realise is that the product of the penny rate in Barnet must be spent before any assistance is given. The borough must spend £612,500 and the effect of spending that penny rate will result in a penalty of £420,000.
  If the hon. Member for Hendon, South wants any further examples, we only have to turn to east Sussex. In an effective speech, the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) pointed out that his local authority reckoned that it would have to spend £12 million—the estimated cost of storm damage. The authority would receive assistance, over and above the base set out in the Bellwin rules, of £3·5 million, leaving a sum £8·5 million. The hon. Gentleman said that the consequences of spending the £8·5 million would result in that authority suffering a grant loss of £750,000. That means that the authority must spend £9·2 million. The Secretary of State told his hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow):
  "I would be horrified and astonished if either my Department or the Treasury were to make a profit" —[Official Report, 30 November 1987; Vol. 123, c. 611.]
  But the Treasury will make a profit of £750,000 out of the ratepayers of East Sussex county council as a result of one night's storm damage. That cannot be justified. The hon.Member for Hendon, South may seek to justify that in Barnet, but I do not see how he can seek to justify that in East Sussex. The statement that has been made by the Secretary of State does not meet the claims of local authorities, and amounts to nothing less than deception.
  Many of my hon. Friends made interesting speeches, but before I mention some of them in detail I shall mention a couple of speeches from the Conservative Benches. 'The hon. Member for Ealing North (Mr. Greenway) — he has apologised for his present absence—referred to the problems of the price of a haircut due to the rate increase in Ealing. If he thinks that is a problem now, he should wait until the revaluation of barber shops is carried out as a result of the unified business rate. I am afraid that there will be many long-haired people in Ealing as a result of the unified business rate.

  525
  The right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) made a typical speech—all his speeches are the same whether he is on the Front Bench or the Back Benches—
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: They are all good.
  Mr. Rooker: Yes, indeed — they are always entertaining. I only wish that the right hon. Gentleman had said the same things when he was a Minister. Today he called for smaller units of local government. In many ways that is a valuable suggestion. There is no question but that the units of local government are too big. Let us consider the right hon. Gentleman's borough of Brent. I always work out the size of a borough by the number of Members of Parliament it has and Brent is a three-Member constituency. The city of which I have the honour to represent part is a 12 Member constituency so the right hon. Gentleman will see that I share some of his views.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) raised the important issue of the Dronfield fire. I ask the Minister to take my hon. Friend's representations more seriously than hitherto. Underground fires are a serious matter and local authorities cannot provide the necessary funding to cope with them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) drew attention to the massive sum of money required to start up the poll tax. We shall consider that matter in detail next week and I do not intend to deploy the arguments tonight.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) said that insufficient money was provided to give ratepayers in West Yorkshire adequate fire coverage. If Ministers do not take account of these speeches, it will be no good councils queuing up to get back into the black as soon as possible after the next fire, because another fire will surely occur and result in deaths if the fire service is inadequate.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) and for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) made excellent speeches. The cuts in social services in Bradford are without parallel.
  We ask Ministers to listen to us. We know that they do not understand. They do not represent these areas, and they do not visit them sufficiently often. We ask them to listen to the voices of the people who represent those areas, to get away from the idea that local authorities are wasting their pot of gold and to consider the need for more money to maintain existing services. None of my hon. Friends has called for more money or for expanded services. They are simply seeking to defend the status quo. This requires £1·4 billion extra public expenditure. We must raise that money before we can spend it. That is why we disagree with the rate support grant settlement, and why we shall vote against it.
  9.37 pm
  The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard): This is the last but one debate on the rate support grant settlement. I doubt whether these debates will be much mourned or much missed. They were described by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of
  526
  State for Education and Science as occasions when the disgruntled speak to the disenchanted in front of the disbelieving.
  The complexity, indeed the incomprehensibility, of the system is accepted on both sides of the House. It is difficult enough for local authorities to understand how their grant entitlement is made up and it is virtually impossible for the ratepayer to arrive at any real understanding of why he pays what he does.
  However, this year, relief is at hand. The days of the present system are numbered. We are seeking to put in place a new system which will get rid of all the worst features that have bedevilled local government finance for so long. We shall put an end to resource equalisation, that bizarre concept which seeks to equalise not what people pay in different parts of the country—that is what the new system will seek to achieve—but the rate poundage levied by local authorities in different parts of the country. We shall put an end to slopes, penalties and all those devices that have made the present system so complicated and the results of which have been described so vividly in some of the contributions to the debate. We shall restore the link between those who vote, those who benefit from the services provided by local authorities and those who pay for those services. Meanwhile, we must make do with what we have and make the best of it. That is what we have done.
  Within the constraints of the present system, the RSG settlement is, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, a generous one. The aggregate Exchequer grant is increased by £750 million or 5·75 per cent. on 1987–88. It means that rate bills need, on average, to increase by no more than the rate of inflation. The fact that Opposition Members persist in describing the settlement as a cut says more about their use—or misuse — of language than about the facts.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Why is it then that, whatever their party, the spokespeople for the Association of County Councils and for district councils and metropolitan authorities, through their representative associations, unanimously say that the net result of the settlement is that there is a shortfall or cut—it comes to the same thing—of at least £1 billion and possibly more, even excluding some of the high wage settlements? How can they all agree? If the Minister is right, they must be wrong. Or are they right and the Minister wrong? That is more like it.
  Mr. Howard: It is in the nature of such associations of that kind that they will rarely, if ever, be content with a settlement. To describe this settlement as a cut is accurate only in the sense that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State defined a cut when he announced the settlement just a few days ago: if someone asks for an increase of 100 per cent. and is given an increase of only 50 per cent. it is described as a cut of 50 per cent.
  Dr. Cunningham: Is it true that the Minister's officials from the Department of the Environment, working with the secretariat of the local authorities' associations, came to a figure necessary to maintain services which is £1·4 billion higher than the settlement announced by the Secretary of State? Is that true or not?
  Mr. Howard: No, it is not true.
  Dr. Cunningham: It is true.
  Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman will listen and wait, instead of expostulating, he will have the answer.
  It is not true. The figure of 1·4 billion, to which both the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) referred, is not a figure which emerged from that working group. The figure of £1·4 billion emerged from the local authorities' associations themselves.
  Dr. Cunningham: So you agree with them?
  Mr. Howard: No, I do not agree with them. A lower figure emerged from that group. The group considered the matter on the basis that present policies were to be considered. We think that there are many areas in which present policies should not be considered and in which savings can be obtained.
  The hon. Member for Copeland in the course of his remarks—
  Mr. Steinberg rose—
  Mr. Howard: No, I will not give way because I want to deal with the remarks of the hon. Member for Copeland. He has raised a number of points and asked for answers, and I will do my best to provide them. He asked, first, whether Ministers would meet rate-capped authorities to discuss rate limits. It is now for authorities to consider proposed rate limits and to decide whether to accept them. If individual authorities wish to discuss their limits with Ministers, we shall do our best to accommodate them.
  The hon. Member suggested that the rate limits for Camden and Hackney were too low by, I think, 5p in relation to Camden and 11 p in relation to Hackney. We believe that he has used a mistaken calculation to arrive at those figures. We think that our figures are perfectly correct. Perhaps I can write to the hon. Member and tell him where we think he has gone wrong.
  The hon. Member also raised the reform of the housing benefit system which, from next April, will provide local authorities with adequate support for expenditure properly incurred, while giving the greater incentive for prudent administration. The change in the housing benefit grant-related expenditure reflects the change being made in the housing benefit system generally. In general, authorities that lose GRE from the new arrangement will gain from the corresponding increase in subsidy, and those that lose subsidy will gain in GRE.
  About 97 per cent. of housing benefit is financed directly by central Government. Only the residual 3 per cent. and administration fall to be met by local government, and an allowance is made for that expenditure in GREs. This year's settlement makes full allowance for costs expected to fall on local authorities. The change to the GREs this year, discused with the local authority associations, is designed to provide incentives to local authorities to operate the system efficiently.
  The hon. Member for Copeland also mentioned Ealing and its expenditure limit. Ealing had the opportunity, like all other rate-capped authorities, to ask for a redetermination of its expenditure limit. As the hon. Member knows, two authorities made applications for redetermination.
  Mr. Cohen: One authority received nothing. The other authority received some money but strict conditions were imposed and it must report back to the Minister.
  Mr. Howard: Very reasonable conditions were imposed on the redetermination that was granted to the London borough of Tower Hamlets. It is odd that the hon. Gentleman should say that those who applied received nothing, because that is manifestly not the case.
  Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the Minister for responding to the questions that I put to him on a number of detailed matters. It is extraordinary that what he said a few moments ago seems to repudiate the basis of the work of the joint working party between his Department's officials and the local authority associations.
  Mr. Ridley: It is a house of cards
  Dr. Cunningham: From a sedentary position, the Secretary of State says that it is a house of cards. What he is saying is that it is a total waste of time for local authorities to bother to talk to the Goverment and their officials.
  My question concerns the Minister's comments about housing benefit. Is he giving the House an assurance—a guarantee—that if local authorities have to spend more on housing benefit than the Government are allowing for, that expenditure will be exempt from penalty?
  Mr. HowardNo, of course, I am not giving that guarantee, and I have not said that such a guarantee would be appropriate. Local authorities will not incur any penalty with regard to spending on housing benefit unless they exceed the GRE, which is specifically provided in the settlement for housing benefit. [Interruption.] The settlement is based on the proposition that reasonable provision is made for those expenses, and that matter was discussed with the local authority associations.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) raised some interesting matters. I can well understand his passionate views about Brent council. I share his frustration that I must disappoint him about the rate-capping of that council. Following his meeting with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, he knows why Brent was not selected in July, and that decision cannot be changed now. All I can say to my right hon. Friend is that Brent will have to watch its step. If it increases its spending to the extent that he has prophesied it may return to the sector for selection in 1989–90, although I cannot speculate on what the criteria might be.
  My right hon. Friend made a number of interesting suggestions. He will understand that, in the light of the legislative burden that faces the Department, his suggestion of an enabling Act was particularly attractive, and I wish that we could readily accede to it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who explained why he would be unable to be present during the wind-up speeches, asked specifically about Ealing's rate limit. It is based on the original expenditure level that was proposed in July. The proposed limit means that there will be a 43·5 per cent. reduction on 1987–88, which I am sure will be welcomed by the ratepayers of Ealing.
  I am sorry that I missed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall). He asked about the Bromley error and whether Barnet would know, before it sets its rate, what percentage of lost grant would be returned during 1988–89. We shall be correcting the effects of the error for 1987–88 and 1988–89 as soon as Parliament has approved the supplementary reports. The

  529
  final year, 1986–87, will be implemented in 1988–89, so Barnet will receive roughly two thirds of what is due next year and my Department will be sending local authorities full details shortly. I have written to my hon. Friend about the revaluation of superannuation funds. We are discussing whether there is a case for changing the existing rules, which require quinquennial revaluation.
  If confirmation was required of the generosity of the settlement, it was provided by the speech of the hon. Member for Perry Barr who waxed eloquent, as is his wont, about a number of matters but devoted a relatively small proportion of his speech to the settlement. I cannot think of a more eloquent testimony to the soundness and generosity of the settlement.
  At the outset I referred to the fact that the new system, which we hope to be debating shortly, will avoid all the worst features of the present system. Under the new system, local authorities will know before the start of the financial year exactly how much money they can expect from central Government. They will be able to plan the amount they propose to spend, secure in the knowledge that the money they receive from central Government will not be affected by their spending decisions and also in the knowledge that they will ultimately be accountable for their spending decisions to those who have to pay the community charge.
  Of course, local authorities do not need to wait until the new system of financing local government is in place in order to increase their efficiency, reduce waste and improve the value for money that they offer their residents. They do not even need to wait for the enactment of the Local Government Bill, which completed its Committee stage yesterday, in order to secure those improvements. A total of £3 billion of expenditure will be subject to competition under the provisions of that Bill. There are other services where large savings are available and other areas that offer great scope for extra efficiency.
  Take, for example, the level of rent arrears. The 20 worst local authorities have together a debt burden of over £100 million arising out of rent arrears. The disparity between authorities with similar problems is enormous. In London, south of the river, Southwark's rent arrears amount to no less than 24 per cent. of its rent roll. Lambeth's are a similar proportion, while in Wandsworth next door the percentage is 6·8 per cent.
  The district auditor for Southwark has identified a number of areas where savings could be obtained. Changes in the way in which its vehicle fleet is managed could, for example, save £1 million a year. Southwark's response to this information was somewhat cautious. Its treasurer has said that with maximum co-operation and agreement with the work force it would probably take two or three years to achieve the majority of the savings. He was no doubt right to be cautious.
  Southwark's record leaves a great deal to be desired. Its leader has said:
  "The Town Hall is on the verge of collapse. Money spent in many areas is wasted. The services are demonstrably poor and give no reason why people in Southwark should trust the Labour Party to run the council".
  It is against that background of Labour local government — "Labour government in practice and action", in the time-honoured phrase of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) — that we
  530
  approach the contributions to the debate made by the Opposition Members. They have made several different claims about the additional money they say should be available to local authorities from the taxpayer.
  One of the most beloved statistics, certainly of the hon. Member for Perry Barr, is the £4·4 billion that he said local authorities would have had available to them if the grant percentage had remained at 1978–79 levels. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already made it clear that the difference in cash terms is much more relevant and that is a much smaller sum.
  Let us consider the figure of £4·4 billion used by the hon. Member for Perry Barr. It is a figure which begs many questions. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Labour party would have increased grant by that amount had it been in a position to do so? If not, it is difficult to see what relevance there is in that point.
  If, on the other hand, the Labour party would have increased grant by that amount, it is a pity that it did not say so at the time of the general election. That alone would have added an extra 3p to the standard rate of income tax— over and above the doubling of income tax that would have been needed to make good the Labour party's other spending pledges.
  It is no use the Labour party coming to the House day after day, night after night, calling for extra spending for everything under the sun while the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) claims at the same time that the Labour party is not a high-tax party.
  Early this year the Labour party produced a discussion document on those matters. It suggested that all controls on local government spending should be removed. Is that the Labour party's policy? Is that what the hon. Member for Copeland would have done if, perish the thought, he had been entrusted with these matters?
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Dr. Cunningham: I am more than happy to answer that question, not least because we have answered it many times before. I shall try to speak in English, although I understand that gentlemen from public schools in the south have difficulty understanding someone with my origins.
  Of course, a Labour Government would cash-limit its grants to local authorities. We have made no secret of that. But nor have we made a secret of the fact that what local authorities raise on their own account should be free from central control. That is the fundamental difference between us and the Government.
  Mr. Howard: I am delighted to hear that. At its face value, it appears to show that the Labour party has some semblance of a policy for at least that aspect of local authority affairs.
  The hon. Gentleman has been his party's spokesman on these matters for four years. But when the hon. Member for Perry Barr was appointed to his present position in June, he told the newspapers that he had asked what was his party's policy on local government and was told, "We haven't got one." The hon. Gentleman has an engaging turn of phrase. He was reported in The Independent on 24 September as saying:
  "Putting it at its baldest, we haven't got a policy. That is the actual truth."

  531
  That is the truth about the Labour party's condition. That is the basis on which it approaches these matters. That is why the hon. Gentleman, entirely understandably, spent so little time on the settlement.
  Small wonder no one takes the hon. Gentleman or his party seriously on these matters. Small wonder that the Opposition are a sterile Opposition, entirely negative in their contribution to the debate.
  However, I must not do the Opposition an injustice, because the hon. Member for Copeland made one revealing remark. I think that he intended it as a promise to local authorities. He said that he was prepared to promise that, if the Labour party was ever in government, the growth in Government grant to local authorities would keep pace with the growth in the economy. I have a strong suspicion that, given the likely growth in the economy under any future Labour Government, that cannot be taken as much of a promise by local authorities. If that is the best that the hon. Gentleman can do, local authorities will not be very impressed.
  The settlement is far from perfect, but it is the product of a system which is in its death throes and we can look forward with hope to the new system that is appearing over the horizon and that will at long last restore to local government the clarity, fairness and accountability that it has for so long been lacking.
  I commend the settlement to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 220.

  Division No. 108]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Allason, Rupert

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Amess, David

  Burns, Simon

  Amos, Alan

  Burt, Alistair

  Arbuthnot, James

  Butcher, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Butler, Chris

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Butterfill, John

  Aspinwall Jack

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Atkins, Robert

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Atkinson, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Batiste, Spencer

  Chapman, Sydney

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Chope, Christopher

  Bellingham, Henry

  Churchill, Mr

  Bendall, Vivian

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Benyon, W.

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Conway, Derek

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cope, John

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Cormack, Patrick

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Couchman, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Cran, James

  Bottomley, Peter

  Critchley, Julian

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Curry, David

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Bowis, John

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Day, Stephen

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Devlin, Tim

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Brazier, Julian

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bright, Graham

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Dover, Den

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Dunn, Bob

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Durant, Tony

  532

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Evennett, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fallon, Michael

  Lightbown, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  MacGregor, John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Forman, Nigel

  Maples, John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Forth, Eric

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Freeman, Roger

  Mates, Michael

  French, Douglas

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gardiner, George

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Gill, Christopher

  Moate, Roger

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Moss, Malcolm

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Neale, Gerrard

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Nelson, Anthony

  Gow, Ian

  Neubert, Michael

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Newton, Tony

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

  Gregory, Conal

  Onslow, Cranley

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E")

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Paice, James

  Grist, Ian

  Patnick, Irvine

  Ground, Patrick

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Grylls, Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Pawsey, James

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Portillo, Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Price, Sir David

  Hannam, John

  Raffan, Keith

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Redwood, John

  Harris, David

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Riddick, Graham

  Hayes, Jerry

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Hayward, Robert

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Heddle, John

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Rost, Peter

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Ryder, Richard

  Hill, James

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Hind, Kenneth

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Holt, Richard

  Scott, Nicholas

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Howard, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Sims, Roger

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Irvine, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Jack, Michael

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Jackson, Robert

  Speller, Tony

  Janman, Timothy

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Jessel, Toby

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Squire, Robin

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Stern, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Stevens, Lewis

  Kilfedder, James

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Knapman, Roger

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Sumberg, David

  Knox, David

  Summerson, Hugo

  533

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Waller, Gary

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Walters, Dennis

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Ward, John

  Tebbil, Rt Hon Norman

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Warren, Kenneth

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Wells, Bowen

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wheeler, John

  Thorne, Neil

  Whitney, Ray

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Tracey, Richard

  Wood, Timothy

  Tredinnick, David

  Woodcock, Mike

  Trippier, David

  Yeo, Tim

  Trotter, Neville

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Viggers, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Mr. Alan Howarth and

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Mr. David Maclean.

  Walden, George

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cummings, J.

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Allen, Graham

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Anderson, Donald

  Darling, Alastair

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Dewar, Donald

  Ashton, Joe

  Dixon, Don

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dobson, Frank

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Doran, Frank

  Barron, Kevin

  Douglas, Dick

  Battle, John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Beckett, Margaret

  Dunnachie, James

  Beith, A. J.

  Eastham, Ken

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Farr, Sir John

  Blair, Tony

  Fatchett, Derek

  Boateng, Paul

  Fearn, Ronald

  Boyes, Roland

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bradley, Keith

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fisher, Mark

  Brown, Gordon (D'mlins E)

  Flannery, Martin

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Flynn, Paul

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Foster, Derek

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Foulkes, George

  Buchan, Norman

  Fraser, John

  Buckley, George

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Caborn, Richard

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Callaghan, Jim

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  George, Bruce

  Cartwright, John

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Gould, Bryan

  Clay, Bob

  Graham, Thomas

  Clelland, David

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cohen, Harry

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Corbett, Robin

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Cousins, Jim

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Crowther, Stan

  Henderson, Douglas

  Cryer, Bob

  Hinchliffe, David

  534

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Mullin, Chris

  Holland, Stuart

  Murphy, Paul

  Home Robertson, John

  Nellist, Dave

  Hood, James

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  O'Brien, William

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Howells, Geraint

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pendry, Tom

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Pike, Peter

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Prescott, John

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Illsley, Eric

  Radice, Giles

  Janner, Greville

  Randall, Stuart

  John, Brynmor

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Reid, John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Robertson, George

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rogers, Allan

  Lambie, David

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lamond, James

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rowlands, Ted

  Leighton, Ron

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Salmond, Alex

  Lewis, Terry

  Sheerman, Barry

  Litherland, Robert

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Livsey, Richard

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Short, Clare

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Skinner, Dennis

  Loyden, Eddie

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McAllion, John

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

  McAvoy, Tom

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

  McCartney, Ian

  Snape, Peter

  Macdonald, Calum

  Soley, Clive

  McFall, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  McKelvey, William

  Steinberg, Gerald

  McLeish, Henry

  Stott, Roger

  McNamara, Kevin

  Strang, Gavin

  McTaggart, Bob

  Straw, Jack

  McWilliam, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Madden, Max

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Mallon, Seamus

  Turner, Dennis

  Marek, Dr John

  Vaz, Keith

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Wall, Pat

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Wallace, James

  Martin, Michael (Springburn)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Martlew, Eric

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Maxton, John

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Meacher, Michael

  Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

  Meale, Alan

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Michael, Alun

  Wilson, Brian

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Winnick, David

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Worthington, Anthony

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wray, James

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Morley, Elliott

  Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

  Mrs. Llin Goldine.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Rate Support Grant Report (England) 1988–89 (House of Commons Paper No. 163), a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.

Fisheries
10.17 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the un-numbered Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 30th November and 3rd December 1987 on total allowable catches and quotas for 1988 and on 2nd December 1987 on the European Community — Norway Fisheries Agreement, European Community Documents Nos. 6388/87 on the common organisation of the market in fishery products and 9585/87 on fish guide prices for 1988, and of the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for the United Kingdom fishing industry for 1988 consistent with the requirements of conservation of stocks.
I am grateful to the Select Committee on European Legislation both for its recommendation that the House should debate the documents referred to in the motion and for carrying out its scrutiny without access to the full set of Community documents, which has only just become available. That enables us to have a timely debate because it will enable my right hon. Friend and me to take full account of the views of the House when we consider these matters at the Fisheries Council next week.
It is a short debate so I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if I speak briefly on the key issues, giving sufficient time for hon. Members on both sides of the House to raise their own points in the debate, to which my right hon. Friend will respond in the winding-up speech.
This has been the fifth year of the common fisheries policy and has been an excellent one for the United Kingdom industry. The value of landings for the first three quarters of this year was £55 million up on last year, an increase of 22 per cent. that reflected a 9 per cent. increase in the overall tonnage landed and an average increase in prices of 11 per cent. as a result of the continuing buoyant demand for fish.
Although there have been some problems of management in certain fisheries, fishermen all over the country will have seen a substantial increase in real earnings and, thanks to the common fisheries policy, will be looking forward with confidence to a future of stability and continuing prosperity.
Let me refer first to the proposals relating to the total allowable catches and quotas for 1988, which will determine the level of opportunities available to our fishermen. I recognise that some of the quota management decisions that had to be taken in 1987 created temporary problems for certain sectors of the industry. But the whole purpose of TACs and quotas is to keep catches within safe biological limits and when fisheries have been overexploited, as some of our main fisheries regrettably have, quota restrictions will inevitably bite. It must be in the long-term interests of the industry to recognise this—I think that that is understood by hon. Members—and to manage its affairs so as to operate profitably within the inevitable constraints.
The Government are firmly committed to the conservation and efficient management of all the fish stocks on which our industry depends.
Sir Julian Ridsdale: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. MacGregor: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I think that it will be better if I set the scene and give the Government's position on the proposals so that as many hon. Members as possible can contribute. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will respond to the points made.
We believe that it is right to take the long view of the benefits of a conservation policy and not to sacrifice these for short-term gains. In general, therefore, we welcome the Commission's proposals where these are based on firm scientific advice by the responsible international scientific bodies. But where TACs are set on a precautionary basis only, in the absence of adequate scientific information we believe that it is right to be more flexible and to avoid unduly restrictive quota levels.
The TACs for the main white fish stocks in the North sea have, as usual, been provisionally agreed with Norway by the Commission following the annual consultations. The proposed TAC for North sea cod is 160,000 tonnes. This will be a disappointment to the industry which, following revision of the 1987 TAC from 125,000 tonnes to 175,000 tonnes, had been hoping for a further increase. In 1988 this stock will be heavily dependent on the 1985 year class, which, on the basis of further survey data, the scientists now believe to be less strong than they did earlier this year. The proposed TAC, although within the range of safe biological limits, is none the less somewhat above what the scientists would have liked to see.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. MacGregor: It will be better if I do not. If I give way to one hon. Member, I shall have to give way to others.
It is therefore important to note that the Commission has proposed retaining the box in the south-eastern corner of the North sea in which a higher mesh size is required, to protect the young cod. Last year, against a great deal of opposition, the Commission's proposal on this was adopted, largely at our insistence, and we shall be pressing for its continuation, preferably with the increased minimum mesh size of 120 mm now proposed.
Finally, on cod, during 1987 we achieved a mid-year adjustment to the TAC, in the light of revised scientific advice and we shall press for a similar review during 1988 should the latest scientific assessments for this or any other stock of importance to the United Kingdom suggest that an upward revision of the TAC would be appropriate.
On North sea haddock, the prospects are more encouraging with the proposed TAC increased to 185,000 tonnes from 140,000 tonnes this year. The proposed North sea plaice TAC is up to 175,000 tonnes from 150,000 tonnes, reflecting the signs of continued healthy recruitment to the stock. For North sea sole, which is not a stock jointly managed with Norway, the Commission is proposing a further decrease in the TAC to 11,000 tonnes from 14,000 tonnes, in line with the scientific advice I shall be exploring the possibility of increasing our quota through a swap with another member state.
Turning to the west coast of Scotland, area VI, the Commission is proposing no changes in the TACs for haddock, whiting, plaice, megrim and anglerfish, a very welcome increase in the TAC for saithe to 35,000 tonnes from 27,800 tonnes, but a decrease for cod to 18,430 tonnes from 22,000 tonnes. I know that the latter will be

537
a disappointment, especially to Scottish fishermen, but the proposal represents the most favourable interpretation of the scientific advice.
In area VII, covering the Irish sea, the south-west and the English Channel, plaice and sole are of particular concern. For plaice, the total proposed availability of the various stocks for the United Kingdom is 5,430 tonnes, compared with 5,530 tonnes in the 1987 regulation. There may be scope for upward adjustment of some of the figures without damage to stocks. We shall explore that as well as the possibility of increasing our availabilities by swaps, as we have done before.
The position with sole in area VII is rather similar, with the United Kingdom availability proposed for 1988 at 2,130 tonnes, compared with 2,430 tonnes in 1987 before swaps. We shall endeavour to seek some improvement on that.
On area VII cod, the Commission's proposal retains the increased TAC of 19,000 tonnes, which we obtained during the course of 1987. An increase is also proposed for area VII saithe, on which we had problems this year.
The pelagic stocks are of particular, but not exclusive concern to the Scottish industry. The pelagic sector, which has had a particularly successful year in 1987, will face a small measure of restraint in 1988 along with the white fish sector. In the North sea, the TAC for herring agreed with Norway totals 530,000 tonnes. That is a reduction from 600,000 tonnes this year, and reflects scientific advice. I should emphasise that that results from a reassessment by the scientists of the absolute size of the stock. They are still confident that the stock is growing and will continue to grow, given prudent management.
Norway will receive a zonal attachment share of 153,700 tonnes and it is proposed, as in 1987, to transfer an additional 50,000 tonnes to Norway to balance the important transfers of whitefish from Norway. Although the United Kingdom quota will be correspondingly lower than this year, we have some hopes of obtaining additional quantities through swaps.
The Commission is proposing that off the west coast of Scotland, the herring TAC should be reduced to 46,000 tonnes from 49,700 tonnes. The Commission, in agreeing with Norway a slight increase in Norway's availability of herring in that area, seemed to be taking a rather different view of the fishery from that reflected in its proposal for the TAC. We will be exploring that point further at the Council.
For Clyde herring, the proposal is for a TAC of 3,200 tonnes, down from 3,500 tonnes, and the science is quite clear on that. In the Irish sea, the proposed TAC is going up to 8,000 tonnes from 4,500 tonnes. That will be very welcome, especially to fishermen in Northern Ireland.
On the Commission's proposals on western mackerel, many hon. Members will know that the Scottish pelagic fleet has faced difficulty in taking its western mackerel quota in some recent years, mainly because the migratory pattern of the stock has changed and the shoals have been slow to cross the 4 deg line that divides the western area from the North sea. The solution proposed by my noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office was to permit a measure of flexibility to take western mackerel east of the 4 deg W line.
We were therefore pleased to note that the recent agreement between the Commission and Norway for 1988
538
accepted the principle of flexibility around that line. For 1988, the agreement provides that a quantity of 62,000 tonnes of the Community's western mackerel quota could be taken in the northern part of the North sea—that is east of 4 deg W—should the Community decide that it wished to do so. The Government regard that as an important step forward. We therefore regret that the Commission's proposals on western mackerel do not include the exercise of this flexibility.
We shall be pressing hard for such an element of flexibility to be included in any compromise package presented to the Council next week, though this will not be easy, given the strongly held view of some other member states that to tamper with the 4 deg W line amounts to unpicking the 1983 settlement. The Commission's proposals for this stock envisages a TAC of 360,000 tonnes, a reduction from the 1987 level of 400,000 tonnes. However, there is room for a range of view as to the exact biological state of this stock and the Council will be looking at this closely.
I have already referred to the most important aspects of the EC-Norway agreement for 1988. If hon. Members wish to raise other aspects my right hon. Friend will deal with them in his response. But let me add just one general point. I am glad to say that the negotiations under this agreement are now much more satisfactory both in the procedures and the outcome.
I turn now to the Commission's proposals for changes in the guide prices for the 1988 marketing year. The proposals are broadly neutral as far as the United Kingdom species are concerned, suggesting either no change or an increase of only 1 per cent. for cod, haddock and plaice. But there would be reductions for herring and mackerel of 10 per cent. and 5 per cent. respectively to take account of the current market position. After preliminary discussions, the Commission has produced a revised proposal which would involve a 9 per cent. reduction in the herring guide price.
The proposed price changes achieve a reasonable balance between the needs of processors, consumers and producers, and take account of the need for budgetary restraint. They should also be seen in the context of green currency changes, which will take effect on 1 January, under which United Kingdom producers will benefit from an additional 4·7 per cent. increase in guide prices.
I have attempted to be brief in setting the scene and stating the Government's position on the proposals to enable the House to express a view. To summarise. The common fisheries policy continues to serve us well, and, despite problems in one area or another at various times of the year, our industry has had an excellent year. The prospects for next year are for reductions in some quotas and increases in others, with a sizeable number unchanged. We will do our best at the Council next week to improve upon the Commission proposals where it would be safe to do so, but we need to ensure that stocks are conserved in the interest of maintaining the industry's present prosperity. I hope that this approach will have the support of the House.
10.32 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I welcome the Minister's speech. Hon. Members have a jumble of documents, some of which are unnumbered memoranda. I agree with that part of the Government's motion which states that it is the

539
"Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for the United Kingdom fishing industry for 1988 consistent with the requirements of conservation of stocks."
No hon. Member can disagree with such an object, but I am deeply concerned that we should deal with next year's guide prices, total allowable catches and quotas so late in the year. Similar dissatisfaction was expressed by the Select Committee on European Legislation under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). Given the importance of the proposals to the United Kingdom fishing industry—I do not say that the blame rests with the Minister—it is a disgraceful state of affairs. Will the Minister be in a position to make a statement on the negotiations to the House next week?
I shall offer a comment on the Government's explanatory memoranda and the EEC documents. With regard to document No. 9585/87, on fish guide prices for 1988, I shall briefly mention the reform of the Community aid system for tuna fishing. I said "briefly" because not many British fishermen catch tuna. The Commissioners and the Community deserve our praise for their insistence upon fisheries agreements vis-a-vis that species with Lomé coastal nations. It is right and proper that the fisheries agreements should stipulate that part of the tuna catch must be landed in the littoral states near where it is caught. The fish, when canned, is often sold to the Community and, as Commissioner Sutherland pointed out in a letter to the President of the Council, the proceeds of the sales form a very important source of export income for those countries along the west African and Caribbean coasts.
It is rare for me to compliment the European Commissioners, but they deserve a word of praise for the establishment of the fisheries agreement. Regrettably, I now move from praise to criticism. I have some questions for the Minister on guide prices. I am concerned about the 10 per cent. reduction in the guide price for herring. I would like to know how this will be affected by the change in the United Kingdom green rate, as mentioned by the Minister. The change in the rate will lead to an automatic increase of 4·75 per cent. in the sterling equivalent of guide prices, but how will it affect the reduction in the guide price for herring? It is desirable for the gaps between the guide price, withdrawal price and the average market price to be kept to a realistic level. I believe that the change in the United Kingdom representative rate is important.
As everyone knows, the over-fishing of herring in the North Sea in the 1970s led to that fishery's closure for about a decade. During that closure, the United Kingdom herring market almost disappeared. However, the Danes continue to fish for herring in the Baltic sea and this, among other things, enabled them to secure a dominant position in supplying the West German market, which is the biggest herring market in the EEC.
The United Kingdom herring producers are placed at a serious disadvantage vis-a-vis the Danes. The geographical location of the major herring ports in the United Kingdom — Fraserburgh and Ullapool — means that the producers have to meet major transport costs to send herring and herring products to the major consumer centres in West Germany, whereas the Danes can transport their herring catches to Germany within 24 hours of the fish being landed in Esbjerg and elsewhere.
The prices structure should provide some compensation for those producers who exist on the periphery of the
540
United Kingdom. We must have regional withdrawal price schemes for herring. The United Kingdom herring industry can be re-established in West German markets only if the current disadvantage of the equal withdrawal price scheme in the European Community is set aside. United Kingdom producers should he allowed this intervention. It is essential that this be achieved, as the United Kingdom herring fishermen are seriously handicapped. That formidable handicap means that our fishermen are almost wholly dependent on Eastern bloc markets to sell their herring. We know that from the experience of Cornwall, Ullapool and Peterhead. Our fishermen must regain access to the Community markets. That can be done if exorbitant transport costs are partially met by implementation of the regional withdrawal price scheme.
The same could perhaps be achieved by a carry-over premium scheme which would enable producers to freeze herring which would otherwise be sold below the minimum price. There is nothing worse than seeing fine herring being sent to fishmeal plants. Such steps would allow our producers to compete more effectively in the frozen product market.
As for mackerel, is it necessary to maintain price differentials between the east and west coasts of Britain? The floating Eastern bloc market — it floats in large ships — follows the fish. The klondikers follow the fishing vessels from coast to coast. Perhaps the time has come to eliminate the regional variations. I ask the Minister to give that proposal serious consideration, although I know that it cannot be achieved next week in Brussels.
Will the Minister give an assurance that imported fish sells at prices which correspond to the appropriate reference price? Reference price schemes must be updated more efficiently and effectively if United Kingdom fishermen are not to suffer. Ideally, the scheme should be replaced by a minimum import price scheme. Is it not the case that such a scheme operates for the majority of imported agricultural products? If so, why should one not apply to fisheries?
The unnumbered explanatory memoranda deal with the division of TACs between the EEC and Norway and the share-out of species among the EEC's fishing nations. I should like to ask for the Minister's help in this respect. It would be helpful if his officials attached to the explanatory memoranda on quotas and the rest lists of figures for the past two or three years. The Minister may think that I am a lazy researcher, but I am sure that it would be much easier, when reading these dreadful documents—if the officials will forgive that description —to check what has happened recently, if the figures were attached. Such a change would surely not be very costly, and it would greatly help lazy researchers such as me.
I accept the need to strike a sensible balance between the amount of fish caught and the retention or conservation of stocks. I come from a fishing family, and I support the Minister in that respect. Moreover, I have just dined with the president of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, Mr. Willie Hay. I might add that I picked up the bill. He will not mind my saying that.
United Kingdom fishermen have a good record on conservation. They appear to stick to the rules much better than some of their continental colleagues. I am not being chauvinistic. When fishing in Norwegian waters, they have

541
no choice but to obey the rules, as failure to do so leads to harsh penalties. The skipper of a German stern trawler has recently been fined £200,000 by a Norwegian court. Our enforcement policy should be as tough as that of the Norwegians.
Talking of Norway, I am deeply concerned about the proposed EEC-Norway agreement. The North sea herring TAC, as the Minister has pointed out, is to be reduced from 600,000 tonnes to approximately 530,000 tonnes. The United Kingdom share will go down from approximately 78,000 tonnes to 69,000 tonnes, yet the Norwegians, as the Minister pointed out, on a reduced TAC, have contrived to retain the transfer of 50,000 tonnes of herring. In addition, Norway has managed to hold on to the right to harvest the same amount of fish from the EEC sector of the North sea, where the quality is superior, in 1988 as in 1987, approximately 55,000 tonnes. Surely these should have been reduced in line with the overall TAC reductions.
Of considerable concern to many fishermen in England — from ports such as Scarborough, Whitby and Bridlington, and even the Channel fishing ports, as well as Lowestoft, Grimsby and elsewhere—is the reduction in the TAC for North sea cod. That is a matter for regret. The United Kingdom fishermen will be allowed to catch approximately 71,000 tonnes. I know that in the explanatory memorandum there is some comment on the inadequacy of scientific data. Perhaps I can quote from one of the unnumbered memoranda:
"In making its proposals, the Commission has been hampered by the increasing deterioration in the adequacy of the scientific advice resulting from lack of data and inaccurate statistics".
Why is that?
Fishermen, too, are deeply concerned about the scientific advice relating to this stock. I mean by this that the TAC came down, as the Minister said, from 176,000 tonnes in 1986 to 125,000 tonnes at the beginning of 1987; and then the latter figure was increased in the middle of the year to 175,000 tonnes. Not surprisingly, this increase encouraged the hope among fishermen that the TAC for cod would be increased in 1988. It is absolutely essential that much more stability be applied to the fixing of total allowable catches. I told the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State, who is to reply, some time ago that I look forward to the day when the TACs are set for two or three years: the fishing industry needs that kind of stability.
So, curiously enough, we have a reduction in cod and an increase in haddock; yet fishermen claim that this year the former have been plentiful and the latter scarce. It is a curious business. Many of our small fishing boats on the east coasts of England and Scotland — and North sea cod is more important to England than to Scotland—work close to the land, where only cod is to be found in adequate quantities. Some of these vessels do not have the capability to sail to and fish the haddock grounds; so it is a very important quota change in cod. I am sure that the Minister agrees.
English fishermen this year, right down the coast, from the border to the Channel, found such an abundance of cod that they quickly fished out their quotas. That
542
presented them with a formidable problem, given this lack of capability to go elsewhere. So it is a matter for serious regret that the cod quota is to be reduced.
I wish the Minister well on this matter. He must dismantle any obstacles that are put in the way of the implementation of the west-east flexibile approach on western mackerel.
I support everything that the Minister has said this evening, but I suspect —as I said to him recently with regard to the common agricultural policy — that other member states will seek to wreck these negotiations on precisely this issue. He must be tough and formidable, as I am sure he will be.
I should like to make a plea for two small fisheries in the west of Scotland — the west of Scotland nephrops and the Clyde herring. The TAC for the nephrops is to be reduced. In 1987 the figure was 16,000 tonnes, but in 1988 it will be 4,800 tonnes. That will present a major problem for the fishermen of the Western Isles and elsewhere.
The recommendation for the Clyde herring is for a TAC of 3,200 tonnes, as opposed to this year's TAC of 3,500 tonnes. Will the Minister note that I believe that those TACs should remain at their 1987 levels? The TAC for the nephrops is precautionary — this is where I disagree with the Minister—and not scientifically based. I do not believe that the stock of Clyde herring has been over-fished. I should declare an interest, because I am the honorary president of the Clyde Fishermen's Association, whose members fish for the Clyde herring.
My last words to the Minister are a reminder. The Minister's predecessor gave a commitment in April to undertake discussions with the industry on further licencing proposals. Those discussions were to follow his Department's proposed study of the measurement of catching capacity. If that study has been completed, will the Minister give an assurance—if not this evening, in the near future—that those discussions on licensing will soon resume?
I hope that hon. Members will not think that I am imbued with the Christmas spirit, but I wish the Minister and his officials well in Brussels next week.
10.52 pm
Sir Michael Shaw: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who made a reasonable and well-considered speech. My sympathy was enhanced when he mentioned the problems of fishermen in my constituency. I am mainly interested in the fishing fleets of Whitby and Scarborough. The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned cod quotas and their future.
There is no doubt that the two fleets in my constituency have a greater dependence on catching cod than other fleets. They must travel to catch other fish, whereas other fleets can alternate their catches. Therefore they are greatly dependent on this main source of supply of fish.
There is no doubt that we have experienced hardships this year. One of those hardships has been caused by the lateness of the plan. I hope that, whatever plans are made, they will be announced as soon as possible.
The way that we are going places too much emphasis on quotas. It is not the best way of seeking to do what we all want—to preserve the fish in the North sea. The increase in mesh sizes will be, in the long term, the right way to go. I was sorry to hear that the experiment with the

543
bigger net size in the cod box on the Danish-German coast does not appear to be working as well as it could. In other words, it is not properly policed.
That brings us back to the major problem. Some people say that we are responsible for all the trouble because we joined the Common Market. We had to join the Common Market. We had to have an agreement between all the states bordering on the North sea if we were to conserve stock. I believe that policing must go hand in hand with changes such as increased mesh size.
I have talked to both fleets in my constituency and the fishermen are adamant that that is the only way, in the long-term, to obtain a satisfactory conservation arrangement and, at the same time, obtain a proper catch of good-sized fish. I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Minister goes to the meeting next week with his colleagues he will press as hard as he can for the increased mesh sizes. I am glad to hear that he is prepared to have a review—
Sir Julian Ridsdale: Does my hon. Friend agree that the size of the fish landed is important as well as the mesh size?
Sir Michael Shaw: Absolutely. We should catch good-sized fish and let the others go so that they will be there for the future. That must be the right thing to do.
I realise that the debate is short and I shall speak briefly on the size of the TAC. I have been told many times that scientific advice is responsible for the level of the TAC. I can say only that during my many years in Scarborough and Whitby I have never known my fishermen to be wrong in their assessment of what goes on in the coastal waters offshore, whether it is the oil rigs that have been put in the wrong spot or, much more importantly in this case, what is happening to the fish stock. One has only to look at their advice with regard to herring stocks. That advice was resisted for so long by the so-called scientific advisers. In the end, my fishermen were proved right. Therefore, I believe that they are making a strong case when they say that there are more fish in the sea and that the scientific advisers have over-stated the case, causing a greater reduction than ought to have been made. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take the advice of the scientific advisers with a certain measure of scepticism and will listen also to the voice of the practical fisherman.
I believe that, over the years, our Ministers have defended the cause of the British fishermen very well indeed in Europe and in the agreements that have been reached. I wish them every possible success in their negotiations and for the future of the livelihoods of our fishermen.
10.58 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I will not follow the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) in his praise for the Ministers. However, it must be one of their few pleasures in life to attend fisheries debates, which are in such contrast with agriculture debates because the reception is so much warmer, the situation is so much better, and the mood is so much lighter. I do not begrudge them the pleasure of coming to these debates.
Basically, Ministers are telling us that the status quo has been prolonged. For large sections of the industry that status quo has been fairly satisfactory. Grimsby has had a better year, but it has to be emphasised that that is a better year starting from a fairly low level.
544
The industry in Grimsby has been depressed to such an extent that its survival is conjectural and it really needs to be built up. It has been a better year but an improvement is still needed. The cod quota is not encouraging. That is a problem for the east coast and a particular problem for Grimsby. We are a cod port and the reduction in cod catches will hit us severely. Haddock cannot be a substitute. Haddock quotas have been increased, but not to the extent that cod quotas have been reduced. In any case, haddock is found further north.
Given the reduction in the cod quota, the industry must be confident that the scientific advice on which it is based is binding and cannot be questioned. The papers do not convince one that that is true. They cast doubt on the scientific advice on which the cut in the cod quota is based. Like the hon. Member for Scarborough, I have had fishermen pointing out that in their view the scientific advice is wrong. They say that cod is doing reasonably well this year and that haddock is down. Yet we find that on the basis of the projections, haddock is increased and cod is cut. That, combined with the explanatory memorandum, which comments on "inadequate scientific advice" and the "unreliability of the data", shows that the case is not convincing to an industry that depends so heavily on cod.
How much confidence does the Minister halve in the scientific advice? Why has that scientific advice become so imperative now, when the industry wants an increase in the cod quota and when in the past allowable catches have taken more account of the social and industrial needs that are so strong in Grimsby? I welcome the Minister's commitment to a mid-year review. If we can adjust the figures upwards mid-year that will be welcome. I hope that he concentrates on that point and redresses the problems that will be caused for Grimsby.
The Minister commented on the improvement in catches and prices this year, but I must emphasise that that is mainly a feature of the Scottish industry, rather than the English industry. The balance of the industry has shifted to Scotland.
I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Greeenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) should have gone out for a meal with the president of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and had to pay the bill. Only the Scottish fishermen are in a position to pay bills. Had he gone with the president of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisation, he would have had to pay the bill.
We need to redress the balance that has shifted so heavily towards Scotland. We are just at, and possibly just below, the size at which the English industry is viable. There is a concentration of facilities at Grimsby which needs bigger catches and more catches. There is ground to be made up in Grimsby and it is time to make a start.
Grimsby faces problems because the fleet is too small and is not producing the return on investment for the new investment. It is difficult to get new funds. We have just had a severe problem with the landing company which I am glad to tell the Minister has today been solved. We now have a new landing company which employs half the labour force, because 30 of them have taken redundancy. On that basis we can be viable, but we must build on that.
We now need some improvement in the quotas and in our ability to attract new vessels, and to get those vessels

545
a quota. It has been increasingly difficult to fit new vessels into Grimsby. We are well poised for expansion and we need the ability to improve the situation.
On the long view there is a need for an increase in mesh size. I talk about taking the long view, but I should like an immediate increase in mesh size. As other hon. Members have said, an increase in mesh size represents the best form of conservation — indeed, the only proper conservation. In Grimsby we have always had a bigger mesh size and we should like that to be made universal. It is silly to restrict catches, because that leads to fish being thrown overboard. They are dead and that is a blow to conservation. I am disappointed that Ministers are not pushing for an immediate and substantial increase in mesh size. Why cannot we have the mesh sizes that apply in Icelandic and Norwegian waters?
Why can we not also have the tough policing that applies in Norwegian waters? The one factor that could increase confidence in the common fisheries policy is proper policing. Our fishermen still do not have confidence in that policy because they feel that other industries are not being policed as tightly as ours. If we had adequate overall policing and the confidence that others could not overfish and fiddle the quotas and get away with it, Grimsby would find the situation much easier to accept.
The inadequacy of policing is the fundamental flaw. We need tough policing such as that applying in Norwegian waters, which would certainly be welcomed by the British industry. Every fisherman fiddles to some extent, but our fishermen are far more law-abiding and far better policed than their competitors, who get away with things that we are not allowed to do. Only when we have absolute equality and absolute faith in the system will we be able to accept the measure as an adequate basis for progress.
11.6 pm
Mr. David Harris: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and to maintain the pleasant pre-Christmas spirit of unity that has pervaded this debate.
I begin by giving my personal thanks to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food because they have championed the cause of British fishermen and have acted with great fairness when conflicts have arisen between, for example, my fishermen and fishermen who come to my part of the world from rather more northern waters.
I entirely agree with what hon. Members from all around our coast have said about cod. The sudden stop on cod in the Channel severely affected fishermen from the south-west, who also say with absolute conviction that they have rarely seen so much cod about. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister's opening remarks, in which I understood him to say that we need to look much more carefully at the precautionary total allowable catches—TACs that are not based on scientific evidence but are intended as a precaution. We can be more flexible with such TACs. I also echo all that the Minister said about the need to make conservation paramount in the fishing industry.
Undoubtedly we have enjoyed much greater prosperity in the past year. Some of my fishermen have even been honest enough—in their weaker moments — to admit
546
that they have done pretty well. The port of Newlyn in my constituency is probably flourishing now as never before. It is certainly doing much better than it has done in recent years. However, there is the constant worry, illustrated in a Channel 4 programme on Sunday night, about the danger of overfishing and the pressure on certain types of stock. Only yesterday, a number of boats were preparing to go out of the port of Newlyn—they were provisioned and iced up and just about to sail—when the skippers were told by the Ministry, "Sorry. There is now a complete stop in certain areas on hake, sole and megrim". Can hon. Members imagine the effect that had on those skippers who were ready to sail? Without warning they were informed of the instrument from Brussels. I have already had a word with my right hon. Friend who will reply to the debate and I hope that he will comment on that.
Two matters arise from that incident. First, it cannot make sense for there to be no warning to fishermen. That is unacceptable. Secondly, in so far as I can piece the mystery together, the reason for the sudden stop was once again the ex-Spanish boats which sail on the British register but, in my opinion, remain completely Spanish boats. Over the years we have warned and warned again that those boats record some of their catches when they return to Spain against our quota, to the detriment of our fishermen.
The Ministers, the officials and I, know perfectly well, and I hope one day that the Commission will realise, that it is the easiest thing in the world for Spanish boats arriving in Spain to record some of their landings against our quota when they have been caught by Spanish boats which are not even on our register. How on earth can we check that that is not happening? It is a genuine problem. Again I pay full tribute to our Ministers for ensuring that action will be taken in the Merchant Shipping Bill, now in another place, but which before long will be here, against this wretched business of flag of convenience fishing and quota hopping which has done so much damage to our genuine shipping interests.
I know that the House will do everything that it can to pass that legislation on to the statute book as quickly as possible, and once there it must be enforced. Those bogus boats must be removed from our register so that we never again have boats in the ownership of and working in the interests of another country, fishing in our waters against our quotas to the detriment of our fishermen.
11.12 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: It is music, indeed, to the ears of somebody who looks after the interests of the Scottish fishing fleet to hear the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) so philosophical this evening. In the past, properly defending the fishermen of Newlyn, he has been acerbic, if that is not a euphemism, about some activities of boats from northern parts. That is a measure of the consensus in this debate.
The demersal fishing TACs, especially for cod, and the recent uncertainties about the lists of TACs as a result of scientific advice have been causing genuine uncertainty and anxiety north of the border. I subscribe to the view of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) who said that it was time to try to move towards rolling TACs over a two or three-year period. I wonder whether that is on the agenda in Brussels at any of these Fisheries Council meetings. What is the state of play on that? Are some other member states also actively

547
considering that? That is the only way to achieve real stability and a long-term framework of prosperity. A great deal of anxiety and uncertainty is caused by the present position.
The fishing industry knows that it is in its best interests to have proper conservation, and no one suggests that the Scottish fleet is interested in a rapacious policy that will destroy stocks. But it is almost unscientific to have the fluctuations that have occurred in the cod TACs, as reflected in the fluctuations in the haddock quotas for 1986, 1987 and 1988. It may be a scientific fact that the biomass fluctuates as widely as the TACs demonstrate, but that is not borne out by the fishermen's experience. Some of them have been in the industry for many years, and their instinct is almost as good a measure as the scientific methods that are used by the Government's advisers.
Balancing all the conflicting interests, we must try to improve management in the future and, as the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow said, try to give more notice at the beginning of each calendar year of what the TACs will be.
I welcome the possibility of a mid-year adjustment. I do not know whether it should be written in now, but it was a feature of last year's cod TAC. If it has to be written in at the Fisheries Council meeting next week, I hope that the whole House will encourage the Minister to do it.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow spoke eloquently about the mackerel fishery. We must get the Commission to accept the element of flexibility in the western stock east of 4 deg. west. It is a welcome recognition of the practice that has continued for many years. It is a sign of real progress that the Government have accepted that practice and introduced their proposals. They will ease much of the anxiety in the pelagic sector. I urge the Minister to resist Danish, or any other, pretensions to muscle in on that fishery. They have no right to stake a claim. It is a piece of poker-playing which the Government could face down if they played their cards properly.
On herring and guide prices, the proposals are broadly neutral and acceptable to the industry and are, therefore, welcome.
I agree with the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow about the licensing review. It would be in the interests of the industry to bring forward the review, if it could be done without prejudicing the results, because it has caused some anxiety. I wish the ministerial team good luck. It is basically on the right lines, and I hope that Ministers do not have too many late nights before they get away for their Christmas holidays.
11.18 pm
Mr. John Townend: I do not often agree with everything that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) says, but I did tonight, especially with his comment that, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), the balance had swung too far in favour of the Scots. We look to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make sure that it swings back again.
There is no doubt that the announcement of a reduction in the TAC for North sea cod will be disastrous for my constituency. The boats at Bridlington depend for 90 per cent. of their catch on one species—North sea cod—and if there is none, they can do nothing else. Last April, 1,000 tonnes were removed unilaterally from their quota. This
548
year, the cut is from a quota which, despite being managed by the Yorkshire and Anglia Fish Producers Organisation Ltd, was exhausted by September. Indeed, 90 per cent. had been used up by the end of July, and since then the fleet has been able to have merely a by-catch of 5 per cent. of cod.
On numerous occasions, I have brought the problems of the fishermen this year in my constituency to the attention of the Minister and the Ministry. There seems to be something wrong with the way in which quota is organised. Without disrespect to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, Grimsby fishermen have been able to free-fish all this year without restriction, while the Bridlington fishermen have been restricted, yet they ran out of quota by September.
We in Bridlington believe in conservation, but we do not accept that quotas are the way to deal with it. and to achieve a growth in fish stocks. As has been mentioned, fish caught in excess of quota and thrown back into the sea are nearly always destroyed. The real way to conserve fish is to stop the catching of immature fish. That is done by increasing the mesh sizes. The EEC has moved far too slowly, and we have moved too slowly as well. This year in our area, our fishermen unilaterally increased the mesh size above the EEC level. It would be only fair if areas that do that were given some consideration in the allocation of quota, and given extra quota.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale) said that we should have minimum fish landing sizes and prohibition of fishing in areas where there are significant concentrations of spawning or immature fish. Our fishermen were perturbed about the recent meeting with Government scientists about North sea cod. At the meeting, the scientists admitted that the cod box off the Danish, German and Dutch coasts, where the minimum mesh size was increased for six months last year to 100 mm because of immature fish, is not being observed by the continental fleets. That is appalling, at a time when our boats are virtually tied up.
The scientists also admit that the main requirement for a healthy future for North sea cod is to stop catching so many young fish, but their only solution is the cod box. The fishing industry wants closure of the fishing grounds where there is spawning in February and March, so that the fish can shoot their roe before being caught. It is unbelievable that the scientists will not support that suggestion. After all, no good farmer kills his cows while they are in calf.
The EEC proposals could spell disaster for my fishermen in Bridlington. The Government must reassess the basis of allocation of quota in the coming year and bring it in line with what is reasonable and sensible. They should press the EEC for larger mesh sizes. If we have the same situation next year as this year—with the proposed reduction it could be even worse—the Government will have to think about providing some financial help to fishermen whose boats are tied up. We hear that the EEC will increase the size of its social fund. I cannot think of any better use of that fund than to help fishermen who are not allowed to carry on their work.
11.23 pm
Mr. Frank Doran: My constituency is, by any standards, a substantial centre of the fishing industry, whether in its catching capacity, its marketing or its fish processing. The message from my constituents that

549
I want to give the Minister is that we expect him to get the best possible deal for them and the rest of the United Kingdom fishing industry, at next week's meeting.
I should like to make three brief points, the first of which has already been made. We want a fair agreement on the North sea shoals between the EEC and Norway, which will allow a fair measure of United Kingdom involvement in those waters. My second point, about better policing, has been made fairly strongly. In discussions with my fisherman, I find that there is a tremendous sense of frustration at the fact that they know that their fishing quota is being used by other European countries.
For example, earlier this year I was approached by some of the processing organisations, which said that the saithe quota had been exhausted. They knew that they had not processed that quota and the fishing boats knew that they had not caught that quota, but the quota was exhausted. There is a sense of frustration. The plea for better policing comes from both sides of the House.
Thirdly, I make a plea for forward planning so that there is stability in the industry. That point has been echoed on both sides of the House. But the comments have been on behalf of fish catchers. I should like to make a plea on behalf of not only fish catchers but fish processors. There is a substantial processing industry in Aberdeen. In some respects it is very advanced, but in others it is fairly primitive. It spans the spectrum from the one-man business to the multi-million pound business.
Investment is needed. Because of the industrial position and the lack of grants, the small fish processor who wants to develop his business faces a greater difficulty than a normal small business man. There are fluctuations in the processing market and one cannot plan on a certain number of fish being available. Forward planning is crucial to the fish processing industry. I make a plea specifically on my constituents' behalf for stability in the market and for forward planning. I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman).
As a tailpiece, to inject some small controversy into a fairly amicable debate—I am pre-empting the point to be made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)— it must be said that about 75 per cent. of the fish landed in United Kingdom waters is landed in the north-east of Scotland. It is a little mystifying that the Scottish Office is responsible for forests in the United Kingdom yet, despite the high proportion of the fishing industry in Scotland, is not also responsible for the fisheries aspect covered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I ask the Minister to consider the departmental responsibilities.
11.26 pm
Mr. David Porter: Representing the constituency that includes Lowestoft—the premier fish town of England—a port that employs one man at sea for every nine men employed on shore, and a port whose fishing industry was all but decimated a short time ago, I certainly want to associate myself with hon. Members who wish the Government Front-Bench team good luck next week. I shall align my remarks with those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) when I say that the proposed cod quota reduction would be a
550
disaster for the port of Lowestoft. Equally, I wish to associate myself, and have it on the record that I have done so, with YAFPO's remarks. The organisation's objections about the cod box and other matters are valid, and I hope the Minister will address them.
The debate has hinged on the scientific argument versus the more anecdotal argument fom the fishermen. Both groups are represented in my constituency. I live just a mile from the Lowestoft fish laboratory, so I have received representations equally from the scientists, with their professionalism and expertise and the fishermen.
There is no doubt that the documents which we are asked to consider cast doubt on the validity of the statistical evidence. I hope that the Government Front-Bench team will bear that very much in mind. If Ministers consider that reduced catch limits are often necessary to protect the future viability of North sea cod, can they not see that they must carry the industry with them, especially in Lowestoft?
The scientists can justify their findings—that is their business—but it is not fair to put them in the firing line. Government must find the median line. It is a matter of judgment, of how far the Government accept what the fishermen report on other matters, such as on what the Belgians, Danes or Dutch did that led to action. The fishermen's reports are surely worth much weight.
Certain parts of the industry may well be prosperous, and with fish prices remaining high and fuel prices low, that can continue. But it does not take much to upset the fine balance—it would not take much to rock the boat. The documents do nothing to push the industry forward; they do nothing to address the transfer of quotas or insufficient by-catches; they leave intact the blatant absurdity of dead fish having to be thrown overboard.
I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will accept my remarks in the spirit in which they were intended, and also that the Lowestoft fishing industry is looking for something that inspires confidence. It does not want cold comfort — it wants assurance that the Government recognise that a UK fisherman's life is his fishing and that economic fish caught and landed legally in Britain are part of the fabric of our way of life. Next week, Lowestoft will be looking for something that will give its fishermen a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
11.30 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: I want first to tell the anti-Scottish cross-party alliance, especially the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) that the success of the Scottish fishing fleet might well owe something to the courage and skill of Scottish fishermen rather than to Government policy. That may not be the way it is seen south of the border, but the distribution of the UK quota between the Scottish and English fleets is set on a historical rather than a current basis, and is biased towards the English fleet. A cynic might say that current policy is that the Humber fleet, having been paid to decommission, is now being paid to recommission and reinvest I ask hon. Members not to look at the industry from the limited basis of only the English ports — the success of the Scottish fleet is a tribute to the skill of the Scottish fishermen, who contribute to the overall prosperity of the industry.
The Minister was right to identify flexibility around the 4 deg. line as being critical to the negotiations. It would

551
be absurd if the Commission cannot be made to realise that mackerel movements have changed. The cod quota is disappointing. It is reasonable for hon. Members to make the point that it is difficult for fishermen to have confidence in these allocations when even the documents before us show a severe question mark over much of the scientific data.
Once again, the Norwegians have obtained a superb deal from the EEC fishery negotiations. I do not know about the transfers of fish between Norway and the EEC, but I would not mind transferring some of the Norwegian negotiators to the EEC. Once again, they have walked away with an excellent deal.
My final point refers to something that has already been raised in the debate — the inherent tendency towards instability in the fishing industry. In a good year, the industry has high investment both in catching and processing. Therefore, if there is a severe shock after that, whether due to quota reductions or lower prices, the effects can be very severe. The common fisheries policy does not provide a framework for medium-term planning in the industry, a point which I think hon. Members on both sides would accept.
I wish to push the Minister on the setting of annual quotas on a single species basis. Annual quotas only encourage and reinforce instability in the industry. Would it not be possible to have a three-year review, so that quotas could be set for three years and provide a framework for planning? Hon. Members would not then have to come to the House, late in the year, with incomplete information, documents from the Select Committee that show a question mark about parliamentary scrutiny, and documents from negotiations between the EEC and Norway that show grave doubts about the adequacy of scientific evidence. With a three-year review, we could consider the needs of industry on a proper basis and provide a reasonable time scale for the industry to plan ahead.
11.35 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): First, I wish to thank the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) for many of his comments. I support especially his remarks about the need to ensure that the Community's fishery arrangements with other countries, and particularly with Africa, are fair and properly policed. If we do not police them effectively, we shall not gain the opportunities that should be open to us. It is of considerable interest to our fishermen that there should be sufficient opportunities elsewhere should our fishing grounds become overcrowded. I agree with the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow that there is a strong moral consideration. In addition, there are practical reasons that should cause us to be concerned.
I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow about the need for fairness. It is true that most fishermen are prepared to put up with a great deal if they feel that the system is fair. One of the difficulties that is associated with the fishing industry is that it is thought by those within it that the foreigner does better than the home fisherman. It is felt also that the neighbours of fishermen are doing better than the home fishermen. That applies to neighbouring Scottish
552
and English fishermen and to fishermen just down the road. It is felt by fishermen that their neighbours are likely to get something that they will not enjoy.
That is natural in an industry that consists of hunting. There is a feeling of competition and a desire to ensure that one's neighbours do not do better than oneself. I understand that, but it is something that makes it difficult for Governments and Oppositions to be clear about the balance that should be achieved when listening to the anecdotal evidence, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) would say, that is presented by fishermen on how we should proceed.
This means that we must depend on scientific evidence on the basis that there is no better evidence available to us. First, however, we must try to improve our scientific evidence. Those who have referred to the passages in the documents about the lack of scientific evidence have drawn attention to the failure of some countries to provide information that they should have made available to others. The provision of information is improving, and it will be unusual, but proper, to say in this place that the personal efforts of Dutch Fisheries Minister, Mr Braks, to ensure considerably better policing of the Dutch fleet and better reporting, are something that we wish to support. We have been extremely rude to Mr. Braks's predecessors and we must recognise that he has made great efforts to improve matters. That is something that we must support because there are others who could follow his good example.
Secondly, there should be updating on the basis of more recent scientific advice. I apologise to the House for the time limit which meant that the documents had to be submitted so quickly. The Commission has not done badly because the meetings of the scientists took place in late November. The evidence on which the documentation is based has to be as recent as possible so that decisions are made in the light of the most recent information. It would be sad if the House felt that the Commission had done other than its best. I hope that the House will accept that I am one of those who are likely to be quite tough with the Commission when things go wrong. On this occasion I must say that it has done as well as could be expected of it. However, if we get further and better evidence in the middle of the season, we should be prepared to use it and to change the quotas.
Thirdly, there is obviously a difference between precautionary quotas or TACs and those that are based on direct scientific evidence. I accept the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) on that score. There are many specific issues that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow raised, and I hope that he will recognise that there is a shortage of time and accept that I should answer them in detail after the debate. I shall be happy to respond in that way. We are still investigating the way in which the system works and examining ways in which we can improve it. When this work has been completed we shall be talking to representatives of the industry. I understand that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow has dined with the Scottish chairman. When I last had lunch with him, the chairman paid for the meal. I understand that that is slightly political. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we try to enter into discussions with all sections of the fishing industry. That is why it is extremely difficult to make any such decisions in terms that the whole fishing industry wants. That is the difficulty about the problems of mesh sizes. Many parts of

553
the fishing industry do not share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend). —[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) may be right, but there are some things about Grimsby that are wrong, such as the national dock labour scheme. It has done more harm to that industry than any other.
Mr. Austin Mitchell rose—
Mr. Gummer: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman should not shout in such a way from a seated position.
Mr. Mitchell: I am not seated.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman must accept that there is disagreement on the matter. When there is a mixed fishery and many different species—
Mr. Mitchell: Will the right hon. Member give way?
Mr. Gummer: No, I shall not give way. I have only a few moments left in which to conclude my remarks. The hon. Gentleman tempted me into making that statement. I would not have done it otherwise, as he knows. I am a mild-mannered person, though I am easily tempted.
I accept that, with a mixed fishery, it is more difficult to get fishermen to agree to a change in mesh sizes. In principle, I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Bridlington and for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw). The measure is not a substitution for quotas and TACs. It should be additional and, once seen to be effective, should enable greater flexibility with TACs and quotas in future. I wholly agree with the view that we should have both systems and many other conservation measures, but, unfortunately, in the interim, until we have made them more effective, we shall have to stick to the system of TACs and quotas which, in a real sense is beginning to work. We should not overlook that fact.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby pointed out his lack of confidence in scientific advice and the problems that arise. I wish that there were better advice but I do not know on what else we should base our decision making. Therefore, we have to take what advice we can. The hon. Gentleman was unfair in regard to policing. The United Kingdom has taken the lead in improving policing.
Mr. Barry Field rose—
Mr. Gummer: I have already refused to give way. I have exactly six minutes left. I wish to answer the question. I promised that I would.
Mr. Field: I shall be extremely brief.
Mr. Gummer: On the basis of fairness, it would be wrong if I were to give way.
We have carried out a tough policing policy. We first got the Commission and the Council to agree to an international policing system. It was violently opposed not only by other countries but by our own fishermen in many areas. Then we got the Council to get the Commission to do a type of league table about how well the policing was done, and pointing out what was wrong. Surprisingly enough, the United Kingdom came top of the list. That was extremely good. It meant that we could point the finger at others. We were also able to put right the things that we had got wrong. We did that so that we could push
554
the others. Then we got an increase in the number of police. More important, we got the right for the Community policing system to look at things without a vast plethora of red tape which meant that everybody knew that the authorities were coming before they arrived. All the changes were achieved in the teeth of opposition from many of those who objected. The effect has been significant.
I have travelled around almost every fishing port in the country. I have also been to many fishing ports in Scotland with the Scottish Office Fisheries Minister. He has also given me reports. In every such port fishermen have told me that things are still not right but that they are much better than they were in respect of policing. They specifically mentioned the improvements in Dutch control and the fact that the Danes have also begun to improve on their past performance.
I inform my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives that I, too, am furious at the wholly unacceptable situation in which foreign boats can masquerade as British boats and gain fish from the quotas that have fairly been given to British fishermen. We are determined to stop that. It is the major undermining factor in the common fisheries policy, and it is the one thing that makes the CFP unacceptable to fishermen—that is, that someone pinches that which is not his.
We have a basic agreement, which we have accepted and which is not unfair to the United Kingdom, but it will become unfair if somebody else cheats; and it is a cheat to pretend that a boat is British when clearly it is not. That is why we are doing something about it and why we are unhappy that the Commission so far has done nothing. It ought to be even more concerned about this than we are, because the system will be acceptable to all nations only if it is fair.
The points made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) are understandable. We shall fight as hard as it is humanly possible to do something about the movement of the mackerel fishery. The hon. Member ought not to underestimate those who are opposed to this, because some of the opposition is based upon the principle that they, too, find the current fisheries policy sacrosanct, and they would not want to give others the opportunity to make changes that would undermine the basic agreement that was so hard won. I do not believe that they need be worried, but I understand why they are.
We have to reassure them that it is no use trying to renegotiate that which we have negotiated; it is merely a matter on which they may have a problem in the future because they may find that the fish have not swum exactly as the Commission thought they should. It is not easy, and I hope the hon. Member will support us in trying to understand it as well as in trying to win the battle.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bridlington and for Waveney talked about the quota for YAFPO. The problem is that YAFPO did not manage its quota properly. It got exactly its fair share of the quota, and if the share is changed other people will get less. When YAFPO went to the industry, the industry kindly gave it more than its fair share. We have done everything in our power to help YAFPO, which has assured me that this will not happen next year because it will run its quota better. Even if there are fewer fish than there is an ability to catch, if more fish are taken from one place, some will have to be taken from somewhere else. The Government should

555
not be faced with that problem, otherwise the hon. Members for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) will say that their fishermen are disadvantaged. There are other points—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business).
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the un-numbered Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 30th November and 3rd December 1987 on total allowable catches and quotas for 1988 and on 2nd December 1987 on the European Community — Norway Fisheries Agreement, European Community Documents Nos 6388/87 on the common organisation of the market in fishery products and 9585/87 on fish guide prices for 1988, and of the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for the United Kingdom's fishing industry for 1988 consistent with the requirements of conservation of stocks.

PETITIONS

  The Arts
  11.48 pm
  Mr. John Bowis: I have pleasure in presenting a petition on the arts, signed by 76,000 men and women. I associate myself with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who will present similar petitions. The petition shows that the arts in Britain have long been undervalued, and prays that
  the House will bring forward urgent measures to improve the public practice, understanding and support of our theatres and orchestras, dance and opera companies, art centres and cinemas, museums and galleries, artists, writers and performers.
  To lie upon the Table.
  Mr. James Wallace: I wish to present a petition in similar terms to the one enunciated by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis). I n doing so, I indicate the cross-party support for the value of the arts in the quality of life in our society and say we wish the House to give proper support to the many and varied forms of art.
  I beg leave to present the petition to the House.
  To lie upon the Table.

Gillian Smallwood
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]
11.49 pm
Mr. Jim Callaghan: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to Mr. Speaker for granting me this debate so quickly after I made my application.
I applied for the debate because I am deeply disturbed about the circumstances surrounding the death of Gillian Smallwood, aged five, while undergoing dental treatment at a clinic in my constituency. The Rochdale community health council is equally worried, as are senior medical staff at the Booth Hall hospital, Blackley, in Manchester. Requests have been made to the Rochdale health authority for an inquiry into the case to find out what went wrong, with a view to preventing similar tragedies in future.
Such requests were turned down locally and, in reply to my letter of 23 July, the Minister of State also turned down my request for a formal inquiry under section 84 of the National Health Service Act 1946. I believe that the Minister and the local health authority are both wrong. I hope that this debate will help to make them reconsider their earlier decision and agree to an inquiry to establish what went wrong in the Gillian Smallwood case and thus help to prevent any other child's death in similar circumstances.
The facts are these. On 21 August 1986, Gillian Smallwood, aged five, attended the Langley clinic, accompanied by her mother, for the extraction of three deciduous molar teeth. Mrs. Smallwood was informed that an additional tooth would need to be removed because it was mobile. Gillian was anaesthetised and had four teeth removed but, during the recovery period, she collapsed. Measures were instituted to resuscitate her. They were not successful and Gillian was transferred to the Booth Hall hospital, Blackley, where she was pronounced dead later that day.
An inquest was held by the Manchester city coroner, Mr. L. Gorodkin on 29 January 1987. He concluded that the cause of death was cardio-respiratory failure, hypoxia, dental anaesthesia, and tracheo-bronchitis, and that Gillian died of the aforesaid, sustained when she was having an anaesthetic for teeth extraction at the dental clinic, Borrowdale road, Langley, Middleton on 21 August 1986, when she had cardiac arrest. She was conveyed by ambulance to Booth Hall hospital, Blackley, where she died shortly after arrival.
Almost one year later, on 17 July 1987, Mr. A. J. Doyle, the district dental officer for Rochdale, wrote a long report defending the staff and the equipment used in the Langley clinic, but he concluded:
"Despite all the enquiries I have made, it has not been demonstrated that anything untoward happened which led to the death of this little girl, and the sad events of that day remain inexplicable."
His findings were submitted to the regional health authority meeting on 28 July 1987 as item No. 2.
I have given only the briefest of facts surrounding Gillian's death. However, the Rochdale community health council was so concerned about all the facts surrounding the death of this child that it wrote to the Rochdale area health authority asking for an inquiry into the events surrounding the case. There was a similar request from the child's parents, made through their solicitor.
558
Unfortunately, the Rochdale health authority appears to have treated the receipt of a solicitor's letter as a major reason for discounting holding an inquiry, despite the fact that the letter related to the parents' wishes for a full inquiry and not to any prospect of legal action. This is a great pity, because the purpose of any inquiry is not simply to determine the cause of death. It can enable people to learn from an event and to take steps to try to prevent such tragedies recurring.
It is most regrettable that the health authority and the Minister appear uninterested in learning from this case. While I am aware that the health authority is almost certainly correct to assert that deaths from anaesthetics are rare, it misses the vital point—whether such rarities are preventable.
I have been told by an eminent doctor that such events are, at least in part, preventable. Dr. T. David, senior lecturer in child health and honorary consultant paediatrician at Booth Hall children's hospital, Blackley, Manchester—a man whom I salute as a dedicated and caring doctor—tells me that it is well known that all general anaesthetics, for whatever reason, carry a small risk of disaster and death. Some such events could be due to errors on the part of the medical staff and some represent unexpected adverse reactions to agents used in anaesthesia. In the latter context, it should be pointed out that Gillian had had several general anaesthetics previously, suggesting that her death was not for this reason.
Despite the smallness of the risk, it is a basic principle that one should plan for disasters and assume that the worst will happen. Yet general anaesthetics in dental surgeries outside hospitals are used not on this basis but on the premise that things rarely go wrong, and, when they do, it is bad luck.
Hospitals are geared up for emergencies such as cardiac arrest. To give an example, at Booth Hall children's hospital, as in any other hospital, cardiac arrests are an everyday event, with the result that all the medical and nursing staff have become well practised in all the procedures. Furthermore, plenty of staff are available.
At a cardiac arrest, the following staff are always called: the medical senior house officer on call, the two surgical SHOs on call, and the medical registrar on call. In addition to these six doctors, extra nursing staff are summoned, as is a porter. Not all these staff are required for efficient treatment, but one will usually need a couple of doctors for a cardiac massage, a doctor to intubate the patient and provide manual ventilation, a doctor to set up an intravenous line, and at least two nurses to assist with the intravenous line and drugs.
The situation in a dental surgery is quite different: a dentist, a dental nurse and an anaesthetist are there. The former may have had some training in resuscitation at some time in the past, but neither is likely ever to have dealt with such events. So there is little comparison with a trained, experienced and practised team.
Thus, there are two aspects of this case. One is the competence of the staff involved, but far more important is the principle whether it is any longer acceptable for children to have treatment under a general anaesthetic in a dental surgery. It is not easy for me to see the justification for such risky procedures in a dental surgery when proper facilities are available in hospitals.
This same Dr. T. J. David wrote to me about these matters, and also about the specific case of Gillian

559
Smallwood on 17 July 1987. He told me that he first saw Gillian soon after her birth at the North Manchester general hospital because of the instability of her hip joint, and that he followed her up at Booth Hall hospital, where she subsequently required surgery to the hip and where she was also treated, under his care, for recurrent respiratory infections. By chance, he was the consultant paediatrician on call the day she died, and, with a consultant anaesthetist at Booth Hall, he supervised an unsuccessful attempt to revive her.
Dr. David told me:
"I think it is most regrettable that a request for an inquiry has been resisted by the Rochdale Health Authority. Their grounds appear to be twofold, that the Coroner has already examined the matter fully, and that deaths from dental general anaesthetics are rare."
He went on to say:
"It is questionable as to how detailed the Coroner's inquiries were. I submitted a short report, in the anticipation that as the Consultant in charge I would be called upon to give evidence, but I was never asked to attend".
On 3 December 1987 Dr. David also sent me a copy of a letter that he had sent to the hon. Lady, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, in which he expressed his concern that the Minister had told me in her recent letter:
"You can be sure that the case was carefully studied to see if new lessons could be learned".
Dr. David's concern about the Gillian Smallwood case is precisely that it has never been carefully studied, and that he thinks it likely that there will be further, similar deaths unless it is studied.
Remembering that Dr. David was the consultant paediatrician looking after Gillian Smallwood from her birth and that he was the consultant in charge of the unsuccessful attempt to revive Gillian when she was brought from the dental surgery to Booth Hall hospital on the day of her death, I quote what he said:
"The fact is that at no time has anyone from Rochdale Health Authority or the Regional Health Authority, carefully studying Gillian's death, ever contacted me about her preexisting medical or surgical condition, her previous operations and anaesthetics or to obtain details of her final demise."
The consultant anaesthetist at Booth Hall hospital, who was assisting our attempts, has similarly never been contacted. The only people whom I have heard from are the Rochdale community health council, which has expressed its concern, and the parents' solicitors who, on behalf of the parents, have been pressing unsuccessfully for a full investigation. Thus, the suggestion that "careful inquiries" have been made is incorrect. The lack of desire to prevent a similar tragedy is the most depressing aspect of the case.
Having listened to Dr. David, I believe that any anaesthetic carries the risk of a serious adverse event, and possibly death.
It is self-evident that, if a disaster occurs and somebody sustains a cardiac arrest during anaesthetic, the facilities and staff are likely to be better in a hospital than in a dentist's surgery or in a community dental clinic, and if cardiac arrest occurs the patient stands a better chance of survival if the procedure is undertaken in hospital.
I draw attention to an editorial in Anaesthesia in 1979 —volume 34, pages 523–525—which makes it clear that anaesthetics in dental premises should be urgently phased out, and certainly should not be taking place in 1987.
560
I believe that Gillian's death was potentially avoidable, and I should like steps to be taken to bring about a rapid halt to general anaesthetics performed for dentistry on children outside hospitals.
I am sure that it will be appreciated that I am deeply concerned about the tragic death of Gillian Smallwood and am anxious to do all that can be done to establish, as quickly as possible, what happened to her and what measures need to be taken to prevent a similar tragedy.
I call on the Minister, and I am supported by Dr. David, the Rochdale community health council and Gillian's parents, to set up an inquiry into this sad and tragic case to see what lessons can be learned from it.
12.1 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I congratulate the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) on his success in the ballot.
I should start with an apology for not responding to the hon. Gentleman's letter of 23 July 1987, which has never turned up. The delays since he wrote to me on 17 September were unsatisfactory, and I have expressed my dissatisfaction to officials. I expect that the muddle was in part due to confusing him with his illustrious and noble Friend, who had left the House at the time that my officials were trying to contact him. At the time, the office was dealing with about 1,000 letters a week. However, the hon. Gentleman drew attention to the non-reply on 26 November and received an answer the next day. He has my unreserved apology for the delay.
Mr. Callaghan: I thank the Minister for those comments.
Mrs. Currie: On 21 August 1986, Gillian Smallwood, a little girl of five and a half years, attended the Langley clinic at Middleton in Rochdale for the extraction of three teeth under general anaesthesia. She had previously attended the clinic in February 1986, when five deciduous teeth were extracted under general anaesthesia.
Gillian was generally well, but had suffered from a congenital dislocation of the hip and had been an inpatient at Booth Hall children's hospital during July 1986 for the removal of pins.
The anaesthetic history was that Gillian came into the surgery at approximately 2.25 pm, accompanied by her mother, who stayed during the induction. It was agreed that a mobile deciduous incisor would be extracted in addition to the three already designated. The anaesthetic was administered by Dr. Padmanabhan, who holds a consultant appointment with the Rochdale health authority. One hundred per cent. oxygen was administered for between one and two minutes before nitrous oxide at 6 litres per minute was turned on. The oxygen flow was reduced to 2·5 litres a minute and Halothane 0·5·1 per cent. added. A prop was inserted by the anaesthetist, the mouth packed by the dental officer, Miss Arnold, arid three of the teeth were extracted.
During the transfer of the prop to the left side, the child became restless and it was then noticed that the flow of nitrous oxide had ceased. This was re-established by the anaesthetist opening the valve further, the child settled and the remaining extraction was effected.
The extractions were described as uncomplicated and, at this stage, the child's colour was said to he good. The

561
nitrous oxide and Halothane were turned off, but oxygenation was continued. It was then noticed that the child had urinated, that she was pale and had stopped breathing. Positive pressure ventilation was commenced using the rebreathing bag, an endotracheal tube, which first had to be shortened, was passed and connected to the anaesthetic machine and 2 to 3 ml of adrenaline 1:1,000 administered directly into the heart. The child was then moved on to the floor so that cardiac massage could be commenced and an ambulance and crash team were requested. Help was also summoned from the health centre. Dr. Philip Rowlands, a general medical practitioner attending a vaccination clinic, and three district nurses responded. Dr. Rowlands, acting under the direction of the anaesthetist, administered further adrenaline and commenced external cardiac massage. The child was transferred to hospital, where she was declared dead. At the inquest, Dr. Rowlands gave a clear indication that the child was already dead by the time he arrived.
The post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Lindon, the consultant pathologist at Booth Hall children's hospital. She gave evidence that Gillian was well cared for and well nourished and confirmed the presence of an operational scar over her left hip. No evidence of any other congenital defect was found, nor evidence of any disease except for an upper respiratory tract infection of moderate severity. Dr. Lindon was unable to comment on the effect of the disruption in the flow of nitrous oxide, but when questioned on the effect of the administration of Halothane on three separate occasions in relatively quick succession, she stated that she found no evidence of Halothane toxicity.
Mr. Callaghan: I have all those details from the coroner's report.
Mrs. Currie: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has confirmed that.
The coroner concluded that there were four causes of death: cardio-respiratory failure, hypoxia — lack of oxygen—dental anaesthesia and tracheo-bronchitis. The finding was misadventure.
Therefore, we appear to have a child with a cold receiving general anaesthesia which appeared to have been less than sufficient at some point during the operation. The child collapsed soon afterwards.
I express my deepest sympathy for the parents in what was a totally unexpected death. I should like to draw attention to the excellent facilities and expert staff at the Langley clinic. That clinic is specially equipped to administer general anaesthetic. There are only three such clinics in Rochdale. Most of the general dental practitioners, at whom the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton or Dr. David might be directing many of their criticisms, do not do general anaesthetics now in Rochdale. It is done in the special clinics.
The anaesthetic equipment was well maintained and in good working order. The anaesthetic was administered by a consultant anaesthetist, not a registrar or a senior house officer, who was employed precisely for that purpose. A full range of emergency equipment was available—and indeed, it is not unusual to have to shorten a tube as has been described. The staff were fully trained in the
562
emergency treatment of a cardiac arrest and had recently attended a refresher course. Therefore, I reject all the criticisms that have been made.
I should comment on the response of the clinic staff to the child's condition. The consultant anaesthetist led the attempt to help the child. The drug adrenaline, recommended for use in such situations, was available and was used. The mother was not present while resuscitation was attempted and she has complained about that. However, that was because the staff were concentrating on treating the child. An ambulance was called and during the journey to hospital the child was still being treated by the consultant anaesthetist. The crash team was not included because the ambulance by itself was quicker. I know that the consultant concerned should have all the skills necessary for resuscitation if such resuscitation turned out to be possible.
Gillian died on 21 August. The matter was reported to the health authority on 26 August and it was agreed that if the inquest indicated a need, an inquiry would be held. In the light of the inquest, which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, set out clearly all the facts of the case, the health authority felt that a further inquiry would not be necessary. It published its own report on the events with commendable speed, and I know that the hon. Gentleman has a copy. Since then, there has been an exchange of correspondence with the Smallwoods' solicitor, the community health council and Dr. David, all requesting an inquiry. I can do no better than quote my reply to the hon. Gentleman of 27 November, in which I said:
"Having studied the report and taken advice, I have concluded that the report"—
I am referring to the report of the health authority—
"has adequately covered the sad events of this particular case, and that the case itself does not give rise to any general issues concerning the safety of dental anaesthesia. I have therefore decided that a further formal inquiry under section 84 of the NHS Act would not be justified."
That is the section of the law that we have used recently, for example, in the investigation of the outbreak of salmonella at Stanley Royd hospital and of Legionnaire's disease at Stafford hospital. We do not consider that it is appropriate or justified to hold an inquiry in the terms that have been requested.
Once Gillian collapsed, everybody acted with commendable speed and everything that could have been done was done. All the correct equipment was in use and working. All the correct guidelines were followed. All the facts are known.
I have received a letter from Dr. David from the department of child health at Manchester university. He was the consultant paediatrician who attended Gillian soon after she was born and subsequently because of her congenital hip problem. He says that he was never interviewed, but in all honesty I doubt whether he could throw any more light on the events in the clinic that surrounded her death, since he was not there.
Mr. Callaghan: He has never been asked.
Mrs. Currie: Those events seem clear to me.
Mr. Callaghan: What about Dr. David?
Mrs. Currie: I am sorry, I am responding to the hon. Gentleman, not to Dr. David, which I shall do in due course.
At the time, the child was under the care of a consultant anaesthetist who was well qualified for the job and who

563
had been appointed precisely for that purpose. The family have taken legal advice and they also have the hon. Gentleman to advise them. I believe that they have access to all the papers from the authority that I have seen. They must decide how to proceed, but I am satisfied that the health authority has done everything that it can and should have done, and I see no reason for calling another inquiry.
I want specifically to reject Dr. David's assertion that all general anaesthesia on children should be done in hospital. That is not necessary or desirable. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the rules of the General Dental Council as set out in its paper of April 1983, particularly to paragraph 5. That sets out rules that have been accepted throughout Britain and which have been a considerable improvement on the previous arrangements, which were the subject of some criticism.
Paragraph 5 says:
"A dentist who carried out treatment under general anaesthesia or sedation without fulfilling these conditions"—
which were set out in great detail in the notes for guidance—
"would almost certainly be considered to have acted in a manner which constitutes infamous or disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
No such complaint has been made at any time, and I strongly believe that no such complaint could possibly be sustained.
As I read through the papers I found the case upsetting. I have two daughters of my own. I found myself wondering why Gillian was having her teeth out in the first place. She had lost five on a previous visit, also under general anaesthesia, and was about to lose four on this occasion. I have taken advice on that.
I understand that Gillian's dental extractions were necessary because of rampant caries of her deciduous dentition. A photograph of Gillian published in the Manchester Evening News on 29 January 1987 and 17 March 1987 showed her with very broken-down teeth.
The incidence of dental caries in young children in Rochdale has not fallen since 1980 and is much higher than the national average. A typical five-year-old in 1985 in Rochdale had 1·7 decayed teeth, 0·7 missing teeth and 0·8 filled teeth. The equivalent in England in 1983—the most recent figures that I have which are reasonable for comparison purposes—show 1·1 decayed teeth and 0·5 filled teeth. That is a big difference. The mean number of teeth extracted per child treated in Rochdale in 1985—I am talking about children aged between five and nine—
564
was 0·74 and in England it was 0·45. One could put that rather crudely by saying that three-quarters of the children of that age treated at the dentist lost a tooth in Rochdale, whereas it was less than half in England as a whole. Rochdale's children have some of the worst teeth in the country. The record is not one to be proud of.
I also asked whether we had lost any other children like this. I am sad to say that the answer was yes. In 1986, there were two deaths of children associated with general anaesthesia for dental treatment. The other child was four years and four months old, and came from Halifax.
It is normal for children to eat sweets. I reflected on this little girl who had had nine teeth extracted before her sixth birthday through caries and on my younger daughter who loves sweet things and has now reached ten and a half without ever having a single filling or losing a single tooth from dental caries. She is typical of children in Birmingham, where she grew up. The difference is that one child lives in an area with fluoride in its water and the other lived in an area without fluoride. Furthermore, there is no fluoride in the water in Halifax, where the other death occurred.
I am aware that these comments are not entirely fair, because there have been deaths under general dental anaesthesia in Birmingham, too. However, it is possible to cut the risk of such terrible tragedies happening. It is possible to reduce the number of children who need general anaesthesia for necessary and painful dental treatment for bad teeth. I hope that, when the regional and district health authorities in the hon. Gentleman's area move to introduce fluoride — a move that we support and which we shall finance—he will give due thought to this terrible case. I know that some people resent being given what they consider to be unethical medication, but we should not pay for our principles with the death of a child. When the hon. Gentleman is given the opportunity to raise this issue, I hope that he will bear in mind that, had this child lived in a fluoridated area, she might not have died. I know that that does not help the family, but I have to put it on record.
I hope that I have answered the hon. Gentleman's points. The facts are all there and are available for further inspection. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman discusses the matter further with the Smallwood family and lets them decide whether they would like to take the matter further, and in what form.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Midnight.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Hill and Upland Areas
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if Her Majesty's Government have completed their review of the economic conditions in the hill and upland areas; and if he will make a statement on the rates of hill livestock compensatory allowances and associated scheme conditions for 1988.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My right hon. Friends and I have now completed the annual review of economic conditions in the hills and uplands.

  Even allowing for recent bad weather, the economic prospects for farmers in the less-favoured areas are currently looking significantly better than at this time last year. Most LFA livestock producers have benefited from a 35 per cent. rise in suckler cow premium and the green pound devaluations, which have provided increased support through the sheep annual premium and beef variable premium. The Government have decided that the rates of hill livestock compensatory allowances should be maintained at their present levels for 1988. The associated conditions will also remain unchanged, apart from some minor amendments to the scheme rules. We shall be laying a statutory instrument shortly to give effect to these changes, which will he explained to claimants when the application forms are dispatched.

  The Government continue to recognise the importance of the hill and upland areas in the United Kingdom and their reliance on the compensatory allowances for the economic well-being of livestock production. A healthy livestock sector in the hills and uplands makes a major contribution to agriculture, the rural economy and the environment. The Government are committed to providing appropriate support to meet the special needs of livestock producers in those areas. This commitment is demonstrated by the fact that total HLCA payments next year are expected to be over £110 million, virtually double the 1979 levels.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the responsibilities of each of the deputy secretaries in his Department and the numbers and ranks of staff reporting to each.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Information on the five grade 2 posts, which include deputy secretary appointments, in my department and the number of staff reporting to them on 1 October 1987 is as follows:

  Post

  No. of Staff

  Deputy Secretary (Agricultural Commodities)

  222·0

  Deput) Secretary (Land and Resources)

  781·5

  Deputy Secretary (Fisheries and Food)

  1065·5

  Legal Adviser and Solicitor

  68·0

  158

  Post

  No. of Staff

  Director General of ADSAS and Regional

  Organisation

  6585·5

  Details of their responsibilities prior to 1 October 1987 are set out in the "Civil Service Year Book 1987", which is available in the Library of the House. From I October the Director General of ADAS took over responsibility for the regional organisation, although the Deputy Secretary (Land and Resources) retains responsibility for liaison on policy issues with that command.

  There are about 200 grades in my Department and a breakdown of staff in each grade by each of the grade 2 commands is not readily available. There are 24 grade 3 posts. For grades 4 in the open structure and below, the numbers by grade are given in Her Majesty's Treasury publication "Staff in Post: Civil Service: Departmental Totals by Sex: Non-Industrial Staff: Grade by Department Analysis on I April 1987", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Similar details are not available for industrial staff, of which there were 573·5 on 1 October 1987, mainly in the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service.

  The figures exclude staff in establishments, finance and management services groups, the secretariat and vacant posts.

  Butter
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to the average retail price of (i) Welsh, (ii) English, (iii) Danish and (iv) New Zealand butter.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  information collected for the purposes of the retail prices index indicates that, in October 1987, the average prices of butter were as follows:

  pence per gramme

  Home produced

  52p per 250g

  Danish

  56p per 250g

  New Zealand

  50p per 250g

  No separate information is collected on prices for Welsh or English butter.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply of 30 November, what has been the cost to the United Kingdom Treasury to date of the cost of disposing of the 97,190 tons of butter released between 1 December 1986 and 31 October 1987; and if this full amount will fall to be repaid by the Community after 1989 under the arrangements agreed in March 1987.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 7 December 1987]: Disposal of this butter has saved money for the Exchequer from reduced storage charges. Without the special scheme the butter would have remained in store and, as I explained in my previous reply, no reimbursements for loss on sale would have been received from the Community. Under the scheme these reimbursements will be paid, but delayed to the four years from 1989. Therefore, the Exchequer is no worse off in this respect. 97,190 tonnes occupy a considerable volume of cold storage, which would have cost about £7.5 million per year to provide.

  Poultry Farming
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has received over the past five years regarding the adverse environmental impact of the establishment of intensive poultry farming in England.

  Mr. Gummer
  Information is readily available only for the period from 1 January 1985 to date, during which my Department received 11 representations about environmental concerns in relation to poultry units.

  Tree Disease
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the dangers of disease spreading from trees uprooted in the recent hurricane to other healthy trees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  There is no immediate danger of disease spreading from windblown trees, because the insects and fungi active in the rotting of wood are dormant during the winter months. The Forestry Commission will, however, be keeping a watch on the situation.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many environmentally sensitive areas have been or are being designated in Devon.

  Mr. Gummer
  [Holding answer 7 December 1987]: No environmentally sensitive areas have been or are about to be designated in Devon. The areas which have been chosen for designation now include all those in England shortlisted by the Countryside Commission and Nature Conservancy Council.

  Tomato Imports
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what system he has to ensure that on occasions when it is known that growing conditions in the Canary Islands are going to give rise to exports of tomatoes of poor intrinsic condition, the Horticultural Inspectorate is deployed to ensure that no out-of-grade fruit leaves the dockside in the United Kingdom or is admitted in roll on-roll off vehicles from the continent.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 8 December 1987]: When problems with quality of horticultural imports arise or are expected, it is the practice to redeploy horticultural marketing inspectors, so as to intensify quality control at main points of entry. Produce failing to meet minimum standards is outgraded. Although such intensive action has not so far been needed for the Canary Islands tomatoes, we would not hesitate to take action if necessary.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of expenditure in 1986–87 and 1987–88 by the agricultural departments on agricultural grants and subsidies, excluding market regulation, under the common agricultural policy.
  160
  Mr. MacGregor
  Details are given in the table of the outturn for 1986–87 and the latest forecast of outturn for 1987–88.

  (£ million)

  Outturn 1986–87

  Latest fore-cast of out-turn 1987–88

  Price Guarantees

  Wool

  8·1

  2·5

  Potatoes

  —

  —

  8·1

  2·5

  Support for capital and other improvements

  Environmentally sensitive areas

  —

  3·6

  Agriculture and Horticulture development scheme

  45·3

  43·1

  Guidance premiums

  3·2

  2·0

  Farm accounts

  0·7

  0·7

  Farm structure

  0·3

  0·2

  Northern Ireland agricultural development programme

  4·0

  2·2

  Agriculture and Horticulture grant scheme

  25·6

  1·9

  Agriculture improvement scheme (EC)

  7·5

  29·8

  Agriculture improvement scheme (National)

  8·9

  8·6

  Others

  0·2

  0·5

  95·7

  92·6

  Support for agriculture in special areas

  Hill livestock compensatory allowances

  121·7

  114·8

  Additional benefit to farmers in special areas under AHDS, NIADP, AHGS, AIS(EC) and AIS(nat)

  29·9

  25·3

  Others

  4·9

  3·8

  156·5

  143·9

  Other payments

  Milk outgoers scheme

  9·5

  10·9

  Weather aid 1985

  —

  —

  Sheep compensation scheme

  4·3

  1·0

  Cooperation grants

  2·7

  2·5

  Producer organisation

  1·0

  0·8

  Forage groups

  0·4

  0·4

  17·9

  15·6

  Grand total

  278·2

  254·6

  Some of this expenditure attracts contributions from the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund. These are mainly received in the following year. In 1987–88, £36.7 million is expected to be received from the fund, compared with £41.5 million in 1986–87.

  The individual figures may not add up to the totals shown due to roundings.

  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide details of expenditure in 1986–87 and 1987–88 by the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce and the agricultural departments on market regulation under the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Details of the outturn for 1986–87 and the latest forecast of outturn for 1987–88 are as follows:
  161

  (£ million)

  Outturn 1986–87

  Latest forecast of outturn 1987–88

  (i) Expenditure by the intervention board for agricultural produce

  Cereals

  114·5

  191·1

  Beef and Veal

  229·7

  243·0

  Pigmeat

  -2·4

  -1·7

  Sugar

  114·9

  136·8

  Processed Goods

  41·6

  45·5

  Milk Products

  299·6

  282·1

  Oil Seeds

  118·4

  195·9

  Sheepmeat

  102·3

  124·7

  Others

  18·1

  28·8

  1,036·7

  1,246·2

  (ii) Expenditure by the agricultural departments

  Payments to milk producers giving up milk production

  —

  51·0

  Milk Non-Marketing Premiums

  —

  —

  Suckler Cow Premium Scheme

  26·9

  37·0

  Annual premium on ewes

  101·7

  143·8

  Small cereals producers

  —

  3·4

  Grand Total

  128·6

  235·2

  Expenditure includes the beef and sheepmeat variable premium schemes (net of clawback for sheepmeat and charges on beef exported and sold into intervention), the premium schemes for the non-marketing of milk and the conversion of dairy herds, suckler cow premium scheme, annual premium on ewes, payments to producers giving up milk production, scheme to aid small cereal producers, refunds on imports and exports (net of levies), the school milk subsidy, and the net cost of buying commodities into intervention less proceeds from sales. It also takes account of certain receipts treated as negative expenditure, namely monetary compensatory amounts levied on intraCommunity trade and the co-responsibility levies on cereals and milk producers and supplementary levy on milk producers. Of the estimated outturn for 1987–88 £1,333.1 million is expected to be financed from the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF), the balance being financed from Exchequer funds. In 1986–87, £1,439–3 million was financed from EAGGF. Some of the expenditure shown above benefits consumers and trade interests rather than United Kingdom producers.

PRIME MINISTER

  Japan (British Investment)
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Prime Minister what information she has received regarding the Japanese Government's undertaking to license a second KDD international telecommunications consortium, including British investment through Cable and Wireless plc; and whether in the light of previous representations made by herself, other Ministers and parliamentarians of all parties, Her Majesty's Government will take a continuing interest in the progress of further negotiations.

  The Prime Minister
  I understand that Mr. Nakayama, the Japanese Minister for Posts and Telecommunications,162
  has now awarded a licence to the International Digital Communications consortium, of which Cable and Wireless is a member. I very much welcome this decision.

  The Government have expressed consistent support for Cable and Wireless's involvement in the IDC consortium and I raised the issue personally with Mr. Nakasone earlier this year.

  We shall continue to follow with close interest the progress of this project.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Soviet Studies
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much is being spent in the current academic year on Soviet studies in universities and polytechnics; and what proposals he has to increase such allocations.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many full-time students in higher education receive no maintenance grant from public funds.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 20 November 1987]: In 1985–86, some 89,000 students in receipt of mandatory or full-value discretionary awards received fee payments, but no maintenance, because of high parental or other income. In 1983–84, some 20,000 students in full-time higher education were estimated to be receiving neither maintenance nor fees from public funds. More recent estimates are unavailable.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Funerals
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what evidence he has of variations in prices for funerals, and of regional differences; and how many complaints have been received by his Department on this matter in the last five years.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has received around 70 representations concerning funeral prices in the last five years. In the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the acquisition by the Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd. of the Scottish funerals business of House of Fraser plc, there is some discussion of regional differences in costs. I am not aware of other evidence of price variations.

  Belgian Carpet Imports
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will provide information, on a quarterly basis, showing total imports into the United Kingdom of Belgian carpets for 1985, 1986 and for the first three quarters of 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is as follows:
  163

  United Kingdom imports of carpets from Belgium-Luxembourg

  Value:£000's

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  1985

  20,610

  23,473

  25,335

  30,240

  1986

  24,402

  24,083

  29,354

  34,346

  1987

  26,283

  30,537

  32,280

  —

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Notes:

  1. Carpets defined as Standard International Trade Classification Revision 2, Sub-group 659 less items 659.1, 63 and 7.

  2. Imports Country Whence Consigned; cif basis.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action he intends to take in relation to low-cost Belgian carpets being imported into the United Kingdom; what representations he has made concerning Belgian state aid to their textile and carpet industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Government have made a number of representations in support of action by the European Commission against Belgian subsidies to their textile and carpet industry. Further representations will be made as appropriate in consultation with the United Kingdom industry.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received from within the United Kingdom concerning unfair competition resulting from the importing into the United Kingdom of low-cost Belgian carpets, and what share of the United Kingdom carpet market Belgian carpet suppliers now take.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I have received various representations from time to time concerning the provision of aid to the Belgian carpet industry but none recently relating specifically to low-cost imports into the United Kingdom. Belgian carpets accounted for 13 per cent. by value of the United Kingdom carpet market in 1986.

  Council of Industry Ministers
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a report on the outcome of the Council of Industry Ministers' meeting on 8 December.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I attended a meeting of the Council of Industry Ministers in Brussels on 8 December and took part in a discussion on the future of the steel market after the present quota arrangements end on 31 December 1987. I pressed for the earliest practicable return to a quota-free market in all categories of steel products and for progress with the further restructuring of the European industry that is necessary for the return to free market conditions to be orderly. I argued the case for steel users in British industry to be able to purchase steel at competitive and not artificial prices. I also underlined the point that the British Steel Corporation has carried out very extensive restructuring of its plants, has raised its performance and productivity, and is now inhibited by the present quota regime from taking full advantage of its competitive position. So far as the British position on further restructuring is concerned, I adhered to the position I outlined to the House in my statement on 3 December.

  The Council and the Commission are agreed on the need to restructure the European industry and to end the quota system at the earliest suitable moment. Considerable
  164
  discussion took place, however, on the pace of change and on the details, on which a wide range of views emerged. No final decisions could be reached, but the following conclusions were agreed unanimously as the basis for further discussion at another meeting of the Council on 22 December:

  (a) The Council will take a decision on the basis of a Commission proposal on 22 December 1987 on whether the quota system should be continued beyond 31 December 1987. It will take its decision in the light of the efforts that each member state concerned has undertaken to make in the meantime concerning reduction of excess capacity in each of the categories Ia and Ib, II and III. To that end the Commission will arrange for appropriate consultations of member states before 22 December 1987, with a view to producing clear and credible indications by 22 December 1987 of the willingness of Governments, after consultation with their industries, to undertake a sufficient reduction of capacity in both state and private sector undertakings by means of closures.

  (b) On 22 December the Council and the Commission will consider whether the result of the efforts referred to in (a) is satisfactory. Before 22 December 1987, the Commission will consider the situation of category I in the light of the comments of Ministers. If the results have been satisfactory the Council will consider the Commission's proposals for the extension of the quota system for categories I, II and III until 30 June 1988.

  (c) Before 10 June 1988, all member states concerned should produce specific and binding undertakings by Government and industries as to the share of their state-owned and private sector industries in the reduction of the surplus.

  (d) The reference of the quota system should be updated and simplified in the context of the decision to be taken before the end of June on the extension of the quota system.

  The extension covering categories II and III should run until 31 December 1990, provided the necessary undertakings on reduction of production capacity mentioned under (c) is achieved. As regards category I, the Commission will make proposals in the light of the situation in this category and of the undertakings of the industry concerning closures and in the perspective of parallel treatment of this category with categories II and III.

  (e) Should the above-mentioned procedure fail to produce the undertakings mentioned under (c), the quota system expires automatically by the end of June 1988.

  The Commission also made the following declaration to clarify the effect of point (a) of these conclusions, in terms accepted by the Council:
  "With regard to point (a) of the conclusions of the Council, the Commission confirms that 'sufficient reduction' means capacity reductions of the scale indicated by the Three Wise Men in their final report, and by the Commission in the communication to the Council."
  In my opinion, the progress of these negotiations so far poses no problem at all for the preparations for privatisation of the British Steel Corporation which I announced last week.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will examine the possibility of reclassifying as a child tax relief that part of child benefit received by families who pay more in income tax than they receive in child benefit.
  165
  Mr. Major
  No. Payments made by the Government are usually treated as public expenditure rather than negative taxation unless the payments are an integral part of the tax system. The definition of public expenditure used in the public expenditure White Paper follows in the main national accounting conventions which in turn follow international guidelines.

  Distribution of Income
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the figures on the distribution of income in the United Kingdom for 1984–85 will be published.

  Mr. Major
  The estimates for the distribution of income in the United Kingdom for 1984–85 are to appear in the November issue of Economic Trends, which is expected to be published on Friday 18 December.

  Overseas Assets
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the sterling value of British-owned assets held abroad(a) in the United States of America and (b) elsewhere, as at 16 October 1987, and on 7 December 1987.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 7 December 1987]: I regret that the information is not available.

  Job Creation
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his reply of 26 November,Official Report, column 293, how many of the jobs created between 1983 and 1986 were (a) in manufacturing industry and (b) in the services sector.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 7 December 1987]: For Great Britain, the figures of net changes in employment are as follows:

  Grew Britain employment (including self-employed): thousands, seasonally adjusted (changes on a year earlier in brackets)

  Manufacturing

  Services

  Total (Manufacturing, services and other)

  June 1983

  5,580

  14,485

  22,716

  June 1984

  5,496

  15,007

  23,166

  (-84)

  (+552)

  (+450)

  June 1985

  5,478

  15,445

  23,553

  (-18)

  (+438)

  (+387)

  June 1986

  5,360

  15,748

  23,666

  (-118)

  (+303)

  (+113)

  Change between

  June 1983 and

  June 1986

  -220

  +1,263

  +950

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Metropolitan Police (Manpower Wastage)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he proposes to take any measures to reduce wastage of manpower from the Metropolitan police force.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We fully support the Commissioner's efforts to reduce wastage and to improve 166
  recruitment. Currently, about half the retirements from the Metropolitan police are voluntary resignations or transfers to other forces.

  The reasons for leaving the force are monitored, but most, such as domestic ties and the quality of life, are outside the control of the Commissioner. None the less, counselling and advice is given by divisional managers to officers seeking to leave the force early to see if their difficulties may be overcome and their decisions reversed. We hope, too, that the pay review which will be undertaken soon by the Police Negotiating Board will consider whether the remuneration package for officers in London needs revision to meet the problem of wastage.

  A special effort to recruit Londoners, who may be less likely to move away, is part of the current programme of recruitment, which is running at an all-time high., as is the strength of the force.

  Upholstery
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to amend the standard required for Home Office contract upholstery from BS5852 part 2 crib 5 to crib 7; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Home Department's draft guide to fire precautions in existing residential care premises advises that upholstered seating should satisfy as a minimum standard the cigarette and match ignitability tests to BS5852 part 1 and crib ignition source 5 of BS5852 part 2. There is no present intention to amend this to crib 7. The draft guide to fire precautions in places of entertainment (which is currently the subject of consultation) proposes that in temporary structures, tents, marquees etc. upholstery should satisfy ignition source 5 but that where there is a higher than normal risk to life in these premises, it may be necessary to require upholstery to satisfy ignition source 7.

  British Nationality Act 1981
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the extension of the time limit for registration under the British Nationality Act 1981.

  Mr. Renton
  We have received six letters from hon. Members and two from organisations.

  Prisons
  Mr. Chris Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were(a) the categories and (b) the numbers of individual doses of drugs administered to inmates at (i) Her Majesty's prison Pentonville, (ii) Risley remand centre and (iii) Appleton Thorn youth custody centre in the latest available year.

  Mr. John Patten
  The following table provides the information requested in respect of Her Majesty's prison Pentonville and Her Majesty's remand centre, Risley.

  The larger part of the medical services at Her Majesty's youth custody centre Thorn Cross (Appleton Thorn) are provided by one doctor. It is a long established policy not to publish information about the prescribing practice of individual doctors.
  167

  Number of doses of medicine administered to inmates (Year ended 31 March 1987)

  Prescription only medicines

  Establishment

  (1) Medicines available without prescription in the community

  (2) Psychotropic drugs1

  (3) Hypnotic drugs

  (4) Drugs acting on the central nervous system2

  (5) Other drugs and medicines

  (i) HMP Pentonville

  112,801

  20,863

  1,504

  20,185

  90,583

  (ii) HMRC Risley

  162,100

  24,814

  9,223

  22,667

  68,345

  1 ie antidepressants, sedatives and tranquillisers.

  2 Other than those shown in columns (2) and (3).

  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects Lord Colville's review of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 to be completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Lord Colville's report of his review of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 is published today. We are very grateful to Lord Colville for his wide-ranging and detailed study. My right hon. Friend informed the House on 23 July at column 338 that he had decided that it would not be wise to discontinue the powers in sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act. The Government have considered the recommendations made by Lord Colville on the use of these powers, and have concluded that the decision announced on 23 July should be confirmed. In considering their response to the report's other recommendations, the Government will wish to take full account of views which may be expressed in Parliament and elsewhere. Lord Colville's scrutiny of the operation of the Act in 1987 will be published in advance of the debates on the renewal of the Act.

  Nationality Registration
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those journals in which he has recently advertised details of how to apply for British nationality by registration; if information that such an option will cease on 31 December 1987 was included; and what steps he took to ascertain the level of readership by different ethnic minority groups of such journals.

  Mr. Renton
  Details of how to apply for British nationality by registration were advertised in 55 local newspapers and 11 ethnic minority papers in March of this year. A further advertisement was placed in 29 local papers and 10 ethnic papers in September of this year. Lists of the newspapers are as follows.

  The local advertising was placed in newspapers which cover areas with high concentrations of ethnic minorities, as indentified from data provided by the Office of Population Censuses and Survey.

  The local and the ethnic minority press serving these areas were identified in consultation with a specialist ethnic minority advertising agency.

  The advertisements drew attention to those options to apply for British nationality by registration which will cease on 31 December 1987.

  Advertisements in March 1987 appeared in:—

  Barnet Independent

  Birmingham Daily News

  Birmingham Evening Mail

  168

  Blackburn Citizen

  Bradford Star

  Bradford Telegraph & Argos

  Brent Leader

  Cardiff Post

  Coventry Citizen

  Coventry Weekly News

  Croydon Post

  Croydon Comet

  Derby Trader

  Ealing Leader

  Ealing Recorder

  Enfield Advertiser

  Greenwich Mercury

  Hackney Echo

  Hackney Gazette

  (Hammersmith) West London Leader

  Haringey Advertiser

  Haringey Independent

  Harrow Leader

  Hillingdon Leader

  Hounslow Informer

  Hounslow Chronicle Extra

  Ilford Independent

  Islington Gazette

  (Kirkless) Huddersfield Daily Examiner

  (Kirkless) Huddersfield Weekly News

  Lambeth Streatham Guardian

  Lewisham & Sydenham Comet

  Lewisham & Catford Mercury

  Leeds Weekly News

  Leicester Mail

  Leicester Trader

  Manchester Advertiser

  Manchester A.M.

  Merton and Wimbledon Informer

  Newham Recorder

  Nottingham Trader

  Preston Citizen

  Reading Standard

  Sandwell Trader

  Sheffield Weekly Gazette

  Slough Express Midweek

  Southwark Sparrow

  Stratford and Newham Express

  Streatham and Lambeth Comet

  Waltham Forest Extra

  Waltham Fellow Advertiser

  Wandsworth and Putney Guardian

  Harrow and Wembley Recorder

  Ilford Yellow Advertiser

  Barnet Borough Times

  Voice

  Gleaner

  Caribbean Times

  Asian Times

  New Life

  Surma Bengali News

  Daily Jang

  Guvari Gujarati

  Punjabi Times

  Amar Deep

  African Times

  169
  Advertisements on 10 September 1987 appeared in:

  Birmingham Daily News

  Glasgow Evening Times

  Daily Jang

  African Times

  Bristol Observer

  Barnet Independent

  Blackburn Citizen

  Bradford Star

  Cardiff Post

  Coventry Citizen

  Croydon Advertiser & Post

  Derby Trader

  Ealing Leader

  Edinburgh Advertiser

  Hackney Gazette

  Haringey Advertiser

  Harrow Leader

  Hounslow Informer

  Huddersfield News

  Leeds Weekly News

  Lewisham & Catford Mercury

  Leicester Mail

  Manchester Advertiser—West

  Nottingham Trader

  Putney & Wandsworth Guardian

  Slough Observer Midweek

  South London Press

  Stratford & Newham Express News

  Waltham Forest Extra

  Brent Leader

  Amar Deep

  Caribbean Times

  Garavi Gujarati

  Ravi Asian Newspaper

  Surma Bengali News Weekly

  Weekly Gleaner

  Des Pardes

  Stardust

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to extend the deadline of 31 December registration of British nationality in the event of interruption to the postal service.

  Mr. Renton
  We have no power to extend the deadline. There is, however, limited power to consider late applications on their individual merits.

  Immigration
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Horne Department (1) what was the number of dependants of men and women settled in the United Kingdom after 1973 who were refused entry clearance, under the immigration rule change, HC503, on the grounds that they would have recourse to public funds, in that they required provision of temporary accommodation by a local authority;

  (2) what is his estimate of the number of dependants of men and women settled in the United Kingdom after 1973 who will be refused entry clearance, if section 1.5 of the Immigration Act 1971 is repealed, on the grounds that they would have recourse to public funds, in that they would require the provision of temporary accommodation by a local authority.

  Mr. Renton
  In the period 26 August 1985 to 30 June 1987, 10 wives and children in the Indian subcontinent were initially refused entry clearance to the United Kingdom under the 1985 immigration rules (HC 503) solely because there was no adequate accommodation without recourse to public funds, and 40 were refused partly for this reason. These wives and children were not covered by section 1(5) of the Immigration Act 1971—ie 170
  their sponsor was not a man who had been a Commonwealth citizen settled in the United Kingdom on 1 January 1973. Corresponding information for other countries is not available centrally. Information is not available on which to estimate how many will fail to satisfy the accommodation requirement if section 1(5) is repealed.

  Prescriptions (Fraud)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for reports from the chief constables of the west midlands, Northumberland and west Yorkshire on the progress of police inquiries into the alleged offences involving fraudulent use of prescriptions, referred to in the questions from the hon. Member for Workington answered on 3 December by the Attorney-General.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constables of the West Midlands police, the Northumbria police and the West Yorkshire police that inquiries into the allegations referred to are now being made.

  British Shooting Sports Council
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he did not consult the British Shooting Sports Council between 20 August arid 22 September, the date on which he announced his initial proposals on firearms.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Following the tragic shootings at Hungerford and the level of public concern, it was right for the Government to make an early, considered response. In doing so, we took into account the well-known views of the various interests concerned, including those of the shooting community. We have since consulted widely on our proposals to improve firearms controls and this process is continuing.

  Firearms
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what will be the implications for the cost of a firearms certificate and a shotgun certificate, respectively, of implementing the proposals announced in the White Paper Cm. 261.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The proposals announced in the White Paper Cm. 261 will have no implications for the cost of a firearms certificate since the procedures for issue and renewal will remain as at present. The fee for the issue of a shotgun certificate will need to reflect the increased time and work involved in processing issues and renewals, but the level has not yet been determined.

  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional police man hours he estimates will be required if his proposals in White Paper Cm. 261 are implemented.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is not possible at this stage to calculate precisely the additional police man hours, because the exact number of weapons which will require certification under a new category is not known. However, the cost of additional manpower will be offset by increased fee revenue.

  Asylum
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the number of persons claiming asylum in Europe over the last three years and their nationalities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  The information readily available is:

  Numbers of asylum seekers from 1984–86 by country of application

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Total 1984–86

  Austria

  7,200

  6,700

  8,650

  22,550

  Belgium

  3,650

  5,300

  7,650

  16,600

  Denmark

  4,300

  8,700

  9,300

  22,300

  France

  15,900

  25,800

  23,400

  65,100

  Germany Federal Republic

  35,300

  73,850

  99,650

  208,800

  Netherlands

  3,600

  5,650

  5,850

  14,100

  Norway

  300

  850

  2,700

  3,850

  Sweden

  12,000

  14,450

  14,600

  41,050

  Switzerland

  7,450

  9,700

  8,550

  25,700

  United Kingdom

  3,850

  5,450

  3,900

  13,200

  Total

  92,550

  156,450

  184,250

  4,332,350

  Numbers of asylum seekers from 1984 to 1986 in Europe1 by country of origin

  Country of origin

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Total 1984–86

  Afghanistan

  1,550

  3,100

  3,450

  8,100

  Bangladesh

  700

  2,250

  3,400

  6,350

  Chile

  1,800

  2,800

  3,450

  8,050

  Czechoslovakia

  5,350

  4,800

  4,750

  14,900

  Ethiopia

  3,450

  4,300

  4,300

  12,050

  Ghana

  5,250

  8,600

  10,600

  24,950

  Hungary

  2,250

  3,150

  4,100

  9,500

  India

  1,750

  5,650

  8,050

  15,450

  Iran

  13,550

  23,500

  41,800

  78,850

  Iraq

  2,450

  2,950

  2,300

  7,700

  Lebanon

  3,450

  8,750

  12,350

  24,550

  Pakistan

  3,250

  4,800

  5,000

  13,050

  Poland

  11,200

  14,250

  20,700

  46,150

  Romania

  3,650

  4,500

  7,050

  15,200

  Sri Lanka

  13,650

  29,600

  10,250

  53,500

  Turkey

  10,900

  16,600

  19,750

  47,250

  Yugoslavia

  1,000

  2,050

  2,750

  5,800

  Zaire

  2,400

  3,600

  4,250

  10,250

  Others

  16,150

  24,850

  36,000

  77,000

  TOTAL

  103,750

  170,100

  204,300

  478,150

  1 Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

TRANSPORT

  Breath Tests
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the numbers of casualties in road accidents in which at least one driver or rider failed a roadside screening breath-test in (a) England and Wales and (b) Scotland, during the years 1975, 1978 and 1981, broken down between fatal and non-fatal injuries.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information requested is as follows:
  172

  Casualties in accidents in which at least one driver or rider failed the roadside screening breath test:

  England and Wales, Scotland: 1975, 1978, 1981.

  England and Wales

  Scotland

  Total

  1975

  Fatal

  476

  38

  514

  Non-fatal

  19,882

  1,260

  21,142

  Total

  20,358

  1,298

  21,656

  1978

  Fatal

  432

  76

  508

  Non-fatal

  17,775

  2,036

  19,811

  Total

  18,207

  2,112

  20,319

  1981

  Fatal

  413

  48

  461

  Non-fatal

  16,961

  2,096

  19,057

  Total

  17,374

  2,144

  19,518

  Driving Tests
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to reduce the time of waiting for driving tests.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have been recruiting examiners—the number has increased by 100 (7 per cent.) since September 1985, when waiting times peaked at a national average of 17 weeks—and we are continuing to do so as quickly as we can.

  The recently published review of driver testing has recommended additional measures for more rapid improvement in waiting times. These are being considered urgently and where appropriate will be put into effect as soon as possible in the new year.

  M1 Road Works
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) for how long road works will continue on the southbound carriageway of the M1 between junctions 3 and 4; and what is the average length of time taken for vehicles to pass through these road works during peak traffic times;

  (2) how many accidents have occurred on the southbound carriageway of the M I between junctions 3 and 4 during the period of road works on this section; what assessment he has made of the road safety implications of these works; and what steps have been taken to improve safety.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  These works should be completed by 18 December, but may be completed earlier if conditions permit. During peak traffic times, vehicles take 15 minutes on average to pass through the works. There have been no reported personal injury accidents on the MI southbound carriageway between junctions 4 and 3 during the period of the roadworks. One damage-only accident has been recorded, but its cause was unrelated to the works. There is no evidence that our standard safety measures are other than satisfactory here, with the advance warning signs provided.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to review the regulations concerning the safety of heavy goods vehicles and their enforcement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We do have plans for improving the safety of heavy goods vehicles. I announced last month that we will be introducing requirements for heavy articulated vehicles to be fitted with anti-lock braking systems. Other improvements to lorry design and to enforcement will come from current work at the Transport and Road Research Laboratory and in the vehicle inspectorate.

  Rail Network
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of British Rail's total network will be continuous welded track in the years 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The proportion of railway track operated by British Rail that will be continuous welded track in the years listed is as follows:

  Per cent.

  1988–89

  61

  1989–90

  63

  1990–91

  64

  1991–92

  65

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of the £1,020 million planned to be spent by British Rail on infrastructure improvement in the period 1987–88 to 1991–92, as set out in its current five-year corporate plan, he expects to authorise to be spent on replacing existing track and new track.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I understand that British Rail plans to spend about £700 million on track renewal and replacement in the period 1987–88 to 1991–92.

  British Rail Engineering Ltd.
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his reply of I December, Official Report, column 485, whether British Rail Engineering Ltd. has been allowed to submit a tender for the new class 60 locomotives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The Railways Board issued invitations to tender to a number of British and overseas companies, but the only three tenders it has received are all from British firms. I understand that the Board did not invite BREL to tender as a lead contractor, but that BREL is involved with at least one of the tenders.

ENVIRONMENT

  Deputy Secretaries
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the responsibilities of each of the deputy secretaries in his Department and the numbers and ranks of staff reporting to each.

  Mr. Ridley
  The responsibilities and staff of the deputy secretaries in my Department (other than in the Property Services Agency) are as follows:
  174
  Deputy Secretary, Planning, Inner Cities, Regional Development, Land and Property
  Planning, inner cities, regional development, land and property questions; and responsibility for the Department's regional organisation.
  At Headquarters, two Under Secretaries (Grade 3), two Grade 4s, 91/2 grade 5s and 244 other grades. In the Regional Organisation, nine Under Secretaries, one Grade 4, 191/2 Grade 5s and 8971/2 other grades.
  Of the Regional Directors eight (seven Grade 3s, and one Grade 4) are common servants of both DOE(C) and the Department of Transport.

  Deputy Secretary, Finance and Local Government
  Principal finance officer: and responsibility for policy on local government matters, including local government finance. Three Under Secretaries (Grade 3), one Grade 4, 15 Grade 5s and 4031/2 other grades.

  Deputy Secretary, Environment Protection (also Chief Scientist)
  Policy questions on environmental protection as a whole; Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution; air, noise and wastes; water supply and water privatisation; rural afffairs, countryside and wildlife conservation. As Chief Scientist, overview of science and research policy, and service as Head of Profession for scientific staff.
  Five Under Secretaries (Grade 3), one Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, 19 Grade 5s and 4921 other grades.

  Deputy Secretary, Housing, Construction and the Built Heritage
  Housing policy and public expenditure; housing subsidy for local housing authorities; housing associations; house renovation; private rented sector; housing monitoring and analysis; new towns; building regulations; relations with the construction industry; ancient monuments and historic buildings; sport and recreation. Management responsibility for the Building Research Establishment.
  Seven Under Secretaries (Grade 3), one Grade 4, 28 Grade 5s and 2,186 other grades.

  Deputy Secretary, Solicitor and Legal Adviser
  Legal advice to the Department.
  Two Under Secretaries, 11 Grade 5s and 54 other grades including 25 non-professional staff, nine of whom also discharge some functions for the Department of Transport.

  Director General of Organisation and Establishments
  The Director General of Organisation and Establishments is the Department's Principal Establishments Officer who with his staff provides a common service to both the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment (Central). Management responsibility for the Planning Inspectorate.
  Four Under Secretaries, three Grade 4s, 16 Grade 5s and 1,9711/2 other grades. Many of the staff of this command are common servants of both DOE(C) and the Department of Transport.

  Chief Architectural Adviser on the Built Environment
  Chief Architectural Adviser to the Department. (The Chief Architectural Adviser also serves as the Director General of Design Services in the Property Services Agency.)
  In his capacity as Chief Architectural Adviser, supported by staff who also serve in the Housing command. As Director General of Design Services, supported by PSA staff.

  In the figures shown above, part time officers are shown as half posts. A further 158 departmental staff are not attached to any of the commands shown above.

  Water and Sewerage
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is now in a position to announce a decision on the proposal in the consultation paper on water and sewerage law, that responsibility for unadopted sewers, except those connected to a private sewage works, should be transferred to the water authorities.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Final decisions are still to be taken on the various proposals in the consultation paper. An announcement will be made shortly.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether self-employed persons living on their own business premises will be liable for(a) community charge and (b) the unified business rate.

  Mr. Howard
  Self-employed people will be liable to the community charge in the normal way. Rates will be charged only on buildings and parts of buildings in non-domestic use. Thus, for example, a shopkeeper who lives over his shop will be liable for rates only on the shop, not on both parts as at present.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, using the latest statistical information available, he will publish in the Official Report the constituencies of England and Wales ranked accordingly to the percentage of (a) losers and (b) gainers under the community charge proposals showing these percentages alongside that ranking.

  Mr. Howard
  As I explained in my reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on 26 October at column 38, it is not possible to produce estimates of gainers and losers by parliamentary constituency.

  Homes in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy towards the proposal put forward in its newsletter on homes in multiple occupation by the Institution of Environmental Health Officers, to provide a local homes in multiple occupation sample survey service to local authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  It is for local authorities to decide whether they wish to use the proposed sample survey service. Any improved means of locating houses in multiple occupation is welcome if it provides a firm basis for policy making.

  No-Fines Properties
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his question on no-fines properties due for answer on 25 November.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have answered these questions today.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice is to be given by his Department to the tenants of the Wimpey no-fines properties in Walsall, in the light of his Department's recognition of the 176
  unsatisfactory state of these properties, as to what action they should take during the winter months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 25 November]: The Department has already issued general guidance to householders on remedies for condensation, damp and mould growth. Any tenants who have particular difficulties with heating should discuss these with Walsall metropolitan borough council, who have, I understand been able to help tenants of no-fines houses to apply to the Department of Health and Social Security for assistance.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if further consultations have taken place between his Department and Walsall metropolitan borough council regarding the financial aspects of bringing up to an acceptable standard the Wimpey no-fines properties in the borough; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what further consultations have now taken place between his Department and Walsall metropolitan borough council regarding the technical matters relating to bringing the Wimpey no-fines properties up to satisfactory standard;

  (3) if extra funding will now be given to Walsall metropolitan borough council in order that the Wimpey no-fines properties in the borough can be brought up to satisfactory standards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 25 November 1987]: HIP allocations for 1988–89 will be announced shortly. These will take account of all the information provided by local authorities on technical and financial factors. Both aspects of the repair and improvement of Wimpey no-fines houses in Walsall were raised during the recent HIP round, and there has been no further consultation with Walsall metropolitan borough council since then.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if a Minister from his Department is now willing to receive a deputation from the tenants of the Wimpey no-fines properties in Walsall borough; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if a Minister from his Department now intends to visit the Wimpey no-fines properties in Walsall; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer Wednesday 25 November]: Officials have provided Ministers with a full report of the earlier meeting with tenants. There would therefore be little purpose in receiving a further deputation at this stage, and there are no plans for Ministers to visit these properties.

  Crown Suppliers
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to privatise the Crown Suppliers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I am considering various possibilities for the future of the Crown Suppliers, following two reports by consultants, one of which concerned the feasibility of privatisation. I have recently received detailed and comprehensive comments from representatives of the staff of the Crown Suppliers, and I do not propose to announce a decision until these have been fully considered.

  Nitrite Levels (Derogations)
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number of derogations currently in force, issued by his Department, in respect of nitrate and nitrite levels above 50mg/1; and if he will list those areas, geographically and by water authority area, for which these derogations are in force.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Derogations have been given for 47 public water supplies where nitrate levels exceed 50mg/1, and for three supplies where nitrite levels exceed 0·1 mg/1. The Chief Medical Officer has advised that there is no danger lo public health from these supplies. The water authority areas, water undertakers and geographical areas served by the supplies are given in the following table.

  Nitrate Derogations

  WATER AUTHORITY AREA AND AREA OF SUPPLY

  Anglian

  Cambridge Water Company

  Parts of Huntingdon and South Cambridgeshire Districts

  Anglian Water Authority

  Dersingham and Snettisham

  Docking

  Heacham and Hunstanton

  Moulton and Kennet

  Wisbech

  Ha bough—part of Lincolnshire

  Aswarby—Saltersford—part of Lincolnshire

  Scunt horpe

  Binbrook—part of Lincolnshire

  Bully Hill—Barnoldby—part of Lincolnshire

  Bully Hill—Otby—part of Lincolnshire

  Clay Hill—Drove Lane, Sleaford

  Sleaford

  Potterhanworth—part of Lincolnshire

  Saltersford

  Waneham Bridge—Saltersford

  Bucklesham—part of Ipswich

  Ely and Littleport

  Habrough—Covenham, part of Cleethorpes

  Bowthorpe, part of Norwich

  Heigham—Thorpe part of Norwich

  Otby

  Otby—Waddingham

  Severn- Trent

  Severn-Trent Water Authority

  Parts of Leamington, Kenilworth, Warwick and Stratford District Council

  Parts of Rutland District Council

  Parts of South Derbyshire District Council

  Parts of Newark and Ashfield District Council

  Part of Stourbridge, Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (Coalbournbrook Source)

  Part of Wychavon District Council area

  Part of Stourbridge Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (Millmeadow source)

  Parts of Wychavon District Council

  Malvern Hills and Wyre Forest District Council

  Parts of Wrekin District Council (Lilleshall source)

  Parts of Worksop, Bassetlaw District Council

  Parts of Worksop and Mansfield Woodhouse

  Part of South Shropshire District Council

  Part of Wrekin District Council (Puleston Bridge source)

  Parts of Bridgnorth and Wrekin District Council (Shifnal source)

  Bromley Lane area of Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council

  Parts of Newark District Council (Farnsfield source)

  Parts of Nottingham City Council area primarily Hucknall

  South Staffs Waterworks Company

  Parts of Lichfield District Council Sutton Coldfield
  178
  area

  North Warwickshire County Council and Walsale Metropolitan area

  Parts of Kingswinford, Pensnett and Brierley Hill Dudley Metropolitan area

  Parts of Lichfield and Whittington, Lichfield District Council

  Thames

  Lee Valley Water Company Part of Luton

  Yorkshire

  Area north east of Ripon North Yorkshire

  Nitrite Derogations

  WATER AUTHORITY AREA AND AREA OF SUPPLY

  Anglian

  Essex Water Company

  Part of London Borough of Redbridge (Seven Kings Well)

  Part of London Borough of Redbridge (Roding Well)

  Severn-Trent

  South Staffs Waterworks Company

  Parts of North Warwickshire District Council, Lichfield District Council, South Derbyshire

  District Council and East Staffordshire District Council

  Selective Rate Limitation
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has reached decisions on any applications by authorities subject to selective rate limitation in 1988–89 for their expenditure level to be redetermined at a higher amount; and if he will announce the proposed rate limits for all the selected authorities.

  Mr. Ridley
  Two of the 17 authorities designated for selective rate limitation in 1988–89 applied for a redetermination of their expenditure level. These were the London boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Southwark. After careful consideration of those applications and of other relevant matters, I have decided to redetermine the EL for Tower Hamlets at £126·033 million, an increase of £2 million on the original figure: associated with this increase is a requirement that the authority reports to me at intervals about the steps it is taking to improve its efficiency. In the case of Southwark I have decided to confirm the EL at the original figure of £134·193 million.

  I am also today sending notification to each of the 17 designated authorities of the proposed rate limit which I have determined for 1988–89. The figures are ac follows:

  Pence

  Camden

  115·41

  Greenwich

  125 72

  Hackney

  123·80

  Lambeth

  92·32

  Lewisham

  131·76

  Southwark

  98·02

  Tower Hamlets

  123·21

  Haringey

  214·69

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  270·01

  Basildon

  49·68

  Middlesbrough

  32·16

  Thamesdown

  51·10

  Ealing

  125·06

  Waltham Forest

  199·14

  Manchester

  285·63

  Liverpool

  268·17

  Kingston upon Hull

  47·51

WALES

  AIDS
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what contingency plans his Department has in the case of an AIDS epidemic amongst heterosexuals in Cardiff in the next five years.

  Mr. Grist
  In December 1985, the Welsh Office asked all district health authorities to establish AIDS coordinating teams to ensure that there was proper management of the response to AIDS in their areas. Earlier this year, district health authorities were asked to prepare district operational plans on AIDS. Planning guidelines were published to assist them in this task. The Welsh Office will be responding shortly to draft plans that have been received from all nine authorities.

  Along with efforts centrally to monitor the progress of AIDS and to ensure that the Government have access to the best available advice, these measures provide a firm foundation for dealing with the incidence of the syndrome.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether, in the light of the fact that they do not have a vote in local elections, he intends to exempt all the residents of Caldey Island, Pembrokeshire, from the community charge.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Singleton and Velindre Hospitals
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will detail the steps he has taken to implement the recommendations of the Welsh review of radiotherapy and oncology services in south Wales, with particular reference to (i) Singleton and Velindre hospitals, providing data on the same basis, (ii) the provision of scanning facilities at both radiotherapy centres, and (iii) the appointment of a fourth consultant radiotherapist and additional radiographers at Singleton hospital.

  Mr. Grist
  A report of the review has been made available to health authorities in South Wales and their views invited. These have been received and considered and an announcement on the implementation of the review's recommendations will be made as soon as possible. In advance of that, arrangements have been made for the early provision of computerised tomography scanning facilities at both hospitals.

  Maternity Services
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to improve maternity services in the rural areas of Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The Welsh Office issued a circular to all Welsh health authorities and family practitioner committees in December 1986 which commended to them the recommendations of the perinatal mortality initiative report for improvements in maternity and neonatal services in all areas of the Principality. Progress in implementing the recommendations is being monitored by the Welsh Office.

  Farmers (Sites of Historical Interest)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether CADW is considering adopting measures similar to English Heritage's plans to offer more money to farmers to preserve archaeological and other sites of historical interest.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Yes. My right hon. Friend is considering the introduction of a carefully targeted scheme of management agreements involving payments to the owners of scheduled ancient monuments, including farmers.

  Gwynedd Health Authority
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date the last appointment was made to the Gwynedd health authority; and at what date he will next be required to make such appointments.

  Mr. Grist
  The last appointment was made by the Gwynedd county council in July 1987; during 1988, those appointments which are due to expire on 31 July will be considered.

  Flooding
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance he is giving local authorities in Wales on the acceptability for financial assistance from his Department of schemes to alleviate flood dangers which not only reinstate the status quo prior to the October flood emergency, but go further in taking steps to avoid or limit flood incidents of this sort suffered last October.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend's statement to the House on 21 October in column 745. The Department's letter of 23 October, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House, detailed the provisions of the Bellwin scheme.

  Health Authorities (Members)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the basis of reimbursement of incurred expenses, or the payment of fees or salaries to(a) chairpersons, (b) vice-chairpersons and (c) members of health authorities in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  District health authority chairmen in Wales are paid a flat rate taxable honorarium of £11,259 per annum based on a notional three days a week commitment, together with travel and subsistence allowances. Vice-chairmen and members of health authorities do not receive an honorarium, but are entitled to travel and subsistence allowances and loss of earnings payments as appropriate.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report the terms of reference laid down by him for each of the chairpersons of health authorities in Wales; and on what date a change was last made to these terms of reference.

  Mr. Grist
  It is not the Department's practice to provide terms of reference as such for chairpersons of health authorities.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the human rights record of Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have seen the interim report by Dr. Ermacora, special rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights, and we are also in regular contact with organisations providing relief to Afghan refugees. We supported a further resolution in the UNGA this year which condemned by an overwhelming majority the widespread violation of human rights in Afghanistan by the Kabul regime and Soviet troops.

  East-West Relations
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about East-West relations following the visit of Secretary Gorbachev.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  We welcome the results of the United States/Soviet summit in Washington and hope that the agreement on intermediate range nuclear forces will lead to progress on further measures of arms control. The opportunity is there to establish a healthier and safer relationship between East and West. But this requires lasting confidence which needs much greater Soviet respect for human rights and greater co-operation over the peaceful settlement of regional conflicts, including in particular the early withdrawal of all Soviet forces from Afghanistan.

  African National Congress
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the Government's policy towards meeting the African National Congress.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have received a variety of representations from overseas, from hon. Members and from the public, some in favour of and some against the policy of the Government towards meeting the African National Congress.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet representatives from(a) the African National Congress of South Africa or (b) the South-West Africa People's Organisation of Namibia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no present plans to do so.

  The Gulf
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the situation in the Gulf.

  Mr. Mellor
  There has unfortunately been little change since the answer given to my hon. Friend on 18 November. Attacks in the Gulf by both Iran and Iraq continue at a high level, including the two recent attacks by Iran on Danish and Singapore-registered tankers, with the loss of 182
  one life and the destruction of one ship, and a further missile attack on Kuwait which hit a decoy barge. We continue to press both sides to implement Security Council resolution 598 without further delay, and thus reduce the dangerous level of tension in the Gulf.

  Fiji
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what standing vis-a-vis the Commonwealth is afforded to Fiji by Her Majesty's Government; and what are the status and composition of the British mission there.

  Mr. Eggar
  We and other Commonwealth members acknowledged at Vancouver that Fiji's membership of the Commonwealth had lapsed. No Commonwealth Government have so far changed the designation of their diplomatic mission accredited in Suva. The British mission has seven United Kingdom-based officers in post.

EMPLOYMENT

  JTS (London)
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which managing agents have been given contracts by the Manpower Services Commission to provide new job training scheme places in Greater London; how many contracted places each has been given; and in which London boroughs they are providing places.

  Mr. Cope
  The following table shows the managing agents contracted by the Manpower Services Commission to provide the new job training scheme in Greater London and the number of starts each agent has contracted to provide. It is not possible to say in which boroughs places will be provided.

  Contracted starts

  ADM

  650

  Barking Skillcentre

  1,200

  Bexley Training Services

  500

  Chelmer Training Association

  250

  Cranbrook Training Centre

  800

  Delta

  480

  Deptford Skillcentre

  1,200

  Enterprise Training

  250

  Focus

  400

  Forest Project

  250

  Future Framework

  1,000

  GWS Technical Training

  400

  Hotel and Catering ITB

  900

  J and J Consultants

  250

  JJP

  200

  Key Training Consortium

  750

  London Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  1,200

  LEC

  156

  Microtech Training Ltd

  750

  Merton Training Consortium

  400

  Microtech (and Cable Training)

  1,400

  David Morgan Training Association

  200

  Open Learning

  250

  Park Royal Enterprise Trust

  100

  PCL Training Services

  400

  Personnel Consultancy Services

  500

  Personnel Development Association

  400

  Pitmans

  250

  Sight and Sound

  1,000

  SE Adult Training

  900

  Southern Training Services

  1,000

  183

  Contracted starts

  STC

  50

  Sumlock Calculating Services

  850

  Supreme Hairdesign

  200

  TEAM

  1,000

  Training for Jobs Ltd

  1,000

  Training International

  100

  VGA

  250

  JTS (Statistics)
  Ms. Short (Birmingham, Ladywood)
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, what are the industry and occupational categories of new job training scheme trainees who have entered work placements.

  Mr. Cope
  The information is not available. New JTS provides training. Trainees may undertake a variety of practical experience during training placements with employers.

  YTS
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the number of YTS schemes correctly in operation in each London borough and the number of individuals (a) male and (b) female currently registered for each.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 7 December 1987]: The following table gives the number of YTS schemes based in each London borough and the numbers of male and female trainees on such schemes as at 31 October 1987.

  Schemes may draw trainees living in other boroughs.

  London Borough

  Number of local YTS schemes

  Number in training—October 1987

  Male

  Female

  Harrow

  6

  189

  103

  Brent

  10

  315

  85

  Enfield

  5

  506

  308

  Barnet

  3

  18

  53

  Haringey

  15

  274

  253

  Newham

  7

  302

  179

  Barking

  8

  384

  225

  Havering

  8

  366

  300

  Redbridge

  11

  333

  533

  Waltham Forest

  3

  242

  140

  Table 1

  Total

  Environmental

  Building and land-scaping

  Home insulation

  Research and surveys

  Library

  Youth work

  Voluntary acts

  Other social services

  Cultural

  Local authority

  4,183

  3

  0

  81

  161

  264

  1

  2

  1

  100

  Local education authority

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  voluntary organisation

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nationalised industry

  44

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Private sector

  233

  0

  0

  25

  9

  7

  0

  0

  0

  8

  Health authority

  98

  0

  0

  1

  8

  10

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Government department

  44

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  5

  Other

  18

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Education institution

  151

  0

  0

  0

  18

  35

  0

  0

  0

  24

  Ex-offenders organisations

  627

  1

  0

  65

  18

  8

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Churches

  481

  0

  0

  1

  1

  9

  8

  0

  0

  10

  Youth organisations

  249

  0

  1

  1

  4

  1

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Old peoples groups

  66

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Disability groups

  209

  0

  0

  0

  4

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Ethnic groups

  86

  0

  0

  0

  4

  1

  0

  0

  0

  21

  Environmental and conservation groups

  467

  0

  0

  11

  25

  20

  1

  0

  0

  5

  Other voluntary organisations

  2,283

  0

  0

  114

  76

  116

  0

  0

  0

  79

  Quasi-commercial body

  665

  0

  0

  21

  22

  19

  0

  0

  2

  13

  Total

  9,963

  4

  1

  335

  365

  497

  2

  2

  3

  280

  184

  London Borough

  Number of local YTS schemes

  Number in training—October 1987

  Male

  Female

  Kensington & Chelsea

  15

  38

  70

  Hammersmith

  35

  220

  108

  Camden

  24

  289

  731

  Westminster

  55

  260

  161

  City of London

  17

  459

  139

  Islington

  20

  389

  352

  Hackney

  12

  146

  108

  Tower Hamlets

  11

  411

  163

  Bromley

  9

  272

  233

  Bexley

  7

  307

  284

  Croydon

  11

  436

  149

  Sutton

  38

  154

  488

  Merton

  21

  234

  114

  Lambeth

  62

  264

  232

  Southwark

  18

  256

  258

  Lewisham

  27

  290

  212

  Greenwich

  34

  232

  109

  Wandsworth

  44

  272

  200

  Hillingdon

  36

  355

  214

  Ealing

  34

  262

  123

  Hounslow

  37

  405

  251

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  13

  52

  56

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  22

  296

  123

  In addition there are 3,518 male and 1,384 female trainees in London in schemes negotiated with the Manpower Services Commission's large companies unit; information on the numbers in each borough is not readily available.

  Special Employment Measures
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the most recently available tables to show the total number of community programme projects and places by type of project and type of sponsor.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 4 December]: The total number of community programme projects and authorised places, by project and sponsor type, are as follows. Table 1 gives information about projects, and table 2 places as at 14 October 1987.
  185

  Workshop

  Community programme agent management

  Environmental and landscaping

  Building and construction

  Archaeological digs

  Children's services

  Young peoples services

  Services for the elderly

  Services for the disabled

  Centres for the unemployed

  Local authority

  147

  281

  1,263

  453

  53

  174

  319

  504

  312

  63

  Local education authority

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Voluntary organisations

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Nationalised industry

  1

  5

  7

  5

  0

  1

  2

  13

  7

  0

  Private sector

  10

  34

  53

  39

  0

  2

  10

  29

  7

  0

  Health authority

  Government department

  0

  3

  10

  2

  0

  0

  17

  2

  0

  0

  Other

  0

  2

  5

  2

  0

  0

  2

  4

  2

  0

  Education institution

  1

  6

  4

  2

  8

  6

  29

  6

  11

  1

  Ex-offenders' organisations

  48

  84

  135

  88

  2

  21

  30

  91

  30

  1

  Churches

  45

  41

  44

  68

  1

  30

  43

  124

  46

  1

  Youth organisations

  7

  16

  12

  18

  0

  20

  113

  45

  8

  0

  Old people's groups

  0

  4

  0

  4

  0

  0

  1

  54

  2

  0

  Disability groups

  9

  13

  11

  S

  0

  2

  5

  10

  144

  0

  Ethnic groups

  4

  6

  2

  3

  0

  3

  12

  25

  3

  2

  Environmental and conservation groups

  9

  39

  260

  41

  10

  17

  13

  0

  6

  0

  Other voluntary organisations

  115

  168

  273

  206

  8

  141

  253

  489

  234

  11

  Quasi-commercial body

  35

  44

  139

  67

  3

  18

  37

  190

  52

  3

  Total

  434

  759

  2,234

  1,020

  85

  442

  900

  1,620

  894

  84

  Table 2

  Total

  Environmental

  Building and Landscape

  Home in-sulation

  Research and surveys

  Library

  Youth work

  Voluntary acts

  Other social services

  Cultural

  Authorised places

  Local Authority

  96,508

  33

  —

  1,471

  1,628

  2,950

  13

  26

  3

  1,478

  Local education authority

  48

  —

  —

  48

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Voluntary organisation

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nationalised industry

  1,083

  —

  —

  39

  17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Private sector

  5,428

  —

  —

  490

  99

  74

  —

  —

  —

  140

  Health authority

  1,953

  —

  —

  4

  136

  144

  —

  —

  —

  67

  Government department

  745

  —

  —

  —

  —

  78

  —

  —

  —

  114

  Other

  405

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Education institution

  2,288

  —

  —

  —

  —

  218

  539

  —

  —

  365

  Ex-offenders' organisation

  14,484

  17

  —

  1,374

  204

  73

  —

  —

  —

  96

  Churches

  11,745

  —

  —

  190

  77

  82

  —

  —

  —

  125

  Youth organisations

  4,871

  —

  —

  13

  11

  54

  5

  —

  —

  98

  Old people's groups

  1,892

  —

  —

  77

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Disability groups

  4,040

  —

  —

  —

  90

  11

  —

  —

  —

  52

  Ethnic groups

  2,248

  —

  —

  —

  115

  40

  —

  —

  —

  423

  Environmental and conservation groups

  9,101

  —

  —

  254

  354

  185

  10

  —

  —

  113

  Other voluntary organisations

  49,474

  —

  —

  2,344

  860

  1,202

  —

  —

  —

  1,384

  Quasi-commercial body

  18,081

  —

  —

  430

  215

  219

  —

  —

  35

  198

  Total

  225,514

  50

  13

  6,732

  4,132

  5,614

  23

  26

  33

  4,688

  Workshop

  Community programme agent management

  Environmental and landscaping

  Building and construction

  Archaelogical digs

  Children's services

  Young people's services

  Services for the elderly

  Services for the disabled

  Centres for the unemployed

  Authorised places

  Local authority

  2,779

  5,528

  37,815

  13,859

  1,179

  2,069

  4,929

  14,231

  5,785

  682

  Local education authority

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Voluntary organisation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  Nationalised industry

  27

  112

  230

  124

  —

  6

  21

  379

  128

  —

  Private sector

  257

  656

  1,082

  1,493

  —

  35

  161

  831

  110

  —

  Health authority

  58

  147

  63

  346

  —

  80

  124

  361

  423

  —

  Government department

  —

  38

  233

  40

  —

  —

  219

  23

  —

  —

  Other

  —

  51

  134

  57

  —

  —

  25

  78

  41

  —

  Education institution

  13

  95

  119

  22

  207

  94

  375

  101

  119

  21

  Ex-offenders' organisations

  1,465

  1,699

  3,693

  2,302

  23

  338

  380

  2,127

  671

  11

  Churches

  1,395

  818

  1,359

  2,669

  38

  430

  717

  2,868

  956

  21

  Youth organisations

  188

  263

  246

  408

  —

  414

  2,102

  912

  157

  —

  Old people's groups

  —

  61

  —

  148

  —

  —

  6

  1,585

  15

  —

  Disability groups

  235

  182

  316

  320

  —

  12

  64

  170

  2,582

  —

  Ethnic groups

  163

  190

  53

  133

  —

  42

  382

  634

  45

  22

  Environmental and conservation groups

  238

  490

  5,343

  1,132

  212

  218

  253

  193

  106

  —

  Other voluntary organisations

  3,303

  3,154

  7,347

  5,466

  145

  2,187

  4,201

  12,732

  4,852

  297

  Quasi-commercial body

  1,040

  1,093

  4,382

  2,497

  119

  414

  510

  5,746

  1,146

  37

  Total

  11,190

  14,619

  62,818

  31,274

  1,923

  6,366

  14,559

  43,084

  17,189

  1,115

  Job Training Schemes
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what at the latest available date is(a) the cumulative entrants total, (b) the cumulative leavers total, (c) the cumulative total of those who have completed their course, and (d) the numbers who have entered work
  186
  placements, for each new job training scheme managing agent contracted in (i) Scotland, (ii) Greater London and (iii) Great Britain as a whole.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 4 December 1987]: The information requested for each of the 314 new job training scheme managing agents contracted in Great Britain including Scotland and Greater London could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

ENERGY

  Coal Industry (Private Investment)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to create opportunities for private investment in coal mines at present in National Coal Board ownership.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  None at present.

  National Coal Board (Management Accounting)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has received any representations concerning National Coal Board management accounting criteria.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have received no such representations.

  Bradwell Power Station
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what part the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate played in the selection of two firms of nuclear engineers selected by the Central Electricity Generating Board to examine the decommissioning of Bradwell nuclear power station; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate played no part in the selection of the four firms recently awarded contracts to carry out studies into various aspects of the decommissioning of Bradwell and Berkeley nuclear power stations.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the deadlines set by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate in respect of safety at Bradwell power station; to what those deadlines related; whether those deadlines due to be met in the last two months have been met; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The key requirements and completion dates for issues arising from the long-term safety review of the Bradwell nuclear power station are listed in the table in the Health and Safety Executive's report "The findings of NII's assessment of the CEGB's long term safety review" which was published in July 1987. Information required to date has been received and is being assessed by the Health and Safety Executive. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Central Electricity Generating Board (Insurance)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the total insurance cover held by the Central Electricity Generating Board for(a) nuclear power stations and (b) other power stations in respect of (i) damage to property owned by the board, (ii) potential claims by employees of the board and (iii) potential claims by third parties; and what is the cost of this insurance cover in each case.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 (as amended) nuclear power station operators must provide financial security of £20 million, by insurance or otherwise, to meet claims for injury or damage arising from a nuclear accident. The costs of this insurance cover and the extent and cost of insurance against other risks are matters for the Central Electricity Generating Board.

  CEGB (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has as to the financial provision made by the Central Electricity Generating Board to cover the decommissioning of all its nuclear power stations; and in what years this expenditure is anticipated to occur.

  Mr. MichaaSpicer
  The annual report and accounts of the Central Electricity Generating Board show that at 31 March 1987 the board had made financial provisions of £462.9 million for the decommissioning of its nuclear power stations. The decommissioning of power stations is, however, a matter for the industry and I have asked the chairman of the CEGB to reply to the hon. Member about the years in which the expenditure is anticipated to occur.

  Electricity Boards (Advertising)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the amount spent by(a) the Central Electricity Generating Board and (b) each of the 12 area electricity boards on advertising in each year from 1983–84 to 1986–87 and projected spend in 1987–88 and 1988–89, showing in each case the sums spent on (i) television, (ii) newspapers, (iii) hoardings and billboards and (iv) others.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The amount spent by the electricity industry on advertising is a commercial matter for the industry. I have asked the chairman of the Electricity Council to write to the hon. Member.

  Electricity Boards (Borrowing)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (I) what rate of return he expects to receive from each of the 12 area electricity boards on the outstanding borrowing from him over the next 10 years;

  (2) what rate of return he expects to receive from the Central Electricity Generating Board on the outstanding borrowing from him over the next 10 years.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The funding requirements of the area electricity boards and the CEGB are met by the Electricity Council. The rates of interest payable on United Kingdom loans to the Electricity Council outstanding at 31 March 1987 vary between 5 per cent. and 16·75 per cent. Further details are set out on page 52 of the Electricity "Council Annual Report and Accounts 1986/87."

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any proposals to seek powers to compel the electricity industry to investigate the use of renewable energy powers before embarking on investment in nuclear, coal or oil-fired power stations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have no plans to seek such powers. In co-operation with industry, the Government are supporting research into renewable energy sources with the object of ensuring that so far as possible they are developed to the stage where they can compete fairly with traditional energy sources.

  Electricity Boards (Profits)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what the profits were for(a) the Central Electricity

  189
  Generating Board and (b) each of the 12 area electricity boards for each of the last eight years; and what are the projected profits for the next two years.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The current cost profit after interest and taxation for the Central Electricity Generating Board and each of the 12 area electricity boards, for each of the last eight years, is given in the table.

  £ million

  Area Board

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  London

  (-)29·2

  (-)0·1

  17·0

  22·6

  41·2

  (-)41·1

  42·5

  32·9

  South Eastern

  (-)18·0

  (-)7·4

  (-)0·9

  2·7

  15·7

  (-)45·5

  21·7

  24·7

  Southern

  (-)21·1

  (-)5·8

  2·2

  10·6

  30·2

  (-)68·9

  26·8

  33·4

  South Western

  (-)13·3

  (-)0·2

  8·7

  9·2

  15·4

  (-)41·0

  23·9

  16·1

  Eastern

  (-)20·1

  21·1

  12·9

  20·5

  40·0

  (-)79·4

  43·2

  36·8

  East Midlands

  (-)9·2

  13·0

  9·8

  (-)5·6

  19·3

  (-)73·1

  14·0

  28·1

  Midlands

  (-)24·7

  0·2

  -2·0

  (-)3·5

  25·0

  (-)77·6

  28·8

  26·3

  South Wales

  (-)11·7

  (-)1·9

  7·1

  12·4

  9·9

  (-)33·2

  8·7

  11·4

  Merseyside and North Wales

  (-)12·0

  (-)1·6

  (-)1·4

  (-)6·4

  2·4

  (-)39·1

  4·4

  8·6

  Yorkshire

  (-)21·6

  (-)5·5

  11·4

  14·6

  16·0

  (-)86·7

  17·4

  17·5

  North Eastern

  (-)15·7

  (-)0·1

  8·7

  8·3

  13·9

  (-)47·9

  21·7

  14·0

  North Western

  (-)15·2

  (-)2·6

  8·3

  14·1

  16·2

  (-)78·9

  20·3

  19·4

  CEGB

  (-)287·6

  (-)281·3

  (-)167·4

  232·1

  219·1

  (-)1,945·0

  141·0

  317·8

  Note: In 1984–85, the figures for area boards include their share of a contribution of £933·7 million towards the additional costs of £2,020 million incurred by the CEGB as a result of the miners' strike. The CEGB's loss is before this contribution.

  Home Insulation
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many homes occupied by(a) pensioners and (b) other high-risk groups have been given financial grants for insulation of their homes by year since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The information is not available in the precise form requested.

  Financial assistance for insulation is provided through the homes insulation scheme (HIS), which provides a general grant at 66 per cent. and a means-tested grant at 90 per cent.: and the community insulation projects, which provide a free or low-cost basic insulation service for low-income households. The 90 per cent. grant under the HIS has been available to the elderly and severely disabled on supplementary benefit or housing benefit, and will be extended to all householders on those benefits. Separate figures are not available for the take-up of HIS grants by pensioner households. It is estimated that pensioner households account for some 60 per cent. of the homes insulated by the community insulation projects, but, again, firm figures are not available.

  The following data therefore relate to the vulnerable low-income groups assisted through the HIS 90 per cent. grant and the community insulation projects.

  Government assistance for low income households in Great Britain

  (a) Number of 90 per cent. HIS grants paid12

  (b) Number of households insulated by community insulation projects12

  1979

  —2

  410,000

  1980

  26,000

  1981

  94,000

  55,000

  1982

  110,000

  510,000

  1983

  94,000

  520,000

  1984

  72,000

  44,000

  190
  I announced financial targets for the industry for the next two years in my statement of 3 November 1987 in the House of Commons. It will be for the boards to earn sufficient profits to ensure that the targets are met.

  (a) Number of 90 per cent. HIS grants paid12

  (b) Number of households insulated by community insulation projects12

  1985

  78,000

  83,000

  1986

  68,000

  120,000

  Total

  6542,000

  6292,000

  1 Rounded.

  2 Homes insulation scheme statistics for England are compiled on a calendar year basis; for Scotland and Wales, on a financial year basis.

  3 Financial year basis.

  4 Estimate: very few projects were operating and statistics were not collected at the time.

  5 Estimates: statistics were only collected on a sampling basis.

  6 In addition to their draught-proofing work, some community insulation projects also do loft insulation using HIS grants claimed on behalf of their clients. For this reason simple addition of columns (a) and (b) would involve a limited degree of double counting.

  Licensed Coal Mining
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what grants have been made by British Coal Enterprise for licensed coal mining.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Loans made by British Coal Enterprise Ltd. are a matter for the company and I am asking the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

SCOTLAND

  Devolution
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the financial effects of implementing proposals for devolution to Scotland involving an assembly with tax-raising powers.
  191
  Mr. Rifkind
  Since the election I have received 62 letters on the subject of devolution. Those correspondents who referred specifically to the financial effects of the creation of an assembly with tax-raising powers were almost unanimously opposed to the idea.

  Industrial and Tourist Developments
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the major new industrial and tourist developments announced for Scotland in the current year; and if he will estimate the number of new jobs created.

  Mr. Rifkind
  So far in 1987 total unemployment in Scotland has fallen by 55,000. This clearly shows the favourable effects of our policies in Scotland's economy. I am arranging for a table of the most important industrial and tourist developments to be placed in the Library.

  Roadworks (Tenders)
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on his proposals to reduce the threshold at which roadworks must be put out to tender; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has made known its opposition to increased competition for roads work undertaken by roads authorities' direct labour organisations. The Government's intentions will be announced once the second survey of the performance of Scottish roads authorities has been analysed.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has had from organisations concerned with mental health regarding the poll tax.

  Mr. Lang
  We have received a number of responses to our consultation document of 22 October on the procedure for identifying severely mentally handicapped people to be exempted from liability to pay the community charge. All the representations will be fully considered.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last discussed the poll tax with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities last Friday to discuss local government finance. At that meeting we announced the provision of additional resources to cover capital expenditure on the implementation of the community charge, both this year and next. My officials are in regular contact with the convention about the implementation of our proposals.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the increase in student grants in the first year of operation of the poll tax will be for their poll tax contribution, and how much for the normal yearly increase.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 provides that students undertaking a full-time course of education will be liable 192
  to pay only 20 per cent. of the community charge. That liability will not arise until 1989–90 and the detailed arrangements for students' grants in that year have not yet been determined.

  School Boards
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on his proposals for election and co-option to school boards.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We have received a number of comments on these proposals and will announce our conclusions on them in due course.

  Housing
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a list of organisations whom he intends to consult on the Government's White Paper on Scottish housing; and whether he intends to attend joint public meetings with critics of the Government's proposals.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The White Paper, "Housing, the Government's Proposals for Scotland", is a statement of our intent in regard to future housing policy. We have issued and will continue to issue consultation papers on particular aspects of that policy to a variety of interested bodies. The bodies consulted vary according to the subjects of the individual consultation papers. My right hon. and learned Friend and I will speak publicly about the proposals on a variety of appropriate occasions, including the debates which will take place in the House on the Housing (Scotland) Bill.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has so far received regarding his consultation paper on Scottish Homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We received 247 responses to the consultation paper, "Scottish Homes—A New Agency for Housing in Scotland". In addition, a number of letters referring wholly or partly to Scottish Homes were received, but these have not generally offered any comment on the substance of the proposals contained in the consultation document.

  Mr. Millan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the White Paper on housing in Scotland (Cm 242).

  Mr. Rifkind
  We continue to receive a number of letters from individuals and organisations referring wholly or partly to the Government's housing proposals. The comments made on the White Paper cannot be identified separately from those made on the consultation papers issued about various of the proposals contained in the White Paper or those which are based on reports of the Government's proposals, rather than the proposals themselves.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities, housing associations and federations and charities have so far made representations on his consultation paper on housing, "Housing: The Government's Proposals for Scotland".
  193
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Comments have been received from 42 local authorities, 59 registered housing associations, (some of which have charitable status) and 72 voluntary groups and representative organisations.

  Enterprise Culture
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the effect in Scotland of implementing Her Majesty's Government's policy for the fostering of an enterprise culture; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The growing spirit of enterprise which now exists in Scotland is already producing tangible results. For example, some 45,000 more people are now in self-employment than in 1979. Again VAT records show that there was a net increase of nearly 10,000 Scottish businesses between 1980 and 1985. As the enterprise culture takes deeper root in Scotland, so prosperity will grow further.

  Coal-burning Power Stations
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next be meeting the Scottish director of British Coal to discuss the coal-burning Scottish power stations.

  Mr. Lang
  I have no plans at present to do so. However, my officials are in regular contact with officials of British Coal and as recently as 2 December they met the Scottish director to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  Industrial Disputes
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the most recent figures for the number of working days lost in industrial disputes in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  In 1986, 312,000 working days were lost in Scotland as a result of industrial stoppages. Apart from 1983, this is the lowest figure for 20 years.

  "The Way Forward"
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the Nirex discussion document "The Way Forward".

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No representations have been received on this document.

  School Management
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the timetable for the implementation of the school management proposals.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We hope to announce our conclusions following the consultation period before the end of the year and to introduce a Bill in the new year. Assuming enactment by October 1988, the first board constitutions would be issued for consultation in March 1989 and the boards would begin to operate at the commencement of the 1989–90 school year.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has now received on his proposed reforms for the management of schools; and if he will make a statement.
  194
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many responses he has received to his discussion document on Scottish education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has how received on the proposals contained in his paper "School Management and the Role of Parents"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the answer of Friday 20 November on the consultative paper "School Management and the Role of Parents", if he will specify under what headings and categories he has catalogued the responses received to date, with specific reference to those submissions commenting on the ceiling proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responses have been divided into two categories; those requesting confidentiality and those available for public inspection. Copies of the latter are being placed on open file in the library of St. Andrew's house. I have arranged for further copies to be available in the House Library.

  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the responses so far to the school management consultation paper.

  Mr. Rifkind
  We have received some 7,600 responses. We are considering these carefully and hope to announce our conclusions shortly.

  Mr. Buchanan-Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to complete his consideration of the representations he has received on the consultation paper "School Management and the Role of Parents", and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I hope to announce my conclusions before the turn of the year.

  New Towns
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy on the future of Scotland's new towns; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The new towns continue to make a significant contribution to economic growth and employment opportunities in Scotland. The Government adhere to the decision, announced in 1984, that no Scottish new town development corporation should begin the wind-up process before 1 April 1990. It also remains our intention to reassess before that date the probable timing of wind-up of the five development corporations, taking account of developments since 1984 and the circumstances and prospects of each town.

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Lambie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to investigate alleged abuses in regional aid.

  Mr. Rifkind
  All projects in receipt of grant under regional aid schemes are closely monitored where abuse of the schemes is suspected. Cases are investigated thoroughly and reported to the appropriate authorities for consideration of prosecution.

  Industrial Investment
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to the current level of investment in industry in Scotland and its impact on the Scottish community, in particular in the Inverclyde area.

  Mr. Lang
  Recent CBI and Scottish business surveys report an improvement in investment intentions in Scottish manufacturing, and higher investment will enhance the competitiveness of Scottish industry. This can only benefit the Scottish community.

  As regards Inverclyde district, regional selective assistance offers of £3·4 million were made over the period 1 January 1985 to 31 October 1987. These were associated with project costs of £183·7 million and some 960 new or safeguarded jobs.

  Royal College of Nursing
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to meet representatives of the Royal College of Nursing (Scotland).

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I met representatives of the Scottish board of the Royal College of Nursing on 15 October last.

  Public Sector House Sales
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what figures he has available on the sale of public sector houses in Scotland since 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Over the period 1980 to June 1987 some 106,000 public sector sales have taken place; this includes sales of local authority, new town and Scottish Special Housing Association houses, both to sitting tenants and others. The yearly figures of sales are contained in the table:

  Number

  1980

  6,482

  1981

  11,170

  11982

  15,106

  1983

  18,315

  1984

  17,239

  1985

  15,630

  11986

  14,152

  1 21987

  7,848

  1 These figures are based on incomplete returns.

  2 These figures relate to the period January-June.

  Job Vacancies
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many job vacancies are registered at Scottish jobcentres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The number of vacancies notified and remaining unfilled on 2 October 1987 in Scottish jobcentres was 25,446 (including 3,421 community programme vacancies). It is estimated that only around one third of all vacancies are notified to jobcentres.

  The continuing upward trend in the level of unfilled vacancies is encouraging. The latest figures show an increase of 4,000 over the corresponding figure last year.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to meet the Glasgow Forum on disability to consider the full implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 in Scotland and its input into joint planning in terms of the National Health Service (Amendment Act) 1986.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have no plans at present to meet the Glasgow Forum on disability. As indicated to the hon. Member in my reply of 10 November, the timing of implementation of provisions in the Act not already commenced or, as in the case of section 13, proposed for commencement will depend on the availability of resources. Consultations on this will be held at the appropriate stage with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

  On joint planning, I refer to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 24 July 1987. Any involvement by the forum in joint planning in the Glasgow area would be a matter for local determination.

  Denmark (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the recent visit to Denmark by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth).

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I visited Denmark between 23 and 25 November to study the system of school management and arrangements for parental involvement in education. I am most grateful to the Danish Government and to the authorities, organisations and schools which I visited and with whom I had discussions.

  Parents in Denmark are extensively involved in all aspects of the running of the school system at municipality and school level. In particular, every publicly managed school providing education for children undergoing compulsory education is supervised by a school board whose members are elected by and from the parents and guardians of children involved in the schools; the school principal and representatives of the teachers, pupils and the municipality attend meetings of the school board and participate in discussion but cannot vote. The school board can discuss, make proposals and comment on all matters relating to the school. In many areas they are substantially involved in staffing appointments and have delegated powers to decide on the use of a substantial share of the budget allocated to the school. The statutory powers of school boards include drawing up school rolls and approving the distribution of work among teachers, the weekly timetable and the educational materials which the school intends to use.

  The overriding purpose of the school board system is to further co-operation between the school and the homes of the pupils. The work of the boards appears to contribute substantially to securing a successful and responsive education service. Relationships between professional educators and parents appear to be greatly enhanced by the existence of formal mechanisms for involving parents closely with their schools.

  Electricity Industry (Privatisation)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board to discuss privatisation of the electricity industry.

  Mr. Lang
  I met the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board on 17 November to discuss electricity privatisation and other related matters. My right hon. and learned Friend expects to have full discussions with the chairmen of the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board before taking decisions on the structure of a privatised industry in Scotland.

  Business Relocation
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many businesses have relocated from England to Scotland since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is not available. Decisions to relocate are best determined within the constraints of companies' own commercial judgment.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations calling for the establishment of a Scottish Parliament he has received from(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland since 11 June.

  Mr. Rifkind
  In that period, I have received 40 letters in favour of some form of devolution, of which 38 were from Scotland and two from England.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what figures he has available for the number of small firms operating in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Comprehensive information on small firms is not available. Information for the period 1980–85 for Scotland and the other regions of the United Kingdom on the stock of firms registered for value added tax was published in "British Business" on 31 July 1987, and information for the period 1980–83 on changes in the stock by size of turnover was published in "British Business" on 2 November 1984. Copies of these publications have been placed in the Library.

  The Government have introduced a succession of measures to stimulate small business development, and these have gone a long way both towards lifting many of the administrative burdens faced by small companies and towards helping small companies to become more flexible and responsive to market pressures. In this context the small firms sector in Scotland has made an increasing contribution in recent years to employment and economic development.

  Local Government
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the total administrative costs, including wages and salaries, of local government in Scotland in 1986–87.
  198
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The best available estimate of the costs classified by Scottish local authorities as central administrative costs, including wages and salaries, in respect of relevant current expenditure in 1986–87 is £14·13 million.

  Psychogeriatric Unit, Rutherglen
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the time scale for the provision of the proposed psychogeriatric unit at Rutherglen.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Provision of the proposed psychogeriatric unit will depend on the outcome of two strategic reviews which the Greater Glasgow health board is presently conducting on services for the elderly, and on psychiatric services (about which a consultative document has recently been issued).

  Financial Services
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current level of employment in the financial sector in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The number of employees in employment in Scotland in division 8 of the standard industrial classification—which covers banking, finance, insurance, business services and leasing—totalled 165,000 in June 1987. This represents an increase of around 47,000 or 40 per cent. since 1977.

  Current employment estimates for the financial services sector alone are not available from official sources. The 1984 census of employment, which is the latest available, indicates that there were around 72,000 employees employed in financial services in Scotland in September of that year.

  The financial services sector makes a vital contribution to the Scottish economy both directly and indirectly, and it has been amongst the fastest growing employment sectors in recent years.

  Educational Facilities (Strathclyde)
  Mr. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will be meeting officials of Strathclyde regional council to discuss educational facilities.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No.

  Midlothian (Surgical Waiting Lists)
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what communication he has received from Lothian health board regarding waiting times of patients requiring surgery who reside in the parliamentary constituency of Midlothian.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None.

  Industrial Regeneration (Renfrew)
  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in the light of the announcement of' 500 redundancies at FKI (Halifax), formerly Babcocks, at its Renfrew plant, he has any plans to visit Renfrew and meet the local council to discuss industrial regeneration in the area; and if he will make a statement.
  199
  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans at present to visit Renfrew to meet Renfrew district council.

  I am confident that the proposed enterprise initiative for Renfrew, to which the district council and Strathclyde regional council will both be contributing, will help to create new and invigorated economic activity in the area, and improve the environment for those who live and work there.

  Primary Health Care
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the White Paper on primary health care in the National Health Service, as it relates to Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have received 13 written representations since the White Paper "Promoting Better Health" was published on 25 November.

  Forestry Grants
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the direct cost to his Department of forestry grants for 1986–87.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The total amounts of grants paid to private woodland owners by the Forestry Commission in 1986–87, for new planting and restocking, were as follows:

  £

  Scotland

  4,592,669

  England

  2,232,757

  Wales

  386,459

  Glasgow District
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the value of the capital allocation to Glasgow district in(a) 1978 and (b) 1987; and if he will express these figures as a percentage in real terms.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Capital allocations for housing are issued on two blocks, to cover expenditure on local authority stock and on the private sector. Glasgow district council's capital allocations in 1978–79 totalled £66·924 million. For 1987–88, the council has received allocations totalling £137–65 million, which represents 101·2 per cent. of the 1978–79 figure in real terms.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to whether the Data Protection Registrar has used his powers under section 36(5) of the Data Protection Act to report on how the use of personal data collected for the community charge affects his functions of supervising the workings of the Data Protection Act.

  Mr. Lang
  In his third annual report to Parliament in July 1987, made in accordance with section 36(5) of the Data Protection Act 1984, the Data Protection Registrar commented at page 4 on community charge registers.

  Childhood Cancers
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to introduce case-control 200
  studies of childhood cancers in the areas around the Holy Loch, Hunterston and Chapelcross/Wigton Bay and Dounreay.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The study carried out by the information and statistics division of the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service into the incidence of leukaemia in under 25 year olds throughout Scotland has been passed to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment for its expert advice on how best to proceed. I shall be considering further investigations, such as case-control studies, on the basis of their advice.

  South of Scotland Electricity Board (Borrowing)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what rate of return he expects to receive from the South of Scotland Electricity Board on the outstanding borrowing from him over the next 10 years.

  Mr. Lang
  I am advised by the South of Scotland Electricity Board that at 30 November 1987 the average rate of interest on its outstanding borrowing was 11.8 per cent. The board's borrowings are expected to be repaid by instalments over periods ranging from one year to 21 years.

  South of Scotland Electricity Board (Advertising)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the amount spent by the South of Scotland Electricity Board on advertising in each year from 1983–84 to 1986–87 and projected spend in 1987–88 and 1988–89, showing in each case the sums spent on(a) television, (b) newspapers, (c) hoardings and billboards and (d) others.

  Mr. Lang
  This is a commercial matter for the board and I am asking the chairman to write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Salmonid Farming
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will outline the range and type of resources directed by his Department to the research into anti-predator devices and measures in the marine salmonid farming industry.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Part of the time of four scientists at the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland's marine laboratory is currently allocated to this work. Three years ago these resources were estimated to amount to three quarters of a man year and at present the effort is in the region of one man year.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will outline the resources devoted by his Department to research programmes which examine the effects of predators on the transmission of diseases at marine salmonid farming sites.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland is not at present undertaking any such research projects.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is in a position to estimate the financial loss incurred by the marine salmonid in each of the past five years farming due to bird and seal predation.
  201
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The most recent estimate of damage by seals showed that in the 12 month period to July 1985 damage amounting to some £170,000 to £250,000 was caused. The estimate was prepared on the basis of returns made to a questionnaire issued in 1985 to the salmon industry. No corresponding estimate of financial loss due to bird predation is available.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will outline departmental responsibility, within his Department, for the provision of advice and research into the effects of predators in marine salmonid farms.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The marine laboratory of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland is charged with the responsibility for providing advice on and research into the effects of predators in marine salmonid farms.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many licences under section 10(1)(c)(i) of the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 were granted to marine salmonid farmers in each of the past four years; and how many common and grey seals were killed under these licences for each of the past four years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Licences granted

  Number reported killed under licence

  1984

  Common seals

  2

  4

  Grey seals

  —

  —

  1985

  Common seals

  10

  3

  Grey seals

  14

  3

  1986

  Common seals

  8

  10

  Grey seals

  7

  3

  1987

  Common seals

  17

  3

  Grey seals

  119

  2—

  1 To date.

  2 Figures not yet available.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how large the salmon farming industry in Scotland(a) was three years ago and (b) is at present.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The industry has increased from 129 sites in 1984 (comprising 46 freshwater sites and 83 saltwater sites) with a total production of 3,912 tonnes, to 307 sites at present (comprising 108 freshwater sites and 199 seawater sites). The forecast production for 1987 is around 16,000 tonnes. Manpower in the industry was 515 full-time (128 part-time) in 1984 and 733 full-time (206 part-time) in 1986. Figures for 1987 are not yet available.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what resources his Department(a) provided three years ago and (b) provides at present by way of advice and training to those engaged in the salmon farming industry.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland's marine laboratory has in hand a programme of research aimed at the development of acoustic devices to scare seals from marine salmon farms. It is understood that the fish farming industry is undertaking on-site evaluation of the effectiveness of several prototype devices.

  Common Seals
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the approximate number of common seals on the west coast of Scotland and around the Western Isles.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland obtains advice from the Natural Environment Research Council as to estimates of seal populations.

  The most recent estimates obtained from the council in respect of common seal populations in the Outer Hebrides and the Inner Hebrides and the west coast of Scotland were provided by surveys carried out by the Sea Mammal Research Institute in 1974 and 1980 respectively. These showed a minimum total population in these regions of some 5,800 animals comprising some 1,300 animals in the Outer Hebrides and some 4,500 animals in the Inner Hebrides and the west coast.

  Children (Alleged Abduction)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland why no criminal charges have been brought against the three men alleged to have abducted three children, Craig Park, Mark Lane and John Love, from their home in Bornbrae street, Larkhill on 17 September.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland has already written to the hon. Member about this case, and has explained that the Crown's reasons for declining to prosecutre are confidential. The hon. Member may however be assured that the matter was carefully considered, and that the Solicitor-General for Scotland fully agreed with the procurator fiscal's decision against prosecution.

  Forestry Commission (Regional Advisory Committee)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the names of all the Forestry Commission's regional advisory committee members, together with details of the relevant background experience of each.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  Conservancy: North England

  Professor G. R. Dickson—Chairman. Farmer. Member of the Northumberland National Park Committee.

  J. Brown-Swinburne—Estate owner with forestry, farming and sawmilling interests.

  T. R. Fetherstonhaugh—Estate owner, with local authority experience.

  Professor B. Hackett—Professor of Landscape Architecture (retired). Chartered town planner. Chartered architect.

  T. N. Hammond—Trade Unionist.

  Lady Elizabeth Kirk—Countryside Commissioner 1979 to date. President of the Countryside Holidays Association. Member of various other recreational committees.

  W. W. Metcalf—Member of the RICS. Member of the North York Moors National Park Committee and Yorkshire Naturalists Trust.

  R. E. Shapland — Forest Manager, North West Water Authority.

  P. Townson—Wide forestry experience.

  Conservancy: East England

  W. E. Lane—Chairman, Planner. Involved in the work of NCC, National Trust, CPRE and other bodies.

  G. K. Agnew—Landowner with forestry, farming and local Government interests.

  T. Cook—Farmer.

  203

  P. H. Peck—Trade unionist.

  J. K. Royston — Agent to Duke of Buccleuch Boughton Estate.

  C. Stratton—Landscape Architect.

  J. Todd — President of the British Timber Merchants Association.

  L. Woodham—Governor of Plumpton Agriculture College.

  Councillor Mrs. M. P. Wright—Member of East Sussex County Council; Chairman of the Conservation and Countryside Committee.

  Conservancy: West England

  I. Mercer—Chairman, Dartmoor National Park Officer.

  Major D. J. C. Davenport—Woodland Owner and Farmer.

  C. A. Eade—Chartered Surveyor and Land Agent.

  A. East—Managing Director of a timber processing firm. Member of the British Institute of Management, Institute of Wood Science.

  A. Fooks—Trade Union official.

  D. W. Hildred—Retired Bank Manager. Field Naturalist.

  W. A. Isaac—Former County Chairman of the NFU. Vice-Chairman Wiltshire Farming, Forestry and Wildlife Advisory Group. Member of the CLA Executive Committee.

  R. Jarman — Adviser on Nature Conservation, National Trust. Member of a number of conservation bodies.

  J. M. B. Workman — Woodland Owner, National Trust Adviser. Forestry Consultant.

  Conservancy: Wales

  M. A. McLaggan—Chairman, Lawyer. Woodland owner.

  J. Lloyd Jones — Vice-Chairman County Branch NFU, Chairman Gwynned Farming, Forestry and Wildlife Advisory Group. Member Council for the Protection of Rural Wales.

  D. M. Raikes OBE, JP—Countryside Commissioner, Vice-Chairman Countryside Commission's Committee for Wales.

  S. K. Neale—Trade Unionist.

  Col. P. C. Ormrod — Past Chairman of TGUK (North Wales). Forestry and Land Use Consultant. Past Chairman of Flintshire Woodlands Ltd.

  Mrs. R. Rooney—Estate owner with woodland interests.

  D. W. Rowlands—Member of the Institute of Chartered Foresters, Royal Forestry Society, British Institute of Agricultural Consultants.

  J. W. Sutton — Purchasing Manager, Shotton Paper Co. Ltd.

  W. R. Williams JP—Estate owner with woodland interests.

  Conservancy: North Scotland

  Sheriff S. Scott Robinson—Chairman. Former Sheriff of Inverness. Former Vice-President Law Society of Scotland.

  E. J. Brodie — Estate owner. Farming/Forestry and Sporting interests.

  B. E. Crabtree—Trade Union official.

  J. Evans—Forestry Consultant.

  A. D. M. Farquharson—Land Agent. Manages a forestry estate.

  Professor C. Gimingham — Professor of Plant Science, Aberdeen University. Countryside Commissioner for Scotland.

  N. J. O. Graham—Vice-Chairman of Planning Committee — Highland Regional Council. Ex-Chairman of the RSPB Scottish Committee.

  W. W. MacAskill—Director of firm of timber merchants, and various commercial companies.

  M. Pottinger — Family livestock business. Part-time journalist. Former President of the local NFU.

  Conservancy: Mid Scotland

  Dr. Jean Balfour — Chairman — Ex-Chairman of the Countryside Commission for Scotland.

  B. S. Brookes — Former Warden; Scottish Field Studies Association. Member of the Scottish Wildlife Trust.

  P. Fairweather—Forestry Manager Argyll Estate.

  J. W. Hutchison — Landowner with extensive forestry interests.

  C. R. Langton—Wide forestry experience.

  204

  J. McNaughton—Hill farmer. Member of the British Wool Marketing Board, the Panel of Agricultural Arbiters, and the Red Deer Commission.

  G. Morton—Union official.

  P. S. Murray — Director of sawmilling company. Ex-President of Home Timber Merchants Association of Scotland.

  Cllr. T. Rae — Member of Strathclyde Regional Council. Served in fields of Education, Planning, Manpower Services.

  Conservancy: South Scotland

  H. A. Waterston — Chairman. Retired Deputy Principal West of Scotland College of Agriculture. Involved in Red Deer Societies.

  W. S. Brack—Trade Unionist.

  D. B. Crawford OBE—Forestry Consultant.

  T. Croft—Head of Policy Research Department, National Trust for Scotland.

  D. Hewitt—Director of a firm of Timber Merchants.

  D. I. Liddell-Grainger — Deputy Chairman TGUK (Scotland).

  R. A. McClymont — Member of NFUS and Wool Marketing Board. Interest in Hill Farming.

  D. R. Robinson — Chairman Wigtown District Council. Member of Dumfries and Galloway Regional Council. Director of an agricultural business.

  The Earl of Rosebery — Estate owner, with woodland interests.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Child Welfare
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to seek to increase the minimum and maximum sentences available for those found guilty of sexually interfering with handicapped children while entrusted with their care.

  Mr. Stanley
  There are no mandatory minimum penalties for sexual offences against children in any part of the United Kingdom and there are no plans to introduce such penalties in Northern Ireland.

  The maximum penalty for certain homosexual offences against children is life; for indecent assault it is 10 years, and for rape, it is life. It is proposed to increase the maximum sentence for attempted rape of a child and for indecent assault of a girl in a forthcoming Order in Council.

  The penalties for other sexual offences which may involve children are being kept under close review.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he is to publish his White Paper outlining the Government's response to the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights report on fair employment.

  Mr. Viggers
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 12 November at column 308.

  Anthony Hughes
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when and where a post mortem was held on Anthony Hughes, who died at Loughall police station in County Armagh; and what was the result of the post mortem.
  205
  The Attorney-General
  [holding answer 1 December 1987]: I have been asked to reply as the Lord Chancellor is responsible for the work of coroners in Northern Ireland.

  A post mortem was held in Craigavon area hospital on 9 May 1987 and a full autopsy report will be available for the purposes of an inquest which is to be held in due course.

  Under-fives
  The Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to promote provision for under-fives throughout Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 3 December 1987]: In the personal social services field, services for the under-fives including social work support for families, childminders and day nurseries, are an integral part of the Government's overall preventive strategy on child care, whose development was identified as a specific objective for the next five years in the regional strategy published by the Department of Health and Social Services in August this year. A copy of this document is available in the Library.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Severe Weather Payments
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give details of arrangements for the payment of severe and cold weather payments to pensioners in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 27 October at columns 468–9. The relevant regulations were laid before the House on 26 November.

  Eye Tests
  Mr Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from the National League of the Blind and Disabled regarding abolition of free eye tests; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what reply he is sending to the representations made to him by the general secretary of the National League of the Blind and Disabled in regard to his proposal to abolish free eye tests; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand that the league has writen to my right hon. Friend, but its letter has not yet been received.

  AIDS
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what contingency plans his Department has in the case of an AIDS epidemic among heterosexuals in the United Kingdom within the next five years.

  Mr. Newton
  The low rates of HIV infection currently found amongst heterosexuals in the United Kingdom suggest that it is very unlikely that there will be epidemic 206
  spread of heterosexually acquired HIV in the next five years. The public education programme on AIDS prevention is designed to ensure this situation is maintained. All health authorities in England have prepared plans for dealing with HIV infection and AIDS, and the costs of providing AIDS-related services are kept under close review in the light of the latest information available about the spread of HIV infection.

  Mrs. Susan Halligan
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when Mrs. Susan Halligan of 29 Worcester road, Birkenhead will receive the invalid care allowance for which she applied in September 1986.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that the processing of Mrs. Halligan's claim has taken much longer than is usual. I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Multiple Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has about the outcome of pregnancy following infertility treatment and in-vitro fertilisation, and on the extent to which these treatments may have contributed to the rise in the rates of multiple births.

  Mr. Newton
  The Department does not collect data on the outcome of pregnancy in relation to different infertility treatments. However, studies are being carried out at the national perinatal epidemiology unit, which is funded by the Department, and at the Medical Research Council which should shed light on the incidence of multiple pregnancies linked to these treatments. We expect both studies to be completed in about a year's time.

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will detail for each year since 1979 the numbers of(a) pensioners and (b) other claimants who have drawn supplementary benefit for five or more years.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information is as follows:

  Supplementary pension claimants (thousands)

  Supplementary allowance claimants (thousands)

  November 1979

  1,053

  234

  December 1980

  1,054

  251

  December 1981

  1,087

  281

  December 1982

  1,090

  308

  December 1983

  1,057

  348

  December 1984

  1,041

  409

  February 1986

  1,026

  535

  Source: Annual statistical inquiries.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people, shown by age and marital status, are in receipt of the long-term rate of supplementary benefit for the latest date and for equivalent dates in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that I cannot give the hon. Member all the information that he requests. Such information as can be provided will not be available until the new year. I shall let the hon. Member have a further reply then.

  Unemployed Benefit Recipients
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many previously unemployed benefit recipients are not required to be available for work at the latest date and for equivalent dates in each of the past 10 years; and how many previously unemployed men aged 60 and over are in receipt of the long-term rate of supplementary benefit at the latest date and for equivalent dates over the same period.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that the information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However the following table shows the number of men aged 60–64 who receive supplementary benefit. These are the latest available figures.

  Number

  December 1981

  19,000

  December 1982

  40,000

  December 1982

  114,000

  December 1984

  131,000

  February 1986

  136,000

  Since May 1983 the long-term scale rate has been allowed in all cases of men over 60. Before that date it was used only for men not required to be available for work who had received benefit for over 12 months, or were over pension age.

  Men over pension age have been excluded from the table.

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when the industrial injuries advisory council's reports on halogenated aliphatic hydrocarbons and non-ionising radiation are to be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Both reports were published yesterday. The report on non-ionising radiation recommends that no changes be made to the existing legislation. The report on halogenated aliphatic hydrocarbons and n-hexane recommends that the following conditions be added to the schedule of prescribed industrial diseases:

  (i) Damage to the liver or kidneys due to exposure to carbon tetrachloride.

  (ii) Damage to the liver or kidneys due to exposure to trichloromethane (chloroform).

  (iii) Central nervous system dysfunction and associated gastrointestinal disorders due to exposure to chloromethane (methyl chloride).

  (iv) Peripheral neuropathy due to exposure to n-hexane or methyl n-butyl ketone.

  The Government accept the council's recommendations and regulations will be laid on 11 December to bring them into operation on 4 January 1988.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Lord Privy Seal if he will list the current cost of answering(a) written and (b) an oral parliamentary question; and if he will list the total annual cost of answering parliamentary questions.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The cost of replying to parliamentary questions varies considerably, but the current average cost 208
  is estimated at £45 for written answers and £75 for oral answers. Records of the total annual cost of answering parliamentary questions are not kept.

DEFENCE

  British Military and Naval Presence
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list every country and dependency where there is a permanent British military or naval presence, the annual costs to public funds of each such presence, and the proportion that represents in each case of the total cost of such a presence.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Countries and dependencies (outside the NATO area except Gibraltar) where there is a permanent British military or naval presence, and the annual cost to United Kingdom public funds of those forces, together with the proportion of the total cost of the presence in each case which this cost represents, are as follows:

  Estimated Cost (1987–88) £ million

  Proportion of Total Cost per cent.

  Hong Kong

  55

  25

  British Indian Ocean Territory (Diego Garcia)

  1

  100

  Falkland Islands (including South Georgia)

  141

  100

  Gibraltar

  79

  100

  Cyprus (includes SBA and UNFICYP forces)

  112

  81

  Belize

  38

  100

  Brunei

  —

  0

  We do not maintain forces exclusively for operations in dependencies other than those listed, and costs are not separately identified. These details exclude loan service personnel stationed in a number of countries and dependencies throughout the world. All the costs shown include directly attributable expenditure on capital works and equipment and are running costs for materiel and manpower. The costs of operational headquarters, bases and general operational support have been attributed pro rata.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department takes to implement its equal opportunities employment policy; how many persons of ethnic minority origins are employed in his Department; what proportion that is of the total; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  An action plan has been developed to promote equal opportunities within the Ministry of Defence. Examples of actions taken or in hand are a trial to determine the demand for job-sharing and part-time working; women-only training courses; a survey of the ethnic origins of staff and applicants for employment; the placing of recruitment advertisements in the ethnic press; and initiatives to help people with disabilities. The voluntary survey of the ethnic origins of staff has not yet been completed. To date, of the 43,603 non-industrial staff who have so far responded, 834 or 2 per cent. were from ethnic minorities.

  Courts Martial
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the offences for which British soldiers have been convicted by courts martial in each of the last two years, and the sentences that were imposed.

  Mr. Freeman
  Full details of the offences for which Army service men and service women have been convicted by courts martial are not readily available and could be

  Convictions by Courts Martial of Army Servicemen and Servicewomen during 1985 Punishment Awarded

  Type of Offence

  Number Convicted

  Imprisonment

  Dismissal

  Detention

  Reduction in Rank

  Fine

  Reprimand

  Others

  Total

  807

  53

  284

  335

  52

  81

  2

  —

  Offences against person (excluding sexual)

  95

  13

  21

  50

  6

  5

  —

  —

  Sex Offences

  19

  6

  11

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Drug Offences

  51

  7

  27

  17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Offences against property

  179

  13

  52

  76

  20

  18

  —

  —

  Desertion and AWOL

  268

  9

  107

  141

  7

  3

  1

  —

  Drunkenness

  18

  —

  5

  5

  1

  7

  —

  —

  Other offences against discipline

  147

  5

  59

  43

  17

  22

  1

  —

  Other Offences

  30

  —

  2

  1

  1

  26

  —

  —

  Convictions by Courts Martial of Army Servicemen and Servicewomen during 1986 Punishment Awarded

  Type of Offence

  Number Convicted

  Imprisonment

  Dismissal

  Detention

  Reduction in Rank

  Fine

  Reprimand

  Other

  Total

  608

  20

  223

  264

  52

  46

  2

  1

  Offences against person (excluding sexual)

  93

  8

  20

  52

  8

  4

  —

  1

  Sex Offences

  13

  7

  4

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Drug Offences

  18

  —

  16

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Offences against property

  158

  3

  61

  67

  16

  11

  —

  —

  Desertion and AWOL

  220

  2

  93

  114

  11

  —

  —

  —

  Drunkenness

  4

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Other offences against discipline

  83

  —

  26

  24

  14

  19

  —

  —

  Other Offences

  19

  —

  2

  2

  2

  11

  2

  —

  Bullying
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many serious individual cases of bullying have been referred to his Department in the last year; and what is the total number of such cases which have been centrally recorded in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  13 serious individual cases of bullying which have resulted in court martial action have been referred to my Department in the past year. 11 of these have been in the Army and two in the Royal Marines.

  A number of other cases are still under investigation. The relative seriousness of these, and the disciplinary action appropriate, cannot be judged until such investigations are completed. It is not possible to give details of such cases over the past 10 years, as records of these cases have been held centrally only since January 1986.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in the last year complaints involving bullying have been so numerous or so recurrent in a unit that the matter has been referred to his Department.
  210
  obtained only at disproportionate cost. The available statistics, which are shown below for 1985 and 1986, group offences into eight categories. When an individual was convicted of offences from more than one category, he or she has been counted against the most serious category, the order of severity being that shown in the tables. Punishments awarded are also shown in order of severity, decreasing from left to right. When multiple punishments were awarded, the most serious has been counted.

  Mr. Freeman
  During the last year, against the background of allegations in late 1986 about initiation ceremonies in 3 Royal Green Jackets—later proved to be largely baseless—all cases of alleged bullying in the Army have been referred to my Department. To date there have been some 89 cases in all, some of them relating to alleged incidents before this period. Their being reported to MOD is not a function of any marked increase in such incidents, but rather a reflection of how seriously this whole question is being treated.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions since 1984 no disciplinary action has been taken against soldiers who went absent without leave when on their return it was established that the absence was because of bullying.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the right hon. Member to my letter of 3 December. I regret that the information the right hon. Member seeks is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many courts martial there have been in each of the last five years; in how many of these the charge was related to some form of bullying; and in how many there was a guilty verdict.
  211
  Mr. Freeman
  The numbers of courts martial held in the period 1982–1986 are as follows:

  Royal Navy

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  Total

  1982

  49

  1,148

  239

  1,436

  1983

  65

  844

  237

  1,146

  1984

  73

  853

  190

  1,116

  1985

  65

  845

  217

  1,127

  1986

  60

  644

  144

  848

  Details are not recorded in a way which would permit the ready identification of those cases in which the charges related to some form of bullying since no offence under the service discipline Acts is defined as such. It is, however, an offence under section 36A of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 and sections 65 of the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 for an officer, warrant officer of non-commissioned officer to strike or otherwise ill-treat a person of inferior rank; and the numbers of courts martial convictions for offences under these sections in the period 1982–1986 are as follows:

  Royal Navy

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  Total

  1982

  Nil

  3

  1

  4

  1983

  Nil

  17

  1

  18

  1984

  5

  8

  2

  15

  1985

  Nil

  15

  3

  18

  1986

  Nil

  4

  4

  8

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library details of those allegations of bullying given to newspapers which he reports in his letter of 2 December to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South to have been found to be baseless; and what investigations were carried out to lead his Department to this conclusion.

  Mr. Freeman
  Yes. I shall do so shortly.

  Lieutenant Colonel Macmillan
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will investigate allegations made in a letter passed to him by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South that men under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Macmillan have been fined excessively for trivial offences; and how many applications to leave his unit have been made in recent months.

  Mr. Freeman
  The anonymous letter passed to me by the right hon. Member relates to summary disciplinary action taken by Lieutenant Colonel Macmillan as commanding officer of 4th Armoured Division Field Ambulance. In dealing summarily with disciplinary cases, a commanding officer has the widest possible evidence available to him, and it has long been our practice to regard matters of this sort as confidential between the CO and the individual soldiers concerned.

  The punishments awarded in each of the cases mentioned in the letter were well within the commanding officer's powers and were correctly entered into unit disciplinary records — which are subject to regular inspection by higher military authority. None of the three cases of alleged excessive fining noted in the letter is as simple as the right hon. Member's correspondent has suggested. In the case of the fine imposed for "an untidy room", the NCO concerned was charged as a result of his
  212
  room being found, on a six-monthly accommodation check, in an indescribably filthy and unhygenic condition: the fine imposed was the equivalent of 18 days' pay. In another of the cases cited, the charge was not only that the NCO concerned failed to stop on a bicycle when ordered, but that he was riding at night without lights, and behaving in a disorderly manner in front of foreign visitors to the unit: the soldier concerned was fined the equivalent of 19 days' pay. In the third case cited, the NCO concerned was a persistent offender in the late settlement of mess bills, and had been specifically reminded of the due date of the bill in question: he was fined the equivalent of six days' pay. Each of the soldiers concerned had the option of electing to be tried by court martial on the same charges, and none of them has made any complaint or appeal about the summary punishment awarded.

  The letter alleges that there has been an undue number of NCOs or soldiers seeking premature transfer from the unit. This is simply not the case. Since the CO took command in January this year, two officers and 10 soldiers have applied for early release or premature posting, for a variety of reasons ranging from family circumstances, to offers of civilian employment, to their volunteering for the airborne or commando forces. The applications for PVR represent some 3·4 per cent. of the unit establishment. Some 70 other soldiers who were eligible to transfer under a trickle posting system have chosen to remain within the unit.

  Queen's Dragoon Guards
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will investigate allegations made to him in a letter passed to him by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South that initiation ceremonies in the Queen's Dragoon Guards for new junior officers involve nakedness and drinking cocktails including urine; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  As the allegations made in the anonymous letter passed to me by the right hon. Gentleman give no specific dates of the alleged incidents or the names of those supposedly involved, it has not been possible to initiate a Special Investigation Branch inquiry, as would normally be the case.

  Nevertheless, the allegations have caused considerable disquiet, both in my Department and in the regiment and its higher command chain. Very careful inquiries have been carried out within the regiment, under the supervision of the brigade commander, into all aspects of the behaviour alleged in the letter. All available officers of the regiment have been interviewed as part of this process, and I can state that no evidence whatsoever has been found which supports the allegations that newly joined officers of the Queen's Dragoon Guards are initiated by their soldiers in revolting and unseemly drinking rituals.

  I have explained to the right hon. Member on previous occasions the difficulty of pursuing conclusively allegations that are unsupported by specific details. Our inquiries have established no accurate basis for the very harmful allegations in this particular letter, against a most distinguished regiment. However, if additional details were forthcoming I would of course be prepared to look further into the matter.

  Ministry Police
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list his precise responsibilities in relation to the Ministry of Defence police.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As set out in the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has overall responsibility for the force and, therefore, has to determine policy for its roles, management and administration — including provision of the money, manpower and equipment necessary for it to operate efficiently.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the procedure for lodging complaints against the Ministry of Defence police.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Ministry of Defence police are required to follow the same complaints procedures as other United Kingdom civilian police forces. A leaflet explaining the complaints procedure entitled "Complaints against the Police" is available from any police station. A complainant may either write to the chief constable MOD police, or a local police force chief constable, or visit any police station where details will be taken. Alternatively an aggrieved person may authorise someone else to complain on his behalf.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence police as to the circumstances in which a young woman outside Greenham Common air base had her fingers deliberately trapped and crushed by an American service man; why no charges were brought against the service man; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. I assume that the hon. Member is referring to an incident that occurred in the early hours of 13 November 1987. The individual concerned has lodged a complaint against the police in accordance with the usual procedure. The matter was immediately referred by the chief constable of the MOD police to the Police Complaints Authority in accordance with section 87 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as the nature of the injuries fall within the category for mandatory supervision.

  An investigating officer, approved by the Police Complaints Authority, has been appointed and when the
  214
  results of his investigation are known appropriate action will be taken. This may include further investigation in conjunction with the USAF authorities.

  AWACS
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of the seventh AWACS aircraft.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 1 December 1987]: The cost of the seventh AWACS aircraft cannot be disclosed for reasons of commercial confidentiality. However, the favourable movement of the sterling-dollar exchange rate since March has meant that the price is lower than that agreed for each of the first six.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total value of contracts that must be placed by Boeing before 18 December 1994 now that seven AWACS aircraft have been ordered.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 1 December 1987]: The total value of contracts is expected to be in excess of 1·5 billion dollars.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the cost penalties if Boeing fail to honour the agreed AWACS 130 per cent. offset arrangements by 18 December 1994.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 1 December 1987]: The offset agreement with Boeing is an integral part of the contract for the purchase of the AWACS system. Any breach of the agreement would therefore constitute a breach of the contract and, although there are no express damages identified in the contract, the Government would have recourse to English law in respect of perceived damages.

  Howitzers
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many 155 mm self-propelled howitzers are required by the Army.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 1 December 1987]: I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 1 December, at column 569, on howitzer quantities.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

Disablement Benefits: New Claimants
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to ensure that people newly disabled after April 1988 do not receive less by way of benefits and allowances than people disabled before April 1988.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, disabled people will receive more benefit by way of income support than ever before. Over £50 million extra will go to those who qualify for the disability premium. Furthermore, my honourable friend the Minister of State for Social Security and for the Disabled is urgently and sympathetically seeking a way to help the very small number of severely disabled people who need considerable help to live in the community and who become newly disabled after April 1988.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. In the light of the fact that we have been told that we have had the biggest social security review since Beveridge, are the Government satisfied that people who are 100 per cent. disabled as a result of the Enniskillen bomb, the fire at King's Cross or industrial injury all receive different and higher levels of compensation and benefit than those received by someone who is 100 per cent. disabled as a result of a congenital handicap? Does the Minister also agree that all the people in the categories that I have mentioned would be well advised to secure their discharge from hospital before April 1988, because if they are discharged after that they will all receive benefit at a lower level than that to which they are at present entitled?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, income support is not the only benefit available to disabled people. In assessing income support, we shall continue to ignore mobility and attendance allowances for most purposes. Significant entitlements can be built up through personal allowances, the disability premium, mobility and attendance allowances, where relevant, and in certain cases either the severe disability premium paid directly to the person or invalid care allowance paid to someone else who provides care and support.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to consult his right honourable friend about some of the problems now confronting members of the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association? Ex-
200
servicemen from both wars who have lost limbs are worried because they are finding that as they grow older it becomes more difficult and more expensive merely to move about. Will he please have a look at this problem, perhaps with representatives of the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I shall draw the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Banks: My Lords, will the noble Earl say how many people now receive the supplementary additional requirement on account of disability, and how many will receive the disability premium and the severe disability premium under income support?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, until the new scheme comes into operation next April, it is difficult to estimate the number of new claimants who will qualify for the disability premium. However, at the point at which reforms are introduced next April, we estimate on the basis of existing supplementary benefit claims that 230,000 sick and disabled people will be entitled to the disability premium; of those, 190,000 (just under 85 per cent.) will be better off under income support than they are under supplementary benefit.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the noble Earl ask his right honourable friend to consider paying a disability premium to those who are newly diagnosed as terminally ill after April 1988, who would have been eligible under the present social security scheme for attendance needs additional requirements for the first six months qualifying period prior to their potential receipt of attendance allowance?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we are aware of the situation with regard to terminally ill people. In view of what the noble Countess has said, I shall draw her remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, from the noble Earl's answer to the first supplementary question, it sounded as though some people would draw their income under six different heads. How will people know what they are entitled to? What steps are being taken to inform them? As the noble Earl knows, the failure of people to claim what they are entitled to because they find it difficult to know their rights has been a serious handicap in the past.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Rather than give an inaccurate answer, I should prefer to give an accurate answer in writing.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, the Minister mentioned severely disabled people in his original reply. Can I ask why the Government appear to have substituted a rebate of 20 per cent. through the benefit system for the undertaking given by the

201
noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, during the passage of the Abolition of Domestic Rates (Scotland) Bill, that the severely disabled would receive rebates of 100 per cent. of the community charge? These undertakings do not appear to be the same. I should very much like to know the reason for the substitution.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, people who are awarded income support or family credit, whether they are disabled or not, will receive increases in their benefits as compensation towards the average minimum community charge contribution. The effect of this will be to ensure that certain disabled people are compensated for 100 per cent. of their community charge liability.
Lord Basnett: My Lords, in view of the admission by Ministers that some severely disabled people are to suffer a decrease in their income as the result of the new proposals, will the noble Earl agree that there is an urgent need for a review to ensure that this does not happen? Will he further agree that it is not in the interests of the disabled that they should await the OPCS review? That would be a disservice to the disabled since they were promised in 1974 that they would he provided with support to live normally in the community?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I refer the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, to my original Answer: namely. that my honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled is keeping an extremely wary and sympathetic eye on those who are severely disabled.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell us why. at col. 60 of Hansard on 16th November, the Minister, the noble Lord. Lord Skelmersdale, predicted that only 250 people would be worse off after April? How was that figure reached? Surely—and heaven forbid!—it would need only another Zeebrugge or King's Cross disaster, or a regrettable increase in road accidents, for the figure to be much larger than that? It seems to some of us quite irrational that that figure should have been quoted. Can the noble Earl tell us why transitional payments will not be index-linked and for how long the transitional payments will he maintained?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the second question of the noble Baroness refers to the second Question standing on the Order Paper in the name of the noble Lord. Lord Carter. With regard to the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, on which she questions me, it is a highly technical and complicated subject. If the noble Baroness will allow me to do so, I prefer to write to her.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the Minister respond to my second question? I asked him to confirm whether people who are severely disabled and who were discharged from hospital after April 1988 will have a lower level of benefit than if they were discharged before that date.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, frankly, I should prefer to write to the noble Lord on the point that he raises.

Disablement Benefits: Uprating
2.47 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to increase the benefits and allowances now paid to people with disabilities to take account of inflation after April 1988.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the next uprating of social security benefits will take place in April 1989 and will take account of inflation between September 1987 and September 1988.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Does he agree that as well as the problem for the disabled of having to deal with inflation, the severely disabled will face the appalling prospect of a change in their circumstances after April 1988? For example, a spell in hospital could mean a reduction in their level of benefit of about 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. In the light of that, what is the rationale behind the Government's treatment of some of the poorest and most vulnerable members of society bearing in mind that 2 million of the 3 million disabled in this country are living on or near the margin of poverty?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, cash protection is the normal way to protect existing beneficiaries when benefit rules change. The cost on this occasion will be £200 million for the first year. The special protection for the domestic assistance addition recognises the exceptional difficulties of this small group of severely disabled claimants.
Lord Banks: My Lords, how many pensioners will receive transitional protection? Will they not all suffer a gradual decline in the real value of the benefit they receive?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I would prefer, please, to answer with accuracy the question put to me by the noble Lord.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, can the Minister give some comparison of the amounts paid now in respect of disablement and those paid before this Government's term of office?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords. since 1979 the Government have spent on average £35 million per annum more in real terms on disabled people than was spent under the previous Government between 1974 and 1979.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, the noble Earl has promised to write a great many letters. How long will it take before we receive the answers? The DHSS

203
makes me feel like St. Paul, still waiting for a reply from the Corinthians, the Galatians and the Philippians. There seems to be no sense of time in that department.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Baroness has made the comment that I shall be writing a fair few letters. I am doing so in the interests of your Lordships' House and in the interests of accuracy. As regards speed, I am well aware of what the noble Baroness has said. I shall personally do my level best to see that those letters are very quickly completed.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Earl saying that the transitional payments will or will not be index-linked? If they are not to be index-linked, may I ask him a question to which I should like a Written Answer?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, from next April the income support paid to people who now have very high domestic assistance additions will include special transitional protection for these additions. That protection will be uprated from April 1989 to take account of inflation.

Building Industry: Training
2.51 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have recently received submissions from any source regarding the training of apprentices for the building industry.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, the Government have received no such submissions.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am a little surprised at that reply as I understand that the Institute of Maintenance and Building Management submitted proposals to the Department of Employment some weeks ago indicating its concern about the small number of people who were emerging as craftsmen in the building industry? Will he take up the matter with the Secretary of State to see whether such a report has been received? Will he give serious consideration to the four points raised in the report which are designed to improve the present situation?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the National Federation of Building Trades Employers used to run a first-class apprenticeship scheme? In fact it was brilliant. Does it still run, and if not, why not?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I should like to give the noble Lord accurate information and so perhaps he will allow me to write to him on that subject. As the noble Lord is aware, there is a great number of efficient voluntary schemes.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is it not a fact that in certain areas of the construction industry there are serious shortages of skilled employees and that these shortages are such as seriously to endanger some projects? Should not steps be taken in this area to ensure that there is proper skill training?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right to draw this general area to our attention. The matter is essentially one for the industry but I should tell your Lordships that in January this year Ministers hosted a meeting on building skill shortages and asked the Construction Industry Training Board to produce an action plan for an increase in both adult and youth trainee numbers. Ministers discussed progress on 1st December. I am happy to be able to report that there was good progress. Nearly 2,000 additional YTS places and 1,000 adult upgrading places are expected by the spring of 1988.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the quality of the construction of housing and factories is of the utmost importance? Is he aware that he has a pivotal role to play in maintaining standards? Will he consult the industry rather than wait for it to come to him? If he would consult the industry and bodies like the Federation of Master Builders they would not only give him good advice but also help him to improve the flow of apprentices in the industry.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that quality in construction is of the utmost importance. I should point out to him that the Government, in combination with the Construction Industry Training Board, are making every effort to modernise apprenticeships within the industry and to introduce training to standards and skill tests.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that in the second year of YTS a steady flow of youngsters should be coming into the building industry and being trained on a modular basis? Is that not very desirable?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Baroness. It is very desirable. I have every confidence that we can expect increasing numbers of people to come forward in that way.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that consistently throughout the lifetime of the Manpower Services Commission the industry has been represented through the CBI and through TUC representatives on the commission and that there has been constant consultation about how YTS would link with continuing education and training to standards for apprentices in the building industry?
The Earl of Dundee: Yes, my Lords. I would, on the whole, agree with my noble friend.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in addition to the organisation I mentioned in my supplementary question, other reputable and established organisations such as the Institute of Clerks of Works of Great Britain, the Institute of Building, the Building Employers Confederation and the trade unions are all expressing the view that apprentices are not coming through in sufficient quantities. Desirable though the two-year period is, they are asking that it be extended to three years in order to produce a more finished product. Is it not a fact that the CITB is holding in reserve something in excess of £6 million? Would it not be logical to plough some of this money into extending training schemes to try to correct the present imbalance?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, in reply to the second part of the noble Lord's question and in reference to remarks I have already made about the action which the Government are taking, I mentioned that in January this year Ministers hosted a meeting on building skills shortages and asked the CITB to produce an action plan for an increase in both adult and youth trainee numbers. The funds to which the noble Lord referred will be used for that purpose.
With regard to the first part of his question and the very important point about the need to link to employers' requirements, I can tell him that the Construction Industry Training Board is in the process of conducting a major study of occupational structures in the industry. This will enable the CITB to undertake a full review of training provision. That survey is due to be completed in June 1988.

Drug Trafficking
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they are making in co-operating with other nations in order to tackle the problem of international drug trafficking.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we attach high priority to international co-operation in the battle against drug trafficking. We are working on many fronts to ensure a more effective response to the problem: at European level through our chairmanship of the Council of Europe's Pompidou Group; worldwide by our support for the United Nations drugs bodies; through better co-operation in the law enforcement field where our network of drug liaison officers has proved so valuable; and by increasing from £500,000 to £2 million per year in 1988–89 the Home Office programme for drug-related assistance overseas.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that full and interesting reply. What has been the effect of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, before answering that question perhaps I may pay a special tribute to my noble friend who has shown even more than her usual courage in being able to be with your Lordships today. My noble friend has set us a very great example.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 set a good example world-wide of what can be done. By 2nd December, the High Court had made 140 restraint or charging orders, freezing assets of the order of £7 million. And the first confiscation orders are beginning to be made as cases work through the Crown Court, including a recent one for £163,113.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, what progress is being made on the development of a robotic nose to detect drugs? I believe that the laboratory of the government chemist and British Aerospace have been working on this problem for some time.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand that this is part of a wider programme for which over £13 million is being provided over a four-year period to develop and introduce technical aids such as fibrescopes and X-ray machines for scanning cargo and baggage, but on the particular point of robotic noses I think I too shall have to write to my noble friend.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, are there not some recent notable events in regard to international drug trafficking which have resulted directly from the international co-operation of which the noble Earl has spoken?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is absolutely right. An example of the co-operation that has proved a success is the recent operation in which 208 kilograms of cocaine with a street value of £51 million were seized at Southampton, which was followed by a number of arrests in Holland. This resulted from close collaboration with the French, German and Dutch authorities.
Lord Morris: My Lords, would not my noble friend consider it important even to give credit where credit is not due in the field of international co-operation with regard to this problem, in order to encourage further international co-operation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think that credit is due for the co-operation which has already occurred, and which is a notable change in the attitudes of a number of countries that are important in this field. We will of course continue to press hard to make it even better.

British Waterways Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.

Business of the House
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved. That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos set down for this day shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2½hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes".—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to say a brief word about the length of speeches in this afternoon's debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, to which your Lordships have just agreed to apply a five-hour time limit.
On the principle that the mover is allowed approximately 20 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 25 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, all other speeches should be limited to a strict upper limit of nine minutes, and if any noble Lord were to speak at greater length he would be doing so at the expense of other speakers later in the debate.

Disarmament and East-West Relations
3.3 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos rose to call attention to the progress made in disarmament negotiations and the improvement in East-West relations; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I think everyone will agree that this is a historic week in the long and tortuous annals of disarmament, and that the House is fortunate to have this opportunity to debate the implications of the INF Treaty which was signed yesterday and to consider the possibilities of further progress. We warmly support the treaty, and we also congratulate President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev on their most significant achievement.
Before I proceed further, perhaps I may say that we much look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, and also say how
208
glad we are to see him in this House. His great experience and knowledge of international affairs will enlighten our debates on these occasions. We are also very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Pym, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, both of whom also have considerable experience and knowledge of foreign affairs, are to speak in this debate, and we extend a warm welcome to them as well.
Yesterday's ceremony in Washington when the INF Treaty was signed marked the pinnacle of 20 years of negotiation—and of frustration—between the US and the USSR on nuclear arms. This frustration was shared by us, and this was manifested in several debates in the House from time to time. We remember the bilateral talks which began in 1969 and which led to SALT I and the ABM Treaty in 1972, and the subsequent talks which dragged on throughout the 1970s, ending in SALT II, which was signed in 1979 but never ratified by the United States Senate.
Then the House will recall that there was a sharp deterioration in relations between the super powers in the early years of this decade, with the deployment of SS 20s and thereafter of cruise and Pershing missiles in various areas in Europe. We remember the Soviet Union breaking off negotiations on theatre weapons, INF, in 1983. Our hopes were revived when negotiations were reopened in Geneva on the three categories—namely, INF and strategic and space weapons—and further raised by the Reagan-Gorbachev Geneva summit in November 1985, only to be dashed at Reykjavik a year later when the USSR raised the obstacle of SDI.
I hope the House will forgive me for this brief summary of recent history, but it is important that we get yesterday's achievement in the correct perspective at the start of our debate. It was in fact last February that the breakthrough came when Mr. Gorbachev put forward the double-zero option of removing all intermediate nuclear forces from Europe, a proposal which incidentally we on this side have advocated for some years now.
I believe, as do most people, that the INF is a great, indeed historic, achievement. Why is this so? There are those who are dubious—I have read their remarks in the press over the last three or four days—and there are others who are downright hostile. The sceptic seeks to remind us that only about 3 to 4 per cent. of the world's nuclear arsenals will be affected by this agreement. Let us examine this briefly. What does the agreement say? First, it will remove approximately 436 US warheads—cruise and Pershing I and II—and 1,575 Soviet warheads from Europe over a three-year period. Secondly, this three-year process will be monitored under a strict inspection regime. What the sceptic tends to overlook is the fact that this is the first treaty which actually reduces the stockpile of nuclear weapons as opposed to merely restraining their increase. That is the achievement that we must welcome today.
Furthermore, as we know from many debates in this House, the problem which has bedevilled negotiations from the start—namely, verification—has been tackled realistically in these talks, and ultimately resolved. The details have been published and discussed exhaustively in the press over the last

209
few days and will be debated here in this House when the Arms Control and Disarmament Bill comes to us shortly. I shall not therefore dilate upon it now, but I must agree with Mr. Frank Carlucci, the United States Secretary of State for Defense, when he described these new procedures as "mind boggling". They do, without doubt, represent a unique step forward in co-operation between the United States and the Soviet Union. We hope of course for early ratification by both sides.
The question in everyone's mind is: what is the next step? Is there a real, practical possibility that the next logical, and even more important, negotiation can be brought to a successful conclusion? It is most encouraging to know that the two leaders are discussing this very point at the present time. There is also our own position in this. We were not party to the INF agreement, but in this second stage we should become more involved, for obvious reasons.
As regards the possibilities of success in the second stage, we were encouraged a few days ago by the words of the US Secretary of State, Mr. Shultz, when he said that it may be possible to agree and ratify a START treaty before the end of this administration. Ambassador Lohman took the same view, but said that SDI could be an obstacle. That attitude to SDI, including Britain's attitude, becomes of paramount importance.
In my estimation, the present position is confused for several reasons. It seems clear that in the United States the development of SDI involves a huge expenditure with uncertain technological results, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has reminded us on several occasions. It is worth noting that the US Defense Department, in its report The Fiscal Year, 1987, reported that the US was ahead of the USSR in the great majority of areas of military capability and deficient in none. There is therefore no question of catching up with the United States. As has been said by a number of American experts such as Mr. McNamara, Mr. Keenan and Mr. McGeorge Bundy, an unchecked SDI programme could spur another arms race. Furthermore, Congress has put a brake on SDI expenditure and that provides a breathing space for talks. There has also been argument about the interpretation of the ABM treaty and what precisely is permissible within and without the laboratory, etc.
On 30th November Mr. Gorbachev made an interesting statement. It was as follows:
"in that degree SDI does not run counter to the ABM Treaty let it, let America act, let America indulge in research".
As we know, the Soviet Union wants a reaffirmation of the treaty for 10 years with no testing of SDI outside the laboratory. The US wants a seven-yearly affirmation, but wants testing in space. In my view, the gap is bridgeable and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will help to bridge it.
I should like to say something about Russia's stance on this subject. It has been making a great issue throughout the negotiations about the US strategic defence initiative. However, last week on American television Mr. Gorbachev admitted that Russia was working on an SDI of its own, although it had been holding that information hack. I have admiration and great hopes for Mr. Gorbachev, but
210
I must say that a little more glasnost on that subject over the past few months would have been appreciated. Reports on both strategic defence initiatives should have been on the table in Geneva.
We recognise that both leaders have their difficulties at home and their severe critics. I hope that the Government will sustain both of them, if they can, in an effort to make progress with START. I should say, in passing, that I am much more apprehensive of a possible successor to Mr. Gorbachev than I am of President Regan's successor in a year or so.
We are all interested in the talks which the Prime Minister had with Mr. Gorbachev on Monday. While we do not ask the noble Lord for great detail, perhaps he will tell us what is the general line of Her Majesty's Government on SDI at the present time, and what advice Mrs. Thatcher gave the Russian leader at Brize Norton. The reports say that the Prime Minister was seeking a compromise. I greatly hope that that was so, and if it is we warmly welcome her initiative. Will the noble Lord also confirm that the Government fully support a 50 per cent. reduction in strategic nuclear forces?
That brings me back to our own position and specifically to Trident. We believe that if a START treaty is agreed, the Government should make Trident a part of the negotiations further to reduce nuclear arsenals. The Prime Minister has said:
"Britain wants a long pause… once the START treaty is achieved".
She is reported as having said that to Mr. Carlucci here in London on 2nd December. However, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is on the record as saying that the Government would review their position on Trident if substantial—and I stress that word—reductions take place in the United States and Soviet strategic arsenals. He repeated that on Monday morning on the "Today" programme.
I should like to put a simple question to the Minister this afternoon. The 50 per cent. reduction in strategic nuclear forces, which the Prime Minister supports, must be regarded as substantial, and there can be no argument about that. Will this mean that Trident will be put into multilateral negotiations as the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary contemplated? I believe that to be an important question, and I hope that the Minister will give the House a clear reply.
The need for brevity prevents me from dealing as I would wish with other crucial issues such as chemical weapons, on which the Government have a good record, and conventional forces. Britain is in a difficult position because we all know, as those on the Government Benches will agree, that if we spend on Trident it must affect our ability to maintain our conventional forces at an appropriate level of efficiency. The MBFR talks in Vienna dragged on for 13 years without any significant success. There is now talk by Mr. Gorbachev of a new zone stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals. If that materialises, there will be new problems, with many more countries becoming involved.
Mrs. Thatcher is widely reported as having raised on Monday the question of conventional forces,

211
among other things, with Mr. Gorbachev. Does the noble Lord agree that success with nuclear disarmament should be followed by a drive to achieve conventional disarmament? Will that be the process? Conventional forces are very expensive and Mr. Gorbachev may want to save money, although he will probably face resistance from his generals if he makes the effort. NATO will need a new policy and a new strategy in the event of success on the nuclear side. The political and military implications will be profound for the Western alliance.
That brings me to my last point; namely, East-West relations. I think that all of us—certainly the overwhelming majority—hope that the new treaty will create a new atmosphere in the world and a relaxation of tension. I heard the Soviet ambassador say on television that it could help to break through the psychological barrier.
It must be said again and again that disarmament is not enough. The causes of war must be identified and eradicated. For example, very few people believe that a war will break out in Europe. Sir Anthony Parsons argued that cogently in an article in The Times of yesterday. The possible flashpoints of war are elsewhere and it is upon these that we hope the President and Mr. Gorbachev will concentrate and are concentrating at the moment. We can also agree that the Middle East is the most dangerous of all areas where a conflict could be triggered off. I hope that Britain is prepared to support any initiative which may emerge, not excluding the possibility of some initiative through the Security Council.
I was interested to note that again Mr. Gorbachev has departed from the old Soviet line and is advocating action through the United Nations. It may appear to be a small and unimportant point; but I was interested to note that, since Mr. Gorbachev came into power, the Soviet Union is paying its budgetary dues to the United Nations and is also paying off its arrears. I think that those points should not be dismissed lightly.
I believe that Mr. Gorbachev deserves credit for this. We can all see that his task is not an easy one, but let none of us doubt for a second that he is the best hope to emerge from Russia for many a long year. As I said earlier, we are more likely to achieve peace from him than through any immediate possible successor. The Prime Minister, who has seen a good deal of Mr. Gorbachev, holds him in great respect. I noted that she described him on Monday as a "bold and courageous leader". Of course, as all of us know, there are problems which concern us deeply on all sides of the House: the problem of human rights; the problem of Soviet Jewry and the problem of Afghanistan. Our views are well known on all of these. The structure of Soviet government is deeply conservative, with a small "c"! Reforms are regarded there with unremitting suspicion by many people.
But at last there is hope: hope of real disarmament; hope of change and hope of friendly relations. I looked at the signature ceremony last night live on television and I found it deeply moving. Of course we must always be vigilant and practical in our approach, but we must also be ready to grasp the
212
opportunities created by this new spirit of cooperation. That is the duty of all governments and of our own Government I hope they perform it. I beg to move for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos has secured today's debate in a historic week, and we are all grateful to him—not just for giving us another opportunity to review progress in arms control and disarmament and in East-West relations, but also for the balanced way in which he has introduced a most important subject. I was able, in answer to the Unstarred Question of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, on 18th November to set out the Government's position on, and our hopes for, a START Treaty. We also discussed the possible relationship of such a Treaty to developments in the field of ballistic missile defence.
Given the number of speakers, to say nothing of their eminence and experience in this field, I hope your Lordships will understand if I do not cover the same ground in depth again today, but try to answer any particular points on it and of course on Trident when I come to wind up. Rather, I should like to concentrate on what I believe to be some of the neglected items on the arms control agenda, and set out our assessment of current developments and the prospects for the future.
But I must begin by referring to yesterday's momentous signature of the INF Treaty. This treaty, based on Nato's proposals for a zero option, is important not only in its own right, involving as it does the destruction of some 1,500 deployed Soviet, and 400 deployed United states warheads, but also as a triumph for hard work and NATO solidarity. The Government support the treaty just as strongly today as they have throughout the negotiations.
The INF Treaty demonstrates two things about arms control: first, that mutually beneficial disarmament agreements with the Soviet Union are possible. Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, it underlines that our prime concern must be for our security; that this sometimes means the willingness to take potentially unpopular decisions to deploy new nuclear weapons; and that only if we show that we are prepared for such decisions will the Soviet Union take us seriously as a negotiating partner.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, we unreservedly welcome the INF treaty. We, too, congratulate the President of the United States and Mr. Gorbachev upon it. We welcome also, as the noble Lord would expect, the prospect next year of a START treaty involving 50 per cent. reductions in United States and Soviet strategic nuclear systems. But NATO will continue to rely on nuclear weapons for deterrence for the foreseeable future. And that means that we cannot be in the business of sprinkling further zeros around like confetti.
Enough nuclear weapons have been removed from Europe for the time being. Whatever happens, we cannot risk the possibility that Europe might be made safe again for conventional war and we should not baulk at making adjustments to our deterrent

213
consistent with the INF agreement to ensure that it remains credible and effective. NATO's longstanding policy of maintaining only the minimum number of nuclear weapons necessary for deterrence has already led to significant reductions in nuclear warheads in Western Europe. Even before the INF Treaty, NATO had reduced its stockpile by 2,400 since 1979. In any case, maintaining deterrence is not just a matter of more of the same. Existing systems can be made more effective if better deployed and less vulnerable.
The Soviet Union does not stint itself on developing new nuclear systems and improving old ones. It now admits this. We have not seen any unilateral reductions in its arsenal to match those made by NATO. Indeed, one thing we have learned from the data exchange which the Soviet Union has been obliged to undertake under the INF Treaty is that our figures for Soviet nuclear missiles in Europe—on occasion disputed by some members of the Benches opposite—have certainly not been exaggerated.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has hinted the agreement on the removal of INF missiles from Europe has focused the spotlight on the disparities between NATO and Warsaw Pact conventional forces—disparities that must be eliminated if lasting stability is to be achieved. So much has been written about the dangers of nuclear war that one could perhaps be forgiven for thinking that conventional war has become almost acceptable by comparison. But Britain, and Europe as a whole, has suffered more from conventional war this century than any other continent. The present concentration of NATO and Warsaw Pact conventional forces is the largest ever known in Europe in peacetime. It comprises the greatest destructive conventional potential ever assembled.
I do not suggest that we are on the brink of a conventional conflagration in Europe nor that the Warsaw Pact has any desire for war. But the conventional imbalances in Europe that so favour the East are enough to leave the situation unstable. They can only cast doubt on the peaceful protestations of the Warsaw Pact.
We are participating in the informal discussions in Vienna with a view to strengthening stability and security in Europe at a lower level of armed forces than exists at present. The aim is to agree on a mandate for conventional stability negotiations covering the whole of Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. No amount of agreement on nuclear weapons can disguise the need to balance conventional forces.
It is with these considerations in mind that the Government, together with our partners in the North Atlantic Alliance, are working to ensure that the new negotiations are launched with the minimum of delay. Considerable divergences still remain, but some common ground has already emerged, and I am encouraged to think that both sides may be able to agree the terms of reference to allow negotations proper to begin in the course of next year.
Much work remains to be done. We shall clearly not solve overnight problems that have been with us for many decades. But we remain cautiously
214
optimistic about the prospects for progress. We shall do everything possible to ensure that that optimism is justified.
We all welcome the encouraging progress that has been made in the chemical weapons negotiations, which is a matter to which I may return later, and in any review of progress on arms control we must also include activities in the UN. We hope that the third session will build on the improved international atmosphere after the INF agreement, and the United Kingdom can be relied on to play its full part.
The negotiation of arms control agreements is undoubtedly important to all in East and West alike. But the arms race is the result, not the cause, of East-West tensions. What are the underlying causes? In part the answer lies in the fact that the history both of Imperial Russia and of the Soviet Union has generated among its leaders—rightly or wrongly—a fear and suspicion of the outside world. The Soviet Union has built up its armed forces to such a degree that, whatever Soviet intentions, they are inevitably seen by the rest of the world as threatening. Despite recent welcome improvements, the Soviet people still do not enjoy even the basic human rights of freedom of expression and of movement. The Soviet Union's commitments under the Helsinki Final Act remain far from being fulfilled.
Mr. Gorbachev has recognised these problems, and he is trying to do something about them. His aim of course is to strengthen the Soviet Union and socialism. In doing so, he may succeed in making the Soviet Union a more co-operative and perhaps less dangerous state. He realises that military might alone will not indefinitely sustain the Soviet Union as a super power. He realises that the Soviet Union must put its own house in order. It must be more cooperative internationally and more tolerant of diversity among its allies.
Some of the Soviet Union's allies recognised long ago that a centralised economy and represssive government brought neither economic progress nor a decent quality of life for their peoples. We applaud their efforts to reform, as we do Mr. Gorbachev's policies of glasnost and perestroika, which are two words that have become fixtures in the English vocabulary. But there is still a long way to go. Fundamental differences remain between East and West. We cannot ignore them.
Her Majesty's Government have consistently sought better relations with the Soviet Union, combining firm defence of our interests with a search for dialogue. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister's historic visit to Moscow in March this year marked a turning point, not only in UK-Soviet relations but also in East-West relations. It is a mark of Mr. Gorbachev's esteem for my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, and of the Soviet estimation of the United Kingdom's major role in East-West relations, that he chose to visit Britain on Monday.
They discussed two broad themes: first, further reductions in armaments and forces on the basis of balance and mutual confidence; and, secondly, Mr. Gorbachev's policy for restructuring Soviet society. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister raised the subject of human rights, welcoming what has been done so far and asking Mr. Gorbachev to step

215
up his efforts. She also mentioned Afghanistan, expressing the hope that there would be a Soviet withdrawal in 1988. Both those areas are important if lasting confidence is to be created between East and West. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister also hoped that action would be taken to increase Anglo-Soviet trade, and repeated her invitation to Mr. Gorbachev to return for a longer visit. My right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary had similarly useful and interesting talks with Mr. Shevardnadze. Both meetings illustrated the much improved relations between Britain and the Soviet Union—relations based on mutual respect and frank speaking.
I have already overshot my time and I shall endeavour to cut down a little on what I have to say when I wind up. Following the Washington Summit, the East-West agenda will not grow lighter. One agreement has been signed, but the alliance has three more in its sights, all of them more far-reaching than the INF Treaty. Nor will arms control bear all the weight of the relationship. We shall continue to press the Soviet Union to improve its human rights performance. We shall continue to impress upon it the need to solve regional problems—in Afghanistan, the Gulf, Angola and Cambodia. In pursuit of that agenda, the Government will play a leading role in the alliance and the sort of role which persuaded Mr. Gorbachev, before his meeting with President Reagan, of the value of visiting Britain to hear our views.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, on East-West relations the two noble Lords who have spoken seem to me to have trodden a judicious path between the extremes of wishful thinking, on the one hand, and undue scepticism, on the other. No one supposes that glasnost and perestroika are slowly transforming the Soviet Union into a liberal democracy nor that Soviet thinking is yet free from the myths of Marxism. The Russians are still waging war in Afghanistan and propping up noxious dictatorships in Ethiopia and Angola, and they are still denying to their own people human rights of a most basic kind.
Yet when one reads the emotional statements made by American opponents of the INF Treaty, one is made aware of the danger lurking in the opposite direction; namely the danger of gratuitously worsening East-West relations and of losing great opportunities through excessive suspicion and scepticism. Such critics seem to me to lack historical perspective. Certainly we agree—the noble Lord who has just spoken said so—that the reforms of Mr. Gorbachev may not be permanent. There is evidence that he is still in front of his troops at the present time, but of course the changes for the better that have taken place in the Soviet Union did not start with him. They began far earlier. In my view, they are fundamental.
Today one can read with disgust about dissidents who demonstrate in Red Square and are roughed up. However, I recall my first visit to the Soviet Union in the days of Stalin when there were millions of people—not dissidents but ordinary folk—who were
falsely denounced by others or who perhaps just
216
happened to be Baptists, Jews or Latvians. There were millions of people herded into huge slave labour camps or shot out of hand. At that time Soviet communism was united, dynamic and expanding and it presented a real and imminent threat to the West. In those days that indeed was an evil empire. However, the menace reached its peak in the late 1940s. It began to decline with the defeat of the Berlin blockade, the formation of NATO, the death of Stalin and the defection of China. By Brezhnev's time major changes and improvements had taken place in the Soviet Union in its conduct of internal and international affairs.
Although it is not hard to imagine Mr. Gorbachev's reforms failing, it is extremely difficult to consider putting back the clock. Surely it would be wrong for any of us now to base our attitude to disarmament or East-West relations on the belief, which is still current in the bible belt, that we are still dealing with the evil empire of Stalin's time. Instead, without assuming the permanence of Mr. Gorbachev's reforms, our attitude surely should be to acknowledge and profit from them and to respond to them in a way that will encourage their continuance. I believe that to be the basic attitude of Her Majesty's Government, and if they continue on that course they will have the support of my noble friends and myself.
It is a credit to the Government that Mr. Gorbachev chose to meet the Prime Minister before the super power talks took place. It is welcome not only because it enhances British-Soviet relations and the international standing of this country but also because once again there has been far too little European input into the super power negotiations. It is true that the European countries have been kept informed, but they have not been consulted sufficiently. Of course the SS.20s, cruise and Pershing are the possessions of the super powers, but their deployment in Europe is a matter primarily for the people of Europe. It is something to be decided first of all by European governments and their peoples.
The fact is that, despite limited improvements, the European members of NATO are still failing to get their act together. That is true not only in the NATO area but outside it. There are disturbing resemblances between the European performance in the Gulf today and in Lebanon yesterday. Once again the Americans have taken an initiative unilaterally and of doubtful wisdom. One by one the countries of Europe have been drawn in to play different roles, which are sometimes of doubtful effectiveness. It has never been more important than it is today to strengthen the European pillar and to create a better balance in decision-making between Europe and the United States.
It is true, as the noble Lord who introduced this Motion reminded us, that only a small proportion of nuclear weapons will he removed by the INF Treaty. What is more, the treaty does not save the great powers any money. Apparently it is more expensive to dispose of those weapons than to maintain them. Moreover, the treaty can be nullified by what is called, by a euphemism, compensation or modernisation, which means the replacement of the weapons which it has been agreed to remove by similar weapons with similar power.

217
Here I think the country should be warned. When the Government set out to "modernise" Polaris, they multiply by eight the number of Britain's independently targeted nuclear warheads. And when the Government say that they are going to modernise—the Prime Minister has said this—following the INF Treaty, I am afraid that by "modernisation" they mean escalation, which is something that we need to be worried about. All this shows the need for the disarmament process to be a continuing one, and my noble friends and I feel this strongly.
On the strategic nuclear arms treaty, Mr. Gorbachev has helpfully excluded the British deterrent from the negotiations, but it is hard to see how, if the treaty is concluded, this problem will be avoided. Will the super powers be content indefinitely to see the British Government multiplying their warheads by eight, while they lessen theirs by half? I do not think so. And as in this field we are wholly dependent on the United States, I think that if the United States wants us to reduce, reduce we will have to. As the critics of the Trident project said from the beginning, Trident is too big for Britain and is too dependent on the United States. And it is easy to foresee in due course that the number of warheads to be deployed by the British Trident fleet will become the subject of fierce national and international debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said, if we can get this strategic weapons agreement all our minds will be concentrated on the possibilities of conventional disarmament.
I have time only to draw the Government's attention, if I may, to the report in this field of the Institute for International Security, called Common Security for Europe, which lists a number of original and constructive suggestions which I hope the Minister will assure me are being studied in the proper quarters in the Government. Meantime, we are faced with a promising and far-reaching prospect of large-scale disarmament, and on these Benches we hope that Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Reagan will overcome the conservative opposition in the Kremlin and in the bible belt, will sign a strategic arms treaty next year and will then, with the participation of European governments, move towards major reductions in conventional forces. To the extent that they and the Government pursue this course with vigour, they will have the whole-hearted support of my noble friends and myself.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, permit me first to express my thanks for the kindness and the courtesy shown to me by noble Lords on all sides of the House since I entered your Lordships' House. I ask that it be extended to me again for a short time this afternoon. I rise, of course, to add my very warm congratulations to those who have negotiated this treaty and to call attention to some of the possible consequences. As a welcome historical footnote, perhaps I may point out that the terms of the treaty go further than was envisaged when we met at Guadeloupe nearly nine years ago. Our objective then was to secure the withdrawal of the Soviet SS.20 missiles from Europe. Now, under this agreement,
218
they are not only to he withdrawn but destroyed. That is a cause for additional congratulations.
The destruction of a few per cent. of the world's nuclear arsenal may not seem much; no more than a single ice-flow that has broken loose from the main pack; small compared with the total mass but significant because it shows that the ice is breaking up and is on the move. This, therefore, is a moment to stand back and re-examine our interests as an alliance especially in relation to Europe.
What are the elements? It cannot be harmful to us that Mr. Gorbachev and his colleagues have decided that domestic reconstruction and the building of a more efficient economy must take priority in the next years to an escalation in the arms race. And he will have to overcome, as has been said, substantial opposition from entrenched bureaucracies that will absorb much of his energies and time while he solves his domestic problems.
On the other side of the Atlantic, President Reagan's enthusiasm for arms control has been whetted by his present success. Both he and general-secretary Gorbachev are in a hurry for more. Thirdly, all of us, wherever we are, are faced with the heavy burden that our defence budgets impose on our economies. During the last few days, the United States Defense Secretary has imposed a 10 per cent. cut in America's proposed defence budget for 1989, and he will not be alone. Small wonder that the two leaders and their staffs are ready to begin immediate negotiations on how to cut by 50 per cent. the grossly excessive strategic arms possessed by each side. They do so with our encouragement and with our hopes for their success. But even a 50 per cent. cut will still leave an excess of strategic weapons—far more than are needed to act as a deterrent which is nowadays the only useful purpose that nuclear arms can serve. However, it would be of great value to achieve such a settlement despite the difficulties to be found on the way. Following upon the INF, it would create an additional sense of confidence and a lifting of fear around the world.
Other proposals are afoot, as has been mentioned, for we are all disarmers now. I suggest that in this fluid and fast-moving situation, NATO, together with France, should re-assess the position in Europe. Our objectives in Europe do not change. We need a defensive system sufficient to deter war—both nuclear and conventional—and we need the resources to ensure the credibility of our defences in the eyes of an aggressor. Looking back, I think we can criticise ourselves in Western Europe over recent years for being too reactive and rather negative on these defence matters. Nor have the major European nations been ready on certain occasions to speak with a united voice even when their interests have clearly been joint.
We know how difficulties arise. For example, President Mitterrand repeated to me just two days ago that France could not rejoin the NATO integrated military command—a policy that is not unique to him or to his party but is common to all parties in France. Nevertheless, I should like to say that I find a disposition in that country and a need for greater co-operation with its allies in the alliance. Here, surely, we could jointly make a fresh attack on

219
the levels of conventional forces in Europe. The faster we reduce our reliance on nuclear weapons—even as a deterrent—the more disadvantageous becomes a disparity between the Warsaw Pact conventional forces and our own.
Such a disparity exists in favour of the Warsaw Pact at present, although in my judgment it is not so large as to lead to a basic instability. But it is on this that it will be in the interests of the European members of the alliance to focus their attention in the next round of disarmament discussions that is about to take place. The Soviets may indeed by ready for conventional reductions. If the estimate is correct, their forces have not been fully modernised and so, to be somewhat cynical, cuts might not erode essential Soviet strength. But the same may be true of one or two members of the alliance. And we should take note of General Jaruzelski's proposal of a deal involving cuts in Warsaw Pact tanks in exchange for cuts in NATO bombers.
I hazard the view that a reduction in conventional forces in the East would tell us more about how much the peace initiative really means changes in Soviet defence policy than will a 50 per cent. cut at the strategic nuclear level, and that is where I believe we should focus our attention. While President Reagan's priority is to achieve this with the support of all of us, Europe's prime interest is rather different. It lies in reviving actively negotiations in the stalemated arms reduction talks about men and conventional weapons.
I returned from my recent visit to France with the strong impression that Her Majesty's Government should take seriously the recent French/German agreement to establish a combined French/German division and a joint defence and security council. That may well prove to be a harbinger of more significant joint defence arrangements between the two countries. Nor may they be alone. In due course we may find that the military strength of Spain will be added and so a three fold enterprise could be launched. Clearly, with 67,000 British servicemen on the mainland of Europe, we have a prime interest in such an integration. I hope that our Government will respond favourably to any proposal that might be put forward for joint examination or indeed initiate such studies themselves.
The reality is that lack of adequate resources will prevent the development of future weapons in a national framework. There must be co-operation in joint research, development, production and cost sharing. I trust that the Prime Minister will banish any lingering doubts from her mind that intimate co-operation in certain fields with the countries of Europe might endanger Britain's relationship with the United States.
I speak, as is well known, as a strong advocate of the alliance and as a friend of the United States ever since I entered politics. I have no doubt that if Europe displays energy in constructing a truly European pillar of the alliance the results can only be beneficial, provided of course that we are an essential part of such arrangements.
Finally, on the West's relations with the Soviet Union, I should say that no one who meets Soviet
220
officials can have much doubt about the change that has taken place since the advent of Mr. Gorbachev. It is as though a submerged torrent has at last burst through the ground, and the openness, the frankness, the undogmatic nature of dialogue is something that is unprecedented and very welcome. Even in the former days of détente it was not like that.
We know, for they tell us that opponents of restructuring and of openness—perestroika and glasnost —still exist while the Soviet bureaucracy is always there to defend its privileges. So even as we welcome the changes, the Soviets will understand if there still remains an element of doubt. It is not easy to manage relations with a highly centralised state whose practice is different, whose ideology is opposed and whose relationship with its citizens is at variance with ours. We can only hope that the present phase will continue indefinitely. But whether relations are good or are bad, the West needs above all a steady, consistent attitude. There has been too much swinging from one extreme to the other in recent years. We must be firm in our own interests. We must recognise their legitimate interests and accommodate them wherever possible.
In short, let us compete where we must and co-operate where we can. It seems that as the 21st century looms the problems that both sides confront and are increasingly recognising may resemble each other much more than we are now prepared to acknowledge. I hope that this week's historic agreement may be the forerunner of a long period of broader co-operation and of greater understanding.
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, to be sandwiched between two distinguished maiden speakers is a rare experience and I count it a great privilege to be the first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, on a speech to which many of us have been looking forward ever since he joined us in this House. He brings us his rich experience of four of the great offices of state, not to speak of his former responsibility for the appointment of some Members on these Benches. We thank him for his perceptive and informative speech and we hope that we shall hear him regularly in our House.
We are all very conscious today that this is a most timely debate in what could well be a historic week. Indeed, one of my younger friends told me that it could turn out to be the most significant week in his lifetime. I greatly welcome the positive wording of the Motion before the House and I am grateful for the constructive and forward looking approach in so much of what previous speakers have already said.
I presume to speak from these Benches because I know that it is not only Christians who for a very long time have been praying faithfully and constantly for what the Motion calls,
"progress… in disarmament negotiations and the improvement in East-West relations".
Some of us are bold enough to believe that what is happening today is in some measure an answer to many prayers. Therefore, we know that we cannot respond, like some leader writers, in a curmudgeonly or grudging manner.

221
We have realistic hopes based on innumerable small instances of improvements in East-West relations during the past year. Some of your Lordships will have read in The Times last Saturday the moving account of Sir Yehudi Menuhin's first visit to the Soviet Union since 1971. He wrote:
"I could perceive the very real progress psychologically and humanely that has already evolved in these few years. It was acceptable to criticise amicably each other's attitudes to the vast problems, to parry and thrust with humour and generosity the pros and cons of each other's impressions of what best constitutes the type of government for different countries".
There is, he continued:
"a greater openness both in communication and conversation, an honesty together with a certain humorous admission of past mistakes, all revealing an ending of that secretive tension that pervaded all exchanges in the past".
Last June my colleague John Arnold, the Dean of Rochester, preached in German unhindered and uncensored to 30,000 East German Christians in a football stadium in East Berlin. The address was carried live on television in both East and West Germany. As the vice-chairman of the Conference of European Churches he would, I know, want to echo Sir Yehudi's words:
"It was, perhaps, the extraordinary intensity of their response to music that led me through this path of analysis to recognise the courage and vision of a Gorbachev and consequently of his need from the West of intelligent help and compassion".
Such help and compassion, if it is to improve East-West relations still further, will need to be accompanied by thoughtful and courageous vigilance.
Ingrained hostility and attitudes, procedures and administrative devices that have been developed over decades will not disappear overnight. We therefore need to be vigilant that the thought forms and modes of expression of 1957 are not thoughtlessly reproduced in the different world of 1987 and that serious attempts are made to improve the links between the super powers and to provide improved crisis management, as it is called, so that misinformation and misjudgment do not lead to confrontation.
We also need to be vigilant with regard to human and civil rights in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, where by Western European standards the situation is still intolerable, as the Minister reminded us in his own speech. The Metropolitan Alexy of Leningrad, who is the chairman of the Conference of European Churches, has recently come out very bravely in the pages of a Soviet newspaper demanding a revision of the laws on religion. A proper legal basis for Christian citizenship would certainly be a splendid 1,000th birthday present to the Russian Orthodox Church when it celebrates its millennium next June.
We all welcome the three key factors of the historic document signed yesterday. There is an agreement to reduce the number of weapons; a whole category of weapons can be taken away; and agreed procedures for verification are possible. The present climate is obviously good and it needs to be taken advantage of at the beginning of what surely must be a very long process. We must all hope that the United Nations negotiations for a chemical weapons convention will
222
be signed at an early date and that the endeavours of our own Government to eliminate that terrible form of warfare will now meet with early success.
We must look for further improvement in East-West relations and to the third world becoming more self-sufficient as a result of having to spend less on armaments. Only so will more of the world's resources be available to be shared in a creative way, by trade as well as by aid, and a higher standard of living achieved for underdeveloped and impoverished nations.
On such an occasion as this, I do not imagine that I am the only one who recalls the deeply moving speeches made by the late Lord Noel-Baker during the few short years that he sat on the Privy Counsellor's Bench opposite. He was too blind to see his notes and he had to rehearse his speeches in his bathroom. However, he had the supreme gift of being able to draw on memories going back to the beginning of the century, and he spoke with a passion which has not often been exceeded in your Lordships' House. In his nineties, he once said:
"I feel sick with apprehension when I think of the dangers that lie ahead for the year 2000, but I feel still more sick with remorse when I remember the opportunities of the past that we have lost".
I believe that he would have taken heart from the events of this week. But he would have been as insistent as ever that we must buy up the opportunity given to us.
It is fashionable to chide Church leaders for neglecting the proclamation of the Gospel for involvement in public affairs. The Praesidium of the Conference of European Churches was careful to avoid that charge in the Advent message of hope which they sent yesterday to President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev. That message said:
"We are witnessing the birth of a great hope for peace and understanding among the nations…We hope that the dynamic of disarmament will develop further and that the resources thus reduced will be made available for the life and development of all peoples".
The message concluded by asking the Churches and Christians of Europe,
"to continue to pray for peace and justice and for the safe-;keeping of God's good creation".
4.5 p.m
Lord Pym: My Lords, I wish to express my gratefulness for the courtesy which has been shown to me since my introduction, and to ask for it to be extended in a way traditionally accorded to maiden speakers.
This debate is being held in an atmosphere of international optimism which, however grateful we are for it and however hopeful we are because of it, will prove unjustified unless our actions are firmly based on reality and on the facts as they exist. The Agreement signed yesterday is to be welcomed from every point of view. I hope that it will be ratified quickly.
That agreement was only achieved by the steadfast resolve of NATO in deploying cruise and Pershing missiles, however many demonstrations were staged against them. The force of the arguments behind the 1979 decision was overwhelming and it proved right.

223
There is further good news in the prospect of the possible large reduction in strategic nuclear weapons by each super-power. If it happens, again it is to be welcomed, although one ought to add that it will not make much difference to the military balance.
Beyond that, we must hope that there will be an agreement soon on space research. It has always seemed to me quite wrong that that massive task should be undertaken by the superpowers in antagonistic competition rather than in co-operation. Those agreements, if there are more than one, must be seen in their proper perspective. Important and welcome though they are, they are only one step in the disarmament process, and they are perhaps the easiest step to take. The next steps are likely to prove much more difficult, to demand much more in the way of sacrifices from us than deployment of the INF, and test our resolve much harder.
The main danger posed by the INF agreement and the summit meetings is to create excessive expectations in the minds of western public opinion. Those will be expectations of a more peaceful world, of lower expenditure on armaments and a more relaxed attitude towards security. Those are expectations that we all want to see realised. They are indeed our purpose. But the question is: are those expectations justified today? My answer is: definitely not yet—not in the present circumstances. Much more must be achieved before those expectations and hopes can be fulfilled.
One promising sign of progress towards such an achievement is the constructive dialogue that is developing between East and West. I have always believed that such a dialogue was an indispensible prerequisite for such an agreement and the only context in which an agreement could be reached. However, we must not mistake the context for the substance. Today the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact remain in a position of dominant strength in Europe. The development, procurement and production of all categories of weapons continues unabated, and the balance of military strength continues to move against NATO. That is a fact which too many people do not want to believe.
My immediate concern is the Soviet strategy of denuclearising Europe. That strategy was made plain yesterday by Mr. Gorbachev and has been made plain on other occasions. It is a strategy which only became practical for the Soviet Union when it had achieved nuclear parity. Unless that parity is matched by parity in conventional forces, denuclearisation will neutralise our deterrent. That cannot be allowed.
Therefore, a further agreement to reduce nuclear weapons is dependent on an agreement to eliminate chemical weapons and equalise conventional forces. That would mean a large reduction on the Warsaw Pact side. I believe that we shall be put to a severe test because of the momentum of political expectations.
The zero-zero solution has been successful and popular. Having said yes once and then twice to the concept of eliminating a number of nuclear weapons, can we be robust and tough enough to say no to future proposals which will certainly be made unless
224
and until we have our balancing agreement on conventional weapons? Can we carry the public with us on that? That is the question. This Government certainly can and will do it. But, my Lords, what about other governments?
That complex situation, rich in opportunity but also rich in danger, faces the alliance with many challenges. The first and basic challenge is to maintain an effective deterrent at all times and in all circumstances, and to provide a defence capability that is wholly commensurate with the perceived threat at any one time. We must do that until the time arrives—if it ever does—when it is genuinely no longer necessary.
After the INF agreement, our deterrent will cost us more because conventional defence is more expensive than nuclear defence. As the nuclear element declines so will the conventional element increase until we secure that agreement on chemical and conventional weapons. We shall only negotiate that agreement if the alliance is strong enough to do so. The robustness of this Government in general and our Prime Minister in particular is of crucial importance in that matter.
Secondly, we must ensure that our electorates understand the realities. We must continue to earn their support. Mr. Gorbachev has been extra-ordinarily successful in selling himself as a good-natured man of peace. He may prove to be that. But for all the euphoria of yesterday there is as yet no evidence of a real change in Soviet foreign policy objectives; no evidence of Marxist-Leninist-objectives having been renounced. Whatever we may hope for it has not happened yet. Too many people seem all too ready to accept Mr. Gorbachev at his face value and to criticise their own leaders without any justification. The enemy is complacency and taking peace for granted. We lower our guard at our peril. Again, the strong lead given to our people by this Conservative Government in contrast to some other parties, is of crucial importance.
Thirdly, arms control policy must not be out in front of security policy. It must be the other way round. Security policy must come first and above all else and then arms control policy may follow behind in support of it. Arms control has a deep appeal to everyone: of course it has. But the needs of security must never be neglected. The challenge the alliance has to face is to uphold a sound security policy and to retain public support for it everywhere. That is the only way to maintain solidarity, which is the most crucial element of deterrence. It is only in those circumstances that our leaders will be able to pursue a policy for arms control with any chance of success.
The fourth challenge is the increase in the strains within the alliance. In Europe, the trans-Atlantic strains tend to be called anti-Americanism, and we cannot afford that. On the other side of the Atlantic there is the counterpart, and we cannot afford that either. We shall only defend our freedom if we all stand together. The Soviet Union knows that, which is why it continues to try to divide us. But we shall not be divided even though the strains are likely to increase. In the years ahead we shall do well to refrain

225
from mutual criticism and instead see that the contribution of our own country to the alliance is all that it ought to be.
The final challenge is the need for much greater rationalisation and standardisation in Europe. It is happening but too slowly. We are going to need more defence but we do not want to spend any more money. So a balance has to be struck, and the way to do it is through closer integration, which would give us more defence for the same money and better value for money. I have campaigned for this ever since the summer of 1979 and my successors have continued it, but the urgency becomes greater all the time.
These are the major challenges we face. All of them provide their own opportunities. If, and only if, we respond to them wholeheartedly we shall continue to preserve the peace.
4.13 p.m
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pym, on his maiden speech. He brings to this House exceptional experience, especially in foreign and defence affairs. We have high hopes of the contributions that he will make, and his speech today, so characteristically moderate and realistic, assures us that we shall not be disappointed.
The presence of the noble Lord and the other most distinguished maiden speakers today, will, I hope, ensure that foreign and defence affairs are more frequently debated in this House.
In the debate on the Address on June 29th I quoted a distinguished journalist who had written that in world affairs we might be standing on the threshold of a period of change and movement unlike anything in the past 40 years. I thoroughly agreed with that and I explained why. Events since June have, I believe, confirmed what was then said.
One of the factors, among others, heralding this change and movement is the policy of Mr. Gorbachev, culminating in the remarkable events of this week. It will be difficult to sound even a mildly discordant note in the present euphoric mood and somewhat extravagant rhetoric. However, there is no denying that there has been a real and significant step forward and this is a matter for real rejoicing.
I wish to make two points. First, while sincerely wishing Mr. Gorbachev every success in his policy of glasnost and perestroika, he has been notably more successful in its application internationally than in its domestic application. The hand of friendship is being more enthusiastically extended from West to East than from East to West. We would therefore be prudent to proceed with caution until we see more powerful signs of its acceptance in all its aspects by the majority of the Soviet people, including the more reactionary sectors hitherto so predictable.
The second point I wish to make is about disarmament. This has always been a complex subject even in pre-war days. Now it is immeasurably more so. The number of people who fully understand it in a world of nuclear weapons is very small indeed. The number who understand what the future could hold is smaller still. I am certainly not among them.
226
It will be very easy for ordinary folk to be confused and misled about disarmament proposals persuasively put forward in an excited atmosphere of detente and designed to achieve a rapid and careless stripping of nuclear arms. We should again adopt an attitude of caution. I hope that the Government and their experts will be painstaking and frank in their policy explanations to the general public.
Lastly, I was going to say something about the role of Europe but the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, has said it all with much greater eloquence and authority than I can manage. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, pursued the same line. We must get, as the phrase goes, "our act together" in Europe in defence and in political and economic areas. This is a matter of the greatest urgency before the Government.
The report from Copenhagen was not entirely unsatisfactory, but there is an immense amount of work to do. The ways in which it can usefully be done have been well set out by the speakers who have preceded me.
4.18 p.m
Lord Soper: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for indicating the response which is required in the light of the events of the past two or three days. I am glad that he set the pattern in indicating that that response must be a co-operative effort in order to secure the fruits of what is obviously a new summer. It is a fruitful time if we know how to use the changes which have now taken place.
I add my words of congratulation to the two noble Lords who have made their maiden speeches. It is a long time since the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and I were together on Tower Hill, from where I have just come today. I remember those days with considerable affection and memory. There is also the experience which I was privileged to have in taking part in a debate in Great St. Mary's Cambridge, with the other noble Lord who has made his maiden speech today.
I wish to introduce some effort in the nature of a response to the chain situation that happened within the religious framework which until comparatively recently has been negative, if not hostile, in attitude towards the Church by the Russian regime and indeed in many respects by religious institutions elsewhere.
I remember that, when I went to Moscow with a number of friends of mine who were anxious to persuade the Patriarch—this was some 20 years ago—to send a delegate to the Evanston Conference of the World Council of Churches, we were more or less successful. I carried away with me certain impressions and memories that have now passed into the oblivion of changed experiences and circumstances. I remember, for instance, that the Patriarch and his colleagues sat under the chairmanship of the atheistic commissar for religious matters. That has of course completely disappeared. I remember that in the Zagorsk seminary the portrait of Lenin was considerably larger than all the icons in the other part of their sanctuary. Furthermore, the strong impression was given by the Church that the Russian regime was more or less an expression in its turn of the doctrine of Christian perfection. That has changed, and in no sense has it changed more

227
radically than in the emergence of the magazine that I now hold. I suggest that your Lordships probably have not come across this publication. It is in English. It is the journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. It represents the official attitude of the Government of the USSR to a commission laid upon the Church to be in the vanguard, indeed, to be the head of the peace movement.
Whereas we recognise with gratitude the work for peace of the World Council of Churches, we ought to know something about the World Conference of Religion and Peace if for no other reason than that over the years there has been a vast increase in the criticism levelled by a renewed Patriachate and, indeed, in particular the Metropolitan Vilayet of Minsk—criticism that has been quite open. It is to be found in the pages of this book about which I shall not speak tediously to your Lordships now.
There has been a radical change. Despite what Keston and Keston College have to say, I believe it is vitally important, if we are to consider what are the possibilities of better relationships, that we look upon the litmus paper of religious matters as in many respects an indication of what is more likely to happen and what should give us a measure of considerable hope.
To turn to the emergence of this new situation in greater detail, I shall not weary your Lordships with a repetition of what I have said repeatedly about my own conviction that pacifism is inevitable for those who would seek to follow in the steps of Jesus Christ. It seems to me that to regard the present situation as an activity is to mistake what is in fact happening. We have now been presented with a gateway into the factory of peace.
If we go through that gateway immense possibilities lie before us. We may imagine that this is in itself a constructive programme, but in my mind there are certain inhibitions, not the least of which has been adverted to already. It is that there is now created an imbalance in many other elements that go to make up this complex of arms difficulty and that, unless we proceed upon this programme of disarmament, it will do no more than add to the difficulties, particuarly if we are still committed to the proposition, which I understand President Reagan has not rebutted or repudiated, of this evil empire. Of course I am at one with all those who are aware of the evils that belong to this Communist system. It is an abomination, and I have no use for its treatment of the many dissidents. At the same I believe that we are seeing a new preparedness in all kinds of people in this tortured country—for so it is still—in the aftermath of the 25 million people killed in the great patriotic war. What is even more difficult to recognise from our standpoint, I suppose, is the increased economic troubles that now afflict that vast empire, not only because of the inherent difficulties and problems of the Communist regime in itself, of which of course I do not approve, but because of the economic burden of the ever-increasing race in armaments production.
I therefore make two propositions. First, the occasions upon which it is possible to do things that otherwise would be dangerous and probably non-productive are not necessarily those that can be
228
calculated in intellectual or even moral terms. I believe that there is now an opportunity for a unilateralism which can be successfully—as hitherto it probably had no chance of success—poised on the very point that, in the last week or so, a new dimension of public reaction has emerged. It is in my judgment unprecedented that there is now a preparedness to think that a new beginning in goodwill would receive a much more promising result and reaction. I am well aware that the present situation is comprised of many elements—there is particularly the Soviet repudiation of its obligations to dissidents—but to believe that we have no opportunity now of making a corporate response to that which has already taken place in the new dimension of amiability created by Gorbachev seems to me to be a failure to recognise both the problem and the opportunity.
Finally, we have so long taken the risks and the deterrents, so-called, that belong to the assumption that we are good and the other people are bad and that only by their conversion can we hope for peace, that I believe, particularly in the light of what has just been happening in Haiti, that it would be dangerous to assume that the good is all on our side and the Americans are the proponents of justice whereas the Russians are the proponents of evil.
There is a sense in which this is a non-intellectual but, I believe, a moral problem. I shall quote from something that comes from another context, the context of one of the prayers that we often utter in Church:
"This is the day which the Lord hath made. Let us rejoice and be glad of it".
If we are prepared to take the appropriate risks, I believe that that is the opportunity that confronts us.
4.29 p.m
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, I am most grateful for the kindness shown to me and the welcome given to me since my introduction to the House last month. I am greatly comforted in this my maiden speech by the knowledge of your Lordships' traditional indulgence and courtesy on these occasions.
When I listened with admiration to the opening speech by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, I remembered that 36 years have passed since he and I made our maiden speeches in the other place. It was shortly after he—spectacularly—and I—surprisingly—had won neighbouring seats in North Wales. I suspect that each of us at that time felt that he knew all the answers to the main problems of the day. I am sure that the following 36 years have increasingly impressed on us both the million complications of all major political issues, particularly in international affairs.
Nowhere are complexities and difficulties more encountered than in the field of arms control and disarmament. In the early 1960s, part of my responsibilities as Minister of State at the Foreign Office was to represent Britain at the 17-nation disarmament conference in Geneva. Its stated objective was "general and complete disarmament". Over the years that the conference had been in existence, there had been countless hours of

229
negotiation, hundreds of speeches by delegates, but little, if any, progress on the stated objective. The real value of the conference was that it was then the only forum in which there was a continuing dialogue between the United States and the Soviet Union, and that obviously was of importance.
The partial test ban treaty in 1963 and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 1968 were significant achievements in East-West relations, but had no real impact on the nuclear arsenals of the superpowers, and Salt I and Salt II, which followed later, were designed only to try to slow down the rate of growth.
The INF treaty signed yesterday is therefore precisely as it has been described over and over again—a historic treaty. As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said, it is the first treaty which destroys nuclear missiles. It is the first treaty which eliminates an entire category of weapons. It is a treaty with unprecedented verification provisions, in particular those for on-site inspection. NATO Defence Ministers have unanimously supported it. It deserves our wholehearted backing. It would be an unthinkable tragedy if the United States Senate failed to ratify it. Failure to do so would seriously affect US-European relations.
One must not regard the treaty as a United States treaty. As Mr. Shultz has said:
"It is an Alliance Treaty and a tribute to NATO's steadfastness and cohesion".
As my noble friend Lord Pym said, the treaty demonstrates how right was the decision in 1979 to deploy cruise and Pershing missiles, and how right it was to stand firm against the organised protests against: deployment. The alliance firmness in facing the challenge of the SS20s forced Moscow to come to the negotiating table, and by this treaty that firmness has been fully vindicated.
Over the past three years, as a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the other place, I have had the privilege of taking part in meetings and discussions in Moscow and London with many of the new leading personalities in the Soviet Union, including Mr. Gorbachev. It is apparent that under his leadership there is a new and welcome change of direction in Soviet foreign policy. Of course, many past and present Soviet activities justify much of the caution and scepticism which is expressed. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn said, the Prime Minister was right when she described Mr. Gorbachev as a "bold, determined and courageous" leader. I agree. In our mutual interest, he merits our closer understanding and support.
Over the years, the major restriction upon progress in disarmament and East-West relations has been mutual distrust—a genuine fear on the part of each side of the other. In 1919, Lloyd George stated that Britain's Russian objective was:
"to arrest the flow of lava … To prevent the forcible eruption of Bolshevism into Allied lands'"
That fear, of course, remains even today. But equally valid and sincere is the Soviet fear of hostile encirclement and war on its own territory. It is important that we should recognise that.
230
Mr. Gorbachev is on record as saying that national security is not enough, and that there can be no genuine security unless it is equal for all and comprehensive. Those are welcome words, and the INF verification procedures offer an unprecedented opportunity to test how genuine they are. If both sides co-operate wholeheartedly and openly to ensure that those verification procedures work successfully, then the mutual suspicions and mistrust may gradually be allayed. But that cannot happen quickly. We should be careful about being too enthusiastic and moving precipitately into the implementation of more substantial arms control measures. Of course we should all support and strive for what has already been mentioned in this debate—strategic arms reductions, a ban on chemical and biological weapons and rectification of the conventional force imbalance.
As to strategic arms reductions, I am sure that details of reductions can quickly be agreed. I feel sure too that a compromise on the SDI issue can be arrived at, but verification in START remains a major problem. Verification of a reduction in numbers and sublimits of different categories of weapon is infinitely more complicated and difficult than verification of a total layer of weapons as in INF.
The point I wish to make is that, if the new INF procedures are shown to work satisfactorily and lead to the promotion of greater understanding and trust, it will make it so much easier and safer to proceed with the more formidable measures of START. Arms control and disarmament are far too serious to be engaged in for any short political or economic gain.
Despite my cautionary note, I hope it will not be thought that my enthusiasm for this week's Washington summit is in any way diminished. I believe that we may well be entering the most exciting and hopeful era in the history of disarmament and East-West relations. There is much to be done. There is much to be gained. But let us not forget the lesson that the INF treaty provides: arms reductions can only be successfully negotiated through strength, and that meanwhile, and possibly for the foreseeable future, the overall structure of nuclear deterrence must remain intact.
4.39 p.m
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I am happy to begin my speech by extending on behalf of the House warm congratulations to the noble Lord who has just spoken. He comes to the House with experience in the armed forces, in the other place, and in government, especially in the Foreign Office. I am sure that his contributions will be of great value and interest to us as the years go by.
A few days ago, I received a letter from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament asking me to join that body, and for that purpose to express a commitment to the unilateral removal of all nuclear forces from British land and water. That request could not have come at a worse time.
The INF Treaty has demonstrated to us that it is an agreement that you achieve not by being unilateral but by being resolute though not aggressive. It is

231
achieved by being prepared not to make one-sided sacrifices of your own security but through contining to argue with patience and steadiness the rightness of your own cause. That is what the West has done during this period. That is why it has been successful.
This treaty accepts the principle of verification. For years the Russians have closed their doors to that. The usual answer was that verification was merely a polite word used by the West to mean an opportunity for spying on the Soviet Union. I remember the noble Lord who used to be with us, Lord Shinwell, saying the reason that he had never believed in détente was the steady refusal of the Russian government to agree to verification. Now they have agreed to it in this instance. That is an important step forward. It is greatly to be rejoiced over and to be remembered for the future as one of the conditions of successful disarmament agreement.
Another principle that underlines this treaty is that equality cannot be considered in terms of an equal number of weapons being surrendered on both sides. This treaty means a very much greater surrender of weapons—measured in numbers—by the Russians than by ourselves. However, what is equal is that at the end of the treaty it cannot be said that the balance of security and safety has been tilted in one direction or the other. I suppose that it could be said. if you are a felicitously-worded journalist you can say almost anything. However, I do not think that it could be proved.
On the whole, this treaty has got as near as one might have hoped to making reductions without tilting the balance of security one way or the other. This, again, is something that we must look for in all future agreements. If we do that I do not think that we need to be too alarmed about any dangers there may be in the present treaty or any risks that it may carry for the future.
Perhaps the House will permit a reminiscence. One of the first events when I became Foreign Secretary was the proposal by Mr. Gromyko that the Geneva conference on disarmament should be brought to life again. This was unexpected, and welcome; and it was done. The conference plodded on for years without much progress at first. But one achievement was the growth of negotiations to produce the non-proliferation treaty to which the noble Lord who has just spoken referred. It was a very modest achievement. It required a certain number of nations giving an undertaking, since they did not have them, not to acquire nuclear weapons. A good many made that undertaking and kept it. Some made that undertaking and broke it; some would not make it at all. On the other side, those of us who were already nuclear powers gave an undertaking to make every effort to reduce the amount of nuclear weapons we had.
We achieved nothing for years. But the treaty was valuable in that we were repeatedly subject to the reproaches of the other signatories to the treaty because we had not succeeded in reducing the number of nuclear armaments. It was a constant reminder to us that we were under an obligation to do so. We are now at last beginning to fulfil that obligation.
232
The total amount of weapons in this treaty is very small, measured as a proportion of all the nuclear arsenals of the world. But, for the reasons that I have mentioned, it is something new. It shows a much greater determination on both sides to work out practical disarmament agreements. Consequently, the treaty will increase the amount of trust between nations and enable us to progress to what is in the end more important than disarmament: to try to create a world in which neither side will want to go to war.
Here I join with my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition in commending to your Lordships the admirable article by Sir Anthony Parsons who draws attention to the fact that the Soviet Union is again becoming much more interested in the United Nations. It is even proposing to pay some of its defaulted subscriptions.
Perhaps noble Lords will forgive one more reminiscence. The first small problem on my plate when I became Foreign Secretary was that the Soviet Union would not pay its subscriptions for—I think it was—the United Nations' expedition to the Congo. The United Nations was therefore in danger of being seriously out of pocket. The question was this. Ought Britain to help make up for the Russian deficiency? I seem to remember that I decided that we should, and this met with a good deal of hostile criticism in various parts of the House. Whether one can claim that the present Russian attitude towards its arrears is a result of our generosity on that occasion I do not know. I rejoice, however, in the fact that this modest gesture has been made. Perhaps it is only a gesture, but it is at least in the right direction.
We have hanging over us in the world so many danger spots—the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and central America—that it becomes more and more important to try to get the machinery of the United Nations working again as it was intended to work. If anyone says that that is impossible I would ask him to look back, say, to the time of Reykjavik, and to ask this question: did we at that time think that the agreement that we are now celebrating was going to be possible? I do not think that we did. This shows that if you are patient. it is worthwhile being optimistic as well.
4.47 p.m
Lord Kennet: My Lords, all speakers so far, and no doubt to come, will agree that between yesterday and today the world has changed. It is at last clear that it is not impossible for weapons reductions to be agreed—even reductions in nuclear weapons.
There seems to be little disagreement about a 50 per cent. reduction in strategic weapons coming next. If this is agreed in principle now it is because some sense has burst through on the subject of SDI. It is a mistake to say that Mr. Gorbachev has confessed to having his own SDI at last. For years we have known that the Soviet Union had ABM deployed around Moscow. Our warheads for Chevaline are designed to deal with just that.
We also know that the Russians have been working on anti-satellite systems. That is why there were

233
negotiations on ASAT which were broken off in the dark days. We also knew that they were researching new kinds of ABM. How should they not? There was an arms race on. And since the arrival of Mr. Gorbachev and his men they have made no bones about Soviet ABM work. No informed adversary of SDI in the West has ever claimed that the Soviet Union was not working on strategic, and probably tactical, ABMs. What the Soviet Union has not been accused of doing, and has not admitted doing, is to push a continuing but moderate research expenditure up to an urgent and overriding national crusade with priorities and promises of funding so grandiose that they have turned out quite unrealisable.
We can now see that the research work achieved since President Reagan's March 1983 speech is probably not much more than would have been achieved anyhow in America without the great ballyhoo. The result of the ballyhoo has been the Soviet promise of an altogether cheaper but effective response to SDI. Perhaps the little manoeuvrable space-plane that Aviation Week has just revealed that the Soviets have been testing is this effective response. Meanwhile, the SDI organisation in the US is thinking of clamping several kinds of old boosters together in order to get anything up into space at all. These days it is not the United States which is the dab hand in space, and this in itself may help the Americans better to understand the dangers of an SDI which worked, and which worked before the other side's.
These dangers are still a long way off but this does not mean that they are to be regarded with equanimity or that the ballyhoo itself has not done great harm to relations between East and West, and indeed within the West, in the past four and a half years. We could have been where we are now two years ago if it had not been for SDI
But sense on SDI is not the only prerequisite for 50 per cent. strategic reductions. The other big condition, as several noble Lords and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Pym, in an outstanding maiden speech (not unnaturally) have emphasised, is that these reductions are most unlikely to be obtained without or before other reductions. They can only make sense for us in Europe along with across the board reductions in Europe. On the Left, we hear calls for a nuclear-free Europe; on the Right, the Prime Minister says that nuclear disarmament in Europe has gone far enough and the next negotiations in Europe must be about conventional weapons only. Of both, Left and Right, I ask this question. Do you really think reductions in Europe can be secured that do not cover all kinds of weapons, including the by now very many dual capable weapon systems?
What 10 years ago needed a nuclear weapon to do inaccurately, a non-nuclear weapon will now do accurately. A non-nuclear weapon will blow open a nuclear power station, with an effect equal to the dropping of a nuclear weapon. This has been correctly expressed in the slogan "You don't have to take the bang with you any more". Conventional missiles can also blow open a chemical factory with an effect equal to a chemical weapons attack. They can destroy the communications of the second
234
echelon of advancing Soviet forces or the brain centres of the unloading equipment at all our Atlantic ports. This is the kind of threat that all those plans called FOFA and AirLand Battle, and so on, and their Soviet equivalents now pose to Europe. Our next negotiations and our next reductions must be designed to preclude anything that either can fear is the capacity for a "conventional" blitzkreig or first strike.
It is not enough for either side to harp on its lack of aggressive intention, as our Government so often do. Capability is the only thing that matters in this context. These considerations mean, as many noble Lords have already pointed out, that for the next round of negotiations, we, the European countries, have to be right in there with the Americans negotiating on equal terms. That may be thought inconvenient, but perhaps the Secretary General of NATO would be the right person to carry an agreed negotiating brief to talk about with the Russians.
Any idea of compensation for the INF agreement, or for any later one, or for its polite circumlocution "buttressing", a term that has come into use in the past few days, has to be ruled out. This has been well put by the new director of the Institute of Strategic Studies in London, Mr. Francois Heisbourg. He says that if the agreement is a good one, you do not need compensating; and if it is not a good one, it should not be made.
Around and among all these issues looms the vast and expanding danger of the uncontrolled world-wide arms industries. The more the superpowers disarm, the more the superpowers' arms industries will be seeking foreign markets to keep their production going and the more they will fuel wars and the risk of wars around the world. What applies to them applies to us in smaller measure. In the House and elsewhere we have often pressed the Government to let us know something about arms exports and our share of the world arms trade. The stockbrokers Kleinwort Grieveson have recently published a list of what we do. As advised by a former Ministry of Defence official who knows a great deal about it, I believe that this list could be taken as being true and I intend to take it as true until the Government tell me it is not.
I shall give the House an idea of the scale of the matter. Our biggest single receiving country of arms exports is Saudi Arabia. It received £1.4 billion in a five-year period. We provide Saudi Arabia with 10 per cent. of its arms imports. The United States provides 43 per cent. The second biggest is Jordan. It received from us £1.2 billion in arms over the same period, which constituted 32 per cent. of its imports. The list contains a total of 60 countries and gives figures which shook me by their size. After all these years I am not readily shaken by any phenomenon to do with arms. These arms manufacturing pressures around the world will become more powerful as disarmament proceeds. International agreements will have to be made in that field to supplement the others if we are to make sense of the new shaped world into which we are now moving.
We saw yesterday the first serious move by mankind to come to terms with the nuclear age. We

235
see a species, the human one, which had learnt how to threaten itself with its own extinction. We now see it learning how to remove the threat and survive. The way is not for one side or one nation to keep ahead, nor yet to keep level at the same level. It is above all not for one large nation to learn how to defend itself against presumed or imagined attempts by another large nation to extinguish it. It is for us all to remove the threat of general extinction. And the route to that lies through keeping level at a lower level.
In conclusion, I commend to your Lordships and to everybody a formulation of where we stand now which has recently been agreed by the Roman Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church at a meeting in Venice. It goes as follows:
"The use of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction is definitely contrary to the principles of Christian morality. Nuclear deterrence must be considered a temporary solution entailing the duty gradually to reduce nuclear weapon stocks and eventually eliminate them altogether".
I have never heard it better put. I hope the Church of England may be in a position shortly to associate itself with that form of words. I hope that they may also commend themselves to the Prime Minister and that the Government will no longer find it necessary to say that nuclear weapons as such must continue to exist in the world for the foreseeable future. We should now foresee that future.
4.57 p.m
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, when the time for debate is rationed, there is little scope for the customary courtesies; but I must compliment the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, on his immaculate sense of timing. He has chosen the only day since the last war on which this House has been able to congratulate the two great powers on an agreement on physical reduction of nuclear arms.
I should like to express my pleasure at hearing the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, giving us proof that he has not left behind in another place his clear and robust attitude to foreign affairs and matters of security. We look forward to hearing him very often and profiting from his wisdom and experience. My two noble friends Lord Pym and Lord Thomas of Gwydir have shown us the benefit of experience in these matters. Perhaps I may say of my noble friend Lord Thomas that I saw him for years operating in the business of disarmament. There are few if any people in this House who know more about it than he does. Over the months ahead his advice will be extremely valuable.
I shall allow myself three short comments on the agreement signed yesterday by the United States and by Mr. Gorbachev representing the Soviet Union. Anyone who is associated with the Final Act of Helsinki inevitably has some mental reservations. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, will agree that that was the finest opportunity for detente across the board since the last war, and the Russians threw it away quite deliberately.
Today the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has been able to mark that there are differences that may well be decisive between that time and now. The Russians have now pledged themselves to verification which,
236
as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, reminded us, is something that previously they rigorously rejected. All the time that he and I were negotiating with the Soviet Union on disarmament it would never have anything to do with verification. Now it has changed its mind and that might very well be the decisive point in negotiating towards a peaceful solution to the problems between us. In addition, as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, also recorded, it has accepted in this agreement that balanced disarmament need not be interpreted as parity in personnel and weaponry. That, I think, could equally be of great importance as we look forward to further methods of disarmament.
On the technical merits of this agreement in terms of weaponry, it is extremely difficult—and the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, touched on this point—unless one lives with this nuclear weaponry day in and day out to be sure of the impact of abolition of one such class of nuclear weapons on the prospects for balanced disarmament. It is an immensely complicated matter.
I confess that when I first heard of this agreement I was anxious lest it might affect adversely NATO's policy of flexible response to an agression. There I have been reassured first by Lord Carrington's positive conviction that it will not adversely affect that policy (and he is possibly in the best position of anybody to judge these matters at this time) and secondly the statement of Mr. Shultz, the American Secretary of State, that America has no intention of withdrawing the nuclear cover from Europe, nor do they intend to press Britain or France to abandon their independent deterrence. Therefore I agree with the noble Lord. Lord Cledwyn, that provided verification is scrupulously applied—and that is essential—then this start on disarmament is worthy of support and encouragement from our Government.
My final point looks forward. I hope that as the European governments come nearer to the negotiating table they will insist that the need for balance in conventional forces is brought to the top of the disarmament agenda. That seems to me to be quite essential. It was the marked disparity between the strength of the Warsaw Pact and the strength of the western democracies that brought the NATO alliance into being. It is still that massive one-sided strength which is basically responsible for the lack of confidence in the future throughout the rest of Europe. It is that strength and of course the doctrine which communist Russia has pursued for many years that force may properly be used to obtain a political end.
We hope profoundly that Mr. Gorbachev is going to change all that; but it is important that the agreement on nuclear arms—which at best will reduce nuclear strength by 50 per cent. if the second agreement is brought about—should be supplemented by a reduction in conventional forces across the board.
The reaction of some people to the numerical superiority of the Warsaw Pact is that NATO should embark on a massive programme of conventional armaments. Doubtless we shall have to increase the European contribution to the conventional forces because I suspect that America will make some

237
reductions, and that is almost inevitable. But, on the proposition of trying to match the strength of the Soviet Union, I am bound to say that I have never been very happy.
We are today essentially in the business of the prevention and the deterrence of war, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. Historically no accumulation of conventional forces has ever deterred a war, for the reason that the leaders of one country or another, playing the numbers game, have always calculated that the side with the greatest numbers could win. Napoleon so calculated, the Kaiser so calculated, and Hitler so calculated. Therefore in my view the safest way ahead is not to add to weaponry but to seek to reduce armaments in the East and in the West to a point where self-defence is the accepted measure of the armaments needed, and therefore the temptation to plan for aggression is removed.
That is optimistic. It will take a long time to achieve that kind of objective; but, nevertheless, a start has been made, and so I think without being over-optimistic we can at least be happy that this has happened and wish that further agreements will soon be made.
5.6 p.m
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, I wish to focus on only two issues in this debate. Both of them also concern realities, although I must confess of a more specific kind than the general ones to which the noble Lord, Lord Pym, referred in his brilliant maiden speech.
There are already people who are saying that it is disastrous that the West has signed the INF Treaty and that a whole category of nuclear weapons is now going to be removed—weapons which they presumably believe are essential to the maintenance of the state of nuclear deterrence and also to the conduct of hostilities were hostilities ever to break out. They believe that compensating adjustments now have to be made in NATO's nuclear armoury to make up for what we have lost.
I believe that this is a totally misguided view. This past week something almost as momentous as the signing of the INF Treaty took place. Many military commanders on both sides have said, usually after retirement, that they do not know how to fight a war with nuclear weapons. Two ex-Chiefs of the Defence Staff have said it in your Lordships' House. Well, at last the Supreme Allied Commander has had the guts to say it in his first month of taking up his appointment. General John Galvin, the new SACEUR, totally rejects the view of his predecessor, General Rogers, that NATO's INF armoury was essential to Western security. He did so in an interview on Channel 4 to which I listened in amazement, expecting to see commentaries filling the newspapers the next day. I saw nothing.
I therefore got hold of the transcript, and I think it is worth quoting his actual words. He was asked whether there would be a military need for new nuclear missiles to replace those that an INF agreement would eliminate. The general replied:
238
"In terms of trying to do something that takes the effect of what was taken out in the Treaty and put something else back in—no."
He was then asked:
"Militarily you don't need that?"
The general:
"No. I can do my mission. I can carry out my mission of deterrence and defence with the nuclear capability and the conventional capability that is left in Europe under NATO after the Treaty is ratified."
The questioner:
"Are you therefore laying to rest any idea that there should be so-called compensatory adjustments after the INF Treaty? In other words, new weapons systems?"
The general:
"I would like to lay that to rest."
In the light of this authoritative statement one has to ask what it is that some fear may have been lost, from the point of view of our security, by the signing of the INF Treaty. These, I submit, are the realities. First, if cruise missiles, Pershing Its and SS. 20s were essential to the maintenance of mutual deterrence, the implication has to be that in certain circumstances they might have been used. Otherwise, if we were merely bluffing, they could deter nobody. Secondly, these and shorter-range weapons, with ranges between 300 and 3,400 miles, are not designed to attack targets of opportunity. They are earmarked for predetermined targets. Thirdly, had they ever been used, the consequence would have been a nuclear exchange in which cities and towns on either side of the Iron Curtain would have been destroyed in a flash.
We dare not forget that once either side resorts to the use of nuclear weapons, the initiative passes to the other and that, in the face of nuclear devastation, nuclear retaliation would be expected. Fourthly we must realise that INF weapons are essentially designed for ground strike. That means that were they ever used, the areas which were once towns would become, in effect, quasi-permanent radioactive deserts.
Nuclear weapons differ from conventional weapons by far more than the fact that on a weight for weight basis they are far more destructive. A kiloton, a relatively small weapon in these days, is a thousand times more destructive than a ton of conventional explosive. A megaton is a million times more destructive. The biggest bombs that were used in the Second World War—those which we called "grand slam"—weighed no more than 10 tons. The blockbuster, which some noble Lords may remember, weighed two tons and the V2 warheads carried no more than one ton.
We must also bear in mind the quasi-permanency of the radioactive contamination that would result from ground burst missiles. This applies as much to battlefield weapons as to intermediate-range or ICBMs. When we refer to battlefield weapons, what are we talking about? We are talking about weapons which are in the kiloton range, or the sub-kiloton range. Let us suppose that the weapon is one-tenth of a kiloton; that is, 100 tons of explosive. I cannot imagine artillery commanders handling their field pieces with weapons with that destructive power knowing and realising the consequences.

239
Reference has been made to the need to maintain a balance between our conventional and nuclear forces. I do not know by what standard any such balance could be measured. There was a time—and in the United States this is no secret—when NATO's tactical armoury contained a few warheads with a yield of over 20 megatons. One of those would be sufficient to take out permanently one of the smaller members of the NATO alliance.
While nuclear weapons can deter war in Europe they cannot defend it. Their significance as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, in his brilliant maiden speech, is to deter. Their use could only destroy Europe. Mutual suicide is neither a means of defending liberty and democracy on our side nor of preserving the communist way of life on the other side of the Iron Curtain.
I should like to turn to the second point upon which I wish to focus. It relates to the hope that the INF agreement will be followed by cuts in strategic armouries of both sides. The point has already been made that the Russians regard President Reagan's SDI as a critical obstacle to any such agreement. The logic is entirely on their side.
There was nothing new in Mr. Gorbachev's statement made on American television that the USSR was also conducting research into space-based defences. When at Glasborough in 1968 or 1969 President Johnson convinced Mr. Kosygin that the attempt to develop anti-ballistic missile defences was destabilising, leading to the conclusion of the 1972 ABM Treaty, one of the conditions upon which the Russians insisted was that they could continue with research that affected their ABM system deployed around Moscow. The Americans agreed. America also had an ABM system and at first two systems were agreed by both sides. They were reduced to one, the Americans demolishing theirs, and we heard no more about American ABM systems, until SDI came up a few years ago.
The Russians are now objecting to suggestions that the USA will carry out tests in space and that they might proceed to deployment of a space-based ABM system. The first is definitely precluded in any realistic interpretation of the 1972 treaty.
From the point of view of arms control and the nuclear arms race I cannot conceive of any move that would be more disastrous than the Americans proceeding to testing in space or to deploying a space-based defensive system, however primitive. Quite apart from any questions as to its possible effectiveness or the vast cost, the possibility that one side might pursue such a path would force the other to follow suit. The fear that one side—it does not matter which—was trying to make its opponent's nuclear weapons obsolete and impotent, by means of a defensive system, would not only impel the other along the same path but also encourage it to increase, and not reduce, the size of its nuclear armoury. SDI is designed to deal with Russian ICBMs, not American. If President Reagan had wished to make his own weapons impotent and obsolete there were cheaper ways of achieving that.
Because of this elemental logic I doubt whether the USSR will agree to proceed to realistic discussions
240
about major cuts in ICBMs unless—and I emphasise this point—it and the USA first mutually agree to absolute limitations on ABM research and deployment. Before there are any cuts in any strategic forces both sides will have to agree to what has been called the strict or narrow interpretation of the 1972 treaty.
I agree with what has been said in the debate so far—that there has already been a change in attitude between the Russians and the West. I think that there has been a reduction in the level of suspicion that has prevailed since the end of the Second World War; indeed since before the end of the Second World War. In my view, it would be illogical for either side to abandon its nuclear weapons. I do not see that as a realistic possibility. However, they can be reduced in number to the minimum level necessary to assure deterrence. As the noble Lord, Lord Home, has said, NATO does not exist to fight wars; NATO exists to help deter the outbreak of hostilities—
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive my interruption, but we are time-limited. Noble Lords were given nine minutes, but now 13 minutes have passed.
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, I should like to conclude by saying that I sincerely hope there will be further steps in the process of arms control, initiated by the signing of the treaty yesterday.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if any noble Lord ought to be forgiven for exceeding his time it is the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman. However, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, is entirely right and none of us must exceed our time, however eminent and distinguished we may be. I shall endeavour not to exceed my time.
I have always listened with pleasure to the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, and tonight I have listened with almost 100 per cent. agreement. What he said has followed on and filled in the general pattern begun by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition in initiating the debate. It has been an enormous pleasure to sit here and listen to one noble Lord after another moving over to the position that I have held for so long. I have been somewhat lonely at times in the past; but now everyone is welcome. I do not expect to hear the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who is to follow, ask me for an application form to join the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. That would perhaps be too much to expect just yet.
However, it is important that we should recognise that a very great change has taken place. I must begin, even though there is a shortage of time, with an apology. My attendance at the debate has not emulated the regular attendance seen on the Front Benches on both sides and emulated by most of your Lordships. I even missed two maiden speakers. They have done proper justice—both of them—by disappearing just now. I shall read both those maiden speeches with considerable pleasure tomorrow. I did, however, catch the maiden speech of my noble friend the late Prime Minister.
Lord Parry: Not the late, my Lords—the former Prime Minister.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: No, my Lords, not the late, but the former, indeed the last Prime Minister—but not the last in that sense of the word, I trust. We must be careful with our words at this time. The INF proposal is now being brought, we hope, to a successful conclusion, though that is still not absolutely certain because it has to be endorsed by the American Congress. I should not entirely exclude the possibility that there may be a last minute attempt in Congress to negate what has occurred. That would be a tragedy and a disaster and I hope that there will be no such development.
I remember the Medvedev brothers saying to me—and they are not apologists for the Soviet
position, because one of them lives in this country and the other in Leningrad—that there was one thing to be said for the Soviet system: it spoke with a single voice. One knew what was going to happen. The Medvedev brothers said in a book they wrote that one never knew what the devil was happening in the United States and that one still did not. In fact the situation has got worse. Not only does the United States speak with several voices; it does different things. Arms of the Government which ought to be within governmental control take on activities which the President subsequently tells us he knew nothing about. There is an uncertainty in the general political scene which is contributed to by the fact that the American democracy seems to be under no effective control at the point of decision.
Democracy demands a wide variety of opinion. The Soviet Union is just beginning to move in that direction, but in the United States that width of opinion is translated into a wide difference of effective control over action. That must be disconcerting in the dangerous world in which we live today in which nuclear weapons are so widespread. We must hope that this measure—the noble Lord, Lord Home, made the same point—moves further and is not the end but the beginning of a process under which nuclear weapons can be, I hope, totally eliminated, or as most noble Lords have said, if not eliminated, perhaps very drastically reduced. I should be happy to see a drastic reduction all round as a good start; then we could possibly move towards elimination if and when the political scene is different to that of today.
The Labour Party first called for a zero option of no cruise, no Pershing and no SS.20s in 1981. Michael Foot, Denis Healey and Denzil Davies made the proposal during their visit to Moscow in that year. President Reagan then made his zero-option proposal in November that year. Since Mr. Gobachev came to power in 1985, the Soviet Union has radically changed its previous attitude. It will be giving up almost four times as many nuclear warheads as the United States of America under this agreement. We might ask ourselves, if the situation were reversed, whether it would be possible for the West, even under a measure of this sort, to reduce its own nuclear armaments where it has an ascendancy to the level at present deployed by the Soviet Union.
242
I hope it will become possible because I think it desirable that if we are to move down we must first move to a position of parity. The Soviet Union has shown a remarkable example in this respect on intermediate range weapons.
I believe I have time to quote a release by the Novosti Press Agency concerning the Gorbachev-Thatcher interview just before Mr. Gorbachev left for the United States. It reads:
"The two leaders continued an 'old dispute', as Gorbachev described it, on the concept of nuclear deterrence. 'You would surely agree', he said, 'that it is better to be sitting in a cosy armchair than on a powder keg. When nuclear arms arc banked on as a means of ensuring security, this is unacceptable in both philosophical and practical terms. There are certainly realities and we face them. But now that the process of nuclear arms reduction is about to be started, I invite you, Mrs. Prime Minister, to consider that concept of yours again.".
There have been a number of reconsiderations of concepts here this afternoon. It is my hope that this will continue. Until it does and until we get rid of the threat of nuclear weapons, we shall remain in peril. We must remember at this time not to be too euphoric. It is a time in which we are beginning to move into a much better position than has existed for years between East and West. At the same time, in the Middle East, in Iran, in Iraq and in Israel, a considerable amount of black market plutonium of weapons grade is collecting. This possibility of the spread of nuclear weapons is one that must concern us all. As soon as we achieve peace, or something approaching peace, between the two super powers—or perhaps I should say when we can achieve greater trust between the super powers—the world as a whole must address itself to the spread of plutonium and make sure that we do not end by having a dreadful nuclear accident. That is a possibility to which we must turn our attention after this INF debate is over.
I revert to quoting the Novosti Press Agency.
"In view of the forthcoming signature of a treaty on intermediate-range and short-range missiles, Mrs. Thatcher spoke about the importance of making sure that U.S. Congress would ratify it in a linkage with the issues of 'human rights in the Soviet Union.' A little polemic ensued, in the course of which Gorbachev reminded the Prime Minister about the understanding they had reached in December 1984".
I shall not continue with the rest; I shall be in danger of exceeding my time. I shall therefore sit down and listen with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has to say.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I shall not disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, by doing other than agree with him on one point which he made toward the end of his interesting speech; namely, that this is no time for euphoria. However, I agree with that statement for a rather different reason. I do not deny that in other parts of the world there are serious and grave problems which could lead to conflict, but my worry relates to the Soviet Union itself. I am concerned not, as will no doubt be argued by some hardline members of the Senate, because I mistrust Mr. Gorbachev or doubt his sincerity and his wish to achieve further measures of disarmament, but precisely because I believe that he is making a genuine effort to reconstruct—I suppose that is the best

243
translation of perestroika—the Soviet Union and the
Soviet world.
It seems to me that far from entering what some people appear to believe is a period when our problems will be rather easier to solve than they have been, we may be entering a period in which our problems will be more difficult of resolution. In the remarkable article to which the right reverend Prelate referred, Sir Yehudi Menuhin used a familiar metaphor in terms of our dealings with Russia—the metaphor of ice and a thaw. However, I should like to remind your Lordships that when a river is hard frozen it is possible to skate upon it with safety. Indeed, there have been periods in this country when it has been possible to roast an ox upon the Thames. The danger arises with the thought that ice floes released by a thaw can crash and grind against each other.
That is simply another way of saying that the process of reform launched by Mr. Gorbachev, which as we know is already running into opposition—and this point has been referred to by various noble Lords—cannot be relied upon to have a smooth path towards an outcome that we should all welcome; namely, the restoration of Russia's economic progress and the incorporation of Russia and Eastern Europe into the general currents of world trade and world intellectual commerce.
Enshrined in the existing system there are two very serious difficulties. One of them has already been referred to and indeed we have current evidence of it: the resistance of classes, groups and organisations in the Soviet Union to whom progress in that direction means a diminution of their own authority and privileges. No privileged caste has ever given up power without a struggle.
There is also the fact that the position on which Mr. Gorbachev rests is that of the Russian people—the largest group numerically in the Soviet Union yet not forming a majority of the population—who occupy and have always occupied most of the positions of power and influence. Already we are beginning to receive evidence of a revival of national feelings and an expression of national aspirations from the Baltic States, the Ukraine, Soviet Central Asia and the Caucasus. There is no reason to believe that that is likely to diminish, because reconstruction, which must involve decentralisation of the economy and more local decision-making, is bound to create a demand that decisions should represent not a Russian view nor Moscow's view but the view of the majority peoples in the particular republics concerned.
Furthermore, it cannot be that a major reconstruction in the form and character of Soviet society should take place without any impact being felt by the countries in Eastern Europe which the Soviet Union has ruled or dominated for the past 40 years. Again, we already have evidence that this is happening, and notably most recently in the Polish referendum. In one state after another we can see certainly not rebellion or revolt but clear evidence of discontent, which is hardly surprising when one considers that a country such as Rumania which was
244
once the granary of Eastern Europe is now suffering from shortages of food.
How will the Russians react to such manifestations of nationalism in the so-called satellite countries of Eastern Europe, particularly when and if such actions take the form of reaching out for greater contact with the West, as is beginning to be evident in East Germany and as has been evident for some time in Hungary? Such things are likely to disturb the Soviet Union. Most of your Lordships' attention in this debate has rightly and perhaps naturally been concentrated upon disarmament and particularly the possibility of conventional disarmament. However, we must remember that the size of the Soviet forces in Eastern Europe is not governed exclusively by a balance with NATO or by the belief, which I think by now Mr. Gorbachev regards as imaginary, that the Soviet Union is in danger of invasion from the West. It is partly governed by the fact that it is that military power which sanctions the Soviet position in Eastern Europe as well as acting as a possible persuasive force on countries in Western Europe in certain circumstances.
Also to be considered is the position of countries outside Eastern Europe—and no doubt this has been discussed in Washington—particularly perhaps Afghanistan, from which I am quite sure in my own mind—because it would be illogical if it were not so—Mr. Gorbachev would like to withdraw his troops. He cannot do it and be certain that a communist regime would survive. In fact, the very opposite is likely, and his ability to persuade his colleagues that the sacrifice of a communist regime—that is to say, the reversal of the Brezhnev doctrine—is part of the price to be paid for perestroika may be very heavily taxed.
I believe that we shall have to watch such things because developments in the Soviet bloc, whether inside or outside Europe, will demand a response from the West and, above all in the current state of the American polity, a response from Europe. That is why I was so happy to hear the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, in his maiden speech take us back to the need for co-operation between European governments. I believe that there are very stormy times ahead in which that co-operation will be essential in order to keep the peace.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, you will notice that I am not my noble friend Lord Gladwyn. The reason that I am on my feet is that the noble Lord very kindly agreed to change places with me on the Speakers' List because I want to address myself to a rather narrow point in this wide-ranging debate which has been so interesting and so informative. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I omit some of those tributes to earlier speeches by noble Lords which courtesy prompts, which eloquence deserves but which time forbids.
I follow the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, on this occasion very happily because the rather narrow area to which I want to address myself concerns the position in Eastern Europe as a result of perestroika and glasnost, which in my view will lead to an

245
instability in that part of the world which we shall not he able to afford to neglect. I also wholly agree with him in his description of the difficulties which we must assume that Mr. Gorbachev is facing on the domestic front.
When I was in Warsaw last October to arrange for the next meeting of the Anglo-Polish Round Table Conference, I discussed this matter with some Polish friends who are well acquainted with the Russian scene. The Poles are very acute and experienced Russia-watchers. I asked what kind of opposition Mr. Gorbachev was facing. My friend said that one can assume there are 23 million people in Russia who are unanimously against it—they are the members of the Communist Party. One can also assume that there is a large number of fringe groups, such as the teachers in scientific Marxism, of whom there are between 100,000 and 400,000, who will probably also be against it because their jobs may be at risk.
He said that as far as the Asian element in the Soviet population is concerned perestroika is something very different from what is understood by the Russian element, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has indicated in his speech. They will not be particularly interested in it except in so far as their national consciousness has been stimulated by the Afghanistan conflict and this will provide an opportunity for further sharpening of that consciousness.
My friend said that there are two other things to remember. Mr. Gorbachev and his advisers are very like many 19th century Russian radicals who again and again produced admirable schemes for the reform of Imperial Russia. Each of these ran into the sand created by the immense inertia of the Tsarist system and the Russian temperament. Granted that this is a Polish view and can hardly be said to be an objective one, but it is one which I think we have to take into account if we are to depend entirely on perestroika for the future of peace in this world.
If this week has been, as far as the world is concerned, a Gorbachev-Reagan week, in this country it has actually been a Polish week. I should like to say how greatly I welcome the return of contacts between this country and Poland, which is represented by the visit of their Foreign Minister, Mr. Orzechowski, the first Foreign Minister to visit this country since Mr. Cyrek in 1981. Some people seem to think that since martial law was introduced Poland has reverted completely to what it was in its worst days. In point of fact it is interesting that a number of the gains won by Solidarity have been retained and Poland remains by far the freest country in Eastern Europe and the one which approached nearest to a pluralistic situation because of the existence and the power of the Church and the history of the people.
What exists in Poland at the moment is a kind of mutual paralysis whereby the Government can stop Solidarity mounting huge demonstrations and strikes and Solidarity can stop the Government doing anything it wants to do. There is stalemate. The referendum was an attempt to break that stalemate and, although it failed, it was an attempt to consult the people, it was fairly conducted, and it was an
246
event which, as far as I know, was unique in Eastern Europe in recent years. Perestroika, which, as the Polish Foreign Secretary said at Chatham House today, lay behind the referendum and the attempt to involve the Polish people, has already had consequences for the whole situation in Central Europe.
The idea of Central Europe, which appeared to have been abolished at the time of Yalta, has now been resuscitated. Mr. Gorbachev has studiously refused to face the consequences of that fact! In his book he writes:
"Relations between socialist states are based on absolute independence".
One rubs one's eyes at that comment and one thinks of recent history.
He does not address the question of what will happen when the restraints which have been imposed on these Eastern European countries are loosened. It is very difficult to foresee how the Russian Government will deal with this problem. They cannot loosen the reins too quickly, if only because of apprehension at the possibility of German reunification. This apprehension is one thing on which Poles and Russians agree. How long, they are saying to themselves, will the formula One Nation/Two States remain? How long can the forces pressing for reunification, which is after all part of the constitution of the FDR, be kept in check?
As the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill said, we are entering a new era in diplomacy. We are moving from diplomatic trench warfare into an era of the diplomacy of manoeuvre. It is much more interesting, much more exciting, but it has its own dangers. The great danger is that of instability. It is a time therefore in which some of the optimism which has been expressed in this debate seems wholly justified but it is also a time, as has also been expressed in this debate, when that optimism has to be tempered by vigilance. This is partly because of the battles which Mr. Gorbachev is fighting at home, and which he may or may not win, and partly because there is a long way to go from this small beginning before the world can be said to be made even reasonably safe.
In the debate on the economy I argued that we have moved into a world of three centres of economic power—the United States, Europe and Japan. I argued that Europe had to adopt its own position in facing and helping to solve the economic crisis. I believe that the same applies in the political world. The United States' dominance is not so great as it was, partly because of the financial position and partly because of this diplomacy of manoeuvre. Mr. Kissinger said in the Herald Tribunal that Europe must organise itself rapidly for a dialogue with the United States on trans-Atlantic defence and the contents of the next stages of arms control.
I therefore join with several other noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Callaghan and Lord Greenhill, in the view that the crucial element in the next few years is for Europe to pull itself together to develop a defence policy. When the talks on strategic arms control and further forms of disarmament take place Europe will then be able to be represented with

247
one voice, to take part in those negotiations, and to see that her interests are properly defended.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, this INF agreement could herald a new dawn of progress towards a peaceful reconciliation between the two super powers of the world, between the nations of East and West Europe, and between the military blocs of NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Just as important, it may build a deeper mutual trust between the peoples of the continents melting the iciness of attitudes which have prevailed for so many unfortunate years of disturbing episodes which have caused alarm and aroused the fear of war. That is my hope, but this agreement and the aura of glasnost have to be examined in greater detail. Has Russia really changed? Are we satisfied that it is on a course of permanent change? We are dealing with the Russians and not just Mr. Gorbachev.
We have to keep in mind many of the post-war Russian activities—the Berlin blockade in 1948 which necessitated the Berlin airlift to rescue Berlin and keep it alive; the Soviet suppression of the East German uprising in 1953; the Hungarian bloodbath by Soviet occupying forces that took place in 1956; the building of the East-West Berlin Wall in 1961, closing the floodgates against thousands fleeing from a Soviet-style dictatorship to democracy in the West.
Then there was the move into Czechoslovakia by Soviet troops in 1968, occupying Prague and other cities, to suppress the Czechoslovakian people's request for reform; and in 1979 the appalling act of invasion of a non-aligned nation, Afghanistan, which is now occupied by Soviet forces—116,000 of them—having killed 1 million Afghan people by conventional weapons—no atom bombs; and it is still going on. Then in the early 1980s in Poland martial law was imposed, because of waves of labour unrest, Soviet pressure being applied on the Polish authorities, with the suspension of trade union activity and the imprisonment of leaders of the Solidarity unions.
So time after time the Russians have been suppressing the freedoms that people within the Eastern European bloc have yearned for since 1945. So there is no glasnost for them. Only as recently as 1983 a Korean airliner, KAL 007—a 747 civil airliner
with 269 civilian passengers and crew—was shot down in Russian airspace. There is no telling whether that aircraft was off course by accident or design, but the Soviets had no compunction about shooting it down. Those are just a few examples of post-war Russia.
The Russian Bear long-range military aircraft regularly fly down our North Sea coastline, persistently puncturing and invading our airspace triggering off our reflexes. We scramble our fighters and intercept by recognition. We have never shot one down. But it still necessitates a 24-hour defensive watch on the Russian spies in the air.
Then on human rights and particularly their treatment of the refuseniks—that is, those Jews in Russia who have applied to leave and been refused—the Soviets have an appalling record. In
248
1985, the year Mr. Gorbachev assumed the reins of power, 383,000 Jews were still waiting for permission to leave. In Gorbachev's first year, 1985, 1,100 were allowed to leave. Last year, 1986, 900 were allowed to leave. The doors were nearly closed. This year so far the figure is 7,000. That seems a lot but, by contrast, 50,000 exit visas were issued in 1979. The refusenik is used by Russia as a political pawn on the international chess-board of politics, figures of emigration tending to rise only when international talks are pending.
The Soviets have never honoured their signature on the Declaration of Human Rights. Article 13(2) states:
"Everyone has the right to leave any country including his own and return to his country"—
not so in Russia. The plight of the Jews in Russia is a prime example of the Soviet's appalling disregard for human rights. On this they must be judged by their performance, not by their promises or a few special cases highlighted by their propaganda.
On the INF agreement, I think that after years of dangerous stagnation this year has certainly seen tremendous progress in the field of nuclear disarmament—we all rejoice in that—with not just the elimination of one category of nuclear weapons, the intermediate nuclear missiles, but a verification system with a welcome degree of openness into the East and the West for inspection purposes. Now we have the possibility of serious negotations in the near future, of cuts in conventional arms, short-range nuclear weapons, the abolition of chemical weapons and, above all, the major goal of a 50 per cent. cut in strategic missiles.
I remind the House that all this was on offer at Reykjavik when Mr. Gorbachev demanded that America should abandon SDI, the strategic defence initiative—the star wars research and development programme—but President Reagan would not give way and that was most fortunate and quite right. Why did Mr. Gorbachev oppose SDI, when he knew then and has admitted since that the Soviets have embarked on a star wars system? Was not that deception then and also, for propaganda purposes, later on? Indeed, the Soviets have already launched an anti-satellite satellite. To date the Soviet Union is the only nation with an operational anti-satellite system deployed. So the militarising of space has already begun by Russia and therefore America must carry on with its SDI research programme.
Mr. Gorbachev cleverly succeeded throughout the negotiations in portraying the Soviets as the champion of peace, capturing the imagination of the third world and sowing seeds of doubt about the West's intentions. Gorbachev is seen as the demandeur and the West is seen to be on the defensive. The Soviets have exploited every doubt and split in NATO's ranks. Their propaganda machine has never been so lubricated and so professional world-wide. They have no democratic challenges within Russia or their Warsaw Pact allies, as has the USA. They are totally free to promote their so-called peace campaign with waves of euphoria, promising a nuclear-free world which is not within their compass.

249
I believe that the military minds of NATO will be more disturbed at the INF deal than the Warsaw Pact. We lose an intermediate nuclear weapon of up to 3,000 miles range. To the Soviets with their vast array of weaponry, it is a cut of insignificant proportions, but to the West it is a worrying diminution in the policy of flexible response. Therefore, I believe that the possibility of cuts in conventional arms, and the elimination of short-range nuclear battlefield weapons, will be hard to come by. But that will be the Soviet's goal—to denuclearise Europe.
I believe that the Soviets have laid out their strategy within the broad framework of deals towards the prize of a reduction of 50 per cent. in strategic nuclear missiles. They will offer noticeable reductions in conventional forces in Eastern Europe. This will appeal to the natural neutralists in America and those Americans who demand cuts in their defence budget. Clamours for cuts in American forces stationed in Europe will follow. The conventional gaps created will not be filled by the NATO allies and decoupling of America's troops from Western Europe would then be achieved, leaving a weakened NATO.
Denuclearisation and decoupling in Western Europe is what Russia really wants, for two reasons —and I conclude on these. First, they will feel much safer and secure, the frontier threat having been weakened. Their major concern since 1945, having lost 20 million of their people and their land almost conquered, has been to maintain the buffer states for their own safety and be in a position if they so wish to enlarge that area, so ensuring their safety that much more.
Secondly, with no American forces in Western Europe they need not fear the USA as before, or indeed an American nuclear strike if they invade Western Europe. America will not be directly threatened and the Russians may then reckon, as in 1914 and 1939, that they are likely to remain neutral. I am sure that that scenario and possible Soviet strategy is seen and understood. We shall now have to wait and see how it gradually unfolds.
6.1 p.m.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, for this afternoon's timely debate. I also wish to say that we have heard three magnificent maiden speeches.
Mr. Gorbachev's enthusiasm for arms reduction appears to be based on the idea that a diminution of weapons will inevitably increase stability for peace. Fewer weapons mean fewer threats. There is much plausibility to the idea that fewer weapons make a safer world; but that is only true if weapons are the source of conflict. That notion cannot be maintained logically or historically. A sword, for instance, is of no particular interest and only becomes a means of force in the hands of a person who intends to advance or defend a specific cause.
Weapons do not give rise to threats but rather are mere expressions of them. People with no weapons have done incalculable damage. Recent slaughters in
250
Cambodia were carried out by fanatics with crude wooden clubs. Yet no one would suggest that clubs or the trees from which they are made cause war.
However, nuclear weapons produce an inversion between weapons and courses of conflict. It happened before World War II when it was thought that aerial bombardment would be the annihilation of the human race. Today it most surely would be nuclear power and chemical warfare. In each case the weapons themselves are the sole source of danger. In the past the danger was supposedly neutralised by arms control treaties which were heralded as harbingers of peace, but war followed because underlying political and moral realities were ignored which would have preceded the possible use of these weapons.
By contrast, one of the rare examples of successful arms control was the Rush-Bagot Convention of 1817 between the United States and Great Britain which demilitarised the Great Lakes. It was successful simply because it reflected the political realities which preceded it and it was not itself used as the means to achieve an otherwise unobtainable peace. Even without the treaty, the warships would have disappeared as the underlying conflict for which they were an expression had been resolved. Similarly, the political realities of today are not shaped by the nuclear bomb, but the nuclear bomb by political realities.
The fact that France and Great Britain could destroy every American city with a population of over 50,000 does not leave us in fear and trepidation because our relationship with the United States makes it completely impossible for it to use its nuclear arsenal against us. Our worry about the bomb is because the Soviet Union has it and specifically because of the moral climate of the Soviet regime. These political and moral realities give nuclear and chemical weapons their relevance and not vice versa.
If we look at the philosophical assumptions of man's nature we find two ancient views diametrically opposed; one that man is secular and a materialist and the other that man is untainted by any fundamental disorder within himself and is therefore capable but not always willing to achieve self-perfection. In actual fact, both are wrong; but if we could only rearrange things slightly, we should in theory be able to guarantee world peace. But alas this is not the case. Every day newspapers are full of crimes, regional wars, terrorism and other such things. Therefore something is profoundly wrong; for if man is good, why are we in this situation?
Whether strife is domestic or foreign, these problems stem from external factors which require an external solution. Peace is a management problem which requires certain social engineering skills. Peace institutions spring up all over the place and the top of their agenda is always marked "arms control". But the more we refuse to acknowledge that the source of our disorders is internal to man, the more blindly we shall believe in and insist upon an external resolution to the conflict.
There are those therefore who see the solution only as a complete cleansing of the earth and the dawn of a new age. No titivating of our existing institutions

251
will suffice. They are the sources of the problem. A solution can only be found by the complete destruction of our existing system. Sometimes today it is called liberation theology. It used to be known as Marxism. Marxism decrees today that man is not good enough; therefore he must be changed. It is not arms control that will change the world; it is man control. To change man total command must be obtained and the way for that is total power. Peace for the marxist is not the absence of conflict but the extinction of all opposing forces. Arms control is just another tool which he uses for that purpose.
Totalitarian ideology is the very philosophy of force. Injustice therefore reigns not by tyranny from a single person but by principle and the institutions that embody that principle. Who rules the Soviet Union is largely irrelevant to any fundamental reform. If the Soviet Union's principles remain unchanged glasnost can only be a change in the window-dressing. Mr. Gorbachev may be willing to give up his SS.20s, but he is unremitting in his call for:
"a determined and unbending struggle against religious tendencies together with a necessary reinforcement of atheistic propaganda".
That appeared in Pravda on 4th March 1987. How many of the British public know or have heard that comment? It is as my noble friend Lord Pym said, we have to educate many of our electorate because the Russians are very clever at pulling the wool over our eyes.
Before 1917 Russia had 78,000 Russian Orthodox churches and 113,000 clergy. Today there are only 6,500 churches and 6,000 priests in the whole of Russia. There used to be 2,500 mosques in the Caucasus and Central Asia but now there are only 450. That diminution was not brought about by popular request but by the totalitarian state. So if we wish to measure glasnost as a fundamental change then we must keep count of the churches. Should the Soviet Union ever succeed in its proclaimed goal of global hegemony, a goal which some say is far closer today than ever before, it will do so on the basis of a series of inversions, all of which are intimately related; the inversion within man's own soul in which he prefers himself to God.
I have not argued against real arms reductions but only against those who say peace when there is no peace without freedom and who by doing so wittingly or unwittingly perpetuate the underlying injustice which makes true peace impossible. President Reagan has consistently insisted on telling the truth about the nature of the Soviet Union despite the trouble his "evil empire" remarks caused. We only have to think in this connection of the innocent demonstrators of two days ago in Red Square and the reaction of the KGB. The President has repeatedly said to Mr. Gorbachev, as has my right honourable friend the Prime Minister:
"we have distrust between us, not because of arms; we have arms because there is distrust".
In other words, if Mr. Gorbachev (whom I believe to be sincere) will give up his ideology we shall give up our arms. But can we be sure that Mr. Gorbachev can control the Politburo and the KGB? Short of that, we must proceed extremely carefully in our arms
252
negotiations on the basis of the mistrust caused by that ideology. Justice requires nothing less.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, what has been
particularly encouraging to me in listening to this debate today is that the majority of speakers have agreed that what we have been witnessing in the past week and what we have seen on our television screens and read in our newspapers apropos this whole issue has been the most amazing development in international relations probably since the end of the Second World War.
There have been, quite rightly, articles and there have been some speeches today which also quite wisely and rightly advocated caution. But what has distressed and disturbed me is that when one understands that senior politicians in the United States have found that they have had to resign because of Mr. Gorbachev and when I read some of the statements made by politicians and by journalists in Britain, France and Western Germany I find that they are all frustrated and all annoyed because their theories have all been smashed by Mr. Gorbachev.
This afternoon there have been one or two speeches which have also indicated that. What those speakers were really saying was, "Come back Stalin and Brezhnev; all is forgiven". I believe that is a most appalling attitude to adopt. It is so easy to condemn and refute every mortal thing that Mr. Gorbachev has submitted and to which President Reagan has agreed. I believe we have to realise that this may be the little olive branch that encouraged Noah and which should now encourage all mankind.
The INF agreement is most welcome. However, the real danger, in my judgment, is that the remaining 92 per cent. of the nuclear arsenal is still extant. Verification is one of the most important issues that has come out of the agreement. I have constantly advocated in your Lordships' House that we should not agree to anything unless we are totally and absolutely satisfied that verification procedures are complete. Both we and the Russians should be able to inspect everything that we and they desire to inspect. That is the only way to instil confidence from our point of view. I believe that that would also give the USSR confidence.
We have begun something which, on that basis of compromise, could be a breakthrough on all space weapons. One of the most important elements of the agreement is the issue of verification. We must now maintain a logical programme of arms control with verification for all forms of weaponry. We have started with verification; let us hope that we can proceed with it. But verification must be the central theme of all our endeavours henceforth. That matter should also be examined by the Warsaw Pact countries, and I also hope that NATO's nuclear planning group, which meets next spring, will do the same thing. We should also see to it that that verification includes the total removal of all forms of nuclear weapons.
East-West relations are now finding unity in dealing with a small aspect of discussion and examination. However, there is still a lot of tension

253
which may break the agreement which we in NATO have reached with Mr. Gorbachev on behalf of the USSR. The agreement could be ruined if, in some of the parts of the world in which there is now intense tension, that tension is not reduced and ultimately abolished. I think that that particularly applies to the Arab-Israeli dispute. It also applies to Iran and the Gulf; that is a danger area. We have had an indication on that matter from Mr. Gorbachev. He is not so unbending as Stalin. But he did say that the Russians were prepared to make a contribution towards keeping the Gulf free from danger. I believe that that is something which we should acknowledge.
Another thing which has been mentioned about Mr. Gorbachev—it has not been mentioned today but I think it is worth mentioning—is his great concern about starvation in Africa and the sub-continent. We in the West have kept that matter constantly on our agenda and have done a great deal to alleviate the suffering. I hope the Russians will follow our example.
Perhaps one of the greatest threats to mankind through all history has been the territorial dimension. I believe that that has always been the cause of war. We went to war in 1939 because Hitler stole Poland. We were very fortunate later on as regards which side the Russians came in on. Those of us who can remember the assaults from Normandy onwards and the news coming through, crackling on our radios, will remember that when the lads were saying, "Where are they now?", they did not mean the 8th army, the British army or the American army. They meant, "Where are the Russians now?", The Russians were sucking and drawing almost 15 divisions away from the allies in that assault. We have to realise that all that was started by the invasion of the third dimension—somebody else's land being taken by someone who had no right to do it.
That principle still applies to Afghanistan. I get a little irritated that the examples always stop at Afghanistan. What about the West Bank? Was that not stolen and is it not still stolen? If you stole something 10 million years ago and did not give it back, you are still a thief and an invader. What about the West Bank, the Golan Heights and the invasion of Lebanon, which is something we still cheer? What about the plight of the Palestinian refugees? All those matters have to be put on the agenda to remove tension, if we have the courage and honesty to do so.
I have always found that one difficulty of international intercourse is that it is impossible to express critical views about the policy of another nation to which you do not belong without exposing yourself to the charge of being anti that nation. The implication is that you should agree with everything it does. The late Lord Attlee, when he was Prime Minister, gave a warning in this Chamber when it was the House of Commons. He said:
"Always he suspicious of the man who agrees with every little thing you say".
I believe we have to take that into account today.
Russia has been pursuing its leading nation psychology, which is another name for imperialism. It has been as imperialist as any bombastic nation in mankind's history. Its cruelty from the revolution
254
onwards has been equally appalling. However, the Tsarists that the Russians had to get rid of were equally appalling and cruel people. Therefore, we have seen that leading nation psychology crush so many nations in Eastern Europe. To a much smaller degree, we have seen that attitude taken up by the United States of America when it glances down to South America and in the dreadful story of the involvement of our great ally in the fearful and corrupt business of Nicaragua and the Contras.
I believe that no real freedom will ever exist if we have the sort of society that Russia espouses. Mr. Gorbachev must he taught that. Neither do we want altogether the sort of society that the United States espouses. However, in so far as we were all allies in war, we have acknowledged in this country the massive suffering of the Russian people. The Russian people, together with Britain and the United States, secured victory. I believe that we should now start to work together to save humanity. We should never at any time negotiate from fear, but we must never be afraid to negotiate.
In conclusion, I believe that we have a duty to acknowledge that the issue of nuclear disarmament and the possibility of a world nuclear war is not solely the concern of NATO or the Warsaw Pact countries. It involves the future of all mankind. We must keep that in the forefront of our minds and it must be our holy grail. I believe that that will give encouragement and hope to millions of Russians, Poles. East Germans, Americans, South Americans and all the peoples of the world. I believe that this country can give that sort of lead. We have the background and experience; we still have and shall always have the right to give that lead from this mother of parliaments.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not share the prevailing mood of joy and euphoria. I do not wish to rehearse again today doubts which I have previously voiced about some of the implications of the INF treaty, save only to say that there is a contradiction between the official European welcome for the treaty and the anxiety felt and expressed in the same quarters about what are, in effect, two of its main consequences; namely, the removal of certain links in the chain which binds the United States to Europe and a step in the direction of Europe's de-nuclearisation. The destruction of a whole category of nuclear weapons will be a hollow source of satisfaction if it amounts to a step which leads in the wrong direction.
Moreover, it is a sobering reflection that all the immense political investment which was necessary to secure the installation of cruise and Pershing in the first place, and which is now being used as it were to pay for the achievement of the INF treaty, is an effort which can never be repeated. To that extent Europe now stands markedly more alone and more lightly armed than she did before. A great deal depends on the optimism which the INF treaty has aroused and on that optimism being justified.
The history of the treaty has been facilitated, and its achievement facilitated; but its dangerous implications have been obscured by the glittering

255
effect of the personality and of the policies of General Secretary Gorbachev. Personally, in his domestic context, I accept Mr. Gorbachev at face value. I do not say this to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Pym, whose brilliant and authoritative speech I agree with on virtually every word. I see Mr. Gorbachev as a patriotic man, one of immense energy and daring, who will try everything in his power to combat the forces of inertia and decline which are inherent in Soviet society. As a means to this end he seems to be opening up Russia to the world. He seems to be using foreign policy, with the international prestige and the diplomatic triumphs which it can and is already bringing him, in order to neutralise opposition at home.
As other noble Lords have said, what opposition there must be! The Soviet bureaucracy which controls and stifles Soviet society is a vested interest so vast and privileged that one must surely doubt whether the leadership can summon up forces sufficient to confront and transform it.
Mr. Gorbachev appears to promise a closing of the gap in the character of our respective societies and in a way which is acceptable to us; namely, by a levelling-up rather than by a levelling-down. That is a promise which may prove illusory, and perhaps is likely to prove illusory. Yet any increase in the gap in living standards between East and West is undesirable. It is already a provocation; and if the West's dazzling display of liberties, of cultural opportunities and of material plenty is, on top of that, inadequately defended, then that is a double provocation. We should do nothing to impede the chances of Mr. Gorbachev's attempts at domestic reform from succeeding. But our connivance with Mr. Gorbachev should not include the weakening of our defence.
I believe that the Government have been right to emphasise the need for this country to retain and modernise our nuclear deterrent. It must be completely excluded from the coming negotiations on strategic nuclear weapons. Like De Gaulle for France, it has been Mrs. Thatcher's great achievement to restore this country's national pride and with it the political will and the economic capacity to sustain a credible nuclear deterrent.
Over-rationalistic critics have sought to undermine the theory of nuclear deterrence and so have the wishful thinkers. As Europe becomes set for partial de-nuclearisation, I do not think that the vision which is revealed before us—namely, that of an unredressed conventional imbalance—is an improvement.
It is not just that I think the conventional and chemical imbalance will be exceptionally difficult to redress really and permanently through negotiations, but also because, among other things, the Soviet Union has advantages in geography which facilitates deployment, and secrecy which impedes verification. Mainly, I feel that war is more tempting in a non-nuclear environment.
There are possibilities of mass involvement; there are visions of glory and territorial conquest. Above all in this context, it can be a means to restore
256
movement to a stagnant society or to re-integrate a disintegrating one. The one thing that we must not do in preparing for the possible failure of Mr. Gorbachev's reforms is to re-introduce the option of war. We must not, as my noble friend Lord Glenarthur said, make Europe safe for conventional war.
Like everyone else here I hope for the best from today's historic evolvements, but we have our own contribution to make which should be based upon principles of ordinary prudence. We should seek to get Europe to speak with one voice; and where that proves impossible, we should articulate Europe's interests to the Americans as we perceive them. We must not again let the Americans be misled over our defence interests as they proved to have been before the Reykjavik summit. At all times we should measure the adequacy of our defences against the magnitude of the forces which are arraigned against us. Above all, we should not over-indulge in the fleeting emotions of the hour.
6.26 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, we have heard that we live in historic times, that this is an historic week and that this is an historic treaty. All times are "historic" to those who come after, but I suppose that there are some that are more historic than others and that this week is one of them.
The INF treaty has been signed by President Gorbachev and President Reagan. It has yet to be ratified by Congress but I suppose that it will be. However, even on Tuesday after the Prime Minister met Mr. Gorbachev, public opinion and the press were floating on waves of euphoria—"Our hopes for peace" and "the week that could change the world" said the Daily Express; "Comrades" trumpeted Today and the Daily Mail; "Peace on Earth" prophesied the Daily Mirror and just this morning the Daily Mail headlined: "A milestone for mankind"' I have a horrible sense of déjá vu or perhaps it should be déjá lu. It is too like 1938 and "Peace in our time". It is tempting fate and it frightens me.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Home, the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, the noble Lords, Lord Beloff and Lord Mason of Barnsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Reay, for their contributions. They have said much which I should have wished to say. Above all I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pym, who made a superb maiden speech on which I really must congratulate him and with which I agree in every word. The noble Lord made the most important point that I wanted to make, that the arms reduction priority must be conventional, chemical and biological first and nuclear only after that.
I was very glad to be reassured by the noble Lord, Lord Home, that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was happy about the INF treaty and also that Mr. Shultz did not envisage the USA ever pulling out of Europe. But of course he cannot bind his successors.
I wonder very much what are the prospects of any considerable reduction in the Soviet conventional forces and chemical and biological arsenals. One must remember that the USSR is a vast area, having

257
Japan on her eastern seaboard, an immensely long frontier with China, Mongolia to the south and south-east, and Iran to the south, all of whom she regards as potential aggressors. In addition to that she has problems with Moslem and non-European minorities within the Soviet Union.
The noble Lord, Lord Kagan, spoke about exactly that situation in this House on 23rd April 1985 in a Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Home, on relations between the West and the Soviet Union (Hansard cols. 1093 to 1096). I recommend his speech to your Lordships because it is as relevant today as it was then. I very much hope that he will say something more about this later.
I cannot help wondering whether Russia will ever seriously reduce her conventional forces, and who can blame her? Nor do I believe that she has any genuine wish totally to abandon the nuclear deterrent for very much the same reason. As I understand it, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Israel, South Africa and Argentina are all working on a development of nuclear arms and may already be in a position to make nuclear weapons, so Russia must feel the necessity to keep a deterrent against possible nuclear aggression from at least five of those countries, as indeed must the NATO alliance from some of them.
I was relieved therefore to read that the Prime Minister rejects the idea of total disarmament, mooted by Mr. Gorbachev, and of a nuclear-free world. Paradoxically, I believe that, just precisely because the results of their use are so terrible, nuclear arms make a greater contribution to world peace than any other form of defence. I am not at all sure that I should not prefer to see a conventional arms-free world rather than a nuclear arms-free world. Furthermore, the Prime Minister has said that nuclear weapons could never be "dis-invented". No invention can ever be "dis-invented", nor can knowledge become "un-known" unless civilisation as we know it is destroyed. I am afraid that that applies to chemical weapons. One can only try to control and keep a balance as a deterrent. I fear that, in the nature of things, abolition may not be possible. In any case, let us not forget that the Germans did not use gas in the Second World War because they knew that we had better gas
As other noble Lords have said, Mr. Gorbachev cannot bind his successors even if his own intentions are as honourable as they appear to be superficially, and nothing he has done so far persuades me that the Russian bear has suddenly been transformed into a harmless cuddly bear and has no ambitions to extend her empire by an open and sudden conquest of Western Europe or, possibly far more likely, her sphere of influence by its gradual Finlandisation. The noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, has touched on this. I am grateful to him and agree with all that he says.
Western Europe must therefore keep her strategic and short-range nuclear weapons and even her chemical weapons, for the absence of such a deterrent is an invitation to such a move. To expect the United States, hesitant to enter the Second World War with conventional forces until the Japanese attacked Pearl
258
Harbour, to enter a third one with nuclear forces unless her own territory were threatened is lunacy, and I hope that we never do that.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I ask the indulgence of the House in opening my speech. I pay a personal and warm tribute to my noble friend, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, first, because I owe a great deal to him. He it was who invited me to come into this House. That may not make him universally popular in the House; but it certainly makes him very popular with me. Far beyond that, 30 years ago my noble friend Lord Callaghan and I were working in close harmony. It was a great experience for me to work with him on colonial issues in the late 1950s.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, suggested that the INF Treaty was largely due to the deployment of nuclear weapons. That is one theory; it is one that I do not share. When I saw the agreement being signed yesterday, my mind turned back to the days in Great Turnstile of Kingsley Martin, Bertrand Russell, Jimmy Cameron and Michael Foot and the foundation of the CND. I do not make any exaggerated claims on behalf of the peace movement, but I believe that it has played an important part in preparing the way for the INF agreement. I am not alone' The Soviet professor, Tair Tairov, in the New Times said that many elements of new Soviet thinking on nuclear strategy "originated in the ranks of the peace movement". I believe that the main achievement of the peace movement has been in the destabilisation of the theory of nuclear deterrence.
I give an unreserved welcome to the new treaty but, without being a Jeremiah, I underline what many noble Lords have already said. This is not yet a fait accompli. There are enemies of the agreement —enemies on the Right wing in America and enemies among the Stalinists in the Soviet Union. We have heard today—I point particularly to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Reay—that there are those doubters, questioners and maybe opponents within conservative ranks in the countries of the agreement between East and West. The agreement is being hailed as turning swords into ploughshares; one hopes that it is. We must work to make sure that it is. But let us not believe that it has been achieved by yesterday's agreement. It could be that the agreement will lead to an increase in the world-wide nuclear arms race
I was concerned to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, that the British Government believe that we shall rely on nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future. That sounds to me very much as though he is speaking on the substitution of Trident for the Pershing IIs that are to be destroyed. It sounds very much like the words that have been bandied around the world in the last 10 days, particularly in Western Europe, to the effect that there must be adjustments, modernisation or compensation for the destruction of the 3 to 4 per cent. of nuclear arms included in the agreement. What kind of adjustments?
I wish to ask the Minister three questions, of which I have given him prior notice. I apologise for not giving notice of a fourth, but maybe he can answer it

259
anyway. First, is it true that new short range air launched cruise missiles are being developed and that a nuclear warhead is being developed to be added to them? Secondly, is it true that there is now development of a so-called fire-and-forget nuclear missile known as a stand-off missile? Is it the case that the Royal Air Force would like—and intends—to buy it to place on its Tornado bombers? Thirdly, is it the case that the United States is being asked to assign sea-launched cruise missiles to NATO?
As to the fourth question, of which I did not give the Minister notice, why is it that a neutron capable artillery shell funded by Congress was deployed in Germany two years ago without any information being given to European parliaments? I regret that only one woman has spoken in the debate. I do not for one moment suggest that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, represents the views of anything like the majority of women in this country. Last year, the International Assembly of Women, which represents women in parliament all over the world, met to discuss disarmament. The group visited NATO in June last year, and only last Friday it was putting questions to Congress in Washington. Of course women have a special interest in, concern for, and emotion about the issue. They are concerned about the world in which their children and their grandchildren live.
Lord Kennet: And men are not?
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, that special concern was better represented by the International Assembly of Women than by the speech of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun.
In the Soviet Union and in the Western world, and far beyond it, there is another great constituency of concern beyond women. The resources being devoted to armaments is obscene when 17 million children die from malnutrition every year. It is time that we turned swords into ploughshares and applied them to the half of the world that we discussed a week ago; the half that is outside the world economy.
Britain has a special opportunity. The treaty has opened a door. That door can lead to genuine disarmament in all forms of armaments; it can lead to a bridge being thrown across the cold war so that it disappears. It can lead—I ask the Government to comment on this—to the opening of new channels of communication between NATO and the Warsaw Pact where there is none at the moment. They cannot talk to each other. It can lead to a genuine test ban treaty following the example set by the Soviet Union over an 18-month period; or it can lead to an intensified arms race and the proliferation that has been mentioned this afternoon, with Brazil, Pakistan, Israel and South Africa all having nuclear weapons and making the world a much more menacing place in which to live. I have no doubt about which of those alternatives the British people and the people of the world would choose.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Kagan: My Lords, I shall not repeat what other speakers have said so much better, but I should
260
like to draw your Lordships' attention to one point. The most difficult part of the road towards arms reduction will be that of a reduction in conventional weapons and personnel. To assume that the Soviet Union has the same needs as the United States of America or Western countries is wrong. It requires a massive army for internal purposes. We talk about the Soviet Union as if it were a single nation. It is an empire. The Russian people are already in a minority and by the year 2000 it is expected that they will be in a minority of two to one.
A soldier in uniform is an easy person to control. What is more, he helps to control others. Are we suggesting that Mr. Gorbachev should dismantle the Polish army, the Hungarian army and the Romanian army? When we ask for a reduction in the numbers of tanks, we should remember Hungary. Tanks are a crowd-control weapon. If one approached Mr. Gorbachev with a view to his agreeing to abolish chemical warfare, I think that he would be receptive, because he is not naive. He knows that there is no real external threat to the Soviet Union from the West. There are not hundreds of thousands of people in America clamouring for visas to live in the Soviet Union. His difficulty is holding an empire together in a post-empire era.
Mr. Gorbachev is in the same position as the British Government were in at the end of the war when they had to decide that it was untenable to hold the empire together. But Mr. Gorbachev cannot decide that. He would not receive the backing of the Politburo or the army. In the perestroika he has confronted head-on not only a few people in the Politburo but the mass of the Soviet population by doubling the price of vodka, lengthening queues, and reducing the time when one can obtain it. That is just about enough to antagonise the whole of the peasantry and the workforce. The bureaucracy is deeply entrenched in habits and privileges.
With a minority Russian population, and ethnic minorities of 150 million people, involuntary inhabitants, to ask Mr. Gorbachev to reduce manpower and conventional weapons is like us asking the commissioner of police to dismantle the police force. It is a difficult subject upon which to negotiate because one cannot come out into the open and say what is in the background. On all other matters, out of pure self-interest Mr. Gorbachev will meet the West half-way or even more than half-way, but in present circumstances a reduction in conventional weapons and manpower is an unacceptable condition.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, mentioned Lloyd George talking about the lava of Bolshevism not spilling over from the Soviet Union. At the moment, the lava of freedom is spilling into Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. It is a reverse stream.
In the age of modern media the average Soviet citizen is well informed as to how the West lives. Stalin's isolation of the Soviet Union has gone. In 1945, I was in the Soviet union. A joke circulated at the time. Stalin had made two mistakes when he went into East Germany. His first mistake was that he showed Western Europe to his Russian soldiers. His

261
second mistake was that he showed his citizens to Western Europe. That is the Soviet dilemma.
I cannot say whether Mr. Gorbachev has a colossal task, as the Prime Minister said, or a mission impossible. What he has done will survive. We can only pray and hope that he will survive it. It is possible that he is already moving too fast. We should be careful not to push him too hard, because if he catches cold we will sit at home and sneeze.
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, spoke of the European act getting together. The European act is already getting together. The French and the Germans are slowly, steadily, with great conviction, moving together. We either join them in time or, as with the entry into Europe, we shall be knocking on the door, the last member to be allowed in. That is an issue to be borne in mind.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, I also should like to praise the remarkable speeches of the three maiden speakers this afternoon, if it does not seem too patronising to say so, in particular that of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir, my near namesake. My noble friend and I know that the Thomas family is one of the largest international companies, very well established throughout the European Community in all the countries, and on both sides of the Atlantic. If we got our act together we should make a major contribution to the alliance.
When historians such as myself hear politicians or statesmen use the word "historic" about an occasion, they usually reach for their passports. On the other hand, there is no doubt that the treaty signed yesterday has several remarkable and unprecedented contributions. First, there is the fact that the Soviet Union has agreed to make cuts of an unequal nature in relation to the United States; that is to say, it is cutting more weapons than the United States. Secondly, these cuts, as many noble Lords have pointed out, are actual acts of destruction of weapons and not limitations. Thirdly, there is this mind-boggling event, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, remarked, of the introduction of verification on the scale that is envisaged. There is no doubt whatever that this makes the treaty of yesterday remarkable.
Taking these factors together, the treaty offers the promise for further measures of disarmament or arms control. These surely would be to our benefit if they are arranged with the orders of priority of which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has spoken, and which other noble Lords have stressed in their speeches. Each of these unprecedented events have, however, certain caveats. For example, on the destruction of the weapons concerned, shall we be told whether the Soviet Union is regularly carrying out its acts of destruction? Some noble Lords may well feel that it is appropriate to put down a Question for Written Answer asking for a regular statement that the SS.20s have been cut in the way that the Soviet Union has agreed to cut them. Some noble Lords will feel that the destruction of SS.20s by firing them into the atmosphere is an ecological offence.
262
Some of us may feel that the verification procedure may require further attention. Who are these verifiers to be? Are we certain that after five years they will not get a little bored? This has happened in relation to UN forces. We know that these will not be UN inspection teams; they will be Soviet and US teams, loyal to their countries and not to the international community. Are we certain that that is the right way verification should be practised in future disarmament agreements?
There is then the question of "promise". My noble friend Lord Pym, in a remarkable maiden speech with which I, like other noble Lords, agreed substantially, pointed out that the question was this. Would we, the West as a whole—he had no doubts about the present British Government—be robust enough to resist apparently popular but dangerous further measures of disarmament which are put forward by Mr. Gorbachev?
There is another more substantial caveat affecting the entire series of arrangements that have been agreed. These arrangements affect one area of the world—namely, Western Europe—which until recently has been stable. As I understand it, the stability derives from the fact that there is a balance of armaments in Europe. Very often, I believe—unlike the noble Lord, Lord Hatch—that a balance of armaments preserves peace more effectively than a lack of armaments. I agree that there is a case for thinking that the 1914 war was caused because of an excessive number of arms. But there is also a case for thinking that in 1939 a lack of armaments tempted the Germans into an unnecessary war. At all events the question is arguable and it certainly seems that the stability that has been achieved in Western Europe derives from the balance of armaments obtained.
This agreement, because of the way it was achieved—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, when he said that this has perhaps been achieved without adequate consultation with the European governments—may risk the stability of an area of the world which has been stable for some time.
Let us consider these weapons. Whatever happens, the European countries will have to rethink their strategy, as I understand it. These are not first-strike weapons. They play an invaluable deterrent role. Pershings and cruises could be used against a Soviet conventional attack without necessarily risking the international nuclear exchange which the ICBMs would obviously cause. Surely therefore this could be a destabilising influence. At the very least it will force Europeans, as I see it, to rethink their strategy.
This brings me to a point which has been mentioned by many noble Lords during the course of today's debate, beginning with the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, in a remarkable plea for European defence. That was followed by an astonishing number of other noble Lords from all sides of the House. I hope very much that the Minister will feel able to represent to his noble friend the Secetary of State for Foreign Affairs that this degree of unity on this important subject was expressed so widely during the course of our discussion.

263
Noble Lords may be aware that in his book, Perestroika, Mr. Gorbachev devoted particular attention to Europe. We should perhaps be particularly aware of the importance of the European issue in his mind. He speaks of the Russians as fellow participants in our common European house. "We are all Europeans", he says, at another point. In a sense, that is true about Russia. We all know that Russian literature is part of our heritage. I speak as a literary man. However, there is a great deal more to European civilisation than literature. Law plays a more important part.
I have a final comment to make. I hope noble Lords will not think it is too churlish. The President who signed this treaty in Washington is the same President who, two or three years ago, spoke of the Soviet Union as an evil empire. Although there have been changes in the way that the Soviet leaders have presented themselves, they are infinitely more agile, more alert, more propaganda conscious, more sympathetic and open than they seemed to be in the 1970s. Nevertheless, as Mr. Gorbachev has himself made clear, they believe in the same Marxist-Leninist philosophy with all that that implies.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason, explained in moving detail what this has implied over the last 30 or 40 years. Mr. Gorbachev has made it perfectly evident that he is pursuing international normality—those are his words—in order to achieve internal progress. That is a different point in this book. He has explained that as making Russia richer and stronger. This does not seem to be necessarily a great change from the Soviet Union about which Mr. Reagan, perhaps in extravagent terms, talked a few years ago. President Reagan's volte face in these circumstances seems to suggest a lack of gravity, in both senses of the word, from the president of a great nation and the realisation of that against the background of the present mood of so-called "Gorbo mania" shows that those of us who have been urging the European initiative have been speaking extremely sound sense.
7 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I begin by saying that we must all congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, on his extreme prescience in selecting this day for his debate. I cannot think how he did it. In view of the limitations on time, I shall not repeat what has already been said by many noble Lords—and notably by the three excellent maiden speakers—about the extreme significance of the treaty signed yesterday and the hopes it holds out for further nuclear disarmament.
However, like my noble kinsman Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, I should like just to say a word about verification. Even a few years ago the present agreement would have been regarded as inconceivable; and, more especially, the fact that the ultra-suspicious Russians should have opened up their country in this way is surely as welcome as it is astonishing. There is now real confidence that any violation of the treaty will be impossible. On this point I think I am rather more optimistic than my noble kinsman.
264
A number of people have said that the treaty endangers the security of Western Europe. Theoretically they may have a point. The SS.20s and the other intermediate weapons will disappear but so will the Europe based cruise missiles and the Pershing IIs which they were supposed to counter. Unless these are in some way to be effectively replaced by other weapons, as has been mentioned by one or two speakers this afternoon, which would at least be a violation of the spirit of the treaty, the Russians might, it is alleged, with comparative impunity threaten the elimination of certain European—notably German—towns by a good number of the shorter-range nuclear weapons at present at their disposal.
The American (and indeed the British and the French) nuclear strategic weapons would always be in the background; but again the critics would say that these might never be employed in view of the destruction that would be caused by retaliation on their homelands. So runs the argument. If—God forbid!—in the absence of universal disarmament, the Americans were to withdraw their troops from Europe, there might be something in these fears. Otherwise, I suggest that they are quite unjustified.
There is no reason to suppose that, unless assured of a walkover (impossible if only we Europeans could now get together and stiffen our conventional defence as I hope we shall; and here I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said) the Russians would want to invade Western Europe if war with America would inevitably result. It would not be in their interest to do so.
So we come to what I believe is almost certainly the main issue. Is it likely or even possible that the present agreement will herald the beginning of some new and more healthy relationship between the superpowers? Is that possible? As we know, the complete elimination of the nuclear bomb is a prospect that has been held out by both the Western and the Eastern leaders. For his part, President Reagan seems to think that one day a perfected SDI will achieve this end—that is what he said—at least for the Western world. Mr. Gorbachev on his side constantly declares that complete abolition of nuclear weapons everywhere is what he is out to accomplish if he can.
The President may perhaps believe that his star wars project might be fully operable by the year 2010 or 2020—though very few experts would now agree—and insistence on still spending billions of dollars on it coupled with a virtual repudiation of the 1972 treaty is certainly not the best way to pursue his final end. Here I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Zuckerman. For his part, Mr. Gorbachev, however sincere in his detestation of nuclear weapons, must presumably appreciate the fact that their total abolition—in default of complete and absolute universal disarmament—would be very much in the interests of the Soviet Union, given its continuing conventional strength. He must recognise that that is one of the results of total abolition.
The sad fact is that however desirable in theory that might be—and of course it is—the nuclear genie

265
cannot now, and probably cannot for a good many years, be put back in the bottle. Can the genie be, as it were, tamed and put to some constructive use, each side retaining a small but still credible nuclear force for possible employment on a second strike? If any other nation should get the nuclear bomb in the next few years—and that is possible—it would find itself up against the same obligation. If it wanted to avoid annihilation it would not be able to use it except on a second strike. Would all of this be consonant with a kind of enduring peaceful association between the superpowers over the coming years?
I have always thought that it was possible, if not (up to now at any rate) particularly likely. What is certain is that unless Russia is prepared to evacuate not only Afghanistan but also Eastern Europe (which I fear for various reasons is not likely) and to stop supporting communist governments in various parts of the world by military means, to say nothing of abandoning her apparent intention to dominate the Western Pacific from bases at Vladivostok and Camranh Bay, she will continue to be a kind of rival to the United States. I heard what my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter said about eastern Europe. We must all hope that coming events will increase the independence of the satellites of the Soviet Union. But the Russians will undoubtedly do their best at any rate to maintain a kind of predominance in what up to now they have called their empire; and I doubt (although I should like it in principle) that the total evacuation of these countries is likely to happen in the next few years. We must therefore expect some kind of tension to persist between the East and the West even if relations are notably improved and actual war becomes unthinkable.
I suggest that some continuing rivalry—that is what it will be—may, with luck, be consonant with a kind of co-existence—that is, closer economic relations plus virtual tacit agreement not to encroach physically on what might be regarded as one another's preserves. I shall not elaborate on that point because the House will understand what I mean. If there is to be any further advance in this direction after the signature and ratification of the present treaty it can only be by further concessions by each side to the other's point of view. To be specific, it is surely quite right for Mr. Gorbachev to insist, if not so much now on the development and possible deployment of SDI (which may well not continue to any notable extent after the next election) at least on the end of preparations by both sides for war in space and notably for a truce on anti-satellite activity which could presumably be easily verifiable. You send things up in the atmosphere and people notice whether they are there.
What is the point, after all, of each side going all out to shoot down the other's satellites? Nothing is more likely to create dangerous tension than the prospect of one side or the other gaining the mastery of what is usually described by the experts as the "higher ground". Similarly of course the Americans might at least expect the withdrawal of some Soviet divisions from Europe, and eventually, and fairly soon we should hope, from Afghanistan.
266
If we are to be at all optimistic, may it not even be—and I fear I have no time to expand on this fascinating subject—that, perhaps as a result of ancestral memories of the Golden Horde, it is now dawning on the consciousness of the Russian people that they might find themselves one day between two hostile power blocs, one in the West and the other in the East? No one would suppose, for instance, that they would welcome what some are now predicting—namely, the passing of what is called "empire" from the United States to Japan.
It is thus at least arguable that they are now seeking to demonstrate—unconsciously perhaps—that they, if not of course their Asian subjects, are in any case members of the Caucasian race, and if not, by tradition, actual members of what is called Western civilisation, at least over the centuries closely associated with it, quite often in a rather heretical way, though admittedly under Stalin for many years reverting to a horrible form of oriental despotism, thereby, as it were, for some time actually repudiating their heritage, possibly partly as the result of two atrocious wars.
Is it not conceivable that such an instinctive feeling may largely account for the apparent recent decision of Mr. Gorbachev to reverse what has been Soviet policy ever since—as I know only too well—1946, and to try to play a constructive part in the United Nations, and notably of course in the Security Council? May it not also account for its obvious (if, I fear, rather frustrated) desire to be associated with the United States of America in some Middle-Eastern settlement, and notably in action in the Persian Gulf?
Of course we have no guarantee that such sentiments will persist on the part of Russia. If the present treaty is repudiated by the Senate, we may well see in a year or two's time Mr. and Mrs. Gorbachev presiding over, so to speak, a house for retired steelworkers in Semipalatinsk. If he cannot overcome the resistance of the bureaucrats, the Army, and the KGB, that may well be his fate anyhow.
In one of his more majestic moments General de Gaulle spoke of "Europe and her daughter, America"—L'Europe et sa fille, l'Amérique. If America is indeed the daughter, might it not be thought that Russia is, so to speak, the cousin of Europe? Can it therefore be that the moment is approaching when, if the formidable cousin cannot, for obvious reasons, be admitted to the family, at least he might perhaps be admitted as a member of polite society?
Certainly America and Europe, who are full members of that family, must stand together since the danger of a real split in this family would be too terrible to contemplate. But if they managed to do so by still organising—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan—a "credible" common defence, I suggest that the cousin may no longer be able to cause them very much trouble, always supposing that this is what the cousin really wants to do!
7.14 p.m.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, this has been a remarkable debate. It has demonstrated the value of

267
this House, which today has given the opportunity for a number of our most senior and experienced public figures to contribute to this debate their experience at a moment when we celebrate a happening which is of the most significant importance. There were two ex-Prime Ministers and three ex-Foreign Secretaries. It has allowed three noble Lords to make their maiden speeches.
My noble friend Lord Callaghan made a typically robust and perceptive speech. The noble Lords, Lord Pym and Lord Thomas, made very effective contributions to the debate, and we hope to hear from them regularly. I should also like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Cledwyn on giving us the opportunity to have this debate, and for the excellent way in which he opened the debate itself.
I said in a debate on 5th December last year that Reykjavik forced all of us to decide whether we were in favour of nuclear disarmament and on what terms. Mrs. Thatcher, who at first reacted sharply against Reykjavik, has now supported the INF treaty, and we welcome that. I also welcome the support she has given and the letter she wrote to President Reagan urging him to soften his uncompromising position on SDI so as not to hinder further progress in the future, and in order to make further treaties possible.
The question is, what are the possibilities? What I find less attractive about the Prime Minister's policies is her determination to develop an independent nuclear British deterrent. At a moment when Mr. Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev are ridding themselves of nuclear weapons the Government wish to increase our capacity and our nuclear power. We believe that Trident can only be developed at the expense of conventional forces. The idea of an independent nuclear deterrent is an expensive illusion.
With the "rent-a-rocket" arrangement, which means we could not receive or operate it without the co-operation of the United States, I do not believe that the Americans would have allowed us to have Trident missiles if they had concluded a major agreement with the Soviet Union on strategic nuclear weapons (which they hope to do), as they would regard this as destabilising the world situation and the balance achieved between the superpowers. I am sure that when the superpowers begin to discuss the abolition or the reduction of strategic nuclear weapons the British deterrent will be a hindrance to progress on that front.
Much of the discussion about disarmament has been against the background of the changes taking place in Russia, and attitudes to disarmament have been conditioned by the view people have taken about the permanence and effectiveness of these changes. As far as Russia is concerned, there are many who believe that the leopard cannot change it spots—I suspect that my noble friend Lord Mason comes into that category. However, that is clearly incongruous when you hear in the discusssion on the negotiations and the discussions surrounding them people using cold war rhetoric and talking of Russia as an evil empire, and expecting the recipients of such language to behave in a reasonable fashion.
268
Leaving aside whether the changes in Russia are for real, what has been offered is considerable: disarmament proposals of January 1986 for abolition of all nuclear weapons in the world in a three-stage process to be completed by 2000; unilateral initiatives, such as lengthy moratoria on nuclear tests; concessions on INF and SDI; recognition of conventional asymmetries; adoption of the concept of "common security"; recognition of the necessity for asymmetrical reductions in conventional forces of the Warsaw Pact and the NATO powers in Europe; independent initiatives towards Asia and Western Europe and the resolution of regional conflicts in Asia; initiatives on the military presence in Mongolia, and serious efforts at a political settlement in Afghanistan; efforts to improve relations with Japan; rapprochement with China, including the resolution of border disputes in Western Europe; improved relations with Western Europe; the establishment of a European institute; talk of a common "European House"; recognition of the European Community by the Supreme Soviet and Comecon; a more positive attitude to the United States over the Gulf War, and agreement to pay back contributions for the peacekeeping force.
Whatever anyone can say about the motives, these are massive changes which have been offered, and they would have been unthinkable only two years ago. If all these intentions could be realised, we would have a complete transformation in our relations with Russia and a much less stressful world. I believe that we have to do everything in our power to enable those things to come to pass.
For those who believe that change will only be believable when all human rights are restored and Russia is a political democracy like the West, with Russia withdrawing from Eastern Europe, there is certainly a long way to go. We should do everything to encourage those things to happen, especially Jewish emigration.
We ought not to fall into the trap of assuming that we in the West are, or always have been, without fault. It was Mahatma Gandhi who, when asked his opinion of Western civilisation, said that he thought it could be good and when were the West going to try it?
I do not know whether we are at a real turning point in history; only history will tell us. However, I believe that anyone who impedes the chance of successful change because of prejudice or complete inflexibility will be doing the world a disservice. I believe that there is more ground for hope than at any time since the last world war.
While it is true that many changes are still needed, there can be no doubt that there are those in the Soviet machine who would prefer no change. It is clear, therefore, that whatever Mr. Gorbachev's motivation, success with his own people depends on a measure of success with the West. The vital question for our foreign policy is how we give this encouragement without putting ourselves at risk. Mr. Reagan suggests a mixture of trust and verification. The view of his negotiator, Mr. Kenneth Edelman, is more forthright. He said:
"I don't trust the Russians, therefore verification procedures must be effective enough to give us early warning if they cheat".

269
One can take one's choice between those two positions. But, in my view, there ought to be a place for all men and women of goodwill between one point and the other.
A new and encouraging feature is the improvement in verification procedures and the willingness of the Russians to permit on-site verification. This, together with the acceptance of the concept of force asymetries, has transformed negotiations both now and for the future.
One issue that disturbs me, however, is that, in spite of the fact that Russia has undertaken to give up more warheads than the West, there has been something of a stampede to suggest that we make good the losses in our nuclear armoury which would he caused by the elimination of intermediate nuclear weapons; what has been described as "compensatory adjustments". As the Russians are giving up three times as much power as the West, these people should he asked: are the Warsaw Pact powers entitled to have three times as many compensatory adjustments? Above all, is this the way to ensure trust?
The noble Lord, Lord Pym, expressed anxieties as regards the conventional balance in Europe. There is no doubt that the Russsians have a preponderance of tanks, troops and other weapons. However, even the Pentagon now concedes that many of the tanks are old, that many of the Russian troops are poorly trained and have a lower level of technical competence, and that the balance is not weighted against us. In its last four reports the Institute of Strategic Studies stated:
"Our conclusion remains that a conventional military balance is still such as to make military aggression a highly risky business on both sides".
Where there are deficiencies we should move to make them good.
The noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, spoke of small nuclear weapons upon which we are still far too dependent. The weapons that remain after the INF Treaty is signed and implemented are powerful indeed. Weapons such as Mantebella, located in the Federal Republic of Germany, could destroy 55,000 British troops. If they were used, the troops would be killed not by the Russian troops but by our own weapons.
This is possible because the doctrine of flexible response requires that we fire nuclear shells with a range of 25 kilometres in the very part of Germany which we are seeking to defend. It is not surprising that the Germans would like to get rid of them and we should urge the super powers to give early attention to eliminating these weapons. In the meantime, we should reduce our dependence on them by maintaining and increasing our level of commitment to NATO in respect of conventional forces. According to the White Paper, there is to be a cut in defence expenditure of 5 per cent. between 1984–85 and 1989–90. If Trident is taken out, in terms of equipment that 5 per cent. becomes approximately 25 per cent. In a debate in another place, the Secretary of State dismissed the shortfall rather euphemistically as "slippage".
270
The department has recently been severely criticised for its failure to plan ahead. In two articles in The Times in October, Sir John Nott, former Secretary of State, spoke of the inability of' this country,
"to organise its defence on rational lines, with clear and appropriate priorities".
Sir Frank Cooper, former Permanent Secretary to the department, has declared that policies of expediency run the Ministry of Defence. They are two people who, in recent years, have occupied the highest position in the state in this area. Sir John adds that no British Minister since the 1960s has thought sufficiently about Britain's international role when dealing with long-term planning. These are powerful criticisms.
While we are preparing and hoping for further progress, we should undertake a review of our role. The United Kingdom is the only European member of NATO contributing to all three NATO commands; Europe, the Atlantic and the Channel. It is the Opposition's contention that we cannot sustain such a broad sweep and have Trident as well. Something will have to give. It is better to plan than to allow an unplanned erosion of our level of commitment to NATO as at present.
We could be entering an entirely new era in international relations. We need to have a role which is not only relevant to this need but one which we can sustain. As the level of confrontation becomes lower, we shall need new structures in which we can carry on a dialogue with other countries. In view of renewed Russian interest in the United Nations, it is conceivable that the UN could be developed to fulfil such a role and the Security Council could be a tool not just for talk but for action. That would not in any way supersede NATO but would be a forum for consultation and action on a number of problems which will still stand to be discussed in a less tense world—regional conflicts and the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Handled effectively, we could be in for a period of constructive co-operation which the world desperately needs. The large sums of money spent on defence in all countries since the war could be directed to more enduring activities which could increase the sum total of human happiness for men and women everywhere.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we have had a thorough and wide-ranging debate on both arms control and East-West relations. The number of eminent speakers—not least the excellent interventions by three maiden speakers who deserve our tributes not only for what they said today but for the important contributions that they have each made to the subject in the past—bears testimony to its importance.
The most obvious point of agreement has been that support for the INF agreement has been voiced on all sides. For once I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, in that we all hope that the United States Senate will note this and ratify the agreement speedily. Our future agenda will involve much hard

271
negotiating, but the lesson of the INF treaty—that resolve and unity pay off—is bound to stand us in good stead as we pursue the alliance's other arms control goals. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Home who, in a characteristically thoughtful speech, reminded us of the United States' commitment to Europe, which was recently reaffirmed by Mr. Shultz.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, advocated the suggestion that the peace movement and CND had largely been responsible for achieving the INF agreement. If NATO had followed the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, and the so-called peace movement, we should have no INF treaty today. The Soviet Union would have retained its monoply in this class of nuclear weapons. Mr. Andropov said:
"We are not naive people. Do not expect unilateral disarmament from us".
I wonder why CND persists in its insane commitment to unilateralism just when multilateralism is bearing fruit. Surely the lesson of INF is that we need to negotiate from strength, as we have done.
My noble friends Lord Thomas of Gwydir and Lord Home rightly stress the importance of verification. The regime agreed for INF is a tangible piece of glasnost. There are few more direct examples of openness than Soviet agreement to let United States inspectors into SS.20 bases. Arms control inspections will show in microcosm what East-West relations could become if the common interest that has been shown in INF can be built on and trust can develop.
I should perhaps tell my noble friends Lord Thomas of Gwydir and Lord Thomas of Swynnerton that the verification arrangements agreed are of unprecedented stringency and intrusiveness. The United Kingdom will play a full part in their implementation. Verification will involve Soviet inspectors at INF missile deployment sites in the United Kingdom, and the United States will be responsible to the Soviet Union for obligations in the treaty. However, the sovereignty and security of the United Kingdom will be fully respected through agreements with the United States and the Soviet Union.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked whether my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was seeking compromise on the space defence initiative. It would be more productive to speak in terms of a search for agreement, but, as my right honourable friend said in her press conference on 7th December, the way to resolve differences would be a commitment both by the United States and by the USSR not to withdraw from the ABM Treaty for a number of years, together with exchanges of information over both sides' research programmes. This would serve to build the confidence between the United States and the Soviet Union necessary to secure a meeting of minds in this important area. That is a prospect to which my noble friend Lord Pym also referred.
I hope that this meets to some extent the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned what he said was the damage done by SDI, if I remember his words correctly. He accepted that the Russians have for
272
years been engaged in similar research. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley. How can all this so-called damage be attributed to SDI alone? SDI is a research project. No decision has yet been taken on its deployment and it is within the United States and Soviet treaty obligations. I hope that the Soviet Union will not obstruct the prospect of concrete reductions in strategic weapons on the grounds of its own perceptions of a research project whose realisation has not yet proved feasible.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked whether we will review the position on Trident following substantial United States and Soviet reductions. We have never said "never" to associating the United Kingdom deterrent with the arms control process, but we should first want to see substantial cuts in the strategic offensive arsenals of the superpowers and of course no change in Soviet defensive capabilities. But, as I have said before, it is worth noting that even after 50 per cent. cuts in the strategic arsenals of the superpowers, Trident will still represent a lower percentage of the Soviet arsenal than Polaris did in 1970. I was pleased to note that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, recognised that conventional deterrents would not be sufficient and that therefore we need to maintain the minimum effective nuclear deterrent, which is the policy of Her Majesty's Government and of NATO.
If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, correctly, he suggested that the introduction of Trident would represent an eightfold increase in warheads over Polaris, and this at a time of possible 50 per cent. superpower strategic cuts. With respect, the figures he quoted seem to me incorrect. The ones that matter are that Trident will represent some 8 per cent. of a total of 6,000 Soviet warheads when introduced in 1995. Polaris represented some 10 per cent. of the number of Soviet warheads in 1970, so the percentage has dropped and the numerical increase of Trident over Polaris is by two and a half times and not eight times, carried by the same number of submarines at a time when Soviet ballistic missile defences are being significantly improved and the Soviet offensive capability is more accurate and carries a more destructive payload.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, there is of course a difference between us in that I am referring to independently targeted warheads. That is the thing that matters.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not have time to go further into the mathematics of the subject. I do not think that the noble Lord and I will agree on this. It is a subject that has been debated on several occasions previously in your Lordships' House.
I listened with great interest to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, about co-operation on the lines of the Franco-German division. As members of the integrated military structure we already cooperate closely with our allies in joint deployment. France, as the noble Lord said, is outside the military structure and the Federal Republic of Germany has repeatedly made clear that the Franco-German brigade provides a means of forging closer links between France and NATO.

273
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, raised the important matter of chemical weapons in a wide-ranging speech. I was unable to cover chemical weapons earlier this afternoon, but I believe there is support from all parts of the House for that important other matter of arms control priorities, a global ban on chemical weapons. We face a Soviet chemical warfare capability of sophistication and size out of all proportion to any defensive requirements. The Gulf conflict, which was referred to by at least one noble Lord, has vividly demonstrated the hideous nature of chemical warfare. There are increasing reports that Iraq's production of its own chemical weapons is encouraging other countries to follow its example. As I have said, we have been at the forefront of efforts to conclude an effectively verifiable convention to get rid of these terrible weapons entirely.
We all welcome the encouraging progress made in the negotiations, but equally the complexity of the remaining detail must not be underestimated. There must also be confidence that governments are sincere in seeking agreement. The chemical weapons convention will be the most ambitious multilateral arms control agreement ever. If it is to bear the weight that will he put upon it, we must be certain that its structure is sound.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, asked me four questions. I cannot rehearse them in full, but in answer to the first, which was about a new short-range air-launched cruise missile, for which a nuclear warhead is now under development in the United States, I cannot comment on the United States defence plans. As for his second question about a fire-and-forget missile, of course the nuclear capability of Tornado and other aircraft is kept under constant review and no decisions have been taken on any modernisation of the free-fall bomb.
His third question referred to the United States assigning some of its sea-launch cruise missiles to NATO. Any adjustments to NATO's nuclear capacity are a matter for NATO as a whole and no decision has been taken. His last question was about the nuclear artillery shell. The noble Lord claimed that no information had been given to European parliaments. I cannot speak for other European parliaments, but this Parliament will be fully informed, as has always been the case, of any change in the destructive nature of nuclear weapons assigned to Her Majesty's forces. This applies both to United Kingdom and US-owned warheads.
A number of interesting and stimulating speeches are testament to the intriguing nature of changes taking place within Soviet society. My noble friend Lord Kimberley raised, in a deeply philosophical and original series of remarks, the question of the moral climate in the Soviet Union and atheism. I shall have to study his remarks tomorrow, and I promise I shall do so with great interest. For years we have been accustomed to dealing with the Soviet Union as a dogmatic adversary, hidebound by its inflexible ideology. But in the last two years Soviet thinking has become less rigid and more inquiring. We are
274
presented with new challenges, new questions, new decisions. How should we respond?
Here I cannot do better than elaborate on the three watchwords of my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. In a major speech on East-West relations at Chatham House in May, he spoke of the need for realism, vigilance and an open mind in dealing with the Soviet Union. I was glad to note the support for this balanced and constructive approach given by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, and one or two other noble Lords.
We must respond with realism in setting expectations for the improvement of our relations with the Soviet Union. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Pym that we must not set our hopes so high as to breed the excessive optimism which inevitably precipitates disappointment. We must remember that the search for arms reductions, for the settlement of regional conflicts and for greater respect of human rights—including the important issue of religious freedom, to which the noble Lord, Lord Soper, addressed his remarks—is long and difficult. We must be prepared for setbacks. We must be measured and consistent in our approach, keeping an eye on the long-term objective of more stable and constructive East-West relations.
History has shown that the Soviet Union respects firm and consistent policies and will do business with strong governments. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, like the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, rightly referred to the importance of strength through unity. As the noble Lords stressed, that must include a strong and united European pillar of the Atlantic Alliance.
I cannot however agree with Lord Thomas of Swynnerton's view that the European allies were inadequately consulted on the INF agreement. Successive meetings of NATO Ministers have endorsed the dual-track decisions since 1979. My noble friend will need no reminding of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister's meeting with President Reagan at Camp David in November 1986.
We must also be realistic in our assessment of the Soviet Union. I greatly admired the penetrating and wide-ranging analysis of my noble friend Lord Beloff, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. Our judgment must be objective and unclouded by sentiment or wishful thinking. There are perhaps two traps to avoid: the belief that the Soviet Union has suddenly been transformed and no longer poses any threat to us, and the belief that nothing can change in the Soviet Union. There are real changes under way but we in the West must still proceed from a hardheaded assessment of our own interests.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, spoke effectively on those lines, and I am grateful for the support that he expressed. I cannot, however, agree with his declaration that modernisation is escalation. We are not escalating nor circumventing the INF agreement. We shall stick to our policy of maintaining the minimum force necessary to ensure deterrence. That deterrent can surely only remain effective through modernisation.

275
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter addressed the matter of Eastern Europe. As he said, the process of perestroika and glasnost in the Soviet Union are bound to have consequences for the countries of central and eastern Europe. I am glad to note that some of those countries are now making a determined effort to reform their economies. However, economic reform is unlikely to succeed without political liberalisation and popular participation. The people must see benefits for themselves if they are to be willing to co-operate in harsh austerity measures. The result of the referendum in Poland demonstrates the difficulty of getting popular support for painful economic reforms.
The visit of the Polish Foreign Minister to London this week followed visits by his colleagues from Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Romania this year and the German Democratic Republic last year. My right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary has of course visited all the countries of central and Eastern Europe, the first British Foreign Secretary to do so. We are well aware of the need to maintain a dialogue with the countries of Eastern Europe as well as with the Soviet Union.
I turn to my second watchword: vigilance. Vigilance in maintaining adequate defences against the threat of military force, espionage and subversion. There has been no reduction yet in the massive level of Soviet military forces, about whose role the noble Lord, Lord Kagan spoke so interestingly. Nor have the KGB reduced their activities. Her Majesty's Government have shown, through a firm and consistent policy, that their aim of better relations with the Soviet Union and the countries of eastern Europe will not be bought at the cost of our national security.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, indicated, we must have an eye to history. Experience has shown that our firm actions have not prevented the development of good working relations between the United Kingdom and those countries.
Vigilance is needed too in distinguishing between Soviet words and deeds. Mr. Gorbachev says he wants to withdraw Soviet forces from Afghanistan; to see a negotiated end to the Iran—Iraq conflict; to promote human rights. All this is welcome. Let us test him to turn those words into deeds.
Finally, we must keep an open mind. Doubtless some of your Lordships will remain convinced that East is East and West is West and ne'er the twain shall meet. You may think that competition and rivalry are inevitable between societies with different geo-political interests and a very different idea of the freedom of the individual. But competition need not mean confrontation; rivalry need not mean enmity. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham's remarks on the importance of making the United Nations machinery work better.
There is already a greater flow of East-West visits, more flexibility and pragmatism in Soviet diplomacy. There have been three superpower summits in as many years, the current one witnessing the signature of the first agreement ever to reduce nuclear weapons. A Soviet leader has visited Britain for the first time in
276
31 years, which shows the respect now accorded to British views and underlines the role which Her Majesty's Government is playing in promoting East-West relations. Much remains to be done. We must not lose sight of this; but the omens are encouraging.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—I did not want to interrupt his rhetoric—may I say this? In answer to my fourth question as to whether the new artillery shell which is neutron capable was reported to the European Parliament, he stated that the British Parliament had been informed. Can he tell the House when?
A noble Lord: It was about two years ago.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I never said that. What I said was that this Parliament will be fully informed, as has always been the case in any change in the destructive power, etc.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we have had an excellent debate on an historic occasion. I am extremely grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the House for their speeches. I am particularly obliged to the three maiden speakers whose speeches were appreciated very much. I am also very grateful to the Minister for demonstrating his stamina by explaining government policy in two speeches. I shall say no more save that this is an on-going subject and that the House will wish to return to it again very soon. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Sunday Sports Bill [H.L.]
7.48 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I beg to move that this report be now received.
Moved, that this Report be now received.—(Lord Wyatt of Weeford.)
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I think this Motion is the right moment for your Lordships' House to consider what are the realistic prospects for this Bill after completing all its stages in your Lordships' House. This Bill will go to another place as a public Bill which has not been introduced by the Government. Even if taken up by another MP (as the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt. assures us it will) it goes on the Order Paper of another place below the line. Whatever day it is put down for, it will never be reached.
In the last full Session of Parliament—the 1985–86 Parliament—eight Bills passed through all their stages in this House; five of them were tabled in another place and succeeded. They succeeded because they were put down on one of the six Fridays set aside for the remaining stages of Private Members' Bills. However, there was no single objection to any one of those five Bills. In fact they passed through another place with the unanimous consent of the whole House.

277
That is hardly the case of a Bill such as this one. It is not, I submit, practical politics to believe that there would be no single objection to this Bill in another place. It could never pass on the nod; it would have to have a Second Reading debate. It would have to have a closure Motion. If one looks at the programme in another place at the moment, one sees that there are six Second Reading Fridays set down on the Order Paper. In racing terms the declared runners on each of those Fridays already fill the field with seven or eight Bills, all of which would take precedence over this Bill when it goes to another place.
I hope that I am not misquoting the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, when I say that he has indicated to some of his friends and his supporters that there is a prospect of government time for this Bill. Is that a realistic assessment? In an overcrowded Session, when it is thought that we shall be debating throughout the long hot days of August and be summoned hack early in September in order that the Government can achieve even its full programme, is it realistic to believe that the Government will give time to a controversial Private Member's Bill?
Of course there are precedents. There is one particular precedent in the administration which the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, himself supported. Highly controversial legislation which the Government would not and did not dare put into their own programme was passed in another place by virtue of giving time to Private Members' Bills. It was rather a bogus argument to say that the House must be given an opportunity to come to a conclusion early on a Saturday morning, having sat through the whole of Friday night.
I think it is important at this stage that we should say that it is quite unacceptable to give time to Private Members' Bills. There are checks and balances in the parliamentary procedure in both Houses which protect the minority rights in this country. Perhaps the most important check is the fact of time itself. Time is the weapon of any opposition, as your Lordships know well. By extending time one reduces the opportunities for defending the rights of minorities.
I find myself in a very difficult position, in that I am a supporter of this Bill but I must also ask my noble friend who sits on the Front Bench to make it perfectly clear to his department that many of us have fundamental objections to government time being given to Private Members' Bills.
I believe that the whole problem is compounded by another rule. I think that it is a very misguided device to have put down in another place a No. 2 Bill which is set down for a Second Reading and has drawn second place on 29th January. Whatever status the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, possesses when it leaves this House—and I have no doubt that it will complete all its stages in this House—in another place it will clearly be labelled as a Private Member's Bill. That strengthens my request that we should hear loud and clear from the Government that in no circumstances will time be given to Private Members' Bills. Many mistakes have been made. Why was not
278
a higher place obtained in the ballot for the No. 2 Bill? Was the Jockey Club present at the ballot? One could continue endlessly dealing with such matters, but I do not believe that it is to the advantage of anybody to list in public all the proper manoeuvres that should be performed in order to succeed with legislation such as this. All I can say is that in my opinion that course has not been properly followed. I wish this Bill well but I want to see it running its parliamentary course under the correct rules of parliamentary procedure and Private Member's legislation and not, as I rather suspect, as a ringer.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I feel rather as the noble Lord, Lord Kimball; must often have felt when he was a master of foxhounds and accosted by a hunt saboteur. I think that he must have learned something from such tactics.
Of course it is quite impossible to say at this stage whether government time would be given to this Bill if it passes through this House. The Government may say one thing at one time and another at another time, and they have frequently been known to change their mind. I have not given up hope that if this Bill passes through this House there may be a feeling in some quarters of the Government that we might as well modernise the law in relation to Sunday sports and therefore there is no reason not to give this Bill a little time. After all, some great privatisation measure such as the privatisation of water might suddenly be withdrawn. There may be another collapse of the Stock Exchange. The Government may have time on their hands and wish to use their Back-Benchers in some useful manner.
In any case, to get this Bill through this House is a start. It is a kind of blueprint for a Bill which, if it does not come immediately from another place will, I think, come one day. It is rather unfortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, should speak as though the procedures of this House were quite useless. If what he said were correct, there would be no point at all in anybody ever moving a Private Member's Bill here unless it were totally uncontroversial. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, concedes that there have been many Bills passed in this and the other place which were controversial and which were Private Members' Bills. That was done by a far-sighted Labour administration which was then a party with more foresight than it has today. Maybe the Tory Government, over which I have no control—and perhaps the noble Lord has—might become equally as far-sighted as their predecessors in libertarian matters. In any case, it is not the same Bill as that to which the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, refers and which is due to be moved in another place on the 29th January. It is not the same. One Bill has had nothing to do with the other.
If some Member in another place picks up this Bill, it will have its own life. I do not think that it is a good idea to stifle an embryo before it has had a chance to develop. I hope that we may receive this Report.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Report received.
Clause 2 [Removal of restrictions on betting on Sundays.]:
Lord Wyatt of Weeford Lord Wyatt of Weeford moved Amendment No. 1:
Page I, line 12, at end insert—
("(b) for paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 there shall be substituted—
"1. The licensed premises shall be closed—

(a) throughout Good Friday, Christmas Day and every Sunday on which racing on an approved horse racecourse does not take place;

(b) before the hour of twelve noon on every Sunday on which racing on an approved horse racecourse does take place; and

(c) at such other times, if any, as may be prescribed, and shall not be used for any purpose other than effecting of betting transactions".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall try to be as brief as possible because I know that many of your Lordships would like to go home at this late hour. I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Manton. This amendment should have been moved at the Committee stage but it became procedurally impossible to do that after the provision for the general opening of betting shops on Sundays had been defeated.
This amendment is not an attempt to reverse a defeat. It is aimed at introducing a new element as a concession to those who are worried that betting offices might be opened on most Sundays if not all. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, gave a preliminary welcome to this amendment when he remarked at Committee stage:
"if there is later proposed, very sensibly in my view, permission to keep the betting shops open on Sunday only on days when there is racing…"—[Official Report, 5/11/87; col. 1138.]
That is precisely the effect of this amendment. It would allow betting offices to be opened only on Sundays when approved horseracing takes place.
A major reason for this is that without betting offices being open on a Sunday when there is horseracing there will be an upsurge in illegal betting. That was also the prime reason for betting offices being legalised in the 1960 Act. On the Second Reading of that Bill, Mr. R. A. Butler, one of the better Home Secretaries, gave the official estimate that seven times as many people were illegally betting in cash off the course as there were legally betting on credit by telephone.
He said on 16th November 1959:
"The object of these offices would be to prevent the present illegal practice".
Mr. Butler went on to say:
"The existence of a restrictive law which is outmoded and unpopular cannot but lead to attempts to corrupt the police by street bookmakers."—[Official Report, Commons; cols. 810–811.]
The 1960 Act was aimed at reducing the criminality connected with illegal betting which the Government recognised was bound to increase if legal outlets were not available to meet the demand for cash betting.
Exactly the same arguments apply to the demand for cash betting on Sundays when there is racing. If it is not met by legal outlets, it will be satisfied by criminals. Today the arrangements for betting on Sundays are elitist. They militate against those in the lower income groups. That point was made very
280
strongly by Mr. Butler in regard to weekday betting before the 1960 Act. He said at col. 809:
"This has led to differential treatment for different social classes of the community."
You can bet legally on credit on a Sunday by telephone, but 20 per cent. of households have no telephone. Moreover, millions in the lower income groups do not wish to have credit. They like to bet their small amounts in cash so that they know where they are as they go along. They do not want to be tempted by credit accounts into building up losses higher than they can afford, which is very prudent of them. It makes betting a harmless entertainment with no social ill-effects, and this is a habit which should be encouraged in people in the lower income groups who cannot risk a lot of money. However, if the House does not pass this amendment we shall be pushing such people either into the temptation of unwilling extravagance through credit accounts, or into illegal betting.
Recent technological advances make this ever more probable. Already there are three firms offering a telephone service giving prices of horses before the race and a commentary on the race itself. It is easy to put amplifiers on telephones and to set up an illegal betting office tax free, using the commentaries provided which cost 38p a minute on weekdays but only 25p a minute on Sundays. Two firms are considering setting up similar systems. Altogether it is estimated that before very long such telephone services will be taking 10 million calls a year. So the scope for increasing illegal betting on a Sunday by this means and others is obvious.
The 1978 Royal Commission on Gambling commented that illegal betting is a serious and rising danger. That remains true. The evidence for prosecutions is difficult to get. No one complains against the illegal bookmakers except for the legal bookmakers. The participants in these crimes are happy to get away without paying 8 per cent. duty and an extra 1 per cent. or so payable to the levy board.
Since the on-course betting tax of 4 per cent. was abolished, there has been an increase in betting with the legal bookmakers on course. There is no longer any advantage in betting with illegal bookmakers, so the legal bookmakers get back the custom that they should have had all the time. That is strong evidence in itself that illegal bookmaking is impossible to control, that it was a very serious matter on the course and that not all the security officers of the Jockey Club could do anything about it.
We all know that prosecutions against drug pedlars have nowhere near ended this pernicious trade—it rises persistently and that is despite prodigious efforts by the authorities. There are not enough Customs and Excise staff or police to make remotely the same efforts to stamp out illegal betting. This is regarded generally by the police and the authorities as a minor crime, although in spreading it becomes more vicious.
In a letter to the Betting Office Licensees Association of March 1984, Mr. A. M. Fraser, chairman of Customs and Excise, said that the number of convictions does not necessarily bear any

281
relation to the level of duty evasion. In that letter he described the enormous difficulties of securing convictions and the practice of having compound settlements to avoid prosecutions altogether. In the last month the Betting Office Licensees Association has had 23 bookmakers reporting 85 allegations against illegal bookmakers. There would be far more such reports if it were possible to do more about bringing the criminals to justice. Racing on Sunday without betting offices open would vastly increase the criminality.
I have been asked why the Republic of Ireland has Sunday racing with betting only on course and with the betting offices off the course being shut by law. First, Ireland has a population of only 3 million compared with our 55 million and the problems are very different. Also the structure of betting in Ireland is such that most of the bets in betting offices are laid on English racing. Irish racing is not such a great attraction to the Irish punter unless he is an enthusiastic racegoer.
However the Irish racing authorities are now getting very concerned about illegal betting on Sundays. The noble Lord, Lord Killanin, headed a commission of inquiry into the Irish breeding and racing industry. On Monday in Dublin he called for the Sunday opening of betting offices in Ireland to counter illegal off-course betting. If there is anything we may learn from the Irish example, it is that having tried keeping betting offices closed when there is Sunday racing, they now realise the need to have them open.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, at the Committee stage seemed to be saying that it did not matter if there was illegal betting on Sunday. That surprised me because he was himself a Minister at the Home Office, which takes a very different view. The Home Office is so frightened of an increase in illegal betting that it will withdraw its benevolence towards this Bill if the betting offices are not open on Sundays when there is approved horseracing.
I do not think that your Lordships need be worried about this causing fearful disturbance. I would not expect much more than half of the 10,000 betting shops to be open on a Sunday, as many are in places deserted on Sundays and they would not be worth opening. Those betting shops which were open on a Sunday would scarcely be noticed among the 150,000 establishments selling alcohol and the multitude of shops open legally or illegally on a Sunday. Nor would it be viable to have Sunday racing throughout the year as my noble friend Lord Manton will explain.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was sympathetic to limiting the opening of betting offices to Sundays when there was approved horseracing. I hope that he and your Lordships' House will now agree to this vital amendment because without it the whole Bill will founder. Charging admission for sporting events on Sundays will remain as illegal as it was in 1780 when the Sunday Observance Act was passed.
The failure of this Bill would doubtless encourage many to institute prosecutions and the holding of
282
sporting events on Sundays would be far more under threat than it is today. We must not forget that this Bill is not merely about racing but about the holding of all sporting events on a Sunday with admission charges being allowed. I am afraid that if we do not allow this Bill to go through the people who want to stop all kind of sporting events on a Sunday will feel that they have been given new ammunition and a new zest for their antediluvian crusade.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Cox): My Lords, I call Amendment No. 2 as an amendment to Amendment No. 1.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2:
Line 6, after ("noon") insert ("or during the period of British summer time two o'clock in the afternoon").
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, said that he was going to be brief. I would not mind having a bet with him that I shall be more brief still. I must make it clear at the outset that this amendment is not motivated by any desire at all that betting offices shall open at 2 o'clock in the afternoon whenever there is horseracing on a Sunday. Rather, this amendment is intended as a measure for restraint in the event of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, securing his main amendment and persuading your Lordships to allow betting offices to be open on Sundays when there is horseracing, and if, wanting that so much, noble Lords are prepared to go against the decision that the House arrived at in Committee when it decided that it did not want betting offices open on Sunday at all.
The amendment would insert not a 12 o'clock opening but a 2 o'clock opening so that, quite apart from everybody else, the 40,000 people who work in betting offices shall continue to have the chance to spend time having Sunday lunch with their families. I should not mind betting that that is a privilege they enjoy very much and that they would be sorry to hear that they might lose.
The noble Lord says that only half the betting offices would be open on Sunday. That would mean 20,000 employees losing the chance to have Sunday lunch with their families if betting offices were allowed to open at 12 o'clock. I can see no reason why the offices need open before 2 o'clock. My researches into the sporting pages show that 2.30 p.m. is a perfectly ordinary time for a race meeting to begin. If one goes to the races I do not suppose that one can put a bet on the 2.30 with a bookmaker before 2 o'clock. So what is the point of the betting office opening before 2 o'clock? I see no reason for that.
The amendment refers to British Summer Time and that is because I must concede that if it were desired to hold a Sunday race meeting in the middle of a Christmas holiday in mid-winter, the hours of daylight would not permit of a 2.30 p.m. start to the race meeting. That explains the reference to British Summer Time. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, I always listen with great pleasure to my noble friend Lord Wyatt of

283
Weeford. We spent many years together in another place and I have admired both his facility in writing and his ability in speaking. He would never try to hide the main thrust of the argument that he had in mind. When the noble Lord is mellifluous he is dangerous. Of course I mean that in a nice way. That is the time when all of us need to weigh carefully the words that he has addressed to the House.
As I look at the serried ranks from the Jockey Club who are with us tonight—outnumbering the bishops, it is true—it is clear that there is a larger attendance in the House for this Bill than there was for the earlier debate on the international agreement between the communists and the United States of America. So, clearly, your Lordships' House is aware that big issues are at stake. This is not a puffing Bill at all. It is only small in size. Never mind the length, note the quality. This Bill has major consequences for our country.
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, dismissed gambling as though it was unimportant in our society. He needs only to talk to any parish priest, any social worker or any policeman and he will soon find that gambling, like drugs, which he mentioned, is a social evil. To increase the opportunity for gambling, which is the main purpose of this amendment and indeed of the Bill itself, is, I believe, not conducive to the common good. I like the noble Lord's suggestion that the working man would be cheated of something if the betting shops were not open. That is like the poor widow idea that was always brought forward in another place in a defensive argument about proposed legislation.
The truth is that working people in Britain are not crying out for betting shops on Sundays. Working people in Britain like the British Sunday. That Sunday has played a great part in the formation of the British character. I know that noble Lords may well be protected from betting shops. I am very fortunate in that there is no betting shop near my bungalow. But even so I know the problems of those in my former constituency who lived near betting shops. I know the effect on family life that gambling has had in working-class areas.
My first objection therefore to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Wyatt of Weeford is that to increase gambling, which is the purpose of the amendment, is anti-social. To increase the opportunity for gambling would be unworthy of your Lordships' House. Who are the people who want it? Apart from the highly respectable and distinguished members of the Jockey Club whom it is not often my pleasure to address, I know also that the bookmakers call for it. That is nice company for noble Lords to keep. The Betting Office Licensees Association was quoted quite understandably by my noble friend Lord Wyatt of Weeford. They want Sunday betting, and not for any high moral reason. Let us not pretend. They want it because they think they will make more money. That is the sordid motive behind the request of the bookmakers of Britain that this House should push over another 'little protection for our people.
The second objection that I offer to your Lordships' House is equally important so far as I am
284
concerned. I spent nearly 40 years in another place. I love that House. All who have served in it, with all its faults, will love it. It is the place in which Members are elected by the people. They are answerable to the people. This House is about as answerable to the British people as is the Jockey Club. The elected representatives who have to face the people threw out the suggestion of changing the character of our British Sunday. It is significant that those who have to face the electors resolved, contrary to the will of their own Government, against that change. The other place taught the Government a very important lesson: that people who make their way quietly on Sunday to the parish churches and to the chapels and those who just enjoy Sunday in pullover and slacks with the family are all against submitting Sunday to those who want to exploit it for their own greed.
The quiet Sunday is an essential strand in the fabric that represents our heritage in this land. The amendment drives a coach and four through the protection of Sunday. If betting shops are open, we know that everything else will follow. That is why I say that the amendment is a way of getting around the will of the elected representatives of the people which was expressed in another place just a year ago.
I honestly believe that it is because noble Lords realise the issues that are at stake that so many have foregone their dinner engagements tonight to come here and wait for me to sit down so that they can vote the Bill through. I beg noble Lords to realise that there is much more at stake than the interests of the Jockey Club or the bookmakers.
My third objection to the amendment is the totally undemocratic nature of the mechanism by which it enables the Bill to operate. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, in proposing the amendment, referred to the Jockey Club as deciding on what days racing should be allowed. Under his Bill it has an unfettered right. If it wants to choose 52 Sundays in the year, it can do so. The House should be aware of that. To whom is it answerable? A local authority is at least elected by the people in the area. It is in touch with the will of the people. If it does not fulfil that will, it is thrown out. The same argument applies in another place. However, the Jockey Club would enjoy unfettered power to race on 52 Sundays a year if it wished. It will in effect be given the power to dictate both the nature and the future aspects of Sunday trading.
We shall be giving to the Jockey Club the power that ought to belong to Parliament. Parliament should have the right to decide what our Sundays shall be like. Sunday trading should not depend on the will of the Jockey Club. It will be an affront to parliamentary democracy if we hand over the right to decide on what Sundays there shall be betting in this land. That is what is proposed.
The House is aware that I feel strongly about Sunday. To me, it is a precious day. I am not alone. None of us can say that we speak for the majority in this land. However, I know that at the very heart of our nation there is a tenderness towards Sunday which noble Lords will underestimate at peril to our national interests. By God's mercy, I hope that this House tonight will still be a guardian of our Sunday. I oppose the amendment.
Lord Manton: My Lords, I rise with the greatest diffidence to reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy. He is a difficult man to answer. I do not have his particular vernacular. I should like to congratulate him on backing his first winner tonight in that he has won by a short head in respect of the number of Jockey Club members in the Chamber as compared to the strength on the Bishops' Benches. I think that he has won by nine to eight.
However that may be, he has said tonight that it is the Jockey Club which wants Sunday racing. However, the Jockey Club is only the fulcrum. It has taken a census of all the pressure groups within racing. It is those pressure groups, whether they be of trainers, jockeys or owners of racehorses, who have supported the concept of Sunday racing. While it is probably true to say that individual members of the Jockey Club support it, they are supporting what is best for the industry. It is clear that what is best for the industry is some Sunday racing.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, on bringing your Lordships' attention to the very real dangers of illegal betting and the criminality which would undoubtedly take place were betting shops not open when there was horseracing. I support everything that he has said along those lines.
Perhaps I may tell your Lordships how the Jockey Club tries to control the fixtures list. There are 59 licensed race courses, all of which would presumably like to operate on the plum days that are allowed at present, such as Saturdays and Bank Holidays. At York, where I am chairman of the racecourse—as such, I declare an interest—we have 16 days' racing a year. However, only three of those days are Saturdays. The Jockey Club has a criteria for the allocation of fixtures. It tries to allocate such days as fairly as possible.
Were Sunday racing and betting on and off-course to be allowed, the Jockey Club policy would be to allocate probably seven Sundays on which racing could take place in the first year. If that experiment was found to be a success, possibly 12 Sundays would be allocated over the next two, three or four years. That is still less than 25 per cent. of the available Sundays. On each Sunday when racing was permitted there would be three race meetings. In year I there would be 21 race meetings, progressing, if successful, to about 36 race meetings.
Because of the increased costs in staging a fixture on a Sunday, successful marketing by the individual racecourse would be most important and it should centre on a fun day out for the whole family, with entertainments and displays for the wives and for the children. Sunday racing would be very much a special day for racecourses, and if what happened in Ireland is anything to go by attendances would increase dramatically. It is not true to say that the general public do not want Sunday racing. We believe very strongly that everything we have looked into indicates that the general public needs Sunday racing.
However, I do not feel that Sunday race days would proliferate, owing, as I have said, to the very special nature that they have. They are expensive to put on. They are a day out for the racegoer. I do not see them taking place at Christmas time or on murky
286
Sunday afternoons in November. I think this is really a summer pastime.
Racing is unlike other sports such as football and cricket on at least two counts. Whereas in league football there are at least 40 first-class matches every day and a considerable number of first-class cricket fixtures, as I have already said, there will be only three race meetings on a Sunday that has racing fixtures. Moreover, a great majority of racecourses are in rural areas and so would not cause the traffic and noise problems which some of your Lordships referred to at previous stages of this Bill.
There are fewer than 10,000 betting shops in this country and I feel sure that not all of them would want to open on a Sunday—certainly not those which are situated to serve commercial centres. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has already referred to this. We are probably talking of no more than 5,000 to 7,000 betting shops being open on perhaps 12 Sundays in the year. I am informed that the average number of employees per shop is four, of whom two-thirds are part-timers.
When one realises that there are 150,000 licensed premises and restaurants open every Sunday, not to mention bingo halls and casinos, one hopes that Sunday racing with betting shops can be seen in its true perspective. I support the amendment.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I begin by saying that if this was a boxing match I believe the other side would have thrown in the towel by now, because what we have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, is in my view not only a demolition job on the amendment but a stout defence of the character of the English Sunday. The noble Lords opposite are perfectly entitled to believe that there is a clamour, that there is a desire and that there is a need to have racing on Sunday. I have seen extracts from the surveys and the statistics which can be used or abused. The case will not rest upon statistics.
I believe that this amendment should be rejected on the three grounds which the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, mentioned. It is the thin edge of the wedge in regard to the character of Sunday. I will refer to the intentions of the Government to change the character of Sunday with a Sunday trading Bill. The amendment passes power to the Jockey Club and it is unnecessary for the purposes of this Bill.
I remind the House that the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, in the first three-line Whip I have ever seen in The Times, which appeared on Wednesday, 2nd December, said, beneath a headline reading,
"A final hurdle to livelier Sundays:
"At the committee stage it was also agreed that betting may take place after 12 noon on Sundays on the grounds where sporting events are held. This was conceded by those opponents of the bill"—
that is me, and others—
"who on the whole are against paid admission to any sporting events on Sundays"—
not true—
"a generous if tardy recognition of the changes in public opinion since 1780".

287
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, went on:
"If the Bill were to go through the Lords and Commons as it stands now there would therefore be a substantial improvement over the present position. Sunday betting at grand prix motor racing, at Lord's, at Wimbledon and at race tracks would become legal".
That is what has been achieved by the Bill, not approved but tolerated by those like myself who have certain stances. I said at the Committee stage that I certainly have attended race meetings and entered betting shops, but what we are being asked to believe is that the 1780 Act bears down most heavily not on horseracing but on many other sports. The Bill lists them, and we have seen the writings.
I agree that it is nonsense to have an Act of 1780 which makes illegal the charging for admission to cricket and football matches and many other activities. That is the purpose of the Bill. It is also the purpose of the Bill to extend sport on Sunday to racing. I support that. The Bill also says that one should allow on-course betting. That is in the Bill, and so far so good. That is the Bill as it stands and that is the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, said was a vast improvement.
To be fair to the members of the Jockey Club, I accept they are a catalyst for a point of view. As the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, said, that of itself is a dramatic change. It is said that unless in addition you inflict upon the communities that I know in Edmonton and Enfield, every other industrial town and the suburbs and the streets around them, the possibility that the betting shops will be open, then we do not want any of the other facilities.
A pistol is being held to the heads of people like myself who are prepared to seek compromise and go halfway in the great issue about the nature of Sunday. I believe that this amendment is unnecessary. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, pleads in aid of his case the change of heart in Ireland. A great deal has been made of the prospect of illegal betting if the betting shops are not open. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, told us in an article in The Times last week that already it is estimated that illegal betting runs at something like 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. of the total. Apparently, that is tolerated or understood. I do not know what it is suggested is going to happen on a Sunday if on every other day of the week collectively we are told that that is the situation.
I should like to say something about the thin end of the wedge. In 1986 the Government brought forward their plans to radically alter the character of the English Sunday by introducing a Bill to deregulate shopping. It was rejected. In the manifesto of 1987 the Government said they were going to present a Bill, no doubt in the next Session, to go back to something like complete deregulation.
In 1988 we shall have in the Queen's Speech the possibility that the Government and their advisers may initiate enormous change. In the Bill and this amendment we are being invited to anticipate—and I suggest to prejudice—free discussion of the issue. if the Sunday trading laws had been changed last year, the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, would have said, "Why do we not do it for racing?" Equally, if we do do it for racing this year it will be said, "Why not do it for shops next year?" In my mind both the issues hang
288
together. I look upon this as a stalking horse for the main issue.
The other issue is equally important, and that is the power that the amendment will give to the Jockey Club. I accept all that the noble Lord, Lord Manton, and his friends have said: it is an experimental period, and that they want between seven and 12 Sundays of racing in the next two to three years. They cannot tell me what decisions they will take next year in the light of the success or otherwise.
What about the organisers at a racecourse who may look at another racecourse 50 miles away and say, "Just a moment, you have licensed them to open on a Sunday, so what about us?" There will be pressure upon the Jockey Club to respond. If the noble Lord says that it is not subject to pressure, then it is a different kind of Jockey Club from the one that I know. Noble Lords will have to listen to the arguments. The Jockey Club ought not to be given the power to change in that way.
Three main groups of people stand to profit from the Bill. The first is the bookmakers. They had a £4 billion of turnover last year, 80 per cent. of it off course, and £750 million profit. They want to have a little bit more. That is the nature of the beast. Then there is the Totaliser, with more than £3 million profit last year, and it will have a little share of the action. Then there is the Government, who receive a tax. They will want a little share of the action.
The House is considering whether, on the narrow issue of allowing betting on a Sunday, it wishes to take these enormous steps against the background that next year the country may be faced with the major issue. I believe that this is not the time, that it is not necessary and that the amendment should be rejected.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, I must declare an interest. I am not a member of the Jockey Club although once I represented the bookmakers, but then, in my time, I have also represented murderers. I hope that I shall not be identified with either of them because in my professional life I once acted on their behalf.
Listening to the remarkable speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, who is always enjoyable to listen to, I wondered where his bungalow was and whether it was in Wales, because the Welsh Sunday may be different from the English Sunday that I see. I see an English Sunday, certainly in London, as a day when a shop of every description is open in Brompton Road or Fulham Road. I find it difficult to move my car because of all the cars coming to the cinema nearby; I am blocked in by people flocking to the cinema.
I remember hearing the great debates as to whether cinemas should be opened. It was said that it would be the end of the British Sunday because cinemas were going to open and because there might be public entertainment. It was the same with cricket. Now people go to a cricket match. Are they so much more wicked? Are those who go racing in other countries so much more godless than our people? With respect to my noble friend, I do not believe that this will destroy the British Sunday. Certain parts of the British

289
Sunday are now utter hypocrisy because all kinds of commercial activities go on under our noses and around us everywhere.
With respect to the noble Viscount, whose sincerity and attractiveness of presentation have always stirred my heart, I do not believe that the world he paints so attractively today is the world in which we live. I believe that we should go ahead with the amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in a remarkable speech the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, was successful in giving your Lordships the impression that I approve of the proposal in the amendment. I hasten to disabuse your Lordships; I do not. He quoted a passage in which I said that it seemed to have some sense in it. That was perfectly true when the alternative was to have the betting shops all the time, which was the case in accordance with the Bill then presented to us. But I followed the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, with far less eloquence, in attacking one particular issue in the Bill. That is the issue that my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson has addressed in terms that I regard as damaging to my cause.
It was said from the Opposition Front Benches on Second Reading that, if the Bill went through, it would make a complete change to the grounds on which we treated the matter of Sunday trading. We have to look at it in that light. There are other issues concerning the other things that the Bill does. That most racecourses are situated in the country does not alter the fact that the Bill licenses activities that are not racing in the middle of towns. However, I do not address that issue.
I address the issue of the effect that this would have on the diminishing part of the British traditional Sunday. I think that there are two aspects of this to consider. The first is its actual impact in the terms of what happens immediately and what happens as a consequence. The second is how your Lordships' House is seen to address the larger issue: what is Sunday for? On the first issue, we have been reassured by my noble friend Lord Manton that it is the intention of the body to which Parliament is invited to entrust the decision of which Sunday shall be used for this purpose only to use it for this purpose initially for seven, later for 12 and perhaps after that for more occasions. That sits very oddly with the reply that the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, gave to my noble friend Lord Kimball, when he said that governments give undertakings as to what they will do and one cannot rely upon them because they will change their views as the result of public pressure upon them.
I do not think that the Jockey Club or any other institution is proof against those pressures any more than are Her Majesty's Government. I therefore ask your Lordships not to assume, whatever is said by anybody, that the effect of the Bill would be other than to open the whole of our Sundays to the whole of the betting industry. If that were to happen, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, predicted and indeed as I and noble Lords on both sides of the House have predicted, it would be the end of any approach to the consensus treatment of the Sunday trading issue that the Government and Back-Benchers everywhere are seeking to achieve.
290
It is a most untimely proposal. In its untimeliness it is suggested that your Lordships regard issues about how society is to treat its day of rest as though they were subordinate to one part of the sporting industry, and that not the most numerous. This is an untimely amendment. I am not in favour of it, as has been suggested. Your Lordships may by now even have gathered that I am passionately against it.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I had come here tonight not intending to make a speech. When I was having dinner, one of your Lordships asked, "Which of you bishops is going to say something tonight?". I said, "I have no idea, I am sure someone has been briefed." I have done a little inquiring along the Bench and discovered that nobody has.
I have to confess that the kind of thing that I should have wanted to say on my own behalf, possibly on behalf of all of us, has been said a great deal better by many of your Lordships already tonight, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I am not sure that there is much more that I ought to say or can say except to express something on behalf of those of us who are sitting here—running on the
other side of the course, as it were.
Two things it is worth putting in slightly different ways. It may be thought—it would be quite wrong if it was thought—that we bishops are here because we object to any extension of sport on Sundays. This is certainly not my position. I do not intend to vote against the principle of the measure in that regard. But I do object very much to the introduction of one change—a major one at that—and then being told, as some of your Lordships have already pointed out, that I have to accept something else hanging on the tail because of that change because some people may decide to use this added opportunity to so some illegal betting off course or whatever it may be.
I accept that there is a different problem about which I know much less than some of your Lordships, but to argue that we must do this and that because some people might otherwise behave in a way that they should not behave is not a sound argument, especially when we do not know how widespread the betting will be, how many Sundays it will affect and how many shops will be open. I do not know how many people would be able to place their bets at another time or in another way. The whole issue is clouded with a great deal of uncertainty and it amounts to a weak case.
Another point has been stressed strongly, but it must be made again and again. Because many of us are deeply anxious about the constant erosion of what is essentially an important part of our culture and our life—there are, among others, religious reasons for wishing to keep Sunday special—that does not mean that there is no room for further discussion in an attempt to reach some kind of consensus about how best Sunday may be observed for the benefit of the majority at the end of the century.
I am certain that we must work at this matter again. I am well aware of the present inadequacies and nonsenses of the present operation of some of

291
our legislation. But that does not mean that we must accept the argument expressed by one of your Lordships a few moments ago, that because other people are opening shops, restaurants or off-licences on Sunday, we must do more and more. That constitutes a rolling argument which eventually brings us down to the point where in effect we have decided that Sunday is to be open for any and every kind of trading everywhere.
I have to say—I have said it in the House before—that I sometimes feel that some of those who are most in favour of everything opening everywhere are those who live in places where that will not affect them very much. That is not the case for those of us who live beside big high roads, who are subjected to all the pressures of trading six days a week. We do not want to see it on the seventh day as well.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and a long and abiding affection for the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy. I have many vices, but I do not gamble. I live within a quarter of a mile of a racecourse. I never go there. I do not bet on horses. But if people want to do that, they should be allowed to do so. There is no reason to stop them because it is Sunday. People may say, "You must go to church first". I see the shaking heads on the Benches opposite, but many people do not go to church these days. That is unfortunate. If there is horseracing or anything else, they will do it. Sunday is not a good enough reason to stop them.
If I were a gambler I would support the Bill, but I am not a gambler. I do not like gambling, because it is a mug's game. One always loses. The bookmakers are the only people who go to the bank. Having said that, I still support the Bill. I am very sorry. There must be enough freedom to allow people who want to go to church to go to church. If they do not want to go to church but want to waste their money gambling, let them do it.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, many of your Lordships have spoken much better than I shall and have made the point which I wish to make much better than I can make it. I shall quote from the higher authority. I shall quote from the higher Lord who created us and this world in six days and rested on the seventh. With all its joys and pleasures and everything else, it was created in six days and on the seventh day He rested. Verse 15 in Chapter 31 of the Book of Exodus states:
"Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord".
Let us follow divine precepts and have one day which is different, one day devoted to rest and recreation.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I shall say only a few words because in this company I may not be considered qualified to speak as I am a non-betting and non-racing person, and not even a very rabid sabbatarian in the strict sense of the word. I believe in having occupations on Sunday. I believe in racing on Sunday. For lonely and depressed people, Sundays can be the saddest of days. I therefore have nothing against Sunday racing.
292
I should like to look at the arguments put forward on the amendment. The Opposition have a free vote on the amendment. My noble friends will no doubt be looking at the arguments to see what they think about them.
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, painted a terrifying picture of what would happen if the amendment is not accepted. His major argument was that without the amendment there would be illegal betting. He described that in lurid terms. He said that the Home Office was so frightened that it would withdraw its support for the Bill, and yet the Home Office is to change the licensing law. However, I understand that public houses are to be shut on Sundays. The Home Office would therefore be viewing this measure differently from the way it views the licensing laws.
The noble Lord's other argument was that if we did not accept the amendment it would be unfair to working people. But he did not mention working people who work in betting shops. That point was not brought up in his strong speech. He explained that Ireland's habit of having on-course betting for Sunday racing was to be changed and that that no longer provided an example. I find it hard to understand his reasoning. He said that there was a smaller population, but I am still trying to work out what effect that has.
My noble friend Lord Tonypandy made a powerful speech because he cares greatly about the matters he mentioned. He pointed out unequivocally who would benefit from the Bill and in particular from the amendment. That is an important point to remember. The noble Lord, Lord Manton, said that everyone wanted the Bill. I think he said that the horses wanted it! I am not sure how even the noble Lord, Lord Manton, could have found that out.
When considering this amendment, I think of myself as a representative citizen. I find that the logic of on-course betting for Sunday racing is strong. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, wants to endanger the reasonably good idea of racing on Sunday by insisting on the amendment. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, said that Sunday would not be destroyed by the opening of a few betting shops. It will not be destroyed. I do not think anyone has said that. We understand that many people care about their Sundays. They want to keep Sunday in a particular way. My noble friend Lord Tonypandy and the right reverend Prelate described that feeling.
I support the concept of bringing in sport on Sundays, which will bring extra life into the lives of many people. However, I cannot see why it is necessary to have betting shops open when it is perfectly possible to place bets on-course on Sundays.
9 p.m.
Lord Newall: My Lords, almost everything has already been said, but I should like to add one further element to this argument. I speak as the chairman of the British Greyhound Racing Board, which is involved in this matter. We all know what this amendment says; there is no need for me to go through it again. However, the approval for the races

293
depends on the betting levy board, which, in turn, as has already been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, depends on the Jockey Club. This gives the Jockey Club the inherent right to stipulate the days when betting shall take place.
I appreciate all the reasons for the amendment in this form. The more betting that takes place off course the greater will be the levy for horseracing. That is very good in its way. However, during the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill I set out in rather great detail the case for an all-sports levy so that all the sports on which betting takes place might be beneficiaries from off-course betting turnover in the same way that horseracing is a beneficiary now. That is still my position. I must point out once again that greyhound racing is involved as it is the second largest betting sport in the country. It does not receive any levy whatsoever from off-course betting.
There is therefore quite a good case whereby, if this amendment were to be adopted, the betting offices should be confined only to taking bets on horseracing on those Sundays and not on any other sport. I am sure that the proposers of this Bill would be happy to agree to this proposal because there is no justification whatever in the betting offices, even on a limited basis, being entitled to take bets on other sports without any form of levy being paid back to those sports. It is a farcical and fundamentally unfair situation and one which should be considered seriously by your Lordships. The situation that this amendment proposes is far from perfect, but it is an improvement on the original proposal at Committee stage.
Greyhound racing cannot be expected to welcome any increase in off-course betting for the reasons that I have explained. But limiting the opening of betting shops to horseracing Sundays is a more acceptable, if somewhat irrational, compromise.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the view that the Government take about the matters raised by the amendment has been well rehearsed on other occasions and can be put quite simply. We believe that the way to legislate for Sunday racing is to recognise the desire of many members of the public to bet on those races and to allow the licensed betting industry to cater for that demand. Clause 2 of the Bill does part of the job by providing for betting to become lawful at racecourses after noon on Sundays. The amendment we are now discussing completes the task, as we see it, by providing for betting offices to open on those Sundays when racing takes place. No one is suggesting that we can predict precisely the level of illegal betting that there would be if there was Sunday racing and without betting offices being allowed to open. Our view is that since we now have the opportunity of avoiding the problem, we should take it. We therefore welcome the amendment.
The only other point I wish to make is this. The appearance of two Bills this Session on Sunday sports does riot represent a stalking horse for the Government in our plans for Sunday trading legislation. We have looked at this question separately and on its own merits. As your Lordships
294
will know, we intend to return in due course to Sunday trading; but that is another quite different story and there will be every opportunity for debate again. I ask noble Lords to consider this Bill therefore, as we have done, on its merits. My view would be that the passage of this Bill would not make a jot of difference one way or the other to our future debates on Sunday trading.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, having listened to a most interesting general debate, I have to remind your Lordships—and I shall be corrected from the Woolsack if I am wrong about this—that the question still before the House is my amendment to substitute two o'clock for 12 noon. I have to decide what to ask the House to do about that. My impression is that at this moment noble Lords are not anxious to wrestle with the nicety of the question. Your Lordships wish to come to a decision on the main amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt. My wisest course at this moment is to ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw my amendment, but giving notice that if the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, succeeds with his amendment, I shall be back at Third Reading to urge not 12 noon but two o'clock in the afternoon. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I am half Welsh. I therefore half understand my noble friend Lord Tonypandy. The half I understand is his delicious lyrical idealism. The half that I do not understand is his logic. He is a very keen moralist and I appreciate that. I know it well. But I cannot see the morality of having racing on Sunday with betting allowed only on the course. Those who are not willing to risk having credit accounts and to waste their substance in that way would have to go to illegal bookmakers.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, certainly they would. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, disagrees. If we are to allow racing on a Sunday, and betting on the course—and that applies also to Wimbledon, or Lord's, or motor racing, and so on—but do not allow betting shops to open, one is driving the ordinary person to bet illegally. He may not have a telephone, and may not wish to have a credit account. He does not wish to risk his substance by betting £5,000 or £50,000 by credit, as some mugs do. That is a social evil in my view; I am not very keen on that. I am the chairman of the Tote and we do not have such large punters. The essence of resisting this amendment is to say to ordinary people who are interested in racing and betting that it is not a reasonable occupation and a harmless amusement. They may bet £15 a week. Statistically they cannot lose more than £3.30 a week because they always get back 23 per cent. of their money.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, at the moment betting shops are closed in the evening. The ordinary person who wants to bet on an evening can

295
bet because the runners are declared. He goes into the shop and places a bet. If racing took place on a Sunday, the runners would be declared on Friday, they would be published on Saturday and the bets would be placed on Saturday. The noble Lord seeks constantly to impress upon the people the desire of people to act illegally. They do not have to act illegally. They can act perfectly legally by the present system.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, unfortunately the noble Lord does not understand human nature. It is ludicrous to suppose that people will go in on a Friday to place bets for a Sunday.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I did not say that.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: Or on a Saturday, even. My Lords, as regards evening racing, there may be some illegal betting. I do not know how much. Shops may remain open until 6.30 p.m. The first or second race will have already taken place by then. In any case, people will have had a full afternoon's programme of betting and so they would not necessarily be interested in a programme of evening racing. We are talking about ordinary Sunday racing of a standard that they expect during the week and during a weekday afternoon.
However much the noble Lord, Lord Graham, dodges the question, he is saying to ordinary people, who do not have telephones and do not wish to risk their substance by being tempted into spending more than they can afford on credit accounts, that the only way that they shall do their cash betting, limited to £2 or £3 a race, is by doing it illegally. This is my real fear. We do not know by how much illegal betting will go up. I have been given information which suggests that it is between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. now. I suppose that on a Sunday without betting shops open it would rise to 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. This would be dangerous for the police and the law generally.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the House one piece of information which I do not think we have? Can he tell your Lordships whether Sunday racing would be viable and therefore take place if there was no legal Sunday betting from which the levy would be drawn? Does that not bear on this question?
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, it would be in one sense viable if it took place without betting off the course, but it would create illegal betting. That is the danger. What is being said will drive people without much money and without telephones into illegal betting. One could certainly run race meetings on a Sunday and have betting on the course. That would be a viable thing to do; but it would be an elitest thing to do. It would be anti-working class and would not be democratic.
My noble friend Lord Tonypandy spoke about democracy. He asked, "Who are we to decide what the nation shall do? We are not elected representatives". However, he will know that if the Bill passes through the House it will go to another place where there are elected representatives. They will have the
296
final say. There is no question of our deciding arbitrarily as autocrats what the nation shall do. We do not have the power to do so. I am surprised that my noble friend Lord Tonypandy should suggest such a thing.
The hour is late. I am sure that we would now like to move to a Division on this proposition.
9.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 61.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Manton, L. [Teller.]

Allerton, L.

Marlborough, D.

Annan, L.

Merrivale, L.

Astor, V.

Monson, L.

Atholl, D.

Munster, E.

Attlee, E.

Northfield, L.

Barber, L.

Onslow, E.

Benson, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Bolton, L.

Pender, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Raglan, L.

Chapple, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Clinton, L.

Reay, L.

Craigavon, V.

Rees, L.

Dudley, E.

Rennell, L.

Fairhaven, L.

Renwick, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Ridley, V.

Fortescue, E.

Romney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Roxburghe, D.

Gainsborough, E.

Rugby, L.

Gisborough, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy. Ly.

Glenarthur, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Greenway, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Grimthorpe, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Halifax, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Hanson, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Henley, L.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Howie of Troon, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trevethin and Oaksey, L.

Kimball, L.

Trevor, L.

Leverhulme, V.

Ullswater, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Vestey, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Wise, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Gloucester, Bp.

Blease, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller.]

Brentford, V. [Teller.]

Brightman, L.

Hampton, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Ingleby, V.

Carlisle, Bp.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Carnock, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Carter, L.

Kagan, L.

Chester, Bp.

Kirkhill, L.

Coleraine, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cox, B.

Lockwood, B.

David, B.

Longford, E.

Elton, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

McNair, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Faithfull, B.

Mountevans, L.

297

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Stockton, E.

Newcastle, Bp.

Strange, B.

Nicol, B.

Swinfen, L.

Oram, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Parry, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Rea, L.

Tordoff, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Trafford, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Tranmire, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Underhill, L.

St. Albans, Bp.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Seear, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Soper, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Ypres, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
In the Title:
Lord Wyatt of Weeford Lord Wyatt of Weeford moved Amendment No. 3:
Line 1, leave out from ("to") to end of line 2 and insert "exempt races, athletic sports and other sporting events from the entertainments and amusements to which the Sunday Observance Act 1780 applies and to allow betting to take place on Sunday afternoons
298
on tracks and on certain Sunday afternoons in licensed betting offices and to make provision as to the rights of established employees concerning Sunday working.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a tidying-up amendment and gives a more full account of the purposes of the Bill. In particular, it pays attention to the provision for the protection of those workers already established in jobs connected with racing and it draws attention to the schedule thereto. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill
Reported from the Select Committee with amendments, and ordered to be printed as amended.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past nine o'clock.

  CONVENTIONAL STABILITY NEGOTIATIONS
  CONVENTIONAL STABILITY NEGOTIATIONS
  BINARY WEAPONS
  BINARY WEAPONS
  USED CAR MILEAGE RECORDS
  USED CAR MILEAGE RECORDS
  COUNCIL OF MINISTERS/EUROPEAN COMMISSION: DIVISION MECHANISM
  COUNCIL OF MINISTERS/EUROPEAN COMMISSION: DIVISION MECHANISM
  PRISONERS: SPECIAL VISITING ARRANGEMENTS
  PRISONERS: SPECIAL VISITING ARRANGEMENTS
  SPEEDING OFFENCES: FIXED PENALTY ARRANGEMENTS
  SPEEDING OFFENCES: FIXED PENALTY ARRANGEMENTS
  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT: REPORT
  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT: REPORT