Sitting of 2 February 1987

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Mr. Speaker: I wish to inform the House that I have appointed as Speaker's Chaplain the Rev. Canon Donald Gray, TD., Rector of Liverpool, who is shortly to become a Canon of Westminster. Canon Gray will take up his duties here when the House returns after the Easter recess.
I should like to take this opportunity to express my thanks, and I am sure those of all hon. Members, to Canon Trevor Beeson for his exceptional contribution to the life of the House of Commons during his years as Chaplain from January 1982. He takes with him the good wishes of the House as he assumes his responsibilities as Dean of Winchester.
I am also most grateful to the Rev. Canon James Mansell for acting as Speaker's Chaplain during the present interregnum.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    Thames Crossing (Dartford)
    Mr. Wattsasked the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has of the numbers of people who will be employed in the construction of the proposed third Thames crossing at Dartford.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Moore): The proposed new bridge should provide up to 5,000 man years of employment. Many jobs will be in steel production and fabrication in the north-east.
    Mr. Watts: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Any measure to relieve congestion at the Dartford tunnel and speed the flow of traffic on the M25 will be of benefit to all users, including many companies in my constituency. What advantages are there in the method of construction and operation using the private sector, and does my right hon. Friend feel that that principle could be applied to any other major transport project?
    Mr. Moore: The project will relieve congestion at the Dartford tunnel and I know that all hon. Members will welcome that. Private sector financing will enable the bridge to be provided over and above the Government's road programme. To put that in context, it might be the equivalent, in money terms, of 10 to 15 bypasses. Of course, I could not make any commitment about further projects, but I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome the spending of additional money on such quality infrastructure projects, and it would clearly be of assistance if that could be done through private sector financing.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that that is the last sort of arrangement that we require in Wales in respect of the proposed second Severn crossing—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about Dartford.
    Mr. Hughes: The principle is identical, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: But not today.
    Mr. Squire: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that news of the bridge has been widely welcomed in my constituency. Will he advise the House whether there will be any form of performance contract in the construction of the bridge to encourage its completion by the earliest possible date?
    Mr. Moore: Of course, such details will be in the Bill when it comes to the House. M y hon. Friend will be aware that one of the great advantages of ensuring early completion, which will be in the interests of all motorists., is that by financing the project through the private sector the risk will be transferred, to that extent, to the private and not the public sector. Therefore, we shall not have the inordinate delays that there have been in some public sector projects.

    Traffic Congestion (London)
    Mr. Simon Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions his Department has had with local government officials concerning the effect of deregulation in London on traffic congestion.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): We meet the boroughs to discuss traffic matters of common interest. We share the responsibility for helping Londoners to get about and to make London more prosperous, safer and pleasanter.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that in recent correspondence the local district general manager of London Buses in the Selkent area told me that his greatest problem and the most serious cause of unreliability in bus services was the traffic congestion in central London, where my constituency is located, and that that was totally beyond his control? Can the Minister give the House any hope that the substantial remaining problem of congestion, which is increasing, and which I am sure he will accept is the biggest problem facing all those who try to keep buses running on time, will be brought under better control in the future? What steps can the Minister promise will be taken in that direction over the next few months?
    Mr. Bottomley: Like any London Member of Parliament, I have had dealings with Selkent and London Buses. I should like to pay tribute to London bus staff who go through turmoil, show great courage and a degree of love, or at least concern, for their passengers in traffic jams and congestion. Clearly, one of the major problems is illegal parking. Indeed, sometimes it is difficult to find a space on a yellow line. Clamping and some privatising of parking enforcement will help. The issue of congestion comes up at the meetings between LRT and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, and we hope to make further progress on it.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best and most effective ways to tackle congestion in the

    673
    capital is to give support and encouragement to the London boroughs' local road schemes? Will he confirm that in this next financial year the Government are supporting financially a total of £77 million worth of such local road schemes, which will have the most practical, beneficial effect on traffic movement in the city?
    Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the importance of the transport supplementary grant system through which we work in partnership with the London boroughs. Local roads need to be made safer for local residents, but through roads and through traffic are important for public transport. My hon. Friend will recognise the significant improvements for buses made in most of the major schemes announced in London.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Would the Minister be interested to know that I was able to stop and personally thank the police on the Mile End road recently for doing an excellent job in enforcing the bus lane that runs all along the Mile End and Bow road? Will the Minister tell the House whether he has had any discussions with the Home Secretary about providing sufficient policing resources in London to ensure that the bus lanes are enforced and, indeed, that parking restrictions are enforced, because therein lies the key to an easier flow of buses throughout the capital city?
    Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to the newsworthiness of his support for the police in their work. If that could spread to other areas of police work, I am sure that it would be greatly welcomed throughout the House, London and especially the Metropolitan police. Obviously, it is important that where bus priority measures apply the rest of us should stay out of bus lanes. I suspect that the House will agree that some bus lanes work well, but others may need reviewing.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend congratulate LRT on its many successes, especially on the Underground services and some bus services? Will he note, however, that the 207 bus service is appalling and that my constituents do not believe that one-man operated buses will improve the situation? Heavy traffic notwithstanding, what can be done to bring the 207 bus service up the standard at which it should be?
    Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is one of those who supported the movement for LRT to have greater independene from local government control. The matter that he raises relates to operational management and I suggest that he takes takes it up with the management. I join him in paying tribute to the remarkably improved performance of LRT since it left the hands of County Hall.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Pontius Pilate.
    Mr. Greenway: The pot is calling the kettle black.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Wallerasked the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has of increases in the amount of freight carried by rail which will result from the Channel tunnel project.
    Mr. Moore: British Rail estimates that, with the Channel tunnel, rail freight traffic between this country and the continent will treble, and that there will be 1,000 fewer heavy lorries a day on our roads as a result.
    Mr. Waller: Does not the north of England have particular benefits to gain, in that the long-haul routes will be particularly able to attract traffic from our heavily congested roads? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the north, in particular, can look forward to many new jobs resulting from the construction of this valuable project?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The economics of freight movement make freight transport much more attractive for distances over 200 miles. I gather that the advantages for those areas, particularly the midlands" are that the movement time may well be reduced by between 24 and 48 hours. There will also be savings in terms of the costs of transshipment on to ships. Clearly, there are benefits in freight transport for the north, Scotland, north Wales and areas north of the midlands, and jobs will result from the benefits that will flow from manufacturing orders from areas north of Birmingham.
    Mr. Raynsford: How does the Secretary of State reconcile the remark that he has just made about a substantial increase in freight volume with the comments of his hon. Friend the Minister of State, who in Committee opposed amendments to the Channel Tunnel Bill involving additional expenditure estimated at £8 million on rail improvements between Cheriton and Ashford on the ground that it would make the freight operation of British Rail and the tunnel not viable?
    Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman, not for the first time, has taken a fact entirely out of context. I had the benefit of reading the details of the Committee and I appreciated some of the hon. Gentleman's contributions. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and those committed to the successful development of the Channel tunnel for the benefit of freight movement will be aware that British Rail has had the Government's support in seeking to advance its arguments in this area.
    Mr. Adley: One recognises that, for a variety of reasons, there will be opponents and dismal Jimmies about the Bill, but does my right hon. Friend accept that the regional argument is important and that many responsible people in the north of England and Scotland welcome the tunnel? In the interests of promoting the regional use of the rail link, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the full electrification of the line from Tonbridge round to Reading, which was orginally built for the very purpose of the Channel tunnel?
    Mr. Moore: I confirm my hon. Friend's comments. I find it quite astonishing, as do those who have studied the matter, especially British Rail, that those who seek to represent parts of the country north of Birmingham are not aware of the enormous advantages, in terms of freight movement, to areas in the north of England.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: And Scotland.
    Mr. Moore: And Scotland, of course. To that extent, I shall make sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State draws British Rail's attention to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) about that specific electrification.
    Mr. Snape: What facilities will the Secretary of State arrange for British Rail to provide to meet the projected increase in freight traffic prior to the tunnel opening in 1993?
    Mr. Moore: As the hon. Gentleman knows full well, British Rail is discussing with us the development of the handling of international freight at inland depots and additional areas for clearance. We are co-operating in every way with British Rail to ensure that it will benefit from the unique opportunities offered to freight movement by the development of the Channel tunnel.
    Mr. Aitken: As the boardroom of Eurotunnel is in well-publicised turmoil, with the chairman, Lord Pennock, reported to be wanting to quit, Sir Nigel Broackes reported as being disenchanted, and just about everyone else being disenchanted because of the fear of being swamped by the French, will my right hon. Friend be cautious in peddling the kind of pie in the sky optimism that he is giving forth from the Dispatch Box this afternoon and reflect on the fact that the tunnel project might not raise the missing 96 per cent. of the funds or be built at all?
    Mr. Moore: The boardroom of Eurotunnel, as my hon. Friend knows, has nothing to do with the Government or the House of Commons, but the specific question relates to British Rail's freight estimates. Those estimates project a tripling from £2 million to £6 million. Those are relatively modest estimates, but it is for British Rail—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."]— to judge them in the context of the 220 million tonnes of European freight traffic that currently comes from the United Kingdom. Her Majesty's Government are not here to answer questions regarding the board of Eurotunnel.

    Drink-Drive Offences
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Transport what further proposals he has to deal with drink-drive offences.
    Mr. Moore: We must go on working to change public attitudes so that drinking and driving comes to be seen by everyone as something that is simply wrong. I am heartened by the support that we are getting from outside bodies and the public.
    Mr. Dormand: As more than a thousand people are killed every year as a result of drinking and driving, when will the Government realise that publicity campaigns and existing penalties are simply inadequate to deter drivers from drinking? In addition to introducing heavier penalties, will the Secretary of State bring in measures that will substanitally increase the possibility of detection? Does he agree that such measures would represent improved deterrents?
    Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman has long supported this issue and I respect his comments. We share the same commitment to reduce the awful slaughter that we witness. the question is how to do so.
    The police and most of those who seek to enforce the law regard the key as being compliance with the existing law rather than additional and higher penalties. The road traffic law review is studying the matter and considering whether tougher penalties for drinking and driving would be effective. I would not deny for one moment the importance of publicity. Such publicity has helped to change attitudes, and such attitudes are critical when 95 per cent. of accidents in this country involve drinking and driving. I hope that I have the hon. Gentleman's support for such publicity as well as considering tougher penalties.
    Mr. Hickmet: My right hon. Friend will know that different chief constables instruct their forces to enforce the law more or less rigidly. Is he aware that it is not satisfactory for different chief constables to adopt different standards in different parts of the country? May I particularly draw his attention to the behaviour of the chief constable of Nottinghamshire over the Christmas period? It seems from press reports that he considered himself to be a law unto himself.
    Mr. Moore: I know that my hon. Friend will bring his remarks about particular chief constables to the attention of our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I was addressing myself to the powers that the police have, as opposed to the enforcement that we would all seek. The police and the Government regard the powers as adequate, but we require compliance with the law and a change in people's attitudes towards that law.
    Mr. Boyes: Does the Minister agree that as 100,000 people lose their licences every year through drinking and one quarter of all road deaths are drink-related. that means that there are 100,000 potential killers on the road each year? I agree with the Minister that we need to change attitudes, as the Under-Secretary said on 26 September, but the introduction of stiffer sentences and a reduction in the permitted blood-alcohol level would make a positive contribution to ending the drink-drive problem.
    Mr. Moore: We all have the same attitude to the problem: the only question is how we can achieve success. I said to the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) that the North review will examine whether we should tighten penalties, but the clear view of those who seek to enforce the law is that they have adequate powers. We need to ensure compliance with the law and a change in the attitudes of those who break the law.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: My right hon. Friend and his Department, together with the Association of Chief Police Officers, are to be congratulated on a hard-hitting campaign, but does my right hon. Friend agree that too many drivers are still drinking? I notice from a written answer that 4,280 positive breath tests were taken during the Christmas period from 19 December 1986 to 1 January this year. Should not my right hon. Friend be encouraging the police to introduce random breath testing to ensure that people are not tempted to drink and then go out driving and kill someone?
    Mr. Moore: I readily respect and understand the: emotions that most of us bring to this subject, but I remind the House again that the police regard their existing powers as adequate. They have power to test if they have reasonable cause to suspect a motorist of driving, attempting to drive or having driven with alcohol in his body. They have powers to test if a moving traffic offence has been committed and if a driver has been involved in an accident. The police, who seek to enforce the law for us, regard those powers as adequate.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: There is undoubtedly unanimity in the House that we should have the strongest possible enforcement of the drink-driving laws in view of the tremendous damage caused by people who drink and drive, but do not drivers believe that they cannot be tested merely because drink can be smelt on their breath when they are stopped because, say, an indicator is not working? That view adds to the belief of a number of motorists that

    677
    they can get away with drinking and driving. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time to examine more carefully the possibility of random testing?
    Mr. Moore: I said that we were reviewing the law, and obviously that is important. The hon. Gentleman is saying that people are not aware of the degree of testing that is currently available to the police. If possible, I shall seek to get that point across, because the Government are not arguing for random breath tests.

    Minibus Services
    Mr. Gerald Howarthasked the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has for the number of minibus services now in operation.
    The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I estimate that there are more than 150 towns and cities with minibus services, and the number is growing.
    Mr. Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is thanks to the Government's legislation that impetus has been given to the introduction of these new services, which are nowhere better illustrated than in Cannock, where Midland Red (North) has not only introduced a service but created more jobs? Can my hon. Friend tell us whether British coachbuilders have been able to benefit from the new policy?
    Mr. Mitchell: The Transport Act 1985 undoubtedly unlocked enterprise and innovation that had been smothered by over-heavy regulation. On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, most minibuses have United Kingdom-built bodies on a variety of United Kingdom and overseas chassis. Metro-Cammell Weymann and Optare have introduced completely new vehicles.
    Mr. David Marshall: In view of the increasing popularity of minibus travel, does the Minister agree that passengers should expect and have the right to the same form of protection in the event of an accident as with other forms of transport? Will the Minister conduct research into safety standards with a view to introducing regulations to enforce rear seat belts on all seats and anti-burst catches on rear locks?
    Mr. Mitchell: If there was any reason to believe that that would make a significant contribution to extra safety for passengers on minibuses we would look at it, but so far we have not had any reason to believe that there is a problem.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my hon. Friend aware that a commercial operator is introducing a service with more than 200 minibuses to run new services in the Manchester area? Will he confirm that that boon to residents in the Manchester area is because of the Transport Act 1985?
    Mr. Mitchell: Not only do I confirm that my hon. Friend is right, but I find it significant that the minibus operator concerned has chosen to go to Manchester. He is obviously picking on areas which are least efficient in their existing operations.

    Freightliner Network
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Transport if, when he next meets the chairman of British Rail, he will raise with him the proposed cutbacks in the freightliner network; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Mitchell: British Rail and its subsidiary, Freightliner Limited, decided to rationalise their business in the light of a careful assessment of Freightliner's long-term prospects. I deeply regret any consequent loss of jos.
    Mr. Hughes: Why is British Rail always on the retreat, and why is it again putting Wales last in the queue for electrification? Why is it persisting in closing the Severn tunnel junction facilities, which are some of the best in the country and would be invaluable as a link-up with the proposed Channel tunnel project?
    Mr. Mitchell: British Rail is not always on the retreat, as is well demonstrated by the Channel tunnel and the aggressive and commercial approach that British Rail has adopted to it. The House ought to commend Freightliner for coming to grips with a difficult problem and for taking the essential steps to protect the future of its business.
    Mr. Anderson: Will the Minister undertake to look again at the case for closing the Freightliner depots in Wales, particularly in Swansea, as it smacks of short-termism at its worst and runs counter to regional policy and to preparing for the challenges of the Channel tunnel?
    Mr. Mitchell: Since 1978 Freightliner has been required to pursue a commercial remit and it would not be right to expect it to do something that is not in the commercial interest of its business. Therefore, I have to decline the hon. Gentleman's request.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: How can British Rail be planning to increase international freight traffic from the Channel tunnel by closing eight Freightliner depots, including the one in my constituency? Is there not some inconsistency in that?
    Mr. Mitchell: The pattern of the Freightliner depots is not necessarily the pattern of the inland clearance depots, which will be the key part of its international traffic with the Channel tunnel. I have to say that we are seven years away from the tunnel, and those are loss-making areas that British Rail and Freightliner must ensure are operating in an economic way.

    Guisborough Bypass
    Mr. Holtasked the Secretary of State for Transport by what date it is anticipated that financing will be available for work to commence on the Guisborough bypass.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: This is a matter for Cleveland county council. We are providing transport supplementary grant towards schemes costing £28 million, which also help the economic regeneration of Cleveland. Acceptance of Guisborough for TSG in the future depends on the priority given to the scheme by the county and its merits relative to the TSG criteria and competing programmes, within the resources available.
    Mr. Holt: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and recognise that the responsibility lies with Cleveland county council, but does he recognise that the people of Guisborough, Skelton, Loftus and Brotton are being denied vital bypass roads because of the iniquitous attitude of Cleveland county council to any area where there is Conservative representation? Is my hon. Friend aware that that is bad for the region because it stops tourism and because the only potash mine in England is dependent

    679
    upon the roads in that area? We need the bypass urgently. Will my hon. Friend see what action can be taken to direct Cleveland county council?
    Mr. Bottomley: I do not envy Cleveland county council's job. 1 recognise that the Cleveland Initiative is of advantage in the county. Relief of communities from heavy through traffic is one of the criteria for the distribution of TSG. If Cleveland submits a bid for TSG to start work in 1988–89, we would hope to consider the scheme for supplementary grant in that year.

    Roads (Construction and Repair)
    Dr. Twinnasked the Secretary of State for Transport what measures have been taken to improve efficiency in road construction and repair.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: We have taken a wide range of measures to provide better roads at lower costs, including increased competition, improved designs, and lane rental.
    Dr. Twinn: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. His Department's achievement is easy to see. Motorists now find it easier to travel on roads that are not being repaired, whereas just a few years ago it was difficult to find a road that was not being repaired. What savings have been achieved from the introduction of the lane rental system?
    Mr. Bottomley: The main saving is 38 per cent. in time. We reckon that we have saved 500 person days—if I may use that expression—in traffic jams. In terms of increased competition, we think that we have saved a good £16 million on the roads programme in one year alone. The intangible benefits of having a roads programme that is not cut, as it was year after year between 1974 and 1979, are of great benefit to the economic regeneration of this country.
    Mr. Freud: Why are there more lane closures on British motorways that there are on any motorway in any other European country?
    Mr. Bottomley: I suspect that, in part, the answer lies with the Lib-Lab pact, when much road reconstruction did not take place between 1977 and 1979. As the hon. Gentleman would realise if he had listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State speaking at the Conservative party conference last year, we aim to get rid of that backlog, and then we can feel that we can forget about the Lib-Lab pact.
    Mr. Rowe: I represent a constituency where my constituents still find it impossible to find roads that are not closed most of the time, so can my hon. Friend do something about the early warning of predictable road works? For example, this morning when I was travelling up the M20 police moved us all off the motorway into Bromley and Chislehurst, giving no indication to the large number of people who had come across the Channel and who did not happen to know the byways of those pleasant areas how they would get out again.
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir.

    Pension Rights
    Mr. David Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any intention to make regulations regarding any diminution of emoluments or pension rights under section 84 of the Transport Act 1985; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Mitchell: I have no plans to make such regulations.
    Mr. Marshall: The Minister's answer is just not good enough—[Laughter] Does he not realise— seriously, because it is not a laughing matter— that the emoluments and conditions of many bus workers are being eroded as a result of the Act? Transfers to inferior pension schemes and loss of travel concessions are only two examples. If that is all the result of privatisation of the bus industry, does the Minister agree that it is only right, fair and just that regulations awarding compensation should be introduced as soon as possible?
    Mr. Mitchell: Section 84 regulations relate only to charge directly associated with transfer. I know of none where that could be applicable as directly associated with transfer. In some cases there were changes before transfer and there have been changes for new recruits. Perhaps that is what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but section 84 does not apply in those cases.

    Regional Airports
    Sir Fergus Montgomeryasked the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the total level of investment in regional airports in the north of England since 1979.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): Since 1979, total capital investment at airports in the north of England has been more than £150 million. That compares with a total capital investment at all regional airports in England under the last Labour Administration of less than £16 million.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: That is very good news, but will my hon. Friend give us more detail about the amount of money that has been allocated to Manchester international airport? Does he not agree that the strike there today, caused by the firemen, is likely to do a great deal of harm to the long-term future of the airport?
    Mr. Spicer: Since 1979 over £80 million has been spent on Manchester airport, and that investment has allowed passenger throughput to expand by 75 per cent. since 1979. In fact, it has grown by 25 per cent. in the last year alone. The House will have noted what my hon. Friend said about the firemen's strike, especially as the airport authority has offered to introduce the services of an independent technical assessor to help settle the dispute.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister has kindly agreed to meet the chairman of Manchester airport, together with the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) and myself, to discuss the Bermuda 2 negotiations as they concern Manchester. Is there any word that the Minister can say this afternoon about our interest in increasing flights between Manchester and the United States?
    Mr. Spicer: I am looking forward to meeting the right hon. Gentleman and discovering exactly the basis of his case. As Manchester is a gateway, it is open to foreign airlines to apply to come into Manchester. Perhaps we can discuss that matter in detail when we meet.
    Mr. Sackville: Does my hon. Friend agree that the growth of Manchester airport has been magnificent over the past few years, that the airport is vital to the

    681
    regeneration of employment and industry in the northwest and that the current strike is economic suicide for the region?
    Mr. Spicer: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend's comments.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Does the Minister accept that it would be a considerable help to Manchester and the regions if he was to have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and order the A340 Airbus, to allow regions such as Manchester to provide aircraft for the long, narrow routes?
    Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. No doubt my right hon. Friend will have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Favell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the astonishing increase in passenger transport at Manchester airport shows that the north-west is not on its uppers as the Labour party would have us believe?
    Mr. Spicer: Manchester airport's achievements have been remarkable. It is now one of the major airports, not only in this country, but in Europe.
    Mr. Dormand: Does the Minister realise that there are other airports in the northern region besides Manchester, and that the greatest needs are at Newcastle and Teesside?
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: And Carlisle.
    Mr. Dormand: And Carlisle, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said. If the Government are serious about narrowing the north-south divide, or eliminating it, will the Minister give priority to those three airports?
    Mr. Spicer: Newcastle airport, which is closest to the constituency of the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand), is very successful. Indeed, since 1981 it has received capital allocations of £13 million.

    Speed Limits
    Mr. Bidwellasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider introducing a campaign for the strict observance by the public of road speed law.
    Mr. Moore: I shall continue to campaign for better road safety. Strict observance of speed limits is not necessarily enough. Within the legal limit drivers need to keep to a safe speed for the road conditions.
    Mr. Bidwell: Would the Secretary of State and other Ministers agree that there is a dangerous and wanton disregard of existing legal speed limitations? Is it not high time that a campaign was undertaken to make changes? Motorists who try to observe speed limits often feel that they are in a dangerous position with the flow of traffic, which is far too excessive at present. At the same time, it is wrong that there should occasionally be punitive police action. There should be a national campaign, and pretty soon.
    Mr. Moore: I cannot disagree with the emotion and attitude expressed by the hon. Gentleman. The regular enforcement of the law is obviously a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I will draw his attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Clearly, strict observance is a key factor in maintaining the level of quality of safety that we would expect on our roads.
    Mr. Higgins: May I again press my right hon. Friend to erect 70 mph signs on an experimental basis on some motorways, especially the M25, so that drivers are constantly reminded of the speed limit?
    Mr. Moore: Since my right hon. Friend raised this point, I have examined it and am prepared to consider the idea. At this stage we are testing the "Keep your distance" signs and we want to consider their effect. However, I am prepared to consider my right hon. Friend's point and I am examining it now.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the security provisions being planned for the Channel tunnel.
    Mr. David Mitchell: This subject is being taken very seriously by the two Governments and the concessionaires. However, for obvious reasons, I cannot make the details public.
    Mr. Taylor: Is the Minister aware of the immense public concern at the possibility that the tunnel will be an open invitation for those appalling terrorist groups which seek to draw attention to themselves by committing outrages? How will it be possible for every vehicle to be inspected and X-rayed when, according to the chairman—still—of the Eurotunnel Lord Pennock, such a machine has not yet been invented?
    Mr. Mitchell: Eurotunnel has been proposing various arrangements to the Government, but it will be for the Government to examine those arrangements and to decide whether they are satisfactory.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the Minister accept that security should include the safety of the public and that there is much disquiet about the fact that drivers will have to remain with their vehicles and that the tunnel might turn out to be the longest crematorium in the world?
    Mr. Mitchell: Safety, is, of course, a prime question. There is long experience in Switzerland of drivers remaining with their vehicles and there being no serious incidents such as the right hon. Gentleman fears.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Wright Case
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Attorney-General when he first became aware that Sir Robert Armstrong had offered inaccurate evidence in the Wright case in Australia concerning the Attorney-General's alleged role in deciding whether to proceed against Mr. Chapman Pincher's book "Their Trade is Treachery"; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Winnickasked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the latest position regarding the Wright case in Australia.
    Mr. Nicholas Brownasked the Attorney-General if he will now make a statement on the Government's handling of the Wright case.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): This is a matter at issue in the proceedings in Australia. I must remind the House again that I am the plaintiff in that case

    683
    and cannot, therefore, comment on it. I have to be careful to avoid the risk of prejudicing the case or, at worst, being in contempt of court in New South Wales. When the proceedings are over, then will be the time to deal with any matters that are outstanding, in the light of the usual customs and conventions. We are awaiting judgment, for which no date has yet been fixed.
    Mr. Dalyell: Would it be unkind to the Attorney- General to suggest that it was only after questions were asked and a fuss was made in the House, especially by the Leader of the Opposition on 27 November, at column 426, that he took steps to correct a perjury in the Australian court? Nothwithstanding the general issues to which he understandably referred, why did this correction take so long?
    The Attorney-General: I think it is right to say that there was no question of perjury, which requires an intentional deception of the court. As for other matters, I am bound by the attitude which the Government have adopted on this.
    Mr. Winnick: Does the Attorney-General recognise that an important lesson of the Wright case is that civil liberties should not be undermined by the Administration of the day? Does it not appear that that lesson has not been learnt by the Government, hearing in mind the KGB-like operation against the Glasgow office of the BBC? Does the Attorney-General recognise that this matter—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question must relate to the main question.
    The Attorney-General: I am afraid that I was unable to hear the hon. Gentleman's last few words.
    Mr. Winnick: Does the Attorney-General recognise that the importance of the Wright case is that civil liberties should not be undermined by the Government? We need an explanation of what occurred at the weekend, bearing in mind the KGB-like operation against the BBC in Glasgow.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There will he other opportunities to raise that matter. The Attorney-General may answer the first part of the question.
    The Attorney-General: On the first part, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have realised by now the principle which the Government are trying to uphold in the court in New South Wales. The second part of the question cannot possibly arise from the main question.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: It would help the House enormously if the Attorney-General would give a clear and unambiguous commitment to make a statement on the Government's conduct of the Wright case as soon as the judgment is announced.
    The Attorney-General: There is a problem— I am taking advice on it—as to whether I could comment if the case went to the Court of Appeal. All that I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that I am longing for the opportunity to make a statement to the House.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that although the people of Walsall, North and Newcastle upon Tyne, East may be waiting with bated breath for the news of the Wright case from Australia, no one in my constituency has written to me about it or even mentioned the subject?
    The Attorney-General: I thought that I was tempting providence when, in answer to questions three weeks ago, I said that some 70 hon. Members had informed me that they had received no letter. I got no letters from any hon. Member saying that that statement was inaccurate.
    Mr. Adley: Has my right hon. and learned Friend noticed that, whether it be obsessive, old MI5 buffoons in Australia, or fellow travelling journalists in Britain seeking to undermine national security, there is never any shortage of Opposition Members jumping up to defend them, regardless of the circumstances?
    The Attorney-General: It has struck me as curious that, while the Leader of the Opposition has agreed that this could he a serious breach of national security, so many of his hon. Friends take a completely different view.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Attorney-General recognise that, when one puts aside all the personal and political criticism that has arisen from it, the Wright case and other more recent events have given rise to severe public anxiety about the attitude of Government, of whatever colour, to secrecy. Will the Attorney-General recommend to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that the time has come for a thoroughgoing and fresh inquiry into the whole subject of secrecy and secrecy legislation?
    The Attorney-General: No, I will not. The ordinary British public believe that when somebody working in one of the security services makes a promise to keep the secrets that he learns in the course of his duties secret for the rest of his life, that promise should be honoured.
    Mr. Hickmet: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that much of the evidence that was given in camera in the case in Australia came into the possession of Opposition Members? Will he confirm further that it was used in the House and that the effect was to undermine the Crown's case in Australia? Is he aware of the arrangements that existed between the Leader of the Opposition and his office and Mr. Turnbull, the lawyer acting for Mr. Peter Wright? What effect did the presence of Mr. Paul Greengrass in court in Australia have upon the presentation of the Crown's case and the manner in which it was presented to the court?
    The Attorney-General: It would be quite wrong for me to comment on any proceedings that took place in camera. Perhaps it will be of some consolation to my hon. Friend to know that, in the end, the facts will speak for themselves.
    Mr. John Morris: In the Attorney-General's anxiety to make a statement to the House, do I understand his answer to mean that he clearly and unequivocally is telling the House that, provided he can get over any legal difficulties that may remain after judgment is delivered at first instance in Australia, he will not be thwarted by even the Prime Minister and will make a statement to the House?
    The Attorney-General: Yes.

    Diplock Courts
    Sir John Biggs-Davisons asked the Attorney- General what views he has exchanged with the Attorney- General of the Republic of Ireland, within the framework

    685
    of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, and also elsewhere, on the constitution and working of the Diplock courts.
    The Attorney-General: I am not prepared to disclose the details of matters that I have discussed in confidence with the Attorney-General for the Republic of Ireland.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: In the interests of Anglo-Irish relations, can my right hon. and learned Friend deny that Irish politicians, whom I should not name because of the general election in the Republic, wanted to make the ratification and implementation of the European convention on the suppression of terrorism conditional upon changes in the Diplock courts, which is a matter only for the United Kingdom?
    The Attorney-General: I am sorry to have to say to my hon. Friend that it is not a matter for me. I remind him that, in the Second Reading debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said:
    "After the most careful consideration, the Government are not presently persuaded that this—"
    that is, the three-judge court—
    "would be an appropriate change".—[Official Report, 16 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 1081.]
    Mr. Heffer: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman had any discussions with his counterpart in the Republic of Ireland about the book which was published there and which is not allowed to come to this country, entitled "One Girl's War"? Has he seen a copy of the book and read it? It is absolutely ludicrous. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, at one stage, they actually entered Mr. Palme-Dutt's house, looked into the great secret under his bed and discovered that it was his marriage lines?
    The Attorney-General: I have had no discussion about the book with my opposite number in the Republic. The other matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred are news to me.

    High Court Cases
    Mr. Neil Hamiltonasked the Attorney-General if he has any plans to seek to change the speed with which cases come to trial in the Queen's Bench division of the High Court.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): In February 1985 the Lord Chancellor set up a major review of civil justice in England and Wales with the object of bringing about reforms which would reduce the delays in and complexity of civil litigation. The review is expected to be completed by the end of this year.
    Mr. Hamilton: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Although the law's delay is a cliché which has been with us for hundreds of years, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that cases in the Queen's Bench division now seem to take quite insupportable periods of time before they reach court? In my case against the BBC not so long ago we set down the action for trial in November 1984 and we came to court in October 1986. That can hardly be regarded as satisfactory.
    The Solicitor-General: I am, indeed, aware, as is my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, of the very undesirable length of time that is taken for many cases in London to come to court after having been set down. In the provinces there is a much more favourable picture. Cases that are
    686
    estimated to take a long time to try take longer to come to court. My hon. Friend's case was estimated as a six weeks' trial. In the event it was settled after six days, in circumstances that we remember.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Southern Africa (Front-line States)
    Mr. Stuart Hollandasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to increase aid to the front line states which are members of the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): We are already giving substantial bilateral aid to the front-line states which are members of the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference. This amounted to £86 million in the last financial year. We have pledged £25 million so far to SADCC for regional projects. I shall make a statement on our future aid to SADCC at the organisation's annual meeting later this week.
    Mr. Holland: We understand that the Minister is going to Mozambique. We hope that he will be able to come back and make commitments to provide assistance to Mozambique, granted the key role that it plays among the SADCC countries. Will he also accept the invitation to the Government from Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi to join India and other developing countries in financing the Africa fund for the front line states as a short term emergency complement to SADCC's longer term programme? India has pledged $50 million over three years to the Africa fund. How much will the Minister pledge?
    Mr. Patten: We think that we can best help both through our bilateral programme, which will be increased for the region in the next financial year, and through our commitments to SADCC—an existing institution which works particularly well. I too, hope that I shall return and that when I am in Mozambique I shall be able to make additional commitments to our aid programme to that country.
    Sir Ian Lloyd: Is it not almost as ludicrous to suggest that Sub-Saharan African economies can be developed without proper recognition of the enormous role played by South Africa as it would be to suggest that the continent of North America could be developed without proper recognition of the place of the United States in its development? If, as my hon. Friend doubtless wishes to say, we intend properly to pursue the twin goals of multiracialism and economic development throughout sub- Saharan Africa, should not those twin goals be supported by western European and North American resources, wherever they may be found, instead of being confined in some extraordinary and ludicrous way to what is almost indefinable—that is, the boundary of the so-called frontline states?
    Mr. Patten: I agree with my hon. Friend that the region would develop best if it were able to do so in peace.
    Mr. Kirkwood: While the Minister is considering what assistance to give to the front-line states, will he assure the House that he understands that Commonwealth countries such as Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland are potentially

    687
    in the front line of economic difficulties if economic sanctions are eventually applied against South Africa? Is his Department giving serious consideration to developing contingency plans in that event?
    Mr. Patten: Our aim is to strengthen the economies of the countries in the region so as to reduce their dependence on South Africa. That is why we have invested so much in transport and infrastructure projects.

    Afghan Refugees
    Mr. Keyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the level and type of British assistance to Afghan refugees in Pakistan.
    Mr. Chris Patten: Since the Soviet invasion in 1979 we have given over £40 million. For the current financial year, I announced an allocation of £3·5 million in Pakistan last November, and I expect total expenditure in 1986–87 to be £4·8 million. Most of our assistance is channelled through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, although various British charities have received smaller amounts. The assistance includes food and medical supplies as well as support for health and income-generating projects.
    Mr. Key: I congratulate my hon. Friend on that effort, which is much appreciated, but what future is there for our aid programme in Pakistan for Afghan refugees? Does he foresee that it will continue for a number of years, bearing in mind the fluid situation that now exists in that sad country?
    Mr. Patten: I wish that it were not necessary for it to continue for several years, because, like the rest of the House, and at least like my side, I hope that the Soviet forces will withdraw from Afghanistan, enabling the refugees to return to their own country. As for the existing help that we give to refugees, I assure my hon. Friend that, subject to parliamentary approval, the amount of money that we make available to them will be increased next year.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Notwithstanding our welcome of the contribution which the Minister has outlined, does he accept that in view of the potential conflict in that region resources should be used for development and not on armaments?
    Mr. Patten: The money that we are providing is for development— for food aid and primary health care. That is where the money is going.

    India (Gujarat)
    Mr. Spencerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the level of aid being directed to Gujarat in India.
    Mr. Chris Patten: We have provided £43 million for fertiliser plants at Hazira in Gujarat and we are providing £2 million for the integrated rural development project in Anand. In addition, under the joint funding scheme, we are supporting about 30 voluntary agency projects in Gujarat, most of which are concerned with primary health care.
    Mr. Spencer: Is my hon. Friend aware that many thousands of my constituents have relatives and friends in
    688
    Gujarat and that their main concern is for the severe drought there, the effects of which I saw when I visited Gujarat in December? Can my hon. Friend assure the House that he will take that natural disaster fully into account when assessing the level of our aid to India?
    Mr. Patten: I know how concerned and knowledgeable my hon. and learned Friend is about Gujarat. I am also, of course, aware of the two-year drought which has affected part of that state. We hope that the worst is now over. We have made over £100,000 available to Oxfam's programme for drought relief in Gujarat and Rajasthan. I congratulate the Indian Government on their efforts to deal with these severe problems.
    Mr. Janner: I associate myself with what the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) said, because on my many visits to India I have seen enormous hardship and suffering. What are the Minister's plans for increasing aid to a part of the world which is still suffering so badly?
    Mr. Patten: Our aid programme is agreed with the Indian Government, not with individual states.

    International Debts
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will discuss with the World Bank methods of ensuring that developing countries are able to repay their international debts on reasonable terms.
    Mr. Chris Patten: I did so when I visited the World Bank on 21 January.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister acknowledge that many developing countries have contributed to extinguishing their national debt by restricting imports? Does he think that that gives them a fair chance of achieving the growth necessary to get them out of long-term trouble? How does he think restricting developing countries' imports will help United Kingdom exports?
    Mr. Patten: If the hon. Gentleman was asking whether I thought that protectionism was the best way to assist the debt problem, my answer would be emphatically no. We have played a central role in writing off official aid debts, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I am equally determined that we should play a central role in sustaining the process of structural adjustment and policy reform which would lead to the growth which the hon. Gentleman and I want to see.
    Mr. Yeo: Will my hon. Friend consider encouraging the development of a secondary market in developing countries' debt, because that would provide an opportunity for the central banks of those countries to buy in their own debts at advantageous prices and thereby reduce their indebtedness?
    Mr. Patten: I think that, happily, such a market is developing itself without any assistance from me, but I shall certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Deakins: Does the Minister agree that the best way of helping poor countries repay their international debts is to help increase their incomes? In that connection, will the Minister turn his mind to backing and improving the United Nations' integrated programme for commodities?

    689
    Does he agree that it has been the fall in real commodity prices in the past 20 years that has led to difficulties which many poor countries face today?
    Mr. Patten: That is at least part of the problem. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall be putting more support into structural adjustment over the next year. More of our aid programme will be used in support of policy reform, which I hope will provide the sustained economic growth which these countries need.

    UNICEF
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his visit to UNICEF.
    Mr. Chris Patten: I met Dr. Jolly, UNICEF's deputy executive director, on 20 January and discussed
    690
    UNICEF's operations, particularly its global immunisation programme. I have now made a new grant of £5 million for UNICEF's immunisation, essential drugs and child health programmes in China and Africa.
    Mr. Chapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is a matter of pride to both sides of the House that the United Kingdom is in the vanguard once again in supporting an invaluable programme— the global immunisation programme— which is designed to rid all children throughout the world of the six preventable diseases? Will he continue closely to monitor the UNICEF programme? Finally, will he accept the congratulations of many people in all countries throughout the world?
    Mr. Patten: I accept what my hon. Friend said, and I am delighted that over the past year our contributions to UNICEF have been at their highest ever level. We shall continue to support its programmes and to give more support in general to the development of primary health care in developing countries.

BBC (Special Branch Raid)
3.30 pm
Mr. Donald Dewar(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the special branch raid on the premises of the BBC in Scotland and the seizure of material from those offices.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I am informed by the Crown Office that on Thursday 29 January 1987 the procurator fiscal at Glasgow was informed of a request by the Metropolitan police for assistance with a criminal investigation which they were making in connection with an article by the journalist Duncan Campbell in the New Statesman of 23 January 1987. The request was for a search for material relevant to that investigation to he made of the BBC premises at Queen Margaret Drive, Glasgow, where it was believed that Campbell had worked in the course of preparing a series of programmes entitled "The Secret Society"; a search was also requested of a flat at 27 Hamilton Drive, Glasgow which had been occupied by Campbell— [HON. MEMBERS: "M r. Campbell."]— while he had worked at the BBC.
I understand that on 30 January the procurator fiscal, with the authority of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, presented petitions to a sheriff at Glasgow to take the oath of an officer of the Metropolitan police and to grant warrants to an officer of Strathclyde police with such assistance as would be necessary to search the premises occupied by the BBC at Queen Margaret Drive, Glasgow and the house at 27 Hamilton Drive, Glasgow. After hearing the Metropolitan police officer, the sheriff granted the warrants to search.
At 8 am on 31 January officers of Strathclyde police and other police officers visited the BBC premises to execute the warrant. The commencement of the search was delayed while senior management of the BBC obtained legal advice. As a consequence of that advice, a Bill of Suspension was presented to the High Court of Justiciary later that day on behalf of the BBC. The Bill was heard on Saturday evening by a High Court judge, Lord Clyde, who, after hearing counsel for the BBC, and Crown counsel, made an order suspending the warrant ad interim.
By the time the warrant was suspended, a quantity of material had been removed from the premises of the BBC and taken to a police office. This material was then returned to the BBC. A further warrant was obtained to search the premises of the BBC after an officer of the Metropolitan police had taken an oath before a sheriff. This warrant was then executed and a quantity of material removed from the premises of the BBC.
A report will be submitted to the procurator fiscal by the police regarding their examination of that material.
Mr. Dewar: Is it not clear from what the Secretary of State has said that this extraordinary and damaging chapter of accidents was stage-managed by the Crown Office, with ministerial authority? Why were all three warrants drafted in such a way as to allow what appears to have been a general trawl and the seizure of records and material relating to the specific programme about the spy satellite and to five other programmes that can have had only the most tenuous connection with any matter of national security?
692
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the overwhelming impression that is left is that the aim was intimidation, and that the police operation was meant as a warning and a form of intimidation, to inhibit and curtail the proper curiosity of journalists, on which a healthy press depends?
Does the Minister accept that the reputation of the police is an important public asset which has been damaged by this bizarre and incompetent performance? Does he accept also that warrants should not be used as a crude catch-all device, but should be precise, measured and drawn with a careful regard for civil liberties and essential freedoms? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept those criteria were not met on this occasion and that public opinion is properly outraged and wants the most complete assurance that this dangerous nonsense will not be repeated on any future occasion?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has chosen to table his question for answer by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I have to inform him that neither I nor the Government have any responsibility for requests made by the Metropolitan police for search warrants. [Interruption]. The hon. Gentleman is responsible for the question tabled in his name. I have to say to him that neither I nor the Government are responsible for requests by the Metropolitan police for search warrants, nor am I responsible for the conduct of the fiscal service, nor am I or the Government in any way responsible for decisions taken by a sheriff in Glasgow as to the appropriateness of granting such a warrant.
The hon. Gentleman should be the first to appreciate, given his local background, that police inquiries and questions whether search warrants should be granted are not matters for me or for the Government as a whole.
Sir Alex Fletcher: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree, without prejudice to the outcome of this investigation, that the BBC Scotland staff are loyal and hard working? The worst outcome that I would expect is that we shall find that one or two of them have been badly led astray by someone who enjoys embarrassing the Government and the Opposition alike.
Mr. Rifkind: I do not wish to comment on the merits of this matter. Clearly, material has been removed from the BBC offices in Glasgow. If the information justifies any further action, it will be put before the procurator fiscal.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not understand that the Government must take responsibility for the investigation of a matter concerning Government secrets in which the Government have embroiled themselves deliberately and closely? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us who is politically responsible for this operation, which he has been put up to answer? Is it the Home Secretary? Is it the Attorney-General? Is it the Prime Minister? [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very serious matter. I ask the House to listen.
Mr. Jenkins: What is the supreme objective for which the Government are prepared to look as though they were running a second-rate police state, infused equally with illiberalism and incompetence?
Mr. Rifkind: I am answering this question because the spokesman for the Opposition chose to put a request to me. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), as a former distinguished Home Secretary, should be the last person to suggest that Ministers are responsible for requests by the Metropolitan police for search warrants or for decisions by sheriffs as to whether such applications should be granted.
Mr. Barry Henderson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the vast majority of honest and patriotic people who pay their licence dues to the BBC expect the Government—and, indeed this House—to support those whose duty it is to protect this country's national security? Does he agree that it would surprise many of those licence holders to find that the BBC, instead of doing its level best to discover whether treachery is within its organisation, is seeking to defend those whose trade is treachery?
Mr. Rifkind: Naturally, if the police had any reason to believe that criminal offences had been committed, the general public would expect them to take appropriate action to determine whether such a view was justified.
Mr. Michael Foot: The right hon. and learned Gentleman that he has no responsibility in the matter. Is he saying that he has no interest in the way in which the police carry out their duties? Can he tell us whether, during the raid in Scotland, the police presumed that they could do what they did at the offices of the New Statesman, that is, not only to investigate the particular matter in which they were supposed to intervene, but generally to search through files?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not care whether files in newspaper offices in Scotland are ransacked in this way? Does he not have any regard for protecting the freedom of the people of this country?
Mr. Rifkind: I have a general responsibility for the police service in Scotland. I do not have a responsibility, nor does my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, for the Metropolitan police, or, indeed, for the Scottish police, deciding that on the information they have it is appropriate to apply for a search warrant.
Opposition Members know perfectly well that they are embarking upon a wholly new constitutional path in suggesting that the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland either has, or should have, any responsibility for whether the police should or should not decide that a search warrant is appropriate or whether a judge should grant such a warrant. If that is the view of the Opposition, they are behaving in an even more irresponsible way than I would have expected of them.
Mr. Michael Mates: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in matters involving national security it is the duty of everyone to put the national interest before their personal interests? Is he entirely satisfied that during the past weekend the BBC has put the national interest before its interests?
Mr. Rifkind: I prefer not to comment on the BBC. However, I certainly agree that the national interest clearly must be of supreme importance. I must emphasise that the decision of the police to apply for a search warrant, and the decision of a judge to grant it, was not initiated by any Minister.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the Secretary of State accept that the plea of national security has often been found to be an impudent bluff, intended to save the Government from embarrassment, and nothing else?
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister's satisfaction when answering a question last week, when she said that she had managed to stop the BBC programme, simply meant that it did not matter what the Russians knew, provided that the information was kept from the people of the United Kingdom?
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the raid in Scotland is regarded as a dangerous attack on free speech in this country?
Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman should realise that the decision to search the BBC's premises was taken by the police and granted by a Scottish judge. If he has any criticisms, he knows perfectly well in what direction they should be made.
Mr. Ray Whitney: While recognising my right hon. and learned Friend's jurisdiction, may I ask whether he agrees that this affair, with all its disturbing implications—which some Opposition Members are seeking to exploit—has arisen from the extraordinarily irresponsible decision of the BBC to entrust a television series about secrecy to a man with a record of breaches of national security, namely, Mr. Duncan Campbell? Is that not rather like entrusting Myra Hindley with charge of a children's home?
Mr. Rifkind: Those who have been involved in the matter in the way described by my hon. Friend will clearly have to answer for the exercise of their discretion.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his statement today will not be believed by millions of people, because they know very well that it has nothing to do with law and order or national security, but with the fact that the Prime Minister thinks that she has a divine right to rule and that anybody, whether elected local authorities, trade unions, journalists, broadcasters or Members of Parliament, who stands in the way of the Prime Minister's wishes is to be denounced, intimidated and crushed, and that the Home Secretary, who is responsible for the police service, the prison service, MI5, the special branch and the BBC, is an agent for introducing a police state, which is the greatest threat to parliamentary democracy since Hitler's defeat in 1945?
Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman is well known for his occasional fits of paranoia. However, I advise him that even if, under a system of which he approved, it was right and proper for Government Ministers to determine whether search warrants should be applied for or granted, under the system that exists in the United Kingdom today, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, these matters are not decided by Government Ministers, nor will they ever be so long as the present Government are in office.
Sir David Price: I should like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend a simple question. Can he tell the House when we will know the merit of the material that was discovered by the police, because until we know that we cannot decide whether the search was a great invasion of journalistic freedom or a proper security measure by the

695
Secretary of State? Does he agree that the journalists of this country do not enjoy a unique benefit of clergy separate from the general law of the land?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend has asked a very wise question, and he is absolutely right to say that we should all await consideration of the material that was removed from the BBC's headquarters. In due course the wisdom, or lack of wisdom, of that action will become well perceived by the community as a whole.
Mr. David Steel: As the Home Secretary is the Minister responsible for the Metropolitan police and for broadcasting, will the Secretary of State find out from him when the five master tapes belonging to the BBC on programmes which have nothing to do with national security will be returned to the BBC? Will he also confirm that in the course of the raids the BBC technicians were brought from their beds in the middle of the night to help sort out the tapes? Is the knock on the door in the middle of the night to become a part of our society?
Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman can put questions direct to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary if he so wishes. I understand that the BBC technicians were asked whether they would be willing to come in to assist those taking part, and that they voluntarily chose to do so because they were aware of their public responsibilities.
Mr. Ian Gow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the consent of no Minister, either in the Scottish Office or elsewhere, was required before the search warrant was issued? Will he also confirm that there was no obligation whatsoever on those who applied for the warrant to inform any Minister? Is it not clear from the attitude of the Labour party that it would allow political interference with decisions of this kind?
Mr. Rifkind: As I said in my initial statement, the procurator fiscal acted with the authority of my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord-Advocate in presenting a petition to a sheriff to see whether a warrant could be obtained. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct to say that the decision to apply for a search warrant was taken at the request of the Metropolitan police, who consulted the Strathclyde police, and that the decision to authorise the warrant was the responsibility of the sheriff.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As a fellow Scot, will the Secretary of State take it from me that some serious, decent, senior police officers in Scotland are absolutely appalled at what they and their colleagues were asked to do? Does he accept that those police officers would not initiate or undertake such an operation if it was not clear that they had serious ministerial authority, because they were being asked to cock a snook—in their view, cock the proverbial five fingers—at the High Court? The Secretary of State chose his words carefully when he said that no Minister initiated the search. Can he give us an undertaking that Mr. Bernard Ingham—[Interruption.]—and Mr. Bernard Sheldon—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman come to the point please?
Mr. Dalyell: Mr. Bernard Ingham gave a freely available press conference this morning. Are we sure that Mr. Bernard Ingham and Mr. Bernard Sheldon were in no way consulted about the operation?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has grievously insulted both the Strathclyde police and the sheriff who granted the warrant by implying that they were acting in anything other than the normal, proper way in the exercise of their responsibilities. He has produced not one shred of evidence and seeks to create the maximum disturbance in the mind of the public in a grievously irresponsible way. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that when the Strathclyde police received a request from the Metropolitan police for their co-operation they were perfectly entitled, if they saw fit, to decline to provide that co-operation. They did not decline to provide it. They decided that they wished to assist the Metropolitan police and to seek a warrant from the sheriff. If the hon. Gentleman has the slightest iota of evidence to the contrary, he should provide it. If he has not, he should remain totally and unambiguously silent.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is an. extension of Question Time. I shall allow one more question from each side.
Mr. Roger Gale: Does my right hon and learned Friend agree that the over-hasty condemnation of police action, taken in the national interest, by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), both from the stage of the Barbican yesterday and on Radio 4 this morning, demonstrates his party's low priority for defence and security and its complete unfitness to hold any form of power?
Mr. Rifkind: No one will have been surprised at the attempts of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) to seek party political advantage at the expense of the police and court officials carrying out their proper public responsibilities.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Eric Heffer.
Mr. Norman Buchan: What about us?
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: What about us?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I again call Mr. Heffer.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Is the Secretary of State aware that over the years many Members of the House of Commons have been critical of what happened in Nazi Germany and have attacked what has happened in eastern Europe, Chile, South Africa and many other countries—[Interruption.] It is your responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to keep hon. Members quiet.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard to the business that follows. Come to the point please.
Mr. Heffer: I shall raise it afterwards on a point of order.
It is clear that if we genuinely believe in the democratic principles of free speech, free institutions and free discussion, it is also clear that what has happened in Scotland, at the BBC and to Mr. Campbell is an outrage. Is it not time that the people of this country understood the situation that has been created by the Government and the disgraceful attitude adopted—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the hon. Gentleman to ask a question, not to make a speech. [Interruption.] Order. I appreciate that this matter raises high passions in the House, but we have an obligation to set an example.
Mr. Heffer: Tell that to Conservative Members.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman, if he is devoted to free speech, democracy and the rule of law, should appreciate that it is crucial and essential that Ministers, such as myself, are not involved, and should not be deemed to be involved, in decisions by the police in pursuit of their responsibilities. The hon. Gentleman should make up his mind. If he wishes to preserve the rule of law, he should acknowledge that Government Ministers do not involve themselves in police decisions regarding the accumulation of evidence, nor via court decisions as to whether warrants should be granted.
Later—
Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I have been very generous to the hon. Gentleman, but I will take it.
Mr. Heffer: I am not asking for generosity. I have been an hon. Member for 22 years and in all those years I have seen successive Speakers protect the rights of Back Benchers when they are making points in the House. Of late, we have seen exhibitions, primarily from Conservative Members. Whenever there is something that they do not like, they act like a bunch of lunatics. [Interruption.] It is happening now and no effort is being made to keep them quiet.
I am asking you, M r. Speaker, to use your authority so that when hon. Members raise matters of the greatest importance, in the interests of the democratic processes, they are protected and not shouted down by Conservative Members. It is time that that stopped and that we got back to the situation that existed when I was first elected, when hon. Members could make statements and were heard out, even if other hon. Members disagreed with what was said.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it would be true to say that noise comes only from one side of the House. The hon. Gentleman might see, when he looks at Hansard tomorrow, that perhaps the cause of the noise was the length of his question.

Special Branch Activities
3.56 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely
"Special branch activities in England and Scotland following the Attorney-General's request for the initiation of inquiries into possible breaches of the Official Secrets Act."
This matter is specific because raids have taken place on the home of a journalist, Mr. Duncan Campbell, the offices of the periodical the New Statesman and the Glasgow headquarters of the BBC.
It is important because the raids involved the use of sections 2 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act in a manner that many people believe has serious implications for the freedom of the press and freedom of speech.
The matter should have urgent consideration because there are profound misgivings about the future of civil liberties in our society and fears that Britain may be going down the road already travelled in such places as eastern Europe and South Africa [Interruption.] Those misgivings require, in what is still a free Parliament, to be aired in this House without delay.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing
a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely
"The activities of special branch in England and Scotland following the Attorney-General's request for the initiation of inquiries into possible breaches of the Official Secrets Act."
I am satisfied that the matter that has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 20. Has the right hon. Gentleman the leave of the House?
The pleasure of the House having been signified, the motion stood over under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), until the commencement of public business tomorrow.

Ministerial Responsibility
4.1 pm
Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This has relevance to my position as a Back Bencher, if you recall the events of last week.
Two important matters have emerged today and they require answers. First, may I have explained to me the nature of ministerial responsibility? Last week, when the Attorney-General was asked to speak about the English end of this shoddy affair, the reply was given by the Solicitor-General. Today, a question was put down to the Secretary of State for Scotland to deal with the Scottish end. I understand that it is within the Government's remit to transfer such a question to the Solicitor-General for Scotland. They chose not to do that and, therefore, the Secretary of State was able to rest on the silly, minor legalities of his position.
The second aspect of ministerial responsibility, which seems crucial in this affair, is, "Who now speaks on behalf of the broadcaster and freedom of the press?"
Hon. Members: The hon. Gentleman does not.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please come to the point?
Mr. Buchan: Who now speaks on behalf of the broadcaster and freedom of the press? We are told that the Home Office's official functions include freedom of the press, the right to reply and the freedom of the broadcaster. Clearly the Home Secretary, who launches the cavalry at Wapping, and whose special branch in the Metropolitan police launches an assault on the New Statesman, no longer speaks in defence, or on behalf, of broadcasting or the freedom of the press.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is fortunate enough to catch my eye tomorrow, which is quite possible, he could raise these matters then. I do not think that I can deal with them today. It is not a matter for me who answers from the Government Front Bench. I allowed the private notice question to be asked and it was answered by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Ministerial Responsibility
  BILL PRESENTED
    ANONYMITY OF RAPE VICTIMS
    Mr. Harry Greenway presented a Bill to secure the total anonymity of victims of rape: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 13 February and to be printed. [Bill 60.]

    Ordered,
    That the Minors' Contracts Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Portillo.]

    Ordered,
    That the Recognition of Trusts Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Portillo.]

    Ordered,
    That the Reverter of Sites Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Portillo]

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    Ordered,
    That the draft Merchant Shipping (Prevention arid Control of Pollution) Order 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Portillo.]

The Royal Navy
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Portillo.]
4.4 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): The period since our last Navy debate almost exactly a year ago has been an exceptionally active one for the Royal Navy. In 1986, Royal Navy ships and submarines visited 86 different countries and sailed more than 3·5 million miles. They performed operational tasks in the Atlantic, the Caribbean, the Mediterranean, the Gulf, the Indian ocean and in the vicinity of Hong Kong. They carried out the first round-the-world deployment for 10 years and the first out-of-area amphibious exercise since the Falklands conflict.
The year also saw new ship orders to the huge value of nearly £2,000 million— including the first Trident submarine, the seventh Trafalgar class SSN, three type 23 frigates, three Upholder class conventional submarines and the first auxiliary oiler replenishment ship.
To the £2 billion-worth of new ship orders placed last year should be added a further £1 billion worth of other naval equipment orders placed last year, which represent a further substantial improvement to the Navy's operational capabilities.
If the Opposition try to criticise our level of expenditure on the Royal Navy, I think they will be most unwise. The reality is that in every one of the eight years that we have been in office we have spent more in real terms on the Royal Navy than was spent in any of the Labour and Lib-Lab pact years of 1974 to 1979.
In the current year we shall be spending over £1,000 million more on the Navy in real terms than was being spent in 1978–79. Over the last eight years we have spent, excluding Falklands expenditure, over £4,500 million more on the Navy in real terms than would have been spent if expenditure had been left at the level that we inherited in 1979, and at the end of the public expenditure White Paper period, 1989–90, we still expect to be spending significantly more on the Navy in real terms than was spent in 1978–79.
I suggest that instead of criticising the present Government, the Opposition should be reflecting on their own hugely inferior performance when they were in office.
A total of 55 major ships and submarines have been ordered by the present Government, representing orders worth more than £5,000 million. Those orders have included the start of no less than seven new classes of vessel— the Trident SSBN, the Upholder conventional submarine, the Type-23 frigate, the Sandown class single role minehunter, the River class minesweeper, the Castle class offshore patrol vessel and the new AOR royal fleet auxiliary.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I suggest that it would be helpful to the House if the hon. Gentleman's speech could include some reference to what allegedly happened in the Barents sea with the towed array sonar, so that we can discuss the matter on the basis of information rather than newspaper reports?
Mr. Stanley: We follow the practice of all previous Governments and there is no way that we could be drawn into commenting on submarine operations.
Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: I hope that the Minister will not prevent us from getting replies on matters involving submarine operations on which the Government have already commented and on whether newspaper reports stand up to close examination. We should like to explore those matters and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us some answers.
Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman is obviously free to pursue his inquiries in his own way.
Opposition Members will no doubt seek to dwell on ship numbers. Numbers are misleading because the acid test of the Royal Navy's well-being is not simply numbers, but its overall capability. Numbers are only one element, and not necessarily even the most important element, in capability. It is self-evident that we could have a Navy double its present size, but significantly less capable than the Navy that we have today. However, on the numbers issue, it is worth pointing out that there are more SSNs in the fleet than at any time previously and that that number will rise further.
It is also worth pointing out that, as a result of the significant improvements that we have made in ship utilisation, we have achieved a very marked increase in the proportion of the fleet— particularly destroyers and frigates—that are actually available for operations.
Defining availability as ships either at sea, or able to be at sea in under 48 hours, in 1979 the proportion of our destroyers and frigates that were available was on average about 72 per cent. of those in the running fleet. That figure has risen to about 84 per cent.
What is incontrovertible is that, although the Navy is now numerically somewhat smaller than it was in 1979, it is hugely more capable than it was eight years ago. One has only to compare the capabilities of the Navy's new ships and weapons with those that are going out of service.
The type 22 frigates are vastly more capable than the type 12 frigates and the gun Leanders that they are replacing. The Hunt class mine countermeasures ships are in a quite different league from the Ton class minesweepers, that they are succeeding.
Seawolf is a quantum jump on Seacat; so is the Lynx helicopter on the Wasp; and so is the Sea Skua anti-ship missile on the AS12 and SS11 that it replaces. The Trafalgar class submarines are much more advanced than our Valiant class SSNs, and our Upholder class conventional submarines are a leap ahead of the Porpoise and Oberon boats that they are replacing.
In the eight years the Navy's capability has made enormous strides—strides way beyond what would have been achieved if defence had continued to be given the relatively low priority that it had under our predecessors. If, in this debate, the Opposition want to compare our record with theirs, frankly they do not have a leg to stand on.
Mr. Keith Speed: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the increased capability of the ships of the Royal Navy. Will he tell the House, bearing in mind the number of ships that at any time have to be refitted, what he considers to be the minimum number of frigates and destroyers required to meet our force goals in NATO, to meet the Armilla patrol, to meet what is required in the Falklands—recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence—the Belize guardship

703
and the other duties that our frigates and destroyers have to do? There must be a minimum number that is required to discharge all those capabilities.
Mr. Stanley: As my hon. Friend well knows from his experience, we have carefully assessed our requirements in relation to our commitments. We have decided that a destroyer and frigate force of about 50 enables us to meet those commitments.
Even in peacetime the Royal Navy is first and foremost an operational force. Throughout 1986 a constant watch was kept on Warsaw pact naval ships and submarines and on their intelligence-gathering assets at sea. The Royal Navy continued to maintain the integrity of the 150-mile protection zone around the Falkland Islands—often in very severe weather conditions. In weather conditions sometimes no less severe, the Royal Navy's patrol ships maintained the important naval contribution to combating terrorist infiltration into Northern Ireland by sea. It also carried out essential fishery protection tasks in home waters. Our Armilla patrol ships have continued to maintain their presence in the vicinity of the Gulf and as the House will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced in Oman greater Royal Navy support for British merchant shipping transiting the Gulf.
Throughout the past year the Royal Navy has also maintained our strategic deterrent at constant readiness as it has done every day of every year since 1969. Whatever the views of Opposition Members about the future of our strategic deterrent, 1 hope that on both sides of the House there will be an appreciation of those in the Royal Navy who discharge this key national defence responsibility. For those men while on patrol there are no port visits, no change of company, no change of scene, and no natural light or air. The officers and men of the deterrent patrols do a vital job in demanding conditions and for nearly 20 years they have done it outstandingly well.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Minister give some indication of the rules of engagement in relation to the Armilla patrol? What instructions are offered to the commanders of the vessels in relation to escorting through the straits either way British registered and manned vessels and vessels on which there are British personnel?
Mr. Stanley: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we do not, for obvious reasons, particularly in an area where there is a potential threat, go into the details of our rules of engagement. However, those rules of engagement are appropriate and satisfactory for the defensive task that our Royal Navy ships have.
Mr. Ted Garrett: I agree with the Minister's remarks about the devotion to service of the men serving in such a vital area of operation. However, in case it is not mentioned in the opening statement or in the reply to the debate, there are many people who are leaving and applying to leave from all ranks. Is that not an indication that there is something lacking in the quality of life? The quality of life is an important factor in the services and it is important if the high degree of loyalty is to be maintained. I warn the Minister, if nothing is done about that, he is heading for trouble with personnel.
Mr. Stanley: The rates for premature voluntary retirement, either for officers or men in the Royal Navy, are nowhere near those at the time of the previous Labour Government in 1978–79.
In addition to actual operations, Royal Navy ships have played a major role in the past year in a number of important exercises with our NATO allies, most notably Exercise Northern Wedding in which some 150 ships and submarines, 400 aircraft, and 35,000 men from 10 countries took part.
The Royal Marines, too, have continued to employ their specialist amphibious skills in major exercises in Norway, Denmark, northern Germany and out of area in Exercise Saif Sareea in Oman.
As the House knows, my right hon. Friend in his statement on 9 December 1986 made clear the Government's commitment to the maintenance of our amphibious capability and the modernisation of our amphibious shipping. As well as maintaining the high professional skills that would be required in war, those activities constitute an important element of deterrence by leaving no doubt about the determination and cohesion of the NATO Alliance.
Mr. Keith Best: My right hon. Friend will know that I have tabled several parliamentary questions about this matter. I understand that the evaluation as to the extension of life of Fearless and Intrepid should be available some time this summer. However, an evaluation of whether there should be a replacement of Fearless and Intrepid will not be known for much longer thereafter. Does that mean that, inevitably, we shall see an extension of life for Fearless and Intrepid rather than the question of replacement?
Mr. Stanley: At present, those two alternatives are open. That is the object of the parallel feasibility studies that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced.
Mr. Denzil Davies: While the Minister is dealing with Norway and the northern approaches, will he confirm— this is not just a Navy matter— that the Government are negotiating to end our commitment to Denmark in respect of the Baltic approaches, and say what effect that would have on the Navy?
Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is certainly not the case. He will know from the answer that I gave on 20 January that we have made it clear that there is no question of any unilateral withdrawal of the United Kingdom mobile force.
As I said earlier, last year saw the first round-the-world deployment by the Royal Navy for 10 years. A carrier, three destroyers and frigates, an SSN and three RFAs took part in the GLOBAL 86 deployment which took Royal Navy ships to five continents and to over 20 different countries. Those included the first visit to Mozambique since independence, and the first visit to the People's Republic of China since 1980.
Those deployments are not simply exercises in "showing the flag" though the value of showing the flag should not be underestimated in areas such as the south Pacific, south-east Asia, and the Indian sub-continent.
GLOBAL 86 also enabled the Royal Navy to carry out valuable exercises with friendly navies in the Pacific with the United States, Australian, Canadian and Japanese

705
navies, in the south China sea with our five-power defence arrangement partners, and with 5 Brigade and 3 Commando Brigade off Oman. The exercise benefits of GLOBAL 86 will be of lasting value. The defence sales element of the deployment will also certainly prove to be of real value.
The opportunity was taken to demonstrate to 17 different foreign navies and their Governments the capabilities of British warships and a wide range of their equipment. The companies concerned are in no doubt that the deployment was a great help to their sale efforts, improving several major sales prospects and attracting inquiries from previously untapped markets.
More than 100,000 people have jobs dependent to a greater or lesser extent on our defence exports. If the Labour party was to implement its policy of achieving a major reduction in Britain's defence sales, a significant proportion of those people would find their job security threatened.
Some 2,500 RN and RFA personnel took part in GLOBAL 86 at sea, whilst many others planned and supported the deployment at home. Over the entire nine months of that highly successful deployment, our sailors were acknowledged as superb ambassadors for our country and there was not a single untoward incident. Our congratulations go to all concerned with that deployment.
Our regular and volunteer reserves have an important part to play in our wartime capability. On 1 April last year we introduced a system of annual reporting for the Royal Fleet Reserve. It already shows encouraging signs of helping to improve contact with the regular reservists, thereby enabling the Navy to make better use of the skills and experience available within the Royal Fleet Reserve.
The expansion of the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Marine Reserve is continuing to go well. All 11 Royal Naval Reserve sea training centres are now equipped with the new River class of minesweeper—the first time that the RN R has been given responsibility for operating an entire class of ships in the fleet. We are most grateful to our RNR and RMR reservists for their commitment of time, enthusiasm and expertise to the Royal Navy.
A centrepiece of our future naval programme is Trident, which is making very good progress, as was reflected in the latest recosting announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last week, which, even after allowing for the effects of inflation and exchange rate variations, showed a real reduction in costs of £546 million over last year's estimate. I was sorry, but not surprised, to see that welcome announcement being greeted with unalloyed gloom from Opposition Benches. To add to their good cheer, I can tell the House that we expect to place the contract for our second Trident submarine later this year.
In the naval area, as for the other two services, the Opposition are committed to implementing a non-nuclear policy. I find their catch-phrase to justify their policy quite extraordinary. They say:
"The choice is effective defence; or reliance on a nuclear delusion."
I fail to see what can possibly be illusory about the 40 years of peace with freedom that we have enjoyed, secured by combined nuclear and conventional defence. If the Opposition really want to claim that non-nuclear defences
706
alone will guarantee our independence in the future, I suggest that they might start by asking the peoples of eastern Europe and Afghanistan.
Mr. Best: My right hon. Friend will know that when the Leader of the Opposition went to the United States, he found there no support whatsoever for a unilateral nuclear disarmament policy. He will also know that a large number of NATO countries have openly condemned it. Is he further aware that only recently we heard from Moscow that even the Soviet Union is not in favour of the Labour party's policy on disarmament?
Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have read the reports to which he refers.
The consequences of a non-nuclear policy in the naval area would be wide-ranging and immensely damaging. It would mean the end of Britain's strategic deterrent and the loss of the British people's ultimate insurance against nuclear blackmail. It would mean Britain unilaterally resiling from its NATO tactical nulcear roles at sea, thereby weakening deterrence at a time when the Soviet navy and the Soviet naval air force are steadily expanding their ability to use tactical nuclear weapons against NATO surface ships and submarines.
In Scotland, Labour's non-nuclear policy would mean the closure of Holy Loch, the loss of up to 2,500 jobs being created by the Trident construction programme at Faslane and Coulport, and the immediate loss of the entire SSBN refitting cycle on which over 2,000 jobs at Rosyth are currently dependent.
The Labour party's commitment is, of course, not merely to scrap Trident, but to do away with Polaris. That Polaris commitment is absolutely senseless. Polaris, thanks to its secret modernisation with Chevaline, ironically by the previous Labour Government, is still viable as our deterrent and in relative terms it costs very little indeed to run.
The commitment of the Labour party to scrap Trident is seriously mistaken and highly irresponsible. The commitment to scrap Polaris is pure political vandalism. In the maritime sphere, a British non-nuclear policy is opposed by NATO, has been condemned across the political spectrum in the United States, and is profoundly destructive of Britain's own defence interests. I am confident that such a policy will be roundly rejected by the British people.
We welcome the commitment of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties to the continuation of Britain's strategic nuclear deterrent notwithstanding the reluctance of the split Liberal party to give such a commitment. We are sorry not to see any of the Liberals in their place. What is disappointing, however, is that although the Liberal and Social Democratic parties have got their policy objective right, they have got their means of achieving it sadly wrong.
In opening the Liberal Supply day debate on defence on 3 December, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), when speaking of the options for replacing Trident, said:
"the precise weapon systems are the ones that should be made and chosen by the Government in office at the right time. It is not for Opposition parties to decide, clouded as they are with conflicting advice and denied information available to Government. I am glad to see the Secretary of State nod agreement".—[Official Report, 3 December 1986; Vol. 106, c. 990.]

707
Of course we nod agreement to the sensible recognition by the right hon. Gentleman that only the Government of the day, with the information that they alone have are in a position to decide what is the most cost-effective means of maintaining a credible minimum deterrent for Britain. The right hon. Gentleman then went on to spell out no fewer than six separate Liberal options for the replacement of Polaris. We shall be interested to see whether the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) will be offering six options today, and whether they will be the same options as those of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale. But none of the Liberal options included Trident; indeed, extraordinarily, the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that the one option that he ruled out was Trident.
The Liberal and Social Democratic parties are therefore in the totally contradictory situation of being completely uncertain as to which option for the replacement of Polaris they will support, yet totally certain that it will not be Trident. It is an absurd and unsustainable position. All it confirms is what we have known all along—that the Liberal-SDP position on the key national issue of the future of Britain's deterrent has been determined not by a rational, objective and dispassionate assessment of the facts, but by prejudice, horse-trading and fudge. The stated Liberal and SDP reasons for ruling out the Trident option vary, like most of their policies, week by week, month by month, constituency by constituency and leader by leader. But there are three strands of anti-Trident argument that they generally advance—that Trident is too big, that Trident is too expensive and that Trident is too American. I shall examine each in turn.
First, it is alleged that Trident is too big. In the open government document "Trident and the Alternatives" that we published last week, we made it clear that the number of Trident warheads will, contrary to some of the hugely inflated figures that have been bandied about, be at most—I stress, at most—only some two and a half times greater than Polaris when it first entered service. That has to be seen against the fivefold increase in Soviet strategic warheads since 1970 and steadily improving Soviet defences, which did not even exist at that time.
It is frankly ludicrous for the Liberal and Social Democratic parties simply to ignore the inconvenient fact of life that Soviet defences are improving significantly. Yet that is what they did in their relaunch for the nth time last week, when they committed themselves to freezing our strategic nuclear capability
"at a level no greater than that of the Polaris system."
There is no justification for simply turning a blind eye to improvements in Soviet anti-ballistic defences. If Opposition Members want to back a cruise system, there is even less justification for turning a blind eye to improvements in Soviet anti-cruise defences when those improvements are totally unconstrained by the ABM treaty.
We have made it clear repeatedly, and I stress it again today, that Trident continues to represent only a minimum deterrent for the United Kingdom. I also respectfully suggest to the House that if there is one aspect of this sensitive area on which the Government of the day, and the Government of the day alone, are best able to make the correct judgment, it is as to what constitutes the minimum deterrent for Britain.
However, if right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition wish to back their judgment of what
708
constitutes a minimum deterrent for Britain against that of the Government, that is still no justification whatever for ruling out the Trident option. Trident is not a fixed capability. It is a flexible capability. The number of missiles and the number of warheads can be varied. If one wants to vary one's minimum deterrent assessment, one can do so, and that is why the Liberal-SDP argument for ruling out Trident on the grounds that it is too big holds absolutely no water.
The next argument is that Trident is too expensive. We do not hear too much these days from the Liberal-SDP Benches about their alternatives to Trident being a lot cheaper, and I understand why. For instance, I noted that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) in his recent New York speech said of his French alternative:
"I have already frankly admitted that such a French purchase is unlikely to be cheaper than Trident".
Nearly £3,000 million of Trident expenditure is now contractually committed, of which nearly £1,000 million has been spent. So to the costs of any alternative to Trident must now be added the money down the drain that the cancellation of Trident will necessarily involve. In the "Trident and the Alternatives" open government document, we thought it right to update the cost implications of switching to alternatives to Trident at this stage. As is shown in the paper, a switch to a French ballistic system has all the potential to cost the United Kingdom considerably more than the procurement of Trident D5 while a United Kingdom minimum deterrent based on either sea-launched or air-launched cruise missiles would be likely to be about double the cost of Trident. The Liberal-SDP alternatives to Trident, far from being cheaper, will be significantly more expensive. The alliance has no case therefore for ruling out Trident on cost grounds. Indeed, costs positively add to the case for maintaining the Trident programme.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson-Smith: Can my right hon. Friend confirm to the House whether there is any intention by the present French Government seriously to consider an Anglo-French nuclear deterrent?
Mr. Stanley: That is a matter to which the French Government would have to respond. As we have made clear in our open government document, there are extremely important issues of timetabling and we are wholly satisfied that, whatever the merits of a French system, that is simply not compatible with our requirement to replace the Polaris system in the mid-1990s.
Finally, as the arguments about Trident being too big and too costly have been shot through, the argument about Trident being too American has, in a certain desperation I feel, been played more stridently not least by the right hon. Member for Devonport, when he was in the United States the week before last.
I was disappointed and somewhat disturbed by the right hon. Gentleman's speech in which he likened the Atlantic relationship to "curdled mayonnaise". I must teal the right hon. Gentleman that, in our view, the Atlantic relationship is most certainly not curdled and that there is no benefit to Britain, certainly not in defence, in knocking our relationship with our most important ally.
Dr. David Owen: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider a normal relationship between two partners to be one in which the President of

709
the United States can go to Reykjavik and commit himself to negotiate abolishing all ballistic missile systems without consultation with his principal allies, France and the United Kingdom, which are at present committed to a system of ballistic missiles?
Mr. Stanley: The most telling evidence that the Atlantic relationship between this country and the United States is not curdled is that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went to Camp David in November and secured an unequivocal assurance and commitment from the American President to honour the Trident commitment.
As far as Britain's Trident programme is concerned, I am disturbed by the doubts that the right hon. Member for Devonport now seems to be casting regularly on the extent to which we can rely on our United States allies to honour their obligations under the Trident arrangements. The argument that he seems to be advancing is that, while our French allies could be relied on to deliver a French contribution to the British nuclear deterrent in all circumstances, our United States allies could not be similarly relied upon. Quite apart from that being a poor reflection on the United States, it flies in the face of all the evidence.
Our strategic deterrent arrangements with the Americans have been well tried and well tested over more than 25 years. Successive United States Administrations have honoured, and honoured in full, the terms of the Nassau agreement between the then Mr. Macmillan and President Kennedy. The present Trident arrangements were made with President Carter and have been continued by President Reagan. As I said a moment ago, only last November at Camp David my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister received an unequivocal and unqualified assurance from President Reagan of his full support for the arrangements made to modernise Britain's independent nuclear deterrent with Trident.
There is therefore no valid basis for the Liberal-SDP parties to rule out Trident on the grounds that it is too American, any more than on the grounds it is too big or too costly. The fact is that, where the nuclear threat is concerned, the Liberal and SDP parties are offering inadequate defence while the official Opposition are offering no defence at all. Neither meets the defence needs of the British people.
The Royal Navy enters 1987 with expenditure at record levels in recent times, with seven new classes of ship and submarine ordered, and with abundant evidence of very high levels of skill being achieved under the sea, on the surface and in the air. We are grateful to all those men and women serving in the Royal Navy for contributing to the high esteem in which it is held around the world—and most deservedly so.
4.36 pm
Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: Any debate on a one-line Whip on a Monday is unlikely to secure a packed Chamber. Regular participants in service debates are members of a fairly small and exclusive club. The Minister of State and his advisers know their audience and over the years speeches have tended to follow the same format: there is a tour d'horizon of the Navy's role and praise for the undoubted professionalism of the men; a nod in the direction of the United States allies; a
710
reiteration of the case for the independent deterrent; castigation of the SDP-Liberal allance for its current attitudes; an overblown assessment of the Soviet threat; usually a thinly veiled attack on the Labour party for its lack of patriotism; and finally, the MOD speech-writing word processor's version of "Land of Hope and Glory".
I wrote those words before the Minister of State spoke and I am relieved to see that my powers of prescience have not been diminshed in any sense. Cynics may say that the only real variants in these debates are the contributions from the Social Democrats and the Liberals, so the real specialists in these matters are those who can discern whether the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) is inching closer to the sea-launched cruise option, whether he will come out in favour of rejecting Trident regardless of the date of the election or whether he accepts the cancellation charge argument. I do not know whether we are to be spared a speech from the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport, but I imagine that the predicament of the alliance spokesman today will be evident for all to see.
Recent events have highlighted certain questions that require clear answers from the Government. The House is entitled to know what HMS Splendid was doing in the Barents sea. It is entitled to know the terms of the Trident cancellation clauses and the significance of the worthwhile and welcomed announcement of the £500 million savings in the Trident programme. The House is also entitled to know in this, the last of the three service debates, the significance in defence procurement terms—I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement will be replying to the debate—of the story that appeared in yesterday's Daily Mail about the fate of the Zircon project. We all know the limitations on questions about such topics, but as it is a sensitive issue and Ministers are always at pains not to blur issues by answering questions too succinctly, perhaps the Minister in his characteristically obfuscatory manner can give us some idea of what is happening with the Zircon project.
The Minister mentioned operations in the Gulf and the world trip that took place last year. We recognise the necessary evil of having men and ships in the Gulf to protect our merchant fleet, and we recognise the courage and commitment of our troops in that area and the help that they give to merchantmen in great difficulty.
Dr. Alan Glyn: How can we get British ships flying foreign flags back into commission if there is a crisis?
Mr. O'Neill: I shall deal with that a good deal later in my speech. The hon. Gentleman may care to wait until then.
In 1983 SACLANT said that NATO forces were in danger of being outgunned in the Atlantic. The Government must give us a clearer justification for the exercises in the Indian ocean and the round-the-world trips. It is misleading for the Royal Navy to go into those waters and to suggest that we can support those people in times of difficulty when the supreme commander of the NATO Alliance says that we could not release craft from the eastern Atlantic to fulfil that role.
In The Independent on 21 November, Christopher Coker said:
"The exercise in the Gulf is not about out of area security at all. It is really a debate about the still uncertain future of

711
the surface fleet. Sailing to foreign climes is a dramatic way not only of restoring service morale, but persuading the public that large surface ships arc still invaluable in the modern era."
The honouring of such commitments to other countries would require a Navy far in excess of the 50 warships that were mentioned this afternoon. It would certainly require a Navy far larger than the one which the rate of ordering would provide. The rate would probably have to be doubled, which would imply a trebling of the rate of commissioning of naval escorts that has prevailed since 1979.
As important as the craft which the Navy has at its disposal is the problem, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett), of men leaving the services. In his book "British Warships and Auxiliaries", Michael Critchley said:
"More and more experienced men are leaving the Royal Navy because of too long separations from wives and families."
Since warships are now refitted at Devonport or Rosyth, many men live considerable distances from the yards. The book states that many people live some distance away, but not far enough— 200 miles— to qualify for travel warrants. It is causing considerable difficulty for family stability. The book also states that between April and December 1985 leaving increased by about 20 per cent. over the figure for the previous year.
The failure to replace older ships means that ships such as Fearless, Intrepid and those in the Leander class, which require larger crews, are being kept in service. That will get worse. More than 30 per cent. of our frigates and destroyers will be more than 25 years old by 1990.
Mr. Speed: Knowing the Labour party's hostility to nuclear power plants and to the proposed pressurised water reactor at Sizewell, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, if the Labour party came to power, it would continue nuclear-powered submarines which have pressurised water reactors as their main propulsion power?
Mr. O'Neill: Yes, we would continue them.
Because of the time that it takes to refit older ships, sailors will be at sea for far longer periods. At present, they are at sea for about 19 to 24 months. The present outflow of men is far more serious than was the outflow in the 1970s, when there were problems with pay. At that time, there was a pay restraint problem for everyone in the public sector.
The Navy is losing its most valuable and experienced trained personnel. Some ships have only half their complement of seamen officers. On 10 frigates, there is only one principal warfare officer running the nerve centre of the operation. The Navy is short of 85 of those men, who control all the missiles, guns, torpedoes, radar, sonars and decoy systems. The Fleet Air Arm is 30 per cent. short of Sea Hunter Harrier pilots. Overall, the Navy is about 10 per cent. short of officers in all branches, especially pilots, observers and engineers. The position is very different from that in the 1970s. Unemployment was far lower than it is now and we are led to believe that there are now no difficulties with service pay. If there are, they will no doubt be corrected at the expense of other parts of the defence budget.
The problems of morale are created by the unsatisfactory working conditions to which the Minister referred and because the Government will not put adequate resources behind the men to give them the support to which they believe they are entitled. The impact
712
of Trident more than anything else is restraining expenditure on new equipment. The Government must accept that the cost of Trident will vary over the next decade, that it will reach its peak in 1989–90, that spending on new equipment will fall by 30 per cent. in real terms between 1984–85 and 1989–90 and that by 1989–90 Trident will account for about 24 per cent. or 25 per cent. cif expenditure on new equipment. It is not enough to say that we should divide the cost of the programme over the entire development period and obtain an average. The continuing and consistent crisis of funding in the Royal Navy has been created in large measure by the Government's commitment to Trident.
We welcome any reduction in the cost of the Trident programme, but I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement will be a little more specific about where those cost reductions will be made and how long he expects the figures to stand up. Although the contract is not open-ended, it has so many different parts and there could be difficulties. It would be misleading to seize on short-term savings when there might be longer-term costs about which we have not been told. We want to know which parts of the programme have benefited from the savings and where those savings will be transferred in the general budget.
If the Government continue to tell us about the impact of cancellation, we must have answers to those questions. We know that savings may well be brought about by concellation, but the Government have chosen to obscure the issue. We know that by March 1986 about £680 million had been spent and that between £1,400 million and £1,700 million will probably have been spent by June this year. This leaves about £8 billion which might be saved if there is a June general election with the return of a Government committed to ending Trident.
If that saving of £8 billion can be achieved we shall be able, if we wish, to purchase about 30 type 23 frigates arid pay their running costs for 20 years. That sum would cover manpower, spares, repairs, fuel, refitting, and so on. It would allow an increase of about 15 per cent. in the size of the United Kingdom fleet of destroyers and an increase of about 20 per cent. in the NATO maritime forces in the eastern Atlantic. I quote those figures merely as an example— the Labour party is not committing itself to using all the resources in that area. As this is a Navy debate, I have given an example of what could be achieved by savings in this area. It is considerably more than the figures that were thrown about by the Government when they have talked of limited areas of savings and limited uses of funds.
The amount of money that appears to be spent on reimbursing Vickers can take a variety of forms. Indeed, it is strange that, before Vickers was privatised, the local management were confident that they could switch quite easily to other work. Indeed. they were so confident that they stated in the company's prospectus that they were satisfied with the assurances given by the Labour party that a future Labour Government would sustain employment and went out of their way to mention it when they were trying to win support in the City at the time of privatisation.
When Conservative Members express concern about the fate of Barrow, one wonders whether they have heard of any of the other parts of the country that have suffered as a result of the Government's defence policy, whether it relates to the naval dockyards in Rosyth, Devonport, on

713
the Tyne or on the Clyde. I know that Labour Members wish to raise these matters, not least the problems relating to the Swan Hunter dockyard whose staff have been given repeated promises that something will happen in the long run. As we all know, in the long run men are retired or are made unemployed, never to be able to get back to work again.
We hope that the Minister will tell us a little more about the command and control systems for the type 23s, and the problems that seem to confront the Ministry in deciding which system is the most satisfactory, the state of competitive tendering and whether it will delay bringing into service the first of class that we know is being built at Yarrow's. From the signs that we get from the Government, the more time that passes the more the towpath papers of last September begin to look like a Defence White Paper.
We recognise that if the Government are not prepared to order any more frigates there are opportunities available to sell frigates to the Australian Navy. We hope that the greatest effort will be made by the Government to realise prospects outlined in the 15 January edition of The Times, which stated clearly that there is a tremendous opportunity for a frigate based on the type 23 to be built in our shipyards for the Australian Navy. There will be tough competition, and we shall have to take account of it. Assistance and support of every kind must be provided so that British yards can respond to perhaps the biggest challenge of the second half of this decade in terms of foreign orders.
It is perfectly right and proper for the warship building and defence industries to go out into the world and sell their products. We make one qualification, which relates to the customers to whom the products are sold. The thrust of Labour party policy on defence sales is that we do not believe that the criterion to be applied to the sale of arms is whether the purchasers are enemies of those whom we regard as our enemies. The ability of the purchaser to pay for the arms and to use them to exacerbate local difficulties and repression must also be taken fully into account, but successive Governments have not done so.
The Labour party document, which the Minister frequently chooses to attack, is consistent and correct. We in no way seek to undermine the British defence industry. We should like it to be backed in every possible way in the area that I have mentioned so that if orders are open the project arises for the sale of frigates to Australia. That opportunity should be seized and backed not only by the Ministry of Defence but by the Department of Trade and Industry.
We cannot afford to ignore the significance of the maintenance of the fleet, its refitting and repair, which has been a source of national pride over the years. Everyone has recognised the tremendous contribution that the naval dockyards have made to the strength and capability of our fleet. It is depressing and sad that those yards are to be not only contractorised but cut back, with substantial redundancies.
Perhaps the greatest insult of all is the handing over of responsibility for the lead in the Devonport contractorisation to an American-led consortium. It seems that no organisation anywhere in British industry is capable of undertaking this type of work. The only firm prepared to
714
assume responsibility for it is thus one that is prepared to find most of its resources working for the Libyan Government. Indeed, I am led to believe that when the Minister was asked last week about the significance of Libyan business he told trade unionists that he would be quite happy for Libyan work to be done in Devonport dockyard. Perhaps he will confirm that statement. I merely report a conversation that was referred to me.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Archie Hamilton): We are concerned about getting extra work into the dockyards. If work were to come from a Libyan irrigation plant, I should think that the people in Devonport dockyard would be delighted.
Mr. O'Neil: We know that one of the least attractive features of Devonport dockyard is its extensive nature. It might be possible to hide irrigation work in one part of the yard, but there would be security problems and local people would be outraged if people from Libya went into the yard and intruded on their work. That would be regarded as extremely offensive. Certainly, with all the other aspects of contractorisation, it would undermine the good relations that have been the hallmark of industrial relations in the yards. We shall return to this tomorrow. Doubtless, however, other matters relating to financial advantage will be raised. The only frank statement from the Government or their agents was made to the Select Committee by the hapless civil servant who said that, at best, the strategy was a high-risk one. Many hon. Members are not convinced about the economic and financial arguments that have been advanced to justify contractorisation.
Many of us are anxious and worried, and not only about the shipbuilding and repairs industry at present. Today. many hon. Members received communications from Westland. We have read reports in The Independent and other newspapers expressing grave doubts about the parlous state of Westland. The delay in ordering the EH I01 is most unfortunate. Of all three services, the Navy has used the helicopter to the greatest effect. The United Kingdom-Netherlands amphibious force consists of 7,600 British Marines and 2,900 Dutch marines. It is entitled to expect to be provided with something better than the 30-year-old Wessex and the Sea King.
As for our responsibilities in Norway, we must speed up the endless feasibility studies on the replacements for Fearless and Intrepid. Serious problems will arise if we adopt the refit option. The major problem is that amphibious craft take a long time to refit, and far larger crews are required than are needed in modern replacements. Furthermore, the refit option would result in putting off for a considerable period the real decision that has to be taken. Converted commercial ships are not the answer. We need two purpose-built amphibious vessels capable of offloading a heavy tonnage of equipment in as short a time as possible. They will be reinforcing an area that is only 80 miles from Murmansk in the Soviet Union. Amphibious vessels are vulnerable and speed is of the essence. It is quite wrong that our crack troops should have to depend on second best when, with a bit of guts and courage, the Government could find the money to produce something that really meets their needs.
Mr. Best: The hon. Gentleman will know of the view of Sir Steuart Pringle about the need to provide a 300-man initial lift by helicopter. Is he committing his party to aviation support ships?
Mr. O'Neill: We are anxious that the Royal Marines should be given the best possible support as early as possible, but the Government are delaying making the choices that we believe are necessary. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot give assurances on an order amounting to about £1 billion, but the Labour party would accelerate the decision-making process and not hide behind feasibility studies. If we felt that we could not do it, we would not do it. I do not speak for the rest of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, but I believe that it is a disgrace that the Royal Marines are not being given the kind of backing that they deserve and that their major strategic role requires. That is a widely held view in my party, but it is not a view to which I wish to commit the party. A decision should be taken urgently by whichever Government wins the next general election. If there is an early general election, I hope that the decision will be made by a Labour Minister by this time next year at the very latest.
The Minister ought to have referred to other types of equipment. It would have been helpful if the Minister could have been a little more forthcoming in his opening speech. It would have led to a more constructive debate. We should like to hear about the light gun replacements. The order for light guns has been reduced from 50 to 25, which will greatly inhibit the capability of British ships in harbour to protect themselves. They have to depend on guns such as the Bofors gun, which for older hon. Members will bring back memories of the second world war.
It is surprising that in a debate on the Navy the Minister did not refer to the controversial subject of torpedoes. There have been reports that Spearfish is now being handled in a manner that will lead to the best value for money in the shortest possible time, but responsibility for the control and development of Spearfish still seems to be in the hands of five different heads of department in the Ministry of Defence. The same difficulties as applied to Tigerfish seem to apply now to Spearfish. I hope that the Ministry of Defence has not forgotten the tragic experience with the Tigerfish torpedo and that the Minister's news about torpedoes will be better than many hon. Members expect.
I have concentrated on the men and ships in the Navy, but I wish to refer also to an essential but, sadly, often unsung sector of our fleet—the Merchant Navy. Again it is inconceivable that a Minister should make a speech about the Navy but say nothing about the Merchant Navy. It is not good enough to transfer responsibility for it to the Secretary of State for Transport. As our share of world trade, the number of ships flying the British flag and the number of British seafarers decline, this Government must be castigated for their complacency. The balance of trade may be miraculously saved by the City of London, but the bitter irony is that London's docklands are inhabited no longer by the dockers, the seamen and the plethora of traders who built up our commercial and industrial strength, but by the get-rich-quick brigade who have sold Britain short and seem not to understand how desperately we need the backing of a Merchant Navy. It is ridiculous that those great warehouses should have been
716
turned into ritzy apartments for people who turned a blind eye to the requirements of Britain's trade and manufacturing industry.
Like the seafarers' unions—the National Union of Seamen and the National Union of Marine Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers— and the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann), who expressed himself so fiercely in a recent Bow Group paper—we believe that far more must be done than the feeble gestures announced by the Secretary of State for Transport just before Christmas. We shall observe carefully the impact that the Merchant Navy Reserve, the training assistance and the repatriation have on the service. We do not believe that it will help very much.
I do not wish to be churlish and say that we do not want these things from the Government, because anything is better than what they have provided in the past six or seven years. It is not a party political controversy. The only people out of step are the Government. Sadly, on many other issues, too, the Government are out of step with the rest of the population. Nobody has a monopoly of concern, but in this twilight zone between the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Defence the Government seem completely indifferent to our national needs. There is no shortage of advice, prescriptions, or consensus, but the Government choose to ignore them, as the Minister showed in his failure to address the issue.
Another area in which there is a fair amount of consensus on both sides of the House is our concern for the services. We do not doubt the intention and desire of all parties to defend our country, but we question the methods that should be used to defend it. I realise that this evening there will be no satisfactory response to the recent reports about lost sonar equipment—it may or may not be significant, and it may or may not be in the Soviet Union's possession—but it is important that we hear today what HMS Splendid was doing in the Barents sea. All that we have to go on at present are statements in Defence Estimates and the information currently available to us.
In 1981, under the heading,
"Provision of Anti-Submarine Support for the NATO Strike Fleet",
we were told:
"The United Kingdom makes a major contribution to the anti-submarine defence of the NATO Strike Fleet Atlantic, allowing the United States strike carriers to concentrate on their air defence and strike/attack roles, which are of key importance on NATO's Northern Flank."
That appeared on page 25 in the chapter "Conventional Forces". Under the heading
"Protection of United Kingdom and NATO Merchant Shipping",
it continued:
"In tension or in war most of our surface vessels and dl our submarines and maritime aircraft would be committed to the Alliance."
Paragraph 332 states:
"Our maritime forces are primarily designed for antisubmarine warfare, as the most dangerous threat is from Soviet submarines."
In 1984, in paragraph 429 under the heading,
"Maritime Tasks: The Eastern Atlantic and Channel",
we were told:
"NATO maintains a substantial maritime presence in the Eastern Atlantic and Channel areas. Given our geographic position at the focus of the busiest sea-lanes in the world and close to the main route for Soviet naval forces deploying to

717
the Atlantic, it is appropriate that we should make a major contribution to that presence. The United Kingdom provides 70 per cent. of the forces involved."
In the time available, that was all that I could find out about the deployment of forces in the north Atlantic.
The proceedings of the United States naval college 1986, however, carries an article entitled
"Maritime Strategy from the Deckplates"
by Vice Admiral Henry C. Mustin of the United States Navy. He states:
"We restructured both the national and NATO fleet command organisations, to improve the inter-command relationships necessary to fight a NATO war in the Norwegian Sea. This has involved—among a number of other arrangements for improved co-ordination with NATO area commanders— the creation of a new Striking Fleet organisation, which elevates a Royal Navy Antisubmarine Warfare Commander in the Fleet to the status of a Principal Subordinate Commander in NATO, and which re-emphasises the roles of the United States Marines and the combined United Kingdom-Netherlands landing forces."
The language is oblique, but it is clear that there has been a shift in the British contribution to NATO maritime strategy. Traditionally, the main function of the SSNs has been to protect the sea lanes and to watch over the Greenland-Iceland-Norway gap. It has never been clear that we should be locked into United States navy offensive strategies as part of our naval role.
We provide about 70 per cent. of naval forces in the eastern Atlantic under the control of SACLANT. We know that the Soviet navy regards its two main roles as being to protect the shores of what it chooses to call the motherland, and to maintain and protect the SSBNs—its principal means of second strike. If the United Kingdom—and, I presume, the United States—have a presence in the Barents sea, that will surely threaten the security of the Soviet Union's SSBNs, increase the threat of a Soviet first strike and thus threaten crisis stability. In terms of NATO-Soviet relations at such a sensitive time, when we are supposed to be close to reaching an accommodation with the Soviet Union— there has already been the prefacing of the Prime Minister's visit to Moscow—it is foolhardy to be blundering around in the Barents sea.
There seems to have been a major change. Until now we have not been aware of British boats being involved around the Kola peninsula. It is difficult to distinguish between SSNs and SSBNs. There are always problems with sensitive submarines. The Minister is far less forthcoming than his NATO allies on the other side of the Atlantic would be in similar circumstances. It is necessary for the Government to admit that there has been a change in British involvement in the NATO strategy. There would be problems if any of our SSBNs—the Polaris fleet—were in that area. There are problems with the command and control system. Plans are afoot for the trial of the extremely low frequency radio systems.
The Government must be more forthcoming about these issues. The Government's over-secrecy and paranoia on so many issues pollutes and distorts the very basis of discussion on defence matters. We have to look to the Americans not only for our next generation of nuclear weapons, our early warning system and the control of our dockyards, but for vital information about the deployment of our own troops and resources.
718
We recognise that there is a role for all partners in NATO. The Labour party is committed to what is known as our non-nuclear role. That will still enable us to contribute 70 per cent. of the eastern Atlantic fleet and to work in tandem with the United States and with other countries in continental Europe. The Government's commitment to the Trident missile system, with its drain on our resources, and their failure to appreciate the need to replace and restore the ships and the morale of our Navy, jeopardises that commitment. Instead of having a Navy of which we can be proud, we have to fight for that Navy against a Government whose interests do not seem to be in line with those of the Navy or of any of our armed services.
The Government take a narrow and distorted view of what a nuclear war might involve, and they are taking steps which, as in their activities in the Barents sea, rather than seeking to avoid nuclear war, actually exacerbate the possibility and bring it closer. The Government have not been clear and effective in terms of the Navy's future or in their support for the men and women who contribute to our defence.
5.20 pm
Sir Edward du Cann: I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) for giving such prominence to the merchant fleet in his speech. As he so rightly said, anxiety about the fleet goes across party lines and is felt deeply in all quarters of the House. I am grateful to him for the kindly personal reference that he made to me.
It is traditional that we devote three days a year to debates on Britain's defence services, but I believe that it is time for us to come up to date with our proceedings. It would be more appropriate to provide five days for the debates, with three days for the armed services as at present, the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force, and the fourth and fifth days devoted to other aspects of the nation's defences that are no less significant in the general scheme of things than the armed services of the Crown, such as the merchant marine and civil defence. Both these issues are shockingly neglected at present. We shall continue to neglect them at our peril. We_ discuss them too rarely and it is time for the House to sound the alarm bell in respect of both.
The merchant marine is the fourth arm of Britain's defence. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, to whom we listened with such interest earlier this afternoon, spelt out the merchant marine's duties in wartime in the evidence that he gave to the Select Committee on Defence during the 1984–85 Session, a few months ago.
To put it shortly, he said that its duties would be to provide transport across the Channel, transatlantic reinforcement resupply to the continent of Europe and support for the Royal Navy. It follows that if the Merchant Navy is weak, our country's defence strategy cannot be credible, and weak it most certainly is. Let it not be forgotten that if there is a reduced Merchant Navy, a question mark must arise over the raison d'etre of the Royal Navy, one of its primary duties being to protect our merchant fleet.
Let us consider the number of ships on the British register. I think that the figures are well known to every hon. Member. The merchant fleet's tonnage has fallen by 78 per cent. since 1975 and by 70 per cent. since 1980. It fell by 12 per cent. in August 1986 alone. The size of the

719
fleet has halved in only two and a half years. There are 66 per cent. fewer vessels now than in 1975. The number of ships has fallen by 52 per cent. since 1980 and the fleet has halved in size during the past five years. Similarly, there has been a huge decline in the number of seafarers. The number of men at sea in August 1986 was well below 30,000. I learned these figures from an answer to a question that I tabled a few days ago. The number of seafarers has fallen by 63 per cent. since 1975, by 52 per cent. since 1980 and by 10 per cent. in the first eight months of 1986.
It is suggested too often that we should attend to the defence of our national interests only during emergencies. I assert that defence should be as much an issue in peacetime as ever it is in wartime. Our struggle to defend Britain's interests must continue in peacetime and must be maintained with the same strength as that which applies in wartime.
We have seen a huge decline in the United Kingdom's share of seaborne trade carried in United Kingdom flag ships. The volume of United Kingdom seaborne trade has grown by 20 per cent. in the past decade, but the United Kingdom's flag share has fallen from more than 33 per cent. to less than 25 per cent. The risk is that Britain in peacetime could be held to ransom by its enemies if they set their minds to it. Another example: fewer than half the ships servicing our offshore oil installations fly the red ensign. The dangers are obvious. As I have said, it is no less important to defend Britain's interests in peacetime than in times of emergency.
To put the matter at its mildest, there must be doubts whether the British merchant fleet is adequate to fulfil the roles that Ministers foresee for it in time of conflict as they define them. I emphasise "as they define them" because it seems that my right hon. Friend's catalogue is incomplete. The ships for all the purposes for which the Navy would need them in an emergency do not exist, nor do we have the trained personnel to man them. In wartime, and even in an emergency less than a state of full conflict, many ships would be needed for vital tasks additional to those that my right hon. Friend quoted. For example, in addition to supplementing the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, we would need a huge number of ships to act as force multipliers, such as minesweepers, mine countermeasure vessels, harbour protection vessels and patrol vessels. There would be 100 other tasks in augmentation of the Royal Navy.
There are hon. Members present in the Chamber who served, as I did, in the Royal Navy—in the war. I spent only a short and undistinguished time in the service—and it amazes me that memories are so short. I remember the substantial numbers of vessels that were drafted into service in various roles—to act as aircraft carriers, for example. The port of Great Yarmouth alone had over 100 trawlers acting as minesweepers and that was duplicated along the coast at ports such as Aberdeen, Grimsby, Immingham, Lowestoft, Felixstowe and the Thames boundary. Thousands of ships were needed for the many purposes to which I have referred.
Mr. Garrett: What about South Shields?
Sir Edward du Cann: Of course. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for omitting that important port from my list.
Any idea that we have enough ships to fulfil the
ordinary purposes of augmentation of the Royal Navy in
720
wartime is ludicrous, and besides supporting the Royal Navy and augmenting it, we would have to supply and resupply the civilian population. We need to have enough ships besides to cope with local conflicts. I have said in the House on previous occasions, and I shall say again now, that at the time of the Falklands conflict, a few short years ago, we requisitioned 54 ships. It was a marvellous tale of improvisation, hard work and determination. It was a splendid success, but any account of those days makes it clear how narrow was the margin between success and failure. There were only a few ships left that could have been requisitioned, and of the 54 ships that were used at that time, more than half have now been sold. If we wanted to mount another Falklands operation today, it would be impossible to do so.
I have recited some sombre statistics, but it is suggested by my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Ministry of Defence, whom I respect so much, that there is a hidden reserve. It is suggested that large reserves of ships are available to Her Majesty's Government in times of emergency that are currently sailing under flags of convenience but are United Kingdom-owned. Whether Her Majesty's Government have the necessary powers to requisition them promptly is uncertain. It is even uncertain whether Her Majesty's Government have the powers to requisition them at all. Even i f they were to prove available—I do not believe that they would be—we can be sure that the foreign nationals who are now acting as their crews would not be available. The reserve is nothing more than a mythical armada.
Fortunately, there is a more widespread recognition of the dangers than hitherto. The Select Committee on Defence is taking an increased interest in these matters, and it is valuable to reflect on the report that appeared in Session 1984–85. What it had to say was prescient. Paragraph 47 states:
"we believe the Government should show greater awareness of the risk to national security inherent in loss of independence in the carriage of seaborne commerce. Effective deterrence requires that no would-be aggressor is tempted by vulnerability."
We talk a great deal about a nuclear deterrence and conventional forces, but if we do not have an adequate merchant marine our posture will be such that our deterrence will not be credible.
The Committee continued:
"Present trends seem to be setting in this dangerous direction. The striking contrast between British, and indeed Allied, maritime resources and those of the Warsaw Pact countries, in inverse proportion to the relative dependence of each alliance on sea communication, is extremely disturbing "
The Select Committee was giving a clear warning. What has been done to acknowledge that? Nothing. The Soviets have overtaken the British and the Americans as merchant shipping powers. In the early 1970s we had about twice as much merchant shipping as the Soviet Union. By the 1990s the Soviet fleet will be twice that of the United Kingdom, at the very least, and, I suggest, every one will be an auxiliary to the Soviet navy.
The comments of the Select Committee on Defence in its report on the 1986 defence statement demand an answer during this debate, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be good enough to give it. Paragraph 104 states:
"At this stage we observe that there appears still to be no check on the genuine availability of merchant ships far defence purposes".
The Committee continued:

721
"the statistics in SDE 86 take no account of the UK requirement for economic shipping, carrying essential civil supplies in a time of tension or war."
Paragraph 105 states:
"There appears to be little regard in the formation of Government policy as a whole for the implications, in terms of our national freedom of action, of dependence on other nations for merchant shipping."
Happily, there appears to be growing recognition of the worries about those implications. I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter during business questions a week ago. A number of us have tried in speeches, questions, letters and pamphlets to make certain that the House, and thereby the country, is made better aware of the dangers. A motion on this subject is on the Order Paper. It has been signed by 24 right hon. and hon. Members and, I dare say, will be signed by 10 times that number during this Parliament's lifetime.
The establishment of the all-party parliamentary maritime group is evidence of the serious concern in the House. It is good that the Select Committee on Transport accepted the maritime group's recommendations and is inquiring into the subject. So, over the years, growing anxiety has been clearly expressed in the House, yet the apparent complacency of my right hon. and hon. Friends is remarkable. Witness the assertion by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in reply to my question at the end of November 1986:
"There are sufficient vessels to meet Ministry of Defence requirements."—[Official Report, 25 November 1986; Vol. 106, c. 158.]
But that is demonstrably untrue. Who on earth gives my right hon. Friend such misleading advice?
The 1986 "Statement on the Defence Estimates" said:
"Because the United Kingdom's merchant fleet is of great importance for defence needs, the scale of its recent decline has caused some concern."
Elsewhere, great concern is the order of the day. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), in a letter a few days ago to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, quoted the minute written by the chief of naval staff after the conference at Greenwich. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) chaired one of the sessions. The deep interest that he continues to take in these maritime matters is appreciated by the whole House. The chief of naval staff wrote:
"the Conference concluded that the United Kingdom could no longer take a sizeable Merchant Fleet for granted and that this has severe implications from a defence viewpoint".
He continued:
"the mood of the Conference was sombre".
An unclassified document issued by NATO, a communique following the 38th plenary meeting of the planning board for ocean shipping held at the end of September and beginning of October 1986 in Washington, stated:
"The Board was seriously concerned at the continuing decline in the number of ships registered under the flags of members of the Alliance … The Board concluded that for certain categories of ships the situation is already critical".
That is surely sufficient evidence.
I state as a fact that the present attenuated size of the British merchant fleet and of NATO fleets now puts our country's defence strategy and that of the NATO Alliance at serious risk. Ministers who have allowed this to occur or who have connived at its continuance merit the censure of the House and the nation's complaint.
722
Let us be frank about the situation. There is a crisis. It is no good pretending that it does not exist. It will not go away. The shortage of ships in the merchant marine in Britain and in the NATO countries has grave implications from the defence viewpoint. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members are also very worried about the economic implications in Britain of this decline in the British Merchant Navy from the point of view of employment, shipbuilding and ship repairing, finance, insurance and markets generally, engineering, and so on. There is no argument about the causes—they are well understood and have been clearly defined—nor is there much doubt about what could be done by way of remedy, internationally, within the European community and domestically. It is to be hoped that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will give attention to the early-day motion on the Order Paper.
Many other people apart from me have proposed remedies. This is perhaps not the occasion to discuss them in detail or to argue the merits of one against another. It is, however, right to say for the House as a whole and for the nation that it is urgent that the Government formulate a clear policy of support for the British Merchant Navy. If anything, that is overdue. It must be right that policies should be co-ordinated in Government. It must be recognised that differences of interest within Government—some 16 Departments of State have responsibility, in one way or another, for the Merchant Navy—inevitably lead to lack of leadership, as now. Without any doubt, the key is, first, to develop a profitable shipowning capacity and secondly, the co-ordination of international policies in the free world, especially the European Community.
The weakness of our Merchant Navy and of merchant fleets in Europe and in NATO is the Achilles heel of our defence. We can boast all we like about expenditure, about building new ships and about getting better weapons, but none of that matters if there is this particular weakness in the Merchant Navy, because the Royal Navy by itself is not credible.
Viscount Cranborne: I apologise for interrupting. As my right hon. Friend knows, I am strongly sympathetic to his viewpoint. Does he agree that it would be sensible to urge on our right hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence that any support that they can give the Merchant Navy should come not from the defence budget but from tax incentives or other Votes? The Ministry of Defence will be under considerable pressure in the coming years.
Sir Edward du Cann: I entirely agree. There is no question but that this nation, if it cared to give the leadership that it should give both within Europe and internationally, could fundamentally alter the whole climate within which the world merchant fleets are trading. I do not argue for subsidy or that money should be poured in; I do not argue that the service spend should be mitigated in any way; I am simply begging my right hon. and hon. Friends—who are my friends, and whom I trust and admire— to recognise that this is a most serious problem about which something must be done. Indeed, action is overdue.
I look to my right hon Friends, with the competence that they have, to decide that, from this moment on, they will take action, and to ensure that such action is effective.
5.40 pm
Mr. James Callaghan: It is a very great honour to introduce the Navy Estimates. Although the form of the debate today is not what it was previously, anyone who has the privilege of introducing the Estimates is to be congratulated. Indeed, I congratulate the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on the post that he occupies. Any of us who has had any connection with the Royal Navy, either through serving in it or through the Board of Admirality, has a lifelong affection that is never lost. It might sometimes cloud our judgment, although it will not cloud mine this afternoon. Whatever future post may be offered to the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure that he will always look back on his present post as one that has given him very great enjoyment.
As I look at the empty Benches in the Chamber, I cannot help but contrast that with the year—36 years ago—when I first had the privilege of introducing the Navy Estimates. The First Lord of the Admiralty was then in another place, but the debate was graced not only with the presence of the Prime Minister, but with that of Sir Winston Churchill, who sat on the Opposition Benches. They came to listen to the Parliamentary Secretary, and the Benches, if not full, were at least much more fully occupied than they are today. It is, perhaps, a sign of the decay that we have allowed to overtake our concept of our national role and responsibility that, today, there is a group of hon. Members talking to each other rather than to the House as a whole. Nevertheless, we must continue to make these speeches.
I want to follow the remarkable speech of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) and focus upon the unprecedented decline in the size, strength and manpower of Britain's Merchant Navy, and the serious consequences of that for our long-term security and national well-being.
Ministers sit on the Treasury Bench, and it appears to many of us that our arguments bounce off them. We can only hope that if that is the case—it is not a matter for humour, but a serious issue—we can at least alert public opinion to what is happening. Never in this century has our country had a smaller merchant fleet than it has today; never have we had fewer seafarers that we have today. Britain's shipping is suffering from a haemorrhage, with no signs of it being staunched. The actual disaster that is overtaking us is much worse than the forecasts that are made from time to time. Never has anyone been over-pessimistic about the problem.
Some 10 years ago—I make no apology for repeating the figures, which must be drummed in even though that means repeating speeches— Britain owned more than 1,600 ships of more than 500 gross tonnes. Twelve months ago, the figure had shrunk to 640; six months ago, it had shrunk to 552; and today, it is probably no more than 480. That is a loss of 25 per cent. of our shrunken fleet within the past 12 months.
Even so, we have not touched bottom. The director general of the General Council of British Shipping, Mr. Peter le Cheminant, has warned the Chancellor of the Exchequer that unless the current trend is reversed, the size of the mainland British fleet may be no larger than 100 ships within the next decade—shrunk from 1,600 to 480 in the past decade, and from 480 to 100 in the next.
Mr. le Cheminant is no wild lobbyist; he is a prudent and cautious man who formerly occupied a senior position
724
in the Cabinet secretariat. His figures would send a shudder through any Government who were less complacent than this Government are showing themselves to be. The consequence is that British ships are today carrying only 23 per cent. of British trade by weight and 36 per cent. by value. That, as the right hon. Member for Taunton said, has resulted in the employment of British seafarers declining from 74,000 10 years ago to less than 30,000 today, while Britain's sea transport account has deteriorated from a positive surplus of £141 million in 1980 to an enormous deficit of £1,157 million in 1985—a decline of some £1,000 million.
Most of the figures are not new. Right hon. and hon. Members, on both sides of the House, frequently led by the right hon. Member for Taunton, have dinned the facts into the deaf ears of Ministers month after month. I especially pay my respects to the right hon. Gentleman and the parliamentary maritime group for the manner and determination with which they have stuck to their task.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the alarm bells should sound. What about Drake's drum? If we cannot get that to sound the alarm, perhaps the next best thing would be to have Rudyard Kipling living at this time, writing an up-to-date version of his poem "Big Steamers", with As repeated last lines about their cargoes:
"Brought to you daily by all us big steamers, And if anyone hinders our coming, you'll starve."
Kipling's words were right then, and they are right today.
If nothing else touches Ministers, they should be touched by the dreadful deficit in sea transport of more than £1 billion. But no, the Chancellor has ignored it because of his uncovenanted benefit of being able to float on a huge barrel of oil and the revenue that it has provided. That will not last. When his successor turns again to British shipping to make good a balance of payments deficit—as has been done in the past—he will find that
the fleet has disappeared, sunk through complacency and inaction.
It is not enough for Ministers to excuse themselves on the ground that it is a worldwide affliction. Certainly Britain is not alone, but I would have expected a British Government, with their particular responsibility— as more than 90 per cent. of our trade depends upon shipping in a way that is unequalled in any other continental country—and with our island dependence on the sea, to have been in the forefront in demanding international action and in proposing remedies, both national and worldwide.
As the right hon. Member for Taunton said, many proposals exist. Some have been put to the Government; others are lying around waiting to be picked up, if only the Government would do so. Yet all that is dismissed in one complacent paragraph in the Defence Estimates White Paper, which states that the scale of decline of merchant shipping "has caused some concern"—at least there is some feeling in the body corporate— and that in conjunction with the Department of Transport defence Ministers will
"continue to monitor the situation closely."
That is a wonderful field of action into which the galvanised, dynamic Treasury Bench can leap. It is a disgrace if Ministers comment on that in only one out of 700 paragraphs in the defence statement.
Incidentally, where is the Secretary of State for Transport this afternoon? I know that Ministers are always trying to pass the buck, and the Ministry of

725
Defence shows little desire to pick up this hot potato. The Secretary of State for Transport gave a rather lame statement to the House before Christmas. He should be here to listen to the debate.
I should like to repeat what the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) said. What is missing in our scale of national priorities today is any sense of understanding that in maritime policy as a whole the Merchant Navy and the Royal Navy exist to serve and support each other.
A long time ago I suggested—it was dismissed—that the Prime Minister should take the chair at a Cabinet committee to co-ordinate our total maritime interests. I very much regret that that proposal has not been taken up. When I was Prime Minister I did not chair such a committee myself but asked Lord Peart to assume the chair of a committee for the direct purpose of such coordination. I advise the Minister that because of the terrible decline in our Merchant Navy the situation today is far more serious than it was seven or eight years ago.
Although Ministers seem to have some intellectual comprehension of the consequences of the expansion of the Soviet fleet, they show no signs of translating their apprehension into action, especially in relation to submarine strength. There will probably be little argument in the House that the most significant strategic development that has occurred since the second world war of 1939 to 1945 was when the Soviet Union reached parity with the United States in its strategic nuclear missile capacity. However, that being so, in my judgment, and I believe in the judgment of all hon. Members who study these matters, second only in strategic importance has been the enormous expansion of modern Soviet maritime capacity in total, with its ability to threaten allied reinforcements by its submarine fleet and to conduct amphibious operations in support of its land forces. In face of that, I confess the greatest concern at the inertia of the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Transport as they watch the collapse of our merchant fleet.
I am sorry to have to utter such platitudes yet again, but I repeat that the Merchant Navy has always been an essential element in Britain's defences. It has historically supplied the ships for carrying the food and materials that we need in time of war. In addition, many of its ships have been converted to become part of the fighting navy when needed. We should note that almost every major Soviet cargo ship today has the facilities for swift and easy conversion built into it when it is built and launched.
The Merchant Navy has supplied trained and hardy men who know the ways of the sea and who are skilled navigators and seamen. Those men were ready to shed their Merchant Navy uniform and to don the insignia of the Royal Navy when they were needed.
On any one day in a conventional war, 300 merchant ships would load and unload in British ports. To keep up the supply of our reinforcements would require 1,500 shiploads a month from across the Atlantic. Where will the ships and the experienced men be found if they are needed in future? The right hon. Member for Taunton has already given the answer and I cannot dissent from it. The ships and the men will not be there. As the right hon. Gentleman asked, even if we got ships from abroad, would their foreign crews be willing to sail them?
726
The number of qualified British seagoing officers serving in the Merchant Navy is one third of what it was 10 years ago. It is now 14,300 as against the previous figure of over 40,000. New recruits are not being taken in because of the absence of ships, nor are they being trained, so the future reservoir does not exist. The Estimates give the number of Merchant Navy cadets as 1,016, which is one fifth of what it was only four years ago. Then there were 5,000 young men, but now there are only 1,000. Nautical schools and training establishments have closed down. In my city of Cardiff, some excellent training facilities have been disbanded, the instructors have been dispersed, and the equipment is rusting.
Taking a ship to sea today is a highly skilled profession that requires technically trained deck, radio and engineer officers. The inherited skill and experience that enables Britain to produce some of the best seamen in the world is being lost. I warn the Government that once that skill is lost it cannot be recaptured in a period of months, because it must be passed on from generation to generation.
We have had some halfhearted talk from the Secretary of State for Transport about the possibility of establishing a Merchant Navy reserve to counter the severe shortage of qualified seafarers. However, there has been no word so far of whether the Government are prepared to establish the training facilities, to recompense the volunteers and to supply the administrative structure that would be needed. I have no wish to discourage the notion— I hope that it can be implemented— but the Government should be aware that those who study such matters warn that the rate of technological change in practice is such that officers soon get out of date when they leave the service and would need intensive and regular periods of training.
Of course, we would not face the task of supplying ourselves on our own. However, the Government should not draw too much comfort from the existence of a pool of NATO ships upon which they could call. I have already referred to the fact that the downward trend in shipping is worldwide, and the French, German, American, Dutch and Norwegian merchant navies all display declines in tonnage and men. However, there is a major difference. Our downward slide has been more precipitious and more disastrous than theirs—it is the biggest of the lot.
There is one gleam of light to which the right hon. Member for Taunton referred. The NATO planning board for ocean shipping has begun to take note of the matter. However, it has only begun to take note and I have not been able to see any action so far. At its meeting in September 1986, it expressed serious concern at the decline in the number of ships that would be available in time of war. As the right hon. Member for Taunton said, the board went further and, as a result of its study so far, it concluded—I repeat that it has done so slowly—that for certain types of ships the situation is already critical. Even worse, it went on to state that the situation is likely to deteriorate further unless steps are taken to reverse the decline. At its meeting, the NATO planning board called upon member states to formulate national shipping polices, and stressed the importance of the strategic value of national flag fleets.
How have the Government responded, or how do they intend to respond, to the alarm that has been sounded? So far, we have heard nothing. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will demand that the Minister who concludes

727
the debate gives some indication of the Government's policy, and of any action that they may have in mind or that they may try to cough up between now and 9.30. We have insufficient ships, inadequate numbers of men, dismantled training facilities and deserted shipyards, but there is no national policy to safeguard our security on the high seas.
I conclude by commenting on the importance of security. I regret that the argument about Trident has come to represent the difference on this issue, because I regard what has happened to the merchant fleet as being even more important. Although Trident is important—I have my own views on that— I do not wish to divert attention from what I am saying now by discussing it, because its day will come. [Interruption.] That day may come and some Conservative Members may be less interested in my analysis of that position than in scoring some party advantage.
We have heard a great deal from the Government about the importance of national security in other areas. It has led them to ban the unions at GCHQ and to raid the BBC in Scotland. The Prime Minister in an act of folly even despatched the Cabinet Secretary to the Antipodes to waste a month sitting in an Australian court in an attempt to ban Mr. Wright's book of memoirs—all high profile actions, costing nothing in hard cash. Yet, at the same time, the British ships and men that are vital for the real protection and security of our people and commerce in peace and war are disappearing from the oceans of the world. The ships are rusting and the men rotting.
By the time the Zircon satellite gets into the stratosphere there will hardly be any British ships for it to watch. What sense of proportion is that? Whatever may he thought of the activities of Mr. Duncan Campbell, who is not my favourite journalist, history may well record that the inertia and indifference of Ministers to the decline of British Merchant Navy did much more serious permanent damage to the security and safety of the British people than a journalist's premature disclosure of the existence of a spy satellite.
6 pm
Sir Patrick Wall: It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), whom I have admired and respected for many years for his contributions, not only to the House and the country, but to the Navy and Merchant Navy. I agree with every word that he said about the Merchant Navy.
Two senior Privy Councillors from both sides of the House have made their view clear, as they have been doing for the past three years: the Government have apparently done absolutely nothing. I hope that what has been said today will enter the heads of my right hon. Friends and that we will insist that action is taken. We are an island nation, although we are trying to build a Channel tunnel. That will not come for a long time, and it may be better to spend the money that is to be spent on it on refitting our Merchant Navy.
I wish that we could return to the old type of debate. In the old days we had a White Paper, a two-day debate on defence, followed by a debate on the Navy, Army and Air Force and we knew where we were. In February we cannot debate a White Paper which will be published in
728
the next month or two because we do not know what it will include, so presumably we are debating a White Paper which is a year old. That is nonsense.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) and I have just returned from discussing procurement with the Armed Services Committee of the Congress in Washington. The comparison between the way they discuss defence with the details that they go into and what we do reflects shamefully on us. At least we could get the sequence right, otherwise we are being asked to discuss matters in a vacuum.
I made my maiden speech on Navy Estimates 33 years ago, and as I shall be leaving the House at the general election this may be my last opportunity to speak on the Navy. As the House probably expects, I shall start with the Royal Marines. In my mind they are the best force in the world; factually, they are the most cost effective. They are part of the Royal Navy, and any idea of splitting from the Royal Navy would involve the abolition of the Royal Marines. I believe that they would far rather be abolished than turned into soldiers. In my time, two thirds of the corps were at sea, but now they are in commandos. The use to this nation of that maritime capability was proved only too clearly in the Falkland Islands.
I have just read a couple of books about the Falkland Islands campaign, and the morale boost of the commando forces' band was apparently enormous in RMS Canberra on the outward and return journeys. Moreover, the bandsmen served as stretcher bearers during the battles. I hope that the Royal Naval school of music will be kept separate from the other forces' schools, as I know they also wish it to be. I hope that this nonsensical business of putting three bands together in the same school has now been dropped.
Has action been taken on some of the minor but important lessons that we learnt from the Falkland Islands operation? I am thinking, first, of kits and boots. Both the Army and Royal Marines still march on their boots, but apparently 98 per cent. of the marines who returned from the Falkland Islands had damaged their feet. Most have recovered by now, but the boots were highly unsatisfactory as they let in water. The webbing equipment froze as the weather was so bad. Yet equipment borrowed from other nations, such as Norway, did not do so. There were no nightscopes for Milan, which proved itself in those operations. Has Milan, both in the Royal Marines and in the Army, now been fitted with proper nightscopes? Do the Royal Marines now have a Rapier battery attached, and has it been fitted with Blindfire, which it was not in the Falkland Islands? Those matters are raised time and again if one reads books on the operations in the Falklands. Have those lessons been learnt, and is action being taken?
The Royal Marines' primary role is amphibious warfare and they are dedicated more or less to the northern flank. The northern flank is of great importance, because the Russians would like elbow room from Murmansk, one of their bases on the Kola peninsula. If, in years to come, NATO appears to be weak, or the leadership in the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany was weaker than it is today, it is possible that the Soviet Union may attempt to take over northern Norway and then sit back and wait to see what happens. NATO commits each nation to the defence of the other. If, in those circumstances, the Norwegians were not helped, it would be the end of NATO.

729
That emphasises the importance of the northern flank and of Fearless and Intrepid. They are not only launch landing craft, and carry a couple of helicopters, but exercise command and control. We cannot build a merchant ship hull and expect it to exercise command and control off a hostile coast under air bombardment, as Fearless did in San Carlos water. They must be rebuilt or replaced by similar warships, rather than built from converted merchant ships.
I am glad that the losses from the Falklands have now been made up. However, I must emphasise, as I have already done through questions, that aircraft support ships are absolutely vital. Fearless and Intrepid can carry two or three Sea Kings, but an aircraft carrier is needed for an assault. We do not have any available. Recently I asked a question and was told that our three aircraft carriers were rarely used now for our marine forces. We need at least two aircraft support ships. They could be built from a merchant ship hull and, indeed, would probably have to be for cheapness. They would carry the helicopters from which an initial assault could be made.
Mr. Garrett: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not heard of Atlantic Conveyor, which was built on Tyneside, and which is primarily designed for the purpose that he is advocating. He should advocate that we build more of these ships.
Sir Patrick Wall: I have heard of the replacement for the old Atlantic Conveyor and I believe that it is far better than some of the existing Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships today. However, the ships that I am speaking about must be designed to carry several helicopters and their crews with briefing rooms, adequate maintenance facilities and so on. That cannot be duplicated with the logistics supply role, which is the main role of the Atlantic Conveyor.
I now turn to NATO and some of the naval problems facing NATO, that were discussed recently at the NATO Assembly. I have already mentioned the importance of the northern flank and the fact that a large number of the Soviet submarines that operate from Kola—numbering about 180—are nuclear propelled. These submarines are guided missile submarines—that is, anti-ship submarines— as well as ballistic missile and ordinary torpedo-carrying submarines. One should remember that the new commander-in-chief of the Soviet navy is a submariner, and we should recall what a change came over the German navy when Admiral Raeder, a submariner, took over. With the larger concentration of submarines, and with so few merchant ships, how will we defend the shipping lanes against real submarines rather than the German U-boats which have to resurface to recharge their batteries?
The Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic has told us, time and time again, that he is some 50 per cent. short of escorts. Escorts must be provided for the strike fleets, battle groups and the convoys, and SACLANT needs far more ships than we have at present. That is why some of us are so concerned about the type 23 destroyers. If my right hon. Friend the Minister is to keep his promise to give us 50 frigates and destroyers, three type 23s must be ordered each year. However, such orders will only replace the older ships. My hon. Friends and I are rather worried when we hear the word "about". Previously, the promise was 50, but now my right hon. Friend promises "about" 50. I appreciate that Ministers must have some leeway, but
730
this is a serious matter. I am aware that SACLANT is pressing hard for these orders and I hope that my right hon. Friend will see that they are placed, presumably immediately after the publication of the White Paper.
We are also short of maritime patrol aircraft. Some 250 of such aircraft are available to NATO, but three to five of them are needed for any submarine that gets beyond the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom gap and into the Atlantic. NATO is short of some 100 of these aircraft.
In the past 18 months the Soviets have shown us that they can deploy 50 per cent. of their northern fleet in three days. They can put a submarine barrier across the GIUK gap in three days. That shows us how important the use of warning time must be to get our forces into position and reinforce those positions before the balloon goes up. Once the GIUK gap is breached the convoys will not get through. We need more escorts, helicopters and maritime aircraft if the Soviets are to be checked. If the gap is penetrated the war will be a short one because there will be no food or ammunition to supply the forces and the people of Europe.
In the annual discussions that the North Atlantic Assembly— NATO's Parliament— has with NATO's three main commanders-in-chief, we are told that the balance is swinging against NATO, especially at sea, but little is done. How long will the balance go on swinging, year after year, before it tips over? I have a shrewd suspicion that it will not be much longer.
Why is there such an imbalance? The combined gross national product of NATO is 2·5 per cent. greater than that of the Warsaw pact. The combined population of NATO is one and a half times that of the USSR. If we were spending anything like the Russians spend on defence, all our fears of being suddenly attacked and wiped out would disappear. Why is it? We spend too much on ourselves. We spend too much on social security and other matters that we cannot afford. If war took place—I do not think it will—all such spending would go for a burton anyway.
I had intended to refer to the Merchant Navy, but having heard the excellent speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) and the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth I shall not do so. I, will, however quote two sets of figures. There would be 600 ships a day in the Atlantic on any one day in wartime. British figures of our presence in the Atlantic have been quoted, and instead I shall quote some NATO figures. Between 1980 and 1985, Norwegian shipping went down from 12 million to 7 million gross registered tonnes; Greek shipping went down from 11 million tonnes to 9 million tonnes; French shipping went down from 8 million tonnes to 4 million tonnes; Spanish shipping from 5 million tonnes to 3 million tonnes; Danish shipping from 3 million tonnes to 2 million tonnes; West German shipping from 3 million tonnes to 1·5 million tonnes; and Dutch shipping from 2·3 million tonnes to 1 million tonnes. American shipping remained more or less static, although much of its shipping went under flags of convenience. However, it is the only nation in NATO that maintains a large merchant navy reserve of both ships and men. It is suggested that we should follow that practice.
The hon. Member for Attercliffe and myself have recently had discussions with the Armed Services Committee in America. I assure the House that the Americans realise that co-operation and standardisation are as essential for them as they are for us. The United States Administration, as well as United States industry,

731
will try to increase this co-operation and standardisation. The trouble lies with the American services. They do not want their weapons systems or ammunitions to be built anywhere except in America.
Torpedoes highlight the problem. The Select Committe on Defence and the North Atlantic Assembly have struggled for years to get a NATO torpedo. We have the best detection system in the world, at the front end, in our two new torpedoes, the heavyweight and the lightweight. The Americans have the best propulsion system—ours is
too slow—and the obvious answer is to marry the two systems. That way we would have a NATO torpedo. However, the American navy said no. Now we have two new British torpedoes—Sting Ray and Spearfish two American torpedoes—one heavy weight and one light weight—a French one, a German one and an Italian
one. One can appreciate the confusion that has been caused and the money that has been wasted.
Recently I visited Garretts in Phoenix, Arizona where experiments are being held regarding lithium-fuelled stored chemical energy propulsion—SCEPS. The experiments relate to the development of a closed thermal engine. Are we considering such experiments, which seem the answer for the future propulsion of torpedoes? We should surely consider those developments carefully.
With regard to air defence, I am glad that we have Goalkeeper in the carriers, but it will take three years to get it fitted. What about the type 42 and type 23s? Will they be armed with Goalkeeper, or will they rely on Phalanx, a 20mm short-range weapon? This weapon is being upgraded by the Americans as it is not much use against today's modern aircraft. The lesson of the Falklands is that point defence is vital, and point defence must be at a reasonable range with a heavier shell.
In the next decade I believe that if we keep up our guard there will be no war—nuclear or conventional. I believe that Mr. Gorbachev is much more interested in the economy of the Soviet Union and trying to improve it than in attacking Europe. There is always a danger that if the men in the Kremlin are faced with the choice of the disintegration of the Soviet empire or aggression, they will choose the latter. The other danger that we face all the time is subversion. Such subversion is carried on by Soviet agents or people unknowingly helping those agents. That can be extremely dangerous and it is spreading in Europe and in the United States.
Of great importance—I do not wish to end on a controversial note—is the Labour party's defence policy—unilateralism without gaining anything in return. It plans to throw the Yanks out. That appals my colleagues—including many on the Left—in the North Atlantic Assembly. They continually vote against—
Mr. Garrett: We would not throw the Yanks out.
Sir Patrick Wall: Labour Members do not intend to throw the Yanks out, but will tell them to take their nuclear weapons out, to take the F111s away and shut up Holy Loch. Does the Labour party think that the Americans would then stay here? Of course not, they would go home to America. The Leader of the Opposition was told that when he went to the United States. I believe that he is going there again. I hope that he will, because the Americans are getting quite violent on this subject. Many say that if the Labour party comes to power and implements its policy the Americans will withdraw from
732
Europe, and we shall then come under the Kremlin, without Mr. Gorbachev having to move a soldier or a frigate.
6.20 pm
Mr. John Cartwright: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall). He and I have been colleagues in the North Atlantic Assembly since 1976 and he was an extremely effective and energetic president of the assembly for a couple of years.
The hon. Gentleman always brings to these debates expertise and a sense of commitment to British maritime power. I do not always agree with everything that he says, but I recognise and respect the strength of his views and I endorse the action that he has been taking over a long period to generate joint procurement and greater standardisation within NATO.
I understand that an inquiry is being undertaken by the Ministry of Defence to discover how HMS Splendid lost its towed array sonar equipment. We are told that the incident happened between 1 and 15 January this year. There are obvious difficulties about the Government providing details of submarine patrols, but some statement is essential. If we do not get clarification, rumours will continue to abound. I cannot be the only hon. Member who has had suggestions put to him by sources not far distant from members of the crew of that vessel.
It is highly unlikely that the reports in some newspapers are correct. The idea that a Soviet Typhoon submarine would have deliberately severed the towed array sonar equipment is extremely implausible. Even if the equipment could have been recovered—which is a very big "if"—it would have been of limited benefit to the Soviet Union.
It seems much more likely that another suggestion put to me contains the basis of the truth. HMS Splendid may have been operating under the cover of a merchant vessel whose anchor severed the cable of the towed array sonar. Whatever the facts of the matter, it is important that we examine the operations of our attack submarines.
I have had only limited experience of travelling in British and American SSBNs, but I recognise that submariners are very special people indeed, and I endorse the tribute that the Minister paid to those who operate our ballistic missile submarines.
Those in our attack submarines, who have the vital task of tracking Soviet ballistic missile submarines, also carry out an important task on our behalf. It is vital to be sure that we are not asking our submariners to undertake unreasonable risks. It has been suggested to me that the HMS Splendid incident is not an isolated occurrence and that there have been similar incidents involving HMS Spartan and HMS Sceptre. If the inquiry shows a need for a review of procedures and methods of operation, the Minister should not hesitate to say so and to carry out the review.
Mr. Garrett: The hon. Gentleman knows much more about the submarine service than I do, and perhaps he can tell me whether the HMS Splendid incident put at risk the lives of the men in the submarine. If it did, that should surely be a major factor in establishing the need for an inquiry.
Mr. Cartwright: That is what I was trying to say. Perhaps I was not as clear as I should have been. I was

733
saying that submariners in attack submarines, who are tracking Soviet ballistic missile submarines, have a difficult but essential job. I hope that the Minister will give us an undertaking that if those men are put at risk as a result of what they are being required to do, their procedures and methods of operation will be reviewed. We want that job carried out, but we do not want our submariners taking unreasonable risks on our behalf.
The alliance parties have consistently opposed the Government's obsession with taking the royal dockyards out of Civil Service administration and creating an agency management company to run those vital services. We still believe that if the Government are convinced of the need for change, a trading fund within the Civil Service offers a far better solution. We fear that the interests of the Royal Navy and of our national security may be put at risk if the Government give up control over the repair and refitting of warships.
We hope that even at this late stage it is possible for the trading fund option to be pursued at Devonport, even if it is too late to do that at Rosyth. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) that with goodwill among the unions and the management they could get around a table to discuss the possiblities.
We hope that such a solution could retain Devonport as a unified industrial enterprise instead of its being divided up, as will happen under the Government's proposals, with the Government owning the assets and private owners being responsible for the management. The Government's proposal will certainly involve problems when new capital investment is needed in the 1990s. There is no guarantee that the Government will provide that capital, and as the private operators have only a seven-year contract, they have little incentive to go in for major capital restructuring.
We believe that Government control of the dockyards should be restored at the earliest opportunity, in the interests of the Navy and the nation. That does not mean that we are committed to renationalisation. We believe that a trading fund option offers the best way of protecting the interests of the work force and the national interests.
An open government document on the alternatives to Trident appeared last week. The timing of its publication is slightly odd. We had an open government document in 1980, setting out the Government's proposals to buy the original Trident system, and in 1982 we had an updating document which committed the Government to purchasing Trident D5. Suddenly and magically, five years later, we get a document on the alternatives to Trident. It is not even a decently printed document. It has all the hallmarks of an extremely rushed job and was perhaps not entirely unconnected with a function that took place at the Barbican on Saturday. It seems to some of us to be a major misuse of public funds. Conservative Members constantly complain, often with great justification, of misuse of ratepayers' money by some Labour councils, but the Government are doing the same thing in introducing this document at this time.
Mr. Archie Hamilton: Has the alliance not always said that it has been unable to make a decision on the
734
alternative to Trident because of the lack of information? We have now provided that information and the hon. Gentleman complains about it.
Mr. Cartwright: If the Minister had provided the sort of serious information on which a firm decision could be taken, nobody would have been happier than alliance Members, but for him to try to suggest that this paltry, tatty, unconvincing, rushed-out document owes anything to open government is nonsense.
The alliance believes that Trident is not an appropriate replacement for Polaris. We have always said that Trident is not a minumum deterrent. It offers a massive potential increase in firepower. If the full potential is used, 896 warheads could be deployed, compared with the 192 of Polaris.
We know that Trident has vastly greater accuracy and therefore greater potential against hardened military targets. We do not need that from a minimum nuclear deterrent. We know that Trident is a fully MIRVed system, as opposed to the Polaris system, whose warheads are not independently targetable. It is therefore an extremely powerful and sophisticated weapon system which in no way could be described as a minimum deterrent. To be fair, the Government have always said that the full potential of Trident would not be used. That raises the question as to why one wants to buy a weapons system as powerful and sophisticated as Trident if one does not want to use it to the full extent. It is rather like buying a Rolls-Royce to go down to the pub once a week on a Saturday night.
The Secretary of State told us on 3 December that the increase in warhead numbers
"at most would be about two and a half times".—[Official Report, 3 December 1986; Vol. 106, c. 998.]
The Minister made the same point earlier today. The so-called open Government document tells us that the number of warheads is classified, so we do not know the actual number, but we know of the suggestion in the open Government document that there will be a maximum of 128 per boat. That gives a maximum of 512 on the four-boat force, compared with the 192 warheads provided for in Polaris. There is no information in the document about the kilotonnage of the warheads and not a shred of evidence about their power and destructive capability. We know that the United States has rated its Trident warheads at 465 kilotonnes—twice the original kilotonnage of Polaris warheads, which was 200 kilotonnes. We know that the Chevaline modernisation has substantially reduced the kilotonnage of the Polaris warheads. There is thus a substantial increase in the number of warheads and each warhead has substantially increased destructive power.
The Government argue that they need that extra capacity because of improved Soviet defences. We are often told by the Government that the Soviets possess the only deployed ABM system in the world, which is true, but that system is deployed around Moscow. One has to ask why we constantly allow ourselves to be obsessed by what has come to be called the "Moscow criterion." If one wanted to do so, it would be perfectly possible to inflict unacceptable damage on the Soviet Union without trying, in the awful jargon, to "take out" Moscow.
There is independent evidence to suggest that the Government are going somewhat over the top in terms of the current modernisation of what they like to call the

735
minimum deterrent. The reputable and widely read American journal Scientific American produced in August 1986 a detailed assessment of British and French nuclear systems. It accepts that even on the "Moscow criterion" the Government are going far further than they need in terms of the fire power that Trident will provide. The experts looked at a computer model to estimate the levels of damage that British and French nuclear strategic forces could inflict on the Soviet Union. First, they looked at the existing Polaris system with its Chevaline update. They estimated that
"potential casualties from a British nuclear attack would range anywhere from six to 21 million dead; concomitant losses in the production base would range from 5 to 15 per cent."
In anybody's terms, that is unacceptable damage to the Soviet Union.
The experts then looked at the problem that seems to worry the Government—the improvements in Soviet ABM systems between now and 1990. They accepted that it would certainly reduce the impact of the existing Polaris Chevaline system. Their assessment was that there would be between 3 million and 8 million fatalities and that about 5 per cent. of the production base would be destroyed. When they examined the potential of Trident 2, however, based on the Government's maximum of 512 warheads, they discovered the potential of Britain's strategic nuclear deterrent:
"Britain would be able to inflict between 24 and 68 million Soviet fatalities and to incapacitate up to half of the Soviet production base. Given the overwhelming number of warheads in the planned British Trident force, the effectiveness of the Moscow ABM system would have little impact on overall damage levels."
That shows that the Government's Trident proposals have far more fire power than is necessary for an effective independent deterrent.
Mr. Stanley: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman develop his case against Trident. Does he recall the interview given in "This Week, Next Week" by his right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) on 16 November, in which his right hon. Friend said that one of the options that he was considering was a very much reduced Trident missile with reduced deployment? Is that still one of the Social Democratic party options?
Mr. Cartwright: I shall come to the options later. I notice that the Minister did not quote the words but just gave his general recollection. My general recollection is that my right hon. Friend was talking about options that might be available to the Government if they genuinely wanted a minimum deterrent. The possibility of Trident deployment is not one of the options considered by the alliance.
I shall now deal with the details in the open Government document and the alternatives that the Government have examined. The problem is that all the alternatives have been examined on the basis of the fallacy that we need this massive capacity—a capacity to destroy half the Soviet Union's industry and to kill up to 68 million Soviet citizens. We simply do not accept that. We take the view that all the alternatives have been examined from the wrong starting point and from the basis of a false yardstick.
For example, the open government document suggests that to produce the fire power of Trident we would need
736
some 400 sea-launched cruise missiles on 11 dedicated submarines. Since we do not need the fire power of Trident, that argument collapses immediately. I have argued with some strength that we do not need the ability to destroy half the Soviet Union's industry, nor to kill 68 million Soviet people. That is not a minimum deterrent in anybody's language. If we need 400 sea-launched cruise missiles, where does that leave NATO, which needs only 464 ground-launched missiles for the purposes of flexible response? If our aim is a genuine minimum deterrent, we can manage with far fewer sea-launched cruise missiles, if that is the option which finally meets our needs.
The Government argue that cruise is somehow vulnerable in the face of improving Soviet defences. The Government document mentions the look-down, shoot-down fighters, the surface-to-air missiles and the rest of the Soviet defensive capability, which is certainly improving. But if cruise is as vulnerable as the Government suggest, why are they so keen to rest NATO's flexible response on ground-launched cruise missiles which are still being deployed? The deployment is not yet complete. Why is the Prime Minister so nervous about the removal of cruise from Europe if it is such an ineffective weapon against improving Soviet defences?
Why is the United States investing so massively in cruise missile systems? By January 1986, 21 Los Angeles submarines had cruise Tomahawks fitted, as did some surface ships. By the mid-1990s, all 101 American attack submarines will have Tomahawks fitted, as will 82 surface ships. The United States air force will be deploying air-launched cruise missiles on B52s. By 1990 about 180 B52s will be equipped. The United States is investing massively in cruise missiles for the future but the Government tell us that if we were to do the same we would have a weapon system uniquely vulnerable to Soviet defences.
The Government apparently know little or nothing, and care even less, about the American advanced cruise missile project. They refer in passing to the application of stealth technology. The advanced cruise missile project involves not only the incorporation of stealth technology but an extended range for the cruise missile—between 3,200 km and 6,000 km compared with the 2,400 km at present. It involves the possibility of adding electronic counter-measures and an improved guidance system to increase the accuracy of cruise. It must be an effective weapon system or the United States would hardly be investing in it so heavily.
The Government's problem is that they have all their eggs in the Trident basket. The Minister took my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) to task earlier in the debate for suggesting that the present friendly relationship between the Prime Minister and the United States President may not guarantee that any future United States Administration would deliver the Trident missile. It is worth bearing in mind that Trident has only just had its first trials and is not due to be in service in the United States until 1989.
There are others who have doubts about whether it is sensible to depend on the total commitment of future Administrations in the United States to provide Trident. For instance, on 24 January doubts were raised by the defence correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, which is not known for its unswerving support of the alliance parties. He raised the spectre of what he called "enforced nuclear

737
disarmament". He went on to talk of cruise as a sensible option to explore. In his conclusion, he came out more strongly in favour of Anglo-French co-operation, saying:
"To work towards the creation of what would be a genuinely independent Anglo-French deterrent would be the best of our available choices."
The choice is basically between a cruise missile system and Anglo-French co-operation. That decision will have to be taken swiftly after an election, but it has to be taken in the light of the important and available facts. Those facts include the progress of arms control, the development of ballistic missile defences, the advice of the chiefs of staff, and detailed assessments of those parts of the Trident programme that can be modified for use with a different system. When we have all that essential information, we shall make our final choice, but the choice of system is not so important as the objective. Our objective is clear—that the alliance will maintain an effective minimum deterrent until it can be negotiated away in return for worthwhile concessions from the Soviet Union. Those worthwhile concessions would have to enhance British security, and, indeed, the security of our European partners. That, in my view, and in the view of the alliance, is the effective dual track approach that the British people want—sound defence and sensible disarmament.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that I have no authority to limit the length of speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock, but if hon. Members were to limit their speeches to 12 minutes between now and the winding-up speeches, everyone who has been present during the debate would be able to speak.
6.42 pm
Mr. Neville Trotter: For the life of me, I cannot understand how an Anglo-French missile would be truly independent. It seems to me that it would be wholly reliant on the French. I should have thought that that was an unwise move. The Americans are investing in cruise missiles for the present generation. We are investing in a system that must remain viable in 20 years time. That is an important factor in the decision that we have to make.
I shall not follow the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) down that road, because I should like to reinforce the excellent speeches by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) and the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) about the serious decline in the Western merchant navies. It is a problem not just for our own Merchant Navy, as has been said by my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman; all the NATO merchant navies are facing the same disastrous decline. At the Sealink conference in the United States last year it was noticeable that ever-increasing concern was expressed from both sides of the Atlantic about the reduction in this vital part of our defence strength.
It is all very well to talk about a pool of NATO ships. The pool is rapidly disappearing. There may have been enough ships even quite recently, but the decline is continuing at a rapid rate. It is high time that all the NATO countries paid more attention to this serious weakness. The problem is the fact that our shipowners are
738
running commercial firms in very difficult industrial circumstances. The general freight rates are no higher now than they were nine or 10 years ago. It is not surprising that, against such a background, the low-cost Third world crews are enabling their owners to obtain cargoes which Western shipowners cannot afford to carry.
The shippers and freight forwarders of the Western world will go for what is cheapest in deciding who will carry their cargoes. They have no regard to a crisis in NATO or to the need for war reserves of merchant ships. The House must press on the Government the need for action to be taken to help to prevent the further decline of our Merchant Navy. The specialist vessels are disappearing, such as the ships that would be needed for minesweeping, the tankers that would be required in a crisis for replenishing Navy vessels, and so are the cargo ships that would bring the war reinforcements across the Atlantic and provide the vital supplies for our civilian population. Economic forces are rapidly achieving what the U-boats failed to achieve in two wars.
I welcome the plans proposed by the Secretary of State for Transport for a Merchant Navy reserve of trained manpower and his suggestion of contributions to the extra costs of United Kingdom manning compared with ships manned with Third-world crews. However, I impress most strongly on the House the need for the Chancellor to give financial help to the British shipowners. There is no suggestion of funds being found by the Ministry of Defence to help to save our Merchant Navy, but the Chancellor can play his part. He must give the modest help, for which the General Council of British Shipping is looking in investment assistance to our Merchant Navy owners, to help to halt the decline, which is now reaching such serious proportions.
I should now like to concentrate on the ship ordering programe. The House is well aware of my long-standing interest and involvement in the shipbuilding and marine equipment industries. I pay tribute to the Ministry of Defence at Bath and the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors. That body, about which little is heard in the Chamber, is a world leader in many directions. It has led the world in GRP—glass reinforced plastic—mine countermeasure vessels. It has distinguished itself with new propulsion systems, and above all in the creation of our nuclear hunter-killer submarines. Even now, a new engine is being developed for the new class of SSN which we shall see in a few years' time. One cannot stress too strongly the importance to the Navy of the 18 hunter-killer nuclear-powered submarines that we shall possess when the present programme is completed. Only the two superpowers have ships of equal ability—indeed, they are magnificent vessels of great capability.
On the frigate programme, previous speakers have referred to their worry about lack of orders. I should like to re-emphasise that concern. How many frigates the Navy needs each year must depend on the lifespan of the frigates in service, and that depends on the extent to which they are given a major refit during their lives. I understand that it is becoming easier to reprogramme the weapon systems on modern frigates compared with old ones, so to some extent refits are more practical than they were some years ago, but at the end of the day the Navy must not be saddled with too many older ships. The age profile for the future will not be right unless we order a programme of frigates in the near future.

739
I am sure that we need to order at least two and half frigates a year—preferably three, but at least two and half. Regard should be paid to the full life cost, because capital costs now on warship building will result in operating savings in the future. The new ships are more economical than the old ones, especially in that they have a substantially smaller crew. In the long run that will lead to a saving over the cost of the life of the ship.
I should like to refer to the need to replace the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships. The House knows of the battle last year over the order for the auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel. She is to be a massive vessel—one and a half times the size of the carrier Ark Royal. It has long been understood that there is a need for six of these vessels for the Navy. So far, one has been ordered, and I believe that Swan Hunter will obtain the order for the second in the not too distant future. However, we must go beyond those two. The Government should commit themselves now to a programme of six AORs, which are essential for the upkeep of the Navy in the years ahead.
I welcome the decision that has been taken to retain our amphibious cabability and to renew our amphibious ships. Swan Hunter is engaged on the design contract for a possible major refit of the two landing platform docks, Fearless and Intrepid. I hope that the Minister can assure us that shortly there will also be a study into the possible replacement of those ships as an alternative to their longterm refit. Those ships need to be modernised or replaced by the mid-1990s. We must make steady progress with our plans if this time scale is to be met.
I now turn to consider our landing ships logistics. The Sir Galahad was recently launched at Swan to replace the vessel that was tragically lost in the Falklands. What of the other landing ships? Will the existing ships be given a mid-life refit, or will they be replaced by new build? If they are to he refitted, I suggest that this should be done in series. It would he more sensible and economical for all four ships to be refitted at the same yard one after the other. However, I believe that it would be better to replace them with new ships which would be better and more capable. The new Sir Galahad has much more capability than the old vessel that it replaced. There is thus a possible need for a future programme for four new landing ships logistics.
The main need for new construction at the moment is for the ASS or aviation support ships. These acronyms do not convey adequately the nature of the ship that we are discussing. With regard to the ASS, we are considering a carrier, a very large major capital ship for the Navy. I am sure that this is the most important naval requirement at the moment. Only a carrier of this nature operating helicopters can offer the necessary capability to the Royal Marines for either an assault landing or, as would be more likely, for a landing in the north of Norway, in most inhospitable territory in the Arctic, where no port facilities are available.
The Government have wisely recognised the need to retain an amphibious capability. If that is the case, that need can be properly provided for only by ordering an ASS helicopter carrier. She would be a specialist ship of great importance to the Navy and could be provided either by building new or by converting a second-hand container ship. I believe that better value would be obtained from building a new ship. Such a ship would be a major and very necessary addition to the strength of the Royal Navy, and I cannot stress too strongly to Ministers the need to build such a vessel.
740
I referred earlier to the need to consider the through-life cost of a ship, the initial capital cost against the lower running costs of modern vessels. I want also to stress the need to prevent overstretching the manpower strength of the Royal Navy. It is not sensible to provide an artificial limit on the number of people serving. Discretion should be given to those running the Navy to allow them to exceed that figure if that is necessary.
In the long run, the problem will solve itself as new ships with smaller crews come into service. In the meantime, however, there is a danger of the Navy being overstretched. We must not be unfair to those who serve so magnificently in the crews of our vessels. They are ambassadors to the world. In his opening remarks my right hon. Friend the Minister referred to the GLOBAL deployment. That was a wonderful goodwill cruise to 33 ports in 26 countries. I also pay tribute to the way the cruise served as a shop window for the United Kingdom defence equipment industry. I am pleased to say that I have heard many tributes paid by the industry to the excellent efforts made by the admiral and his squadron during their round-the-world voyage.
If through artificial manpower limits we ask too much of our seamen we will be in danger of having an increasing problem with the retention rate. The position is far better now than it was under the previous Labour Government, as my right hon. Friend the Minister explained. However, the problem will exist if we are not careful, and we must ensure that there are enough men in the service to man our ships.
The mixed port crewing of ships has in itself led to considerable pressure on crews. When a ship arrives at its home port, many of the crew are far from their homes. In the old days, each ship was manned entirely from Devonport, Portsmouth or Chatham. That is no longer the case. A ship which has its home port at Rosyth for example, may have a crew most of whom live on the south coast. Even if a ship is home-ported in Portsmouth, many of the crew would live in or near Devonport. This separation and consequent travel puts extra strain on crews and is a further factor which should be borne in mind when deciding the manpower strength.
6.54 pm
Mr. Dick Douglas: It is not my policy this evening to follow the comments of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter). We have had a very interesting and stimulating debate. The Minister of State in his introductory remarks, painted a glowing picture of ordering performance. However, I want to follow the general theme raised by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) about the need for a maritime strategy.
This evening we are examining the various roles of t he Royal Navy and the equipment and manpower that it needs to perform its task. As I do not believe that we can examine the Royal Navy on its own, I intend to extend the area of the debate to consider the merchant service and the back-up facilities in the royal dockyards which supply a vital service in keeping the Navy operational.
We are well through the decade of the 1980s and we should therefore be examining what our maritime resources will look like in the 1990s and into the year 2000.

741
Reference has already been made to the decline of the merchant marine. The second report of the Select Committee on Defence 1985–86 referred to the fact that the
"availability of merchant shipping for defence purposes remains a matter for concern."
The Select Committee's concern is given further support by an examination of the views of the General Council of British Shipping and we have already heard allusions to that in the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Taunton and others and from the trade unions involved in shipping.
The president of the General Council of British Shipping is on record as forecasting:
"on the best case assumptions, the UK fleet would in all probability be reduced to around 500 ships of 10 million tons deadweight by 1990 and to 400 ships of around 8 million tons deadweight by 1995. On a worst case assumption, there would be 400 ships of 11 million tons deadweight in 1990 and 200 ships of around 5 million tons deadweight in 1995."
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has said that there is an even more severe drop in tonnage in prospect. The view has clearly been put by the president of the General Council of British Shipping that the worst case assumption was "the more plausible".
The decline, real and anticipated, is made the more startling if we consider—albeit a peak year—1975 as a base. That showed the British maritime tonnage at 1,614 ships and about 50 million tonnes deadweight. The prospect is therefore that over a period of 20 years we should have lost 90 per cent. of our merchant fleet in tonnage terms. As an island nation dependent on the sea for essential imports, our merchant marine is ceasing to be of any significance.
The startling effect of that has already been referred to in terms of the balance of payments for sea trades which was in slight surplus in 1975, but has now a massive deficit of well over £1 billion. With regard to employment, we have seen a decline. Today those on the General Council of British Shipping register—the main source of manpower to the over-500 tonnes fleet—shows a fall from 74,000 in 1976 to 33,000 by the end of 1985. The right hon. Member for Taunton said that the current figure is 30,000.
The Government's response has been related to calling for reports, suggestions of measures to consider the costs incurred in joining vessels overseas and a proposal to create a Merchant Naval Reserve. These are interesting proposals, but they are in no way adequate to meet the challenge of decline. In my view, they are rather like taking an egg cup to clear the bilges of the QE2.
Before considering the Royal Navy of the future, I want to consider the position of British ships and personnel who are placed in danger by international conflicts such as the Iran-Iraq war. Members of the Select Committee on Defence recently paid a visit to the Gulf of Hormuz and witnessed some of the operations of the Armilla patrol. Great credit is due to the support given to Gulf shipping by the Royal Navy, but I hope that the Minister, when he replies, can say some more about the nature of these operations, even in advance of the investigation by the Select Committee.
I doubt whether the nature of the escort is adequate. Further, surely there should be a great reluctance in accepting that the Omanis, the United States, the French
742
and ourselves should bear the costs of ensuring free, innocent passage of tankers when the major beneficiaries are the Japanese, who make no contribution.
Much reference has been made in the debate to the strategic deterrent. I do not have enough time to go into the details of why the nation chose to embark on the production of nuclear weapons. Many of the reasons relate to how Ministers in Governments of both political colours saw the United Kingdom's international political role and have little to do with strategic defence considerations. I concede that, like drugs, once acquired nuclear weapons are difficult to give up. But we have reached a stage in our international diplomatic and economic relations, which coincides with the growing obsolescence of our Polaris boats, where a decision to continue being a nuclear power would be against our economic interest and our strategic role in the NATO Alliance.
I do not argue that the West as a whole should give up the nuclear deterrent. I am arguing that a so-called United Kingdom independent nuclear deterrent adds little to the West's deterrent posture. On that point, I plead in aid the recent speech of the Foreign Secretary to the International Institute of Strategic Studies. Dealing with the defence that we need, he said:
"The West is faced by the Soviet Union's vast nuclear arsenal. The West must, therefore, have a nuclear capability of its own … the West's nuclear weapons have another function too. They impress on the Soviet Union that the West might respond to an unprovoked attack not merely with conventional weapons but also with nuclear weapons."
All the stress of this section of an interesting speech is on the West as a whole and does not argue the case for a United Kingdom nuclear deterrent. When he comes to that point, the argument is not convincing.
I have a question for the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), who is very learned in these affairs. In what circumstances can he imagine the United Kingdom using a strategic deterrent, on which the Americans have so much influence, without the agreement of the United States? I leave that question for hon. Members to ponder.
Everyone is familiar with the view that if we abandon a nuclear deterrent and desire to play a full part in NATO by being wholehearted believers in collective security, there will be consequences in relation to our relations in the Alliance. Everyone is familiar with the view that it is in American interests to have troops in Europe. Indeed, only the other day in Denver, Casper Weinberger supported that opinion. But it is not a zero sum game. It is in the interests of the Alliance as a whole to keep a physical American presence in Europe. That is why broad suggestions that the United States is not welcome here are counter-productive.
Advances in weaponry give the United States the option of giving up some bases in the United Kingdom, but it should be a matter for discussion and agreement not just between the United Kingdom and the United States but among the Alliance members. As politicians, we must recognise the burden that is placed on democratically elected politicians in the United States. We cannot accept an American presence in Europe and simultaneously be reluctant to provide the necessary back-up facilities to support that presence, albeit with proper control.
The Government have put their case on the relative cheapness of Trident, but they have not taken on board the criticism of this burden on our conventional Navy and

743
the effect on our NATO commitments. Recently, Vice Admiral Sir Derek Reffell. the Controller of the Navy said:
"To meet the Government's intention of maintaining a Naval Escort Force of around 50 capable frigates and destroyers means that we need a building rate of nearly three per year, if obsolete ships are not to remain in service."
We are nowhere near that rate of ordering. Between 1979 and 1985, only nine such ships were ordered. Hence the stricture of the Select Committee on Defence that the arrears in the pattern of ordering are
"bound to mean that the average age of the destroyer/frigate fleet will rise, with implications not only for capability but for manpower demands and maintenance costs."
I believe that to be true, despite the announcement in July 1986 of orders for type 23 frigates.
What was more remarkable about Sir Derek's speech was that, although it dealt with prospects for maritime operations in the 1990s, it contained little to comfort those of us who wish to see definite forward planning by and for the Navy. There were many references to studies, but few real decisions. For example, he said:
"In the mid 1990s, the UK will need a General Purpose Ship to replace…the type 42 destroyers."
We are told that the naval frigate for the 1990s is one of the contenders. The feasibility study report is apparently almost complete and a decision will have to be made soon on United Kingdom participation. But, he continued,
"if for any reason the NFR 90 project should founder, we shall have to produce a national design."
Perhaps the Minister will tell us at least what our back-up position is.
The concentration by the Ministry of Defence on the strategic deterrent is detrimental to the longer-term interest of the surface fleet especially and to our maritime capability, subsea and surface, as a whole.
I have taken up much of the House's time discussing the royal dockyards. I have no doubt that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) will take up even more time discussing the subject in later debates. I make no apology for that. My view has been clear from the outset and on the main thrust I have been supported by all those who have taken time to study the options.
The Secretary of State has almost concluded arrangements for Rosyth and Babcock Thorn and is in the process of handing Devonport to a group dominated by Brown and Root. I was extremely interested by the remarks of the hon. Member for Woolwich in this regard. As usual, the alliance seems to want to have it both ways. He said that he would not take the dockyard back into the public sector, but that he would want a trading fund. I hope that I am not misquoting him. How in God's name can he have a trading fund in the private sector? The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), interviewed from New York—this is the man who accuses the BBC of bias against the SDP and the alliance—said that he would be willing to have discussions with Brown and Root. I understand that he told the trade unions that he is in favour of a Government-owned public limited company, but the alliance is not in favour of bringing the dockyards back into the public sector. It is not just a question of their voting in different Lobbies at the same time. They have a kaleidoscope of views held simultaneously.
Dr. Owen: I am sorry that I was not here for the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's speech. As soon as I saw his
744
name on the board, I came in to listen to him. I am not in favour of a Government-owned public limited company, but if I must compromise with the Government and if I could obtain an agreement to set up a Government-owned plc, I would much prefer it to the agency management proposal. Anyone who has the interests of the dockyard at heart would go for a Government-owned plc rather than an agency management.
Mr. Douglas: The right hon. Gentleman is an adept compromiser. The House will have noted his words, as will his constituents in Devonport and mine in Rosyth.
I condemn the moves to bring in outside contractors. The improvements which the Ministry of Defence sought could have been obtained without the disruption and consequent loss of morale and impairment of production which will ensue from the haste of implementation and the lack of foresight in the Government's proposals.
Looking towards the final decade of this century, the House and the nation are witnessing our island, maritime nation rapidly ceasing to be a maritime power in terms of its merchant and naval marines. We are likely to end with no surface fleet to speak of, no merchant capacity for normal exports and imports, no back-up facilities in terms of dockyards and no shipyards outside the north-west of England. Of course, we might have a strategic deterrent that may give us a seat at some top international table, but our voice will be stifled by our international economic impotence.
7.10 pm
Miss Janet Fookes: Even though your predecessor, Mr. Deputy Speaker, has issued his guidance about the length of speeches, it was my intention to deal with only one subject tonight, and that is the topic with which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) dealt, the future of the royal dockyards, particularly Devonport. It is fair to say that the past three years have been a cruel burden for the dockyards to bear. There is nothing worse than uncertainty about the future. Many people will be glad when a final decision is taken, even if it is not necessarily the one that they want.
Last Friday, I met representatives of the non-industrial trade unions in the dockyard. They are agreed—I thought that this was probably true of the industrial unions also—that, above all else, they would prefer a trading fund. I carefully thought about this matter, as they asked me to, over the weekend. I must say openly and fairly that it is not a solution that I favour, and I never have done so. I have not changed my mind. The representatives treated me most courteously and raised several issues that I promised to raise in the debate if I were called. As a precaution, I have already sent a letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence outlining these points in case it is not possible for me to mention them all in the debate.
The union representatives, as I have said, prefer a trading fund above all else, and they will go on, they say, fighting for it to the last possible moment. They are anxious also to know the results of the COMPEX exercise—that is, the experiment to see which is better, a refit in the private sector or one in the dockyard itself. They have asked why figures have not been released during the consultation period. I am particularly curious about them

745
as well. I hope that it will be possible, before the consultation period is concluded, for them to be given that information.
The union representatives also expressed grave concern about what will happen in practice under the operational defects procedure when a ship suddenly requires repairs and the extent of the defects are not precisely known. They want to know whether there will be delays while costings are worked out on a commercial basis and, if work goes ahead without being properly costed, what will happen it there is a disagreement between the contractors and the Royal Navy about the precise figure to be charged for the work involved. They also strongly made the point that various deadlines have been put off to meet various requirements. They would like a longer period for consultation than the present vesting date of 6 April. They ask why that date should be sacrosanct when there has been slippage in the arrangements over the past two or three years. They dealt with other matters, but these are some of the ones about which they were most concerned. As I have said, I have put the other matters in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Although I may not agree in many respects with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West, I agree wholeheartedly with his comments about the lack of clarity in the policy now being advanced by the official spokesman for the SDP. I fail to see how one can favour the trading fund arrangement and yet say that one is not committed to re-nationalisation. I hope that I have interpreted the words correctly. I am sure that that is what I heard, and it seems to me to be a contradiction in terms. A trading fund necessitates operating within the Civil Service, and if that is not renationalisation I should like to know what is. The issue reminds me of the character in "Alice in Wonderland" who, when asked what something meant, said, "It means what I want it to mean." That seems to me to be a good summary of the SDP's position.
As I have said, I have not favoured a trading fund. It was good that the present managing director of the dockyard and his senior management put forward their own team and firm to bid for the contract. I supported that move from the outset, although I think I am probably the only public figure in the Plymouth area to have done so. I must say to my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench that I am disappointed that that bid was not successful, especially when we were told that the various bids were much of a muchness and that no one was absolutely out in front.
I hope—this will be part of my wish for any proceedings that continue after the debate—that there will be an assimilation of the senior management bid and an opportunity for the managing director and his senior colleagues to be involved in the running of the dockyard. That will give welcome continuity. The employees prefer the devil they know to the devil they don't, putting it at its lowest.
I have had contact not only with David Johnston, who is local, but with Brown and Root. The chairman asked to see me when the preferred bid was announced. I detailed various matters that were of concern to me and, indeed, to all those affected by the decision. The amount of commercial work that can be attracted into the dockyard to even out the troughs in Royal Navy work is one of the
746
key issues. If that work can be attracted, it will be good from the point of view of the numbers employed in the dockyard and the economy of the city.
I can understand that possible contractors wish to be wary about precisely how much they commit themselves to, but I hope that my hon. Friends, in this last period before the decision is made, will be keen to pin them down as much as possible on exactly what they might hope to bring in in the next few years. I hope also that my hon. Friends will encourage them to make space available within the yard perhaps for other enterprises to be brought in, particularly people who were dockyard employees and who may now be independent of the dockyard.
I hope also that particular attention will be paid to the position of what I call the ex-Chatham employees. No doubt the House will recall that, when the naval dockyard at Chatham was closed, some displaced employees were sent down to Plymouth. That was a major upheaval for them. They are now faced with the further upheaval in the future arrangements of the dockyard. Obviously, I am concerned for the native people of Plymouth and what may happen to them. We owe them a special concern.
Dame Peggy Fenner: Hear, hear.
Miss Fookes: I note that my hon. Friend said "Hear, hear," and rightly so. The position of the people of Plymouth should be assessed carefully. I hope that they will not suffer any further loss of employment as a result of any changes.
I hope, too, that my hon. Friends will press the winning contractor to make use of local purchasing power as far as possible. Under the old system, many purchases for the dockyard were made under a centralised system that did not benefit one iota local traders or the west country generally. They could buy locally and thus boost the local economy. I get the impression from the Brown and Root consortium that it is willing to do that. Again, the company needs to be pinned down firmly.
Arrangements for apprentices at the training centre have always been close to my heart, and there is considerable concern about the training arrangements under the new setup. At the weekend I was delighted to see that the number of apprentices who are to be taken on in the coming year is very much greater than had been thought. I hope that this is a good omen for the future and that the new contractor and my right hon. Friends will look closely at the possibility of placing any new technical college within the dockyard. It contains an enormous pool of expertise. The new technical college and the dockyard would go very well together.
The uncertainty at the dockyard should be ended, but not at any price. The changeover must be conducted as smoothly as possible, with very real care and concern being shown for those who are employed there. It is very much a family undertaking. Generation after generation have worked in the dockyard. I hope that, as far as possible, enforced redundancies will be avoided. If there have to be redundancies, they ought to be by natural wastage, retirement and voluntary schemes.
7.21 pm
Mr. Ted Garrett: Hon. Members must have been impressed by the speeches of the two Privy Councillors, who made an impassioned plea for the future of the Merchant Navy. I think that my right hon. Friend

747
the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) referred to speeches bouncing off Ministers. The right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) takes some beating when it comes to persistence. I have heard him speak on three occasions on this subject with the same degree of skill, enthusiasm and knowledge. On this occasion he was ably backed by my right hon. Friend. If their speeches bounce off Ministers this time, they must be impervious to anything.
The Ministers and their advisers should take note of the position in which we find ourselves. Last week, in a moment of idleness, I was reading about the evacuation of Dunkirk. One of the myths is that the small ships did most of the work. However, it was the large ships—ships of the Merchant Navy, cross-Channel ferries, coasters and the like—that did most of the work 50 years ago. God forbid that that should happen again, but we live in a volatile world. The ships of Her Majesty's Merchant Navy may be called upon at any time to take preventive action or to take action to defend our interests. There are still many interests for this nation to defend. Therefore, I ask the Ministers to say to the Secretary of State for Transport that this question should be dealt with urgently. The Government must stop running down the maritime training colleges. If more ships enter the Merchant Navy, they will be useless unless they are manned by properly qualified crews.
We have already heard in the debate of the need to order type 23 frigates and other ships of that calibre. I was disturbed to hear that the control room on these vessels is being redesigned. That is the key part of such vessels, and if it is to be redesigned, does it mean that the ordering programme will have to be deferred? If it is deferred, will the Minister assure us that there will not be a row similar to that which broke out over Nimrod and AWACS concerning the best design and instrumentation? If the control room is to be redesigned, let it be dealt with quickly, smartly and with the minimum of delay.
The Minister wasted his half hour when he opened the debate by making political points against the Opposition parties. It was a disappointing performance. I should have liked to hear about the lessons that had been learnt from co-operating with other navies. I should also have liked to hear whether the exercises have been successful, whether the public are getting good value for money, whether any faults have been highlighted and which nations are cooperating well. Enormous sums of money are being spent upon increasing co-operation with other navies, but the Minister told us nothing about that.
The Minister was slightly off target when he laid emphasis on the professionalism of the men in the Royal Navy—and, I might say, in the Royal Marines—and also upon the amount of time that they spend at sea. He said that during the last year there had been no record of any member of the Royal Navy having run into any problems on visits abroad. It stands to reason tha the men will not have run into any problems; they are never off their ships; they are never in port long enough. These young men, full of vigour, never get a chance to see the world. That is another reason why so many of them do not enter into long-service contracts. The quality of life is not there. That applies to all the services. Unless service men are given something other than their commitment to a particular service, they will not remain on a long-term basis.
748
Swan Hunter, one of the prime contractors, is in my constituency. I do not want to build this up too much, but there is a feeling of alarm among the work force. Five of the ships that are being constructed are nearly completed. Of those, HMS Sheffield is due for delivery in 1988; HMS Coventry is due for delivery in April 1988; HMS Chatham is due for delivery in 1989; and the landing ship, Sir Galahad, which was launched in December 1986, is due for delivery in September 1987.
Within the next two years the Royal Navy will have five ships delivered to it on time. The ships will have been built with great skill and efficiency by a loyal and dedicated work force. However, despite the fact that there have already been 860 redundancies, there will possibly be further redundancies. The steel work on existing contracts is already running out. No steel workers are idle. but if redundancies are to be avoided, a flow of work will have to commence shortly. Therefore, I should like an announcement to be made soon about whether the next type 23 order will come to Tyneside.
I emphasise that there is no immediate threat of redundancy, but serious consideration must be given now to placing the order for the next type 23. The Ministry of Defence is governed by cash budgets, and unless the Treasury provides resources this year for the Ministry of Defence there will be a considerable trough in the steel-working capability of Swan Hunter in 1988.
All is not gloom. The outfit workers are fully loaded, but specific worries will develop in the late summer. The outfitting trade is used to peaks and troughs, but it is essential to keep programmes up to date.
The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) argued the case for the replacement of vessels rather than feasibility studies on Fearless and Intrepid. The Sir Gallahad is without doubt a fine ship. In the long run it will be value for money. Placing orders for ships to replace Fearless and Intrepid is better than redesigning them and putting them out to jobbing just to keep them going another few years.
The air support ship has been mentioned. The Secretary of State referred to it in his recent statement, but nothing has yet seen the light of day. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether any progress has been made in the placement of that contract.
Tyneside has experienced massive redundancies, but somehow the essential skills have been retained. If the Government pursue a policy of replacing old ships with new, if they honour their commitment to three frigates a year and to consider the redesign of the S90, for example, there should be steady progress. For the unenlightened, the S90 argument involves the choice between the long destroyers and frigates and the small, squat frigates.
If we get a decision on that, among other things, we should be nearer to attaining a well-equipped Navy with a high morale, and above all, a Navy which is able to defend this democracy of ours against any attackers, from wherever they come.
7.32 pm
Mr. Peter Griffiths: In such a debate as this, the Government receive little praise and much criticism. I shall say some kind words before criticising them.
I was pleased to hear the Minister of State reaffirm the Government's commitment to maintaining an escort fleet of about 50 vessels. I was interested in his comment about

749
that proportion of the fleet which is available at sea within 48 hours. It is significant that, over about a decade, the proportion of availability has risen from 72 per cent. to 84 per cent. However, 84 per cent. of fewer than 50 is still considerably less than 72 per cent. of what must have been almost 70 when the previous figure was decided upon. The number of ships available in an emergency has been reduced.
It is important that we should have a clear picture of how the fleet is to be maintained. The present ordering rate will not guarantee an escort fleet of about 50 vessels. It cannot. Since we are now moving away from the concept of large-scale, mid-life refits, the danger is that we shall have fewer vessels and that on average they will be older.
I trust that a clear announcement will be made about the Government's commitment, not just on the number of ships in service, but on the ordering programme to make that commitment practical.
The possible expansion of the ordering rate, either to maintain the Government's commitment or because there might be an increase in world tension, will depend on shipyards being capable of meeting the demand for warships. They must he able and willing to build them within existing yards and with existing work forces. That is why I make no apology. for reminding the Minister that the Vosper Thornycroft yard on the south coast is capable of building type 23 frigates at the price, to the quality and in the time required. That yard is necessary to maintain the Government's commitment to an escort fleet.
The same yard is the national leader in building glass reinforced plastic vessels. It is important to retain the continuity of that yard for the single role minehunters programme. Those vessels can be built at Vosper Thornycroft on the south coast more cheaply than anywhere else. Its capacity could quickly be lost without continuity of ordering. The sheer cost of putting back together the capacity would result in the programme becoming grossly inflated in price.
The Navy relates closely to the civilian population in a city such as Portsmouth. The Navy has for long been welcomed in Portsmouth. It is liked and wanted. It would be a great boost to the relationship between Portsmouth and the Navy if the same vigour, efficiency and expertise which the Navy shows when it is solving a problem on a social occasion in the city were shown when the Ministry of Defence is undertaking a study.
In Portsmouth the Eastney barracks are wasted. This magnificent building is the perfect place to house the Royal Marines school of music. For years we have waited to learn exactly what is to happen. We have heard all the arguments. A year ago we heard that the argument which favoured Deal was not to be given as much weight as originally suggested. We now need a firm and final decision on service schools of music. In my constituency we need a decision on the Royal Marine school of music, which I think should be housed at Eastney barracks.
A similar decision should be taken on the use of land in a city such as Portsmouth, which is densely populated. Portsmouth has a fine rugby club which is 100 years old this year. It uses rented naval land. Long before I became a Member of Parliament people asked whether the Navy might want to take back the land for some unknown purpose. Since 1979 I have asked successive Ministers whether the Ministry might give up the land and allow the
750
Portsmouth rugby club to take out a longer lease or even purchase the freehold. Only a few weeks ago I received the same answer as that which I received last year and the year before that. I accept that the signature was different but the message remained the same. I was told yet again that the study is continuing. Surely it is not difficult to decide whether the Navy will ever require a piece of open land that is currently laid down for rugby pitches. It does not use the land and what conceivable use will it have for it in the foreseeable future? I ask for a firm and final decision to be made.
The relationship between the Royal Navy and the civilian population is highlighted by the relationship between those who serve in the Navy and their families. One of the ways in which the highly commendable improvement in the availability of ships for service at sea has been achieved is by causing sailors to spend more of their time away from port, or at least away from their home port. This has placed an enormous stress on the marriages of young men in the Navy. I am aware of the problem because of the number of broken marriages that come to my notice during my surgeries. We must understand that, in terms of expanding the Navy in response to an emergency, there is a problem in retaining young men after they have been recruited into the service and have developed the expertise that gives them the greatest value as middle-ranking personnel. Young men will be encouraged to make the Navy a lifetime career if we can ensure that the personal services that are available to Navy families when husbands are away at sea are as efficient and sympathetic as possible.
I am sure that the role of the Royal Navy will continue to be a source of great pride to us all, but it would be of great help if the Ministry of Defence would make decisions as quickly as our sailors are called upon to make them at times of national emergency.
7.42 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: It is a pleasure to be called to contribute to the debate immediately after the conclusion of the remarks of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths). I am happy to reinforce his criticisms of the Government, especially those directed to their ordering programme. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) has said, these debates are taking on an increasingly familiar pattern. Members on both sides of the House express their support for the Royal Navy and the merchant marine and express fears about future procurement. Labour Members express these fears in the context of the Trident programme. The Government respond by denying that the Trident programme is affecting the availability of resources for conventional procurement, but they do not announce any warship orders. We have a Minister who is responsible for defence procurement but he has not procured any warships, and he will not announce any warship orders during this debate.
When we last debated these matters we were told that the Government's commitment to a 50-ship surface fleet had become a commitment to a fleet of "about" 50 ships. A more realistic assessment suggests that there will be an aging surface fleet of 41 to 45 ships. Before Christmas I asked the Secretary of State for Defence about the type 23 ordering programme. I asked specifically whether it was true that the programme had been rescheduled so that the

751
type 23–01 would go to Yarrows—that is the lead of class—the 02 to Swan Hunter and the 04 and 05 to Yarrows, and that the 03, 06 and 07 had been effectively dropped from the programme. The Secretary of State did not deny this. Indeed, he did not even confirm that the 06 and 07 are still in the long-term costings. Many of us believe that the Government have no intention of ordering these three frigates or an AOR this year.
I turn to the issue of amphibiosity, which is the word of the Secretary of State for Defence. It is a useful way of describing an issue in a word. The House was promised last year a full statement, and in December the Secretary of State announced the design study of the possibility of refurbishing HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) have mentioned the alternative, which is a design study for a replacement vessel. There is the even more welcome possibility of building a replacement vessel.
The landing platform dock, with its floodable dock at the rear for landing craft, has been responded to, at least in part, quite properly by the Government, but that does not bring the debate on amphibiosity to an end. There is a need to renew the defence role formerly carried out by HMS Hermes, which is the provision of seaborne air support for troop landing craft. The concept is described as aviation support ships. The Minister has said nothing so far about this when dealing with amphibiosity.
A separate issue is the future of landing ship logistic vessels. The launch of the Sir Galahad was a great Tyneside shipbuilding occasion; the entire community united and there was a tremendous festival atmosphere. Unfortunately, such occasions are too rare on Tyneside nowadays. The new Sir Galahad is not an exact replica of its predecessor or its sister ships, and the role that it and its sister ships have been designed to undertake is the landing of tanks and other vehicles on beaches. The refurbishment of the sister ships should be on the agenda when it comes to a debate on amphibiosity. Unfortunately, there has been no commitment from the Minister.
The Minister would not expect me to let a debate of this sort pass without mentioning the AOR. Tyneside's grievances are fourfold. There is an almost unanimous view on Tyneside that Harland and Wolff took what is known as a flyer in making its bid. In other words, it priced it and did not cost it. Swan Hunter, being privatised, did not dare do that. Secondly, it is our view on Tyneside that public money is being used to underpin the Harland and Wolff bid. Thirdly, it is our view that the promises of rigorous scrutiny of the cross-subsidisation issue do not stand up to close examination. Fourthly, it is our view that the eventual decision on AOR1 was political and that Tyneside lost, just as it did with the type 24 No. 14 frigate.
Mr. Archie Hamilton rose—
Mr. Brown: I shall develop these issues, but, first, I shall give way to the Minister.
Mr. Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the view which he has expressed is not shared by Touche Ross, the consultants who were brought in to consider these matters?
Mr. Brown: I shall deal with the "independent consultants" and the relationship between them and the Northern Ireland Office, to which they have to report.
752
First, there is the question of Harland and Wolft's flyer on its bid. The delay in supplying the drawings to Swan Hunter so that it could bid for the second vessel has led to considerable suspicions in just about everyone's mind. The Government's explanations for the delay have been unconvincing. Their different explanations suggest that they have not succeeded in getting their story straight. let alone providing a real and candid answer. It is my understanding—I am willing to be corrected if I am wrong—that the Harland and Wolff design for the AOR was not model tested. The tender was based on unapproved drawings, which means that they were not Lloyd's classified and did not have Department of Trade and Industry approval, or did not when the bid was submitted.
I accept that it is not necessarily improper to take that approach as a private sector company that chooses to take a commercial risk, which means the high-risk route rather than the more secure route. A private company will have to bear the financial consequences of so doing, but Harland and Wolff is not in that position and is not subject to that commercial discipline. Swan Hunter decided that it would have to take the more secure route, and that led to one of the edges enjoyed by Harland and Wolff.
The cross-funding issue is an important one, and an illuminating article appeared in the Belfast Telegraph of 26 November 1986. It revealed that the Department of Trade and Industry would give £68 million in aid to Harland and Wolff for 1986–87. A number of hon. Members have spoken about their shipbuilding communities' traditional relationships with the Royal Navy, and their communities' employment bases are underpinned by the royal dockyards. None of those communities had £68 million for one financial year invested by the Department of Trade and Industry.
Of the £68 million, £2 million will create, according to the article, Harland and Wolff Enterprises—that will be the day—to help the redundant men at Harland and Wolff obtain different employment. That is a worthy objective and I have no quarrel with that expenditure I calculate that a further £8 million will be spent on redundancy payments. That: seems to be a reasonable supposition. But it is legitimate to ask what will happen to the other £58 million and to expect an answer. Will it increase Harland and Wolff's working capital? If so, what restrictions will it place on the company's borrowing powers? Will Harland and Wolff be able to use this money, for example, to bring forward Ministry of Defence work prior to payment? All the other shipbuilding communities will ask: why should the state underwrite Harland and Wolff's recent operating losses and at the same time push every other shipbuilding community out into the cold?
I thought that the position of the Government, and of the Prime Minister, was that the House of Commons could remain assured that the Harland and Wolff bid was "unsubsidised and comprehensively costed". That was the position at least until last December when I had my tiff with the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement. I now understand that is not quite an accurate portrayal of the Government's position. A more accurate portrayal would be as follows: the independent consultants, to which the Minister of State referred, have assured the Northern Ireland Office, which is a not disinterested party, that the bid is unsubsidised and comprehensively costed, hence the phrase. That assurance was relied upon by the Secretary of State for Defence and

753
the Prime Minister when they gave their assurances using the same phrase—the Secretary of State for Defence in the House and the Prime Minister in a letter to me.
The Northern Ireland Office—this is the crux—is not independent in this matter. I am not arguing that it should be, but I believe that someone who is really independent and beyond influence or pressure should have scrutinised the Harland and Wolff bid and should be monitoring the cross-subsidy issue and progress on the work. No one on Tyneside has confidence in the current monitoring procedure. It allows the Northern Ireland Office and the consultants which it employs to be judge and jury in their own cause.
The Government's excuses and reassurances do not stand scrutiny. The reason—it underpins everything that has happened—is that the AOR1 placement was a political decision. It would have been legitimate for the Government to admit, "Yes, this is a political decision." Had they done so, they would have had an obligation, having cheated Tyneside of its work, to make good that hurt and to bring forward more shipbuilding orders. Shipbuilding is the sole employer in a part of the area that my hon. Friends the Members for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) and for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) represent. The Government have broken the employment base of that community with cynical disregard for the people whom they are putting out of work.
Swan Hunter does not just build warships. It is a mixed yard with a long tradition. Only recent Government policy has forced Swan Hunter to look solely towards shipbuilding. I strongly support the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) and the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann). As I have said, I hope that I do not do any harm to the cause of the right hon. Member for Taunton by endorsing it. I wanted to make some points of my own on the merchant marine but they would be superfluous after those two excellent speeches. I should like, first, to underscore the importance of the issue about which my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Taunton spoke and, secondly, to add my endorsement to the demands for a full response by the Government.
7.54 pm
Sir Paul Bryan (Boothferry): I declare my interest as a deputy chairman of Furness Withy and Company, so hon. Members will perhaps not be surprised if I turn for a few minutes to the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) and the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan). They have dealt so effectively, so thoroughly, and so often with this subject that there is nothing further that I can usefully add; except to press my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement to answer some of their points.
I say that, not sarcastically, but because last year my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton made a similar speech, just as effectively, and it was not mentioned by the then Under-Secretary of State. The only comment by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State followed an intervention, when he put the responsibility on my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Transport. In
754
one telling phrase he underlined one of our main complaints—that the responsibility for this important subject is spread over too many Departments.
Over the past 10 years we have followed the decline in our merchant fleet. The House will be relieved to hear that I shall not produce a lot of figures, because they have been vividly produced already. The truth is worse than the figures; for the figures do not convey the drain on our reserves of personnel and on management and the lack of new blood in the industry. Against that declining background, management in the industry has retained its skill and judgment remarkably. It has not suffered from spectacular bankruptcies on United States lines. Because management is able, naturally it has had to diversify into more profitable businesses; so famous shipping names no longer necessarily denote the ownership of many ships.
We should note also that many of the ships now afloat were built pre-1984 and under a far more favourable fiscal regime. It follows—this is the bad news—that there is no reason to expect such ships to be replaced by new investment, whether in new or in secondhand ships, as long as management's capital costs net of fiscal relief and other aids are higher than those of its competitors. No doubt we can discuss those matters in budget debates. I should like to make one point, however, because it is the most immediately serious one, about the adequacy of Merchant Navy support for the Royal Navy. Each year since the Falklands campaign we have been assured that the support is adequate. Each year this sounds less likely.
I return to the quotation used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton from the PBOS—the planning board for ocean shipping—communiqué on the future of NATO shipping, which I think has been sent to all hon. Members. It stated:
"The Board concluded that for certain categories of ships the situation is already criticial".
Whatever the situation, it must be clear that, left to the free market, sooner rather than later, the Navy will be short of the support that it needs. Surely, in the end, the Government will have to intervene to ensure that some categories of ships are available and manned. However one disguises this operation, considerable subsidisation must be involved in one form or another. A scheme to this effect should be set up now, because, the longer we delay the less likely will our shipping companies be in a position to co-operate efficiently.
One respect in which I perhaps part ways from my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton is his belief that Government determination and wisdom can achieve our aims without great expenditure. I very much doubt that. In some form or another—it might be called a subsidy or a fiscal stimulation—a great deal of money will have to be spent wisely to achieve the required results.
If we do subsidise some categories of ships, the Government should insist that they are built in British yards. That is against past practice, but as our yards now build only 1 per cent. of world output, and our shipping orders constitute only 1·4 per cent. of world orders, a change in Government policy will not shake the world as it would have done 10 years ago. Indeed, I doubt whether it would provoke any retaliation.
I want to surprise my hon. Friends on the Front Bench by complimenting one of their colleagues. I pay tribute to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to the General Council of British Shipping on 10 December. He clearly takes his new job very

755
seriously. He gave a detailed study of the merchant fleet, the like of which I have not heard from a Minister for a long time. He announced three initiatives, and I shall not brush them aside quite as brusquely as did the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth.
My right hon. Friend, on the question of establishing a Merchant Navy reserve, said:
"The objective is to provide a pool of experienced seafarers in time of need … I intend immediately to invite the General Council of British Shipping and the seafaring unions to give me their views on what the form and duties of such a Reserve might be. My preliminary views, and I emphasise they are preliminary, is that the provisions could he very simple: a declaration of willingness to serve, an address, and an annual bounty".
That was only two months ago, so I do not expect very much to have happened. However, as we have not yet heard anything about that, I hope that the Minister will tell us how far my right hon. Friend has progressed in his discussions with the GCBS and the unions, and what results we can expect.
On my right hon. Friend's second initiative, he said that while he had
"ruled out incentives to shipping investment and general subventions to operating costs, the Government had decided to discuss with the industry the possibility of assisting with the extra cost of employing UK crews on deep sea vessels."
I want to know exactly what that means. Is it something very big, something that will cost a great deal of money, and something that will mean a great deal to our fleet? Perhaps the Minister could elaborate on that when he replies.
8.2 pm
Mr. Gordon Brown: The one certainty in every Navy debate in this Parliament is the ever-increasing concern on both sides of the House about the neglect of the Merchant Navy. That was most eloquently described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) and the hon. Member for Boothferry (Sir P. Bryan). Indeed, there is ever-increasing concern about the under-funding of the Navy itself. The gap between its resources and its commitments has led the Minister, implicitly if not explicitly, to admit that the surplus fleet will be reduced to below 50 within a short time. That has led to speculation, not least in the press comment on the so-called towpath papers, about less research and development on behalf of the Navy, a cut in the auxiliary forces available to it, and even a cut in the number of hunter-killer submarines.
With that gap between the Navy's commitments and its resources, it is incomprehensible that the Government, in their attempt to bridge the gap, have put so much faith in the economics of privatisation. It is an untried and untested option for many parts of the naval services. For the royal dockyards, even the Ministry of Defence concedes that it will cost more rather than less in the next few years. To place all our faith in economy by privatisation, when all the evidence shows that, on the contrary, no real savings will result, is not defence economics. It is not even the economics of the grocer's shop about which we have become accustomed to hearing. Nor is it the economics of good housekeeping. It is more the economics of a betting shop—a huge gamble with our national defences, the recklessness of which is nowhere more apparent than with the royal dockyards.
756
Let us remember what the Government have done to the royal dockyards in the past few years. We had. a defence Minister who could not leave well alone. Just a few months after the dockyards had excelled themselves during the Falklands conflict, he decided that ideology required that something had to be done. We then had a Secretary of State who spurned all the subsequent reports which rejected the option of privatisation and chose an arms salesman with no experience of the dockyards or even of the Navy to advise him on future options for the dockyards.
A few months later, the Government rejected all advice. They rejected the advice of the Select Committee on Defence, at which a Ministry official had described privatisation as a high-risk option for our fleet and for our naval defences. They then rejected the advice of the Public Accounts Committee, which at least showed some concern for the problem of finances, being more concerned with financial reality than with the economic theory that so obsesses the Government. Legislation was then introduced, and the Government had to accept the clear legal obligations to consult the work force about social and economic consequences, especially the consequences for jobs and conditions of service. Yet the Government now refuse to enter into the detailed consultations that are so necessary to the welfare of the work force.
If it is too late to persuade the Government to rescind the Dockyard Services Act 1986, it is not too late to make them face the problems that they are creating. We warned them that the costs of this exercise would far outweigh the benefits and that an exercise which began as one with no risks and the expectation of substantial savings would—and now does—involve substantial risks and no real savings, at least for the next three years. We also warned that hundreds—indeed, thousands—of jobs were being put at risk without any financial benefit to the Navy, the defence budget or the Exchequer. In the past few years, a succession of Ministers have given assurances about who will control the dockyards, about the jobs that will remain and about the money to be saved, but the assurances so freely given in the early stages of the discussion have become the betrayals of 1987.
I wish briefly to mention foreign ownership. When the whole business began in December 1985, the Minister told
us that tenders would be sought from British companies, and that if any company won a contract and then became controlled by a foreign shareholding, that company would lose the contract. Now, however, an American company is not only a shareholder but the principal shareholder in the consortium that is to take over Devonport. It is ironic that no American private company, let alone a British one, can control an American dockyard, but an American company can walk in arid take control of a British dockyard.
From what we heard earlier from the Under-Secretary of State, who is no longer present, that control will be exercised without any real veto written into the contract as to what additional work can be done and for which foreign powers. In the case of Rosyth that is not an academic question, because it is easy to envisage a situation in which control of Rosyth dockyard, which is apparently to be in the hands of the Babcock International plc consortium, could also move overseas as a result of City takeovers and transfers of control. We already know that Babcock Power has become Babcock Energy for the purpose of the consortium running the dockyard. Babcock

757
Energy is subject to interest by GEC and may be subject to the interests of another international company. However, there is nothing in the legislation or in the regulations that we shall discuss later this week, and nothing in the contract as we understand it, to prevent control of Rosyth dockyard from moving abroad under the present proposals.
If there are no proper safeguards against foreign control, there will be no proper safeguards for the jobs of the work force. The dockyard shares several similarities with the Navy. It requires a strategic capability, a minimum reserve, and a mix of skills and expertise if it is to be able to respond to the sort of emergencies that arose during the Falklands war, when dockyard workers were required and prepared to work night and day to get the ships and submarines of our Royal Navy out to sea.
There is nothing in the legislation, the regulations or the contract to protect the strategic minimum number of workers that is required if we are to maintain a fleet, especially in the event of an emergency. At earlier stages, we were assured that something would be written into the contract. However, as I understand it, the Minister now regards it as a virtue of the contract that the only mention of the work force is in terms of the numbers that the Ministry is prepared to fund for redundancy. How ironic that the Ministry is now prepared to fund 1,000 redundancies in the dockyard, without saving a penny in the defence budget or in the running of the royal dockyards.
When we began in 1983, I was told that the numbers employed in Rosyth dockyard would increase. However, by 1985 I was told that they would remain stable. Later we were told that 4,000 jobs would have to go. Now we are told that 1,300 jobs will have to go, but the Government will not save a penny as a result of the loss of those jobs, and we cannot imagine that the Navy will be better serviced as a result.
Time is short, but I should like to make another point. When the exercise got off the ground we were told that some measures would be taken to ensure that any losses in manpower in the dockyards would lead to the Government taking additional measures in the regional aid budget, or elsewhere. In one document, we were told that the Minister of Defence wished to discuss with all concerned how the effects of any unemployment
"might be alleviated through the Government's regonal aid programme and other appropriate measures."
Again, the Ministry of Defence has not discussed with my district council, the regional council or, as I understand it, the Scottish Office, how to alleviate the effects of any redundancies that might take place. That becomes ever more vital when one realises that redundancies in Fife have risen at three times the rate in Scotland during the past year. About 3,000 more people are now unemployed in Fife than a year ago, and it is expected that the redundancies in the coalmines and the electronics industry, as well as in the dockyard, are likely to increase over the next month. In replying to the debate, I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that the Ministry of Defence will take the necessary measures to alleviate any effects of the action that it is about to take.
Finally, no other country in the world with a Navy of comparable size would contemplate the measure that the Government are imposing upon the dockyards. No other
758
Government but this ideologically driven and committed Government would contemplate transferring the dockyards to the private sector in the way in which the Government are doing, and subordinating the national security interest to commercial gain. Even under this Government, Conservative Members serving on the Select Committee on Defence have warned about the consequences of what the Government are doing. If this Government will not reverse this dangerous policy, which is unpatriotic and idiotic, the next Labour Government certainly will.
8.15 pm
Mr. James Couchman: I am delighted to be called to speak briefly this evening, and I shall be brief because I wish to raise a matter that is properly a constituency matter and which might have been thought to have been a suitable subject for an Adjournment debate. However, tonight's opportunity was too good to miss so I make no apologies for raising this subject.
My predecessor, Sir Frederic Burden, spent the whole of his long career in the House defending the Royal Navy base and dockyard at Chatham against the depredations of those who would close it. He was ably aided and abetted by my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame Peggy Fenner) who I am pleased to see supporting me this evening. Ultimately, the doughty advocacy of that great establishment was defeated by the defence review of 1981, in which Sir John Nott proposed the closure of Chatham.
It fell to me in my maiden speech of 20 July 1983, Hansard column reference 432, to make the final appeal during the debate on the Defence Estimates for the retention of at least the nuclear refuelling and refitting facility. My plea failed and later in that session, during the Royal Navy debate, I made a well-received valedictory speech that marked the end of 450 years of the Royal Navy's presence in my constituency, or perhaps I should say almost the end of the Royal Navy's presence, as I shall explain in a few moments.
Had my plea for the SSNs to continue to be refuelled and refitted at Chatham succeeded, there would be no need for me to speak this evening. When the dockyard finally closed on 31 March 1984, the Ministry of Defence retained a tiny foothold in the dockyard and renamed it MOD Gillingham. That small foothold is the waste management facility for radioactive contaminated components from the refuelling and refitting of the SSNs and the burial site for low-level waste alongside.
As I said, if the SSNs were still being worked on at Chatham, clearly the waste management facility would be in regular and continuous use. However, that is not so. The waste management facility was put on a care and maintenance basis when the dockyard closed, and I believe that I am right in saying that there have been no additions to the redundant but radioactive components that are stored in the storage shed. There have been additions of radioactive waste to the burial ground, as the refuelling and refitting facility has been cleared and decontaminated. The decontamination of that nuclear facility's building is now complete and the burial pits have been filled and capped off.
I had hoped, after the traumas of the closures of the Chatham dockyard, that I should be able to confine my interest in those 500 acres to the redevelopment and future commercial and industrial prosperity of the site. Indeed, that was the case until last Monday, when it was brought

759
to my attention that an article in New Scientist magazine of 22 January 1987, written by Mr. Roger Milne, suggested that the Ministry of Defence was considering the transfer of redundant radioactive items such as bulkheads, pumps and boilers from Devonport dockyard, where storage is said to be limited, back to MOD Gillingham, for storage on an interim basis. The source for that article was the report of Her Majesty's radiochemical inspectorate for 1985–86.
On being alerted to the article, my reaction was to put down immediately a question for answer last Tuesday, 27 January, and to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State whether he had any plans for transferring nuclear waste from Devonport to Gillingham. Almost a week later, I still await an answer to my question. On Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Speaker generously allowed me to ask supplementary questions during Defence Questions and the statement on the management of the Royal Dockyard. To those two oral questions, I received courteous but less than illuminating responses.
The article from the New Scientist received much exposure on Tuesday in the Medway towns from press, radio and television. That reaction has been predictable. There has been outrage that, having dealt a hammer blow to employment in the Medway towns by closing the dockyard, the MOD should now seek to bring its unwanted nuclear dross back from Devonport to Gillingham. I will not indulge in the ludicrous, scaremongering hyperbole of the prospective Liberal and Labour parliamentary candidates in Gillingham and Medway respectively. Perhaps Opposition Members would like an example. One of the gentlemen spoke of the "catastrophic proposal" which would end the chance of commercial or residential development near the dockyard, and warned that dumping could turn the north of Gillingham into a "ghost town". The other gentleman is quoted as having said:
"Why the hell should anyone at this time think of dumping dangerous waste in an urban conurbation of a quarter of a million people? There is already a tremendous fuss about dumping low level waste by Nirex in rural areas. But now they are talking about intermediate waste here—it's just incredible."
I shall not indulge in that sort of language. Those outbursts suggest that Gillingham is about to be transmogrified into a second Chernobyl by a wilful decision of some unnamed Minister of Defence official. However, I must make it absolutely crystal clear to my right hon. Friend the Minister that I am upset that Ministry officials should have made their thinking public through its publication in an obscure annual report of the radiochemical inspectorate rather than through proper formal consultations with the local borough council and me. That demonstrates a woeful insensitivity to the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and the Medway towns. I must also make it abundantly clear that in the absence of such consultations I am completely opposed to the transfer of nuclear waste and contaminated items from Devonport to MOD Gillingham.
I spent Saturday morning at MOD Gillingham to appraise myself at first hand of the circumstances in which contaminated waste is presently stored and has been buried. I am satisfied that that facility is properly managed, that those who work there carry out their duties conscientiously and efficiently and that there is no danger from the items at present stored there. But the items at present stored there are mostly cobalt 60 contaminated
760
and have a fairly short half life. They have already been stored there for some years and the idea of having more intensively contaminated material there does not appeal to anyone.
It is a shame that the local liaison committee which operated before the dockyard closed no longer exists, because it would have been an appropriate vehicle for the local consultation which the Ministry thought it might conveniently forgo. Any transfer of unwanted contaminated items should be from Gillingham to Devonport and not the reverse. The great Royal Navy base and dockyard at Chatham is being redeveloped to one of the most exciting development plans in the United Kingdom, if not in Europe. In order not to prejudice the success of that development I must ask my right hon. Friend to set aside any further thoughts of transferring nuclear waste into MOD Gillingham. The people of Gillingham and the Medway towns retain their great affection for the Royal Navy, but they have no desire whatever to embrace the nuclear waste of the Royal Navy at Devonport.
Dame Peggy Fenner: Although nine tenths of the acreage of the former dockyard is within my hon. Friend's constituency, he and my colleagues know that for many years Chatham dockyard had a nuclear refitting capability. We were proud and happy to support that work and through the liaison committee we maintained a most wonderful relationship with the people in the towns and the local authority. I hope that my right hon. Friends in Government will find it unthinkable to transfer work from our dockyard, with the best dockyard mateys in the business, to Devonport and to suggest that in return we receive Devonport's waste. That would be indefensible.
Mr. Couchman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support in this matter and I hope that my right hon. Friends will see us as a double act who command double the attention.
8.23 pm
Dr. David Owen: I know that two further hon. Members wish to speak, and as I shall speak about a constituency matter I shall not develop other aspects of the Navy debate which I might otherwise wish to do.
The right hon. Members for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) spoke about the Merchant Navy, and I can well understand that we do not wish to go further into the problems that it faces. However, as a member of the all-party group which is trying to draw attention to those problems, I wish to stress my deep anxiety about what is happening, particularly in terms of strategic importance.
A consequence of the Channel tunnel may be a reduction in the ferry fleet which is an important part of our reinforcement to the central front in times of tension. It is hard to project what will happen to the Channel and ferry traffic on the east coast. It may be more robust than some forecasts have led us to believe, and I tend to believe that may well be the case, but, I am worried that people will not invest in new vessels because of uncertainty. If ever there was a case for Government help, it is to give specific capital help for building new ferries to provide confidence to carry the operators over this difficult period when no one is certain what will happen with the Channel tunnel.

761
I recommend that to the Minister as a practical suggestion for maintaining the strategic option of that reinforcement capability from the merchant marine in that section.
It is immensely important to maintain the facility for servicing North sea oil rigs. That aspect of our maritime function is of fundamental importance.
I hope that the House will excuse me if I make a speech as a Back Bencher about my constituency. Devonport has faced horrendous problems during the past three years, wholly unnecessarily. I remind the House that under the agency management option, the most recent survey which was conducted independently shows that 6,000 jobs will be lost, plus 2,000 jobs in knock-on effects through the city, totalling 8,000 jobs over the seven-year period of the contract. By any standards that is extremely worrying for a far south-west region which is already facing serious unemployment and has natural difficulties in attracting sufficient industries.
That also raises serious doubts about Devonport management's estimates of how many job losses will take place. Obviously, one has every reason to be reasonably optimistic, but I certainly do not share the belief of those who think that a large volume of work will come to the dockyards from outside contractors, bringing employment. It is a highly competitive market. I see that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) has entered the Chamber. Throughout this exercise she has been hopelessly optimistic about the possibility of outside work. It is helpful to seize any work, wherever possible, but we cannot reasonably expect a great deal of such work in future.
If a private company becomes involved, it is as well that it is well founded and soundly based. I do not understand why there is any criticism of my suggestion that people should talk to Brown and Root. I have no quarrel with Brown and Root per se as a company, and, if it must come to Devonport, we and the city council must live with it and the work force must work with it. The idea that we should wreak vengeance on the company because it happens to be chosen by the Government is a most absurd, short-sighted policy. Our dispute is with the Government and their decision to make an agency management proposal.
I still retain a fundamental objection to the division of an industrial enterprise into two. This is not like franchising some servicing arrangement; this is a fundamentally heavy industry. One need look only at the investment in the nuclear side and in refitting submarines to realise how crucial capital investment is to its success.
I have never forgotten first becoming Minister responsible for the Navy in 1968 and visiting both the Rosyth, and Devonport dockyards. In fairness, at that stage modernisation was already taking place at Rosyth, with the Polaris submarines coming along. Then we faced a legacy of neglect in capital investment that was over a century old. Certainly successive Governments for 40 years had refused to provide the necessary investment.
I fear that the agency management option would take away any structure for modernisation, capital investment and efficiency on which the work force will have to survive in a purely privatised company. The agency does not have adequate funds or the inclination to make the continuous capital investment that is necessary. If the Government do
762
not have overall responsibility for the work, they will not want to invest all their capital, or short capital, in the dockyards. That is the fundamental flaw in the argument.
In real terms, defence spending will decline by £1 billion in the next three years—a 5·9 per cent. cut. Defence spending will be £18·1 billion in 1986–87 and £17·1 billion in 1989–90. What happened to the financial analysis? The forward defence budget estimates that spending on the nuclear strategic forces will have more than doubled, while there will be a decline in the money available for conventional forces. There will also be a decline in the capital account. It is the capital investment that is of great concern to me.
The decision has already been reached on Rosyth dockyard and vesting day has taken place. I regret that decision, and I believe that the Navy will also regret it. We are told that, technically speaking, the options for Devonport are open. The debate on the dockyards may not take place tomorrow. If it does, it will be debated in the middle of the night, and no doubt that is the Government's intention if they keep it on tomorrow's business.
I urge the Government, even at this stage, to look at the question of unifying the dockyard and refusing to go down the path of proposed separation. Industrialists cannot see the slightest sense in that proposal. Everybody has criticised it. The Select Committee on Defence—an all-party Committee—criticised it. The Select Committee on Public Accounts also criticised it. Everybody, apart from Mr. Levene, has criticised that proposal. I do not know of anyone who, having considered the question, believes it to be sensible. The city council and others are trying to fight the proposals.
Mr. Archie Hamilton: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us what he did to make the dockyards efficient.
Dr. Owen: We took the dockyards away from the Admiral Superintendents. I believe that the Minister has opened up a can of worms by asking that question. I brought someone in from ICI, Mr. Leslie Norfolk, as chief executive of the dockyards to bring in more expertise from the private sector, and he did a great deal. The Mallabar committee, established at that time, considered the longterm structure and supported the trading fund. Ever since that committee report, I and others have supported the importance of the trading fund. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), the last Minister with responsibility for the Navy, also supported the idea of the trading fund.
In evidence to the Defence Select Committee, published in a report on 10 July 1985, I said:
"The advantage of a Trading Fund approach is that it retains a unified Dockyard—assets, management and workforce all being part of an integrated enterprise under overall Government control. If the Government will not take the employees out of the Civil Service numbers count while still retaining their terms and conditions of service, then it would be better to retain the Trading Fund concept with the workforce employed by the Trading Fund direct, in effect the MoD, but no longer part of the Civil Service."
It is clear that that is one option. The other option, to retain a unified dockyard, would be a Government-owned plc. Given the Government's philosophy and the Dockyard Services Act 1986, there is no doubt that the only option that the Government can consider—without

763
losing face—is a Government-owned plc. Even at this late stage I plead with the Government to reconsider this matter.
If the Government adopt the agency management proposal, there will be considerable resentment among trade union leaders and the vast majority of the people who work in the dockyard. They are not militants; they are decent, honourable men. The trade union leaders have fought the proposals with great skill. I admire what they have done. They have been objective and have put forward sound arguments. I believe that the trade union leaders have been treated shabbily. To put it bluntly, the consultation exercise appears to be a sham.
Nothing could do more to rebuild some respect in our democratic process within the House than for the Secretary of State, who has no past history of involvement in the affair, to come to it with a fresh mind and sit round the table with the trade union leaders. He should say that he is prepared to consider the Government-owned plc proposal. At one stroke that would go some way to relieving the work force's anxiety about pension and redundancy payments. The Government would be the controlling interest. Perhaps they would not control everything, but they would be pooling assets with the management. There may be some proposals for selling shareholdings to other commercial companies or the employees. If so, I would not be terribly upset about that. However, I am upset at the proposal to give up Government control. That is not in the Navy's interest.
If we consider the practical arguments we have got the experience of putting the refits out to private companies. Comparisons have been made in the past. Indeed, the Labour Government had such a comparison. The Conservative Government are supposed to be making such a comparison at the present time, but we have had no figures for it. The Navy has been dissatisfied about private refits. Why? The reason is quite simple. It is like taking a car into a garage. People may not know exactly what is wrong until the car is opened up. The same principle applies to ships.
When a ship comes in for a refit, estimates have already been made about what is likely to be needed. However, once it is opened up, rust or some major mechanical problem may be discovered that could not have been anticipated. Under the dockyard system, which operates under Government control, all the work would be carried out regardless of the time, so that the ship was properly repaired. If the ship was placed with a private commercial contractor, it is likely that it would close down the hatches, pretend that the rust did not exist and ignore the unforeseen problems. That is understandable.
If HMS Invincible has a propellor shaft that is bent or some other major problem, it is in the interests of the Navy that a capital ship of that size can go straight into the dockyard, disrupt the refitting cycle and be turned around as soon as possible. The Navy can do this under the present system. Under private control, the agency management would say that it has not got this or that, the cost will be tremendous and it will have the Government across a barrel. The Navy cannot go anywhere else; big ships can only go to Devonport. There is no doubt that if the dockyards were in private hands the Ministry would be absolutely screwed. The agency could charge any price. There is nothing that the Government could do about it.
That is the problem. The Navy has suddenly realised that it has been taken for a ride. The Admiralty Board
764
originally endorsed this type of proposal—look at the towpath papers—but it has discovered the problem. It is clear that the Navy thought there would be savings, but that is not so because it will have to finance the pension fund. Money will be taken from the Navy. The Government are taking £1 billion from the defence budget in the next three years and the Navy will be squeezed and there will he less available money but it will have to pay out more for dockyard refits.
It has been argued that on the basis of the comparison of costs the agency management option would represent a £5 million saving on top of those anticipated by the Government-owned plc option. Thus, there would be £5 million saving on the Devonport dockyard turnover of £300 million per annum. Such a saving over seven years represents 0·2 per cent. per annum. That is well within the margin of forecasting error, especially when one considers that that estimate is in the Ministry of Defence's document, and that it favours the agency management proposal rather than a Government-owned plc.
I have said enough. All sense demands a re-think. OK, we shall not get a trading fund, with people still in the Civil Service. OK, the Government may not give us the next best option, which is a trading fund outside the Civil Service. But pressing ahead with the agency management under the present proposals is folly. The Government will regret it, the Navy will regret it and the city of Plymouth will he dealt a devastating blow. Even at this late hour, I beg the Government to think again.
Perhaps I can say more openly that the Government would get a good response from the trade union leaders. They would be ready to discuss a compromise. They do not like it, but they are practical, realistic men. Their whole life is made up of cutting out deals. If they can go away with only half a loaf, they will do so. The Secretary of State would get the co-operation and commitment of the work force at Devonport which served the country mighty well during the Falklands crisis.
I urge the Government not to turn down a possible compromise, which would give them many of their objectives and get most of what is needed—in the longer term it will probably provide all that is needed—in terms of efficiency and effectiveness at Devonport dockyard.
8.41 pm
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I hope that I he right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) will excuse me if I do not follow him into Devonport dockyard, though I noted that he was the only hon. Member who has spoken about the dockyards who recognised that the Royal Navy favoured major changes in dockyard management.
I propose to talk about frigates and to add my voice to those of hon. Members who are deeply disturbed about the decline of our merchant fleet.
A frigate is fought from its operations room. The action information organisation controls all weapons and information systems for sub-surface, surface and air threats, as well as communicating with friendly forces. It collects, collates and evaluates the threat, indicates some possible responses and presents information to the command with the assistance of the principal warfare officer.
When operating under hostile conditions, the Royal Navy continues to demonstrate its superb professionalism

765
and the coolness under fire for which it is renowned. However, to do its job properly it requires the right equipment. As the sophistication of the threat has increased, so the time available for a response has shrunk, to a point where even an error of one second may mean destruction.
Therefore, it has been necessary to automate much of the collection of information and its evaluation to supply the command swiftly with a constantly updated picture and an assessment of the possible responses. As each generation of weapons has been deployed, the action information system has had to become faster and more automated. We have moved from tote boards, plotting tables and PPIs with markers to a system known as ADAWS, which is fitted widely in the Royal Navy. Although that system works, and has worked well, a swifter, more comprehensive system is becoming necessary and HMS Brave has been undergoing extensive trials with a computer-assisted command system known as CACS1. My right hon. Friend the Minister will know that the system has been designed by Ferranti, which is part of GEC, to go into all batch 2 and 3 type 22 frigates and type 23s.
I am told that there is a fundamental flaw in the design, possibly associated with inadequate computer power. The problem has a number of manifestations, but I shall mention only two. The first is its inability to discriminate between urgent and less urgent information. Ministers will know that it was intended that the system should be able to present the principal warfare officer and the captain with a series of problems that require solution, in order of declining priority. The system fails to do that, and instead deluges the captain with indiscriminate information, thus defeating the object of assisting the command in decision making.
The second fault may sound minor, but it is important, as anyone who has worked in an operations room will know. It is associated with the light pens. By "pricking off" a contact on the display screen, a read-out of its position, course and speed—and sometimes other information—can be computed and presented to the action information organisation. However, I understand that the CACS1 can take up to six times as long to present that information as did the old ADAWS system.
Batch 3 type 22 and all the type 23 frigates are being designed to incorporate the new CACS. Though the production of the system has been thrown open to competitive tender, I understand that the potential suppliers are by no means satisfied that they can cure the system's defects.
There are, therefore, important questions that I believe my hon. Friend the Minister who is to reply will wish to answer. First, can the CACS be made to work? Secondly, will it be fully effective in time to ensure that there is no delay in building and bringing into service batch 3 type 22 and type 23 frigates? Thirdly, is the contract with Ferranti a fixed-price contract with penalties, or is there to be another subsidy to GEC?
My next point echoes what has been said by many right hon. and hon. Members. It is referred to in EDM 515, which I believe will garner considerable support. It is, of course, the decline of the British merchant fleet, which is an integral part of the maritime defence of this nation.
766
Without a British merchant fleet in time of war, our fighting services will be unable to carry out their duties and the country will starve. However, some of the suggestions that have been made for rebuilding the British merchant fleet have been defective, because they have ignored the causes of decline.
In 1970 a total of 21 per cent. of United Kingdom dry cargo trade was with the Community; by 1985 that figure had doubled. Handling times have been reduced by the introduction of containerisation to one tenth of their break bulk figure. Despite the increase by 20 per cent. in United Kingdom oil trade due to exports, the fall in our oil imports has meant that United Kingdom tonne miles are down by 70 per cent. That reduction alone has contributed to the loss of the United Kingdom tanker tonnage, which, in turn, accounts for 60 per cent. of the United Kingdom tonnage loss between 1975 and 1985.
In the 1970s banks thought that they could not lose on lending to shipowners, and in the United Kingdom alone the registered tonnage increased from 27 million deadweight tonnes in 1965 to 52 million deadweight tonnes in 1975. Last year it was down to 15 million deadweight tonnes.
On the world scene, there is still a glut of ships. Last year there was estimated to be an over-supply of tankers of about 67 million deadweight tonnes, or 34 per cent., an over-supply of dry cargo carriers of about 40 million deadweight tonnes, or 20 per cent., an over-supply by about 30 per cent. of liner shipping, predominantly container trade, and a small surplus in general cargo.
In addition, the current charter rates are nigh on ruinous. The average tanker voyage charter weight fell from world scale 130 to world scale 50 between 1980 and 1985 and the average tramp time charter rate index fell from 250 in mid-1980 to 105 in 1985. When one adds to that the difficulties that British flag shipping has had to face in competing with flags of convenience, which employ Third world crews, which can cost 40 to 50 per cent. less than crews of the United Kingdom flag, one can start to assess the magnitude of the problem that needs to be faced.
The Government were not elected to be a laissez-faire Government shrinking from their responsibilities. While all the wiseacres protested that trade union reform was impossible, the Government went ahead and proved them wrong. On denationalisation, the abolition of domestic rates, the reform of social security, the sale of council houses and the introduction of limited list prescribing, the Government have proved the pundits wrong. In American parlance it is a "can do" Government, but on merchant shipping it is a "do nothing" Government.
For some years I have been asking the Government to get the Community to take concerted action against shipping lines which dump uneconomic freight rates on the market. I was told by Ministers that that was impossible. However, I am delighted to say that on 16 December the Council of Ministers made a decision that will permit the Community retrospectively to penalise those who destroy the profitability of our shipping with unfair trade practices and pricing. At the same time, it has taken action on liner trades by permitting co-operation between competitors on common standards and co-ordinated timetables, and at long last it is prepared to countenance reprisals against third parties which restrict access to their water by Community ships. However, the Council failed to agree about cabotage and greater transparency of subsidies.

767
I say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that as Greece, Spain, Italy and France are unlikely to respond to any suggestions from Britain on bilateral treaties on cabotage, he should mention to the Minister of State, Department of Transport that it is time Her Majesty's Government demanded that the European Court forced those countries to permit our ships to have the same access to their waters as they have to ours. We should use our membership of the largest trading block in the world to force far eastern and east European shipbuilders to compete fairly by prohibiting access to Community ports of cut-price ships dumped on the market. We should use the EEC to force out of business the ships whose quality, equipment, crew competence or crew numbers do not match our exacting standards.
As I believe my synopsis of the problems has shown, all those actions will take time to translate themselves into a reversal of the decline of British merchant shipping. However, there is one action which the Government could take unilaterally which would have an immediate effect. The Treasury could permit a 50 per cent. ship allowance in the first year, with the first 25 per cent. tranche of the writing down allowance in that same year. Indeed, if it were permitted under the rules—I do not know whether it is—that 50 per cent. free depreciation allowance could be increased to 75 per cent. for British-built ships. By doing that the Government would encourage ships to be re-registered under the British flag, ships to be built in British yards and British seamen to be trained to sail under the red ensign again.
Some in the Treasury would protest that it would cost too much. They forget that, although there is an immediate cost to the Government in tax revenue forgone, it is only a deferring of a tax on profits. If they wish to consider the problem in solely accountancy terms—I hope that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is an ex-Royal Navy man, he would not—they should remember that they get no tax at all from foreign companies operating foreign ships carrying our goods, nor do they receive any income tax from British seamen who move their families abroad while they work for overseas companies.
The Treasury should recognise that there is a parallel between these suggestions and the effect of high personal taxation. As we have seen in Britain and, more startlingly in the United States, when the upper bands of personal tax are reduced, the net tax taken from the same percentage of the population goes up. I see every reason to believe that a more generous tax regime for British shipping would, in time, result in an increase in tax to the Exchequer, an increase in the invisible balance of payments surplus and an increase in the number of British seamen and ships essential for the security of our nation.
8.55 pm
Mr. Keith Best: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) will forgive me if I do not deal immediately with the theme that he advanced so ably, that of the merchant marine. I shall deal with that shortly. I see my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) in his place. He is the noblest and most articulate advocate of that cause that the House has the privilege of hearing.
There is only one element of our defence forces that is, individually and severally, fully flexible, omni-purpose, worldwide, self-supporting, capable of offensive action
768
and with a deterrent value disproportionate to its cost in its ability to tie down large numbers of adversary forces with comparatively small numbers of our own. I refer, of course, to our amphibious forces. I must declare an interest as I currently serve as a naval gunfire support liaison officer.
In shipping terms, amphibious forces need command-assault ships with helicopters and landing craft and commando carriers with at least a company group helicopter lift capability.
The "Statement on the Defence Estimates" for the past few years tells a sorry tale. In the annexe entitled the "Strength of the Fleet" in the 1980 Defence Estimates one sees under the heading "Assault ships" that we have two, Intrepid and Fearless. Under the heading "Commando Carriers" are the ships Bulwark and Hermes. In the 1982 Defence Estimates there is the same categorisation. There are still two assault ships, Fearless and Intrepid, but commando carriers are down to one, Hermes. In the 1986 Defence Estimates in the category "Assault ships" there are still Intrepid and Fearless, but the category for commando carriers has disappeared from the face of the Defence Estimates. It is nowhere to be found, for the good reason that we have no commando carriers. That must be remedied.
Page 34 of the Defence Estimates 1986 states, under the heading, "Amphibious reinforcement of Norway";
"Once the United Kingdom/Netherlands force has been committed to operations it may land directly from its own shipping across and over beaches, without any need for ports and airfields. The force has sufficient helicopters and landing craft to enable it to establish and consolidate an initial lodgement ashore. The mobility afforded by these helicopters and landing craft makes the force particularly suitable for operations in North Norway, where land movement is severely limited by fjords, poor roads, steep-sided valleys, bridges, defiles and tunnels, and where airfields are few and far between."
That is a succinct and proper assessment of the ability of and need for an amphibious capability. However, that statement postulates that there are sufficient helicopters and landing craft. I should like to devote a little time to that subject.
There is a need for the helicopter lift. I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) on that subject. It is important that we get that right. I understand why, in answer to my parliamentary questions, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement is not prepared to divulge the number of helicopters that is the criteria for an aviation support ship evaluation. I have asked about certain other matters that are regarded as confidential. I entirely accept that. I hope that I am not reading too much into this, but it is interesting that in a parliamentary answer on 2 July last year, my hon. Friend told me that an aviation support ship is now under consideration. I question whether one will be enough, or whether we should have two. Much depends on the nature of the craft—its sophistication and the amount of protection that it may give to the embarked force as well as the crew. However, I am encouraged—I hope that I am not encouraged falsely—by a reply that I received to a question that I asked on 17 December last year, which stated:
"We shall be addressing the means of providing helicopter lift in support of amphibious operations over the next few months. The number of ships will be addressed within our consideration of the overall shape of the amphibious package."—[Official Report, 13 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 157.]

769
I hope that that means that there is more than one ship in contemplation, in the role of aviation support ship. When he replies, will my hon. Friend the Minister say when the results are likely to be reported to the House?
Swan Hunter will complete the study into extending the lives of Fearless and Intrepid, the two assault ships, this summer. As for feasibility studies into the option of building new ships, letters have been sent to some 80 firms asking whether they wish to participate in the work. It is not planned to complete the replacement studies until summer 1988, with an evaluation taking about a further year. That is a lengthy evaluation. Does that not mean that, because decisions will have to be taken fairly soon for the replacement of those ships, but bearing it in mind that by the summer the evaluation of the extension of the ships' lives will have taken place, the inevitable conclusion must be that the decision has already been taken? The ships will not be replaced, but their lives will be extended. Perhaps I have a suspicious mind. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can gainsay me in my deduction and in my assessment of the statements in the parliamentary answers that I have received.
Notwithstanding the questions that I have for my hon. Friend, I am fully confident that they will be fully answered. I congratulate the Government on having given a clear commitment to amphibious forces. However, in due course it must be matched by action. I hope that when the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) speaks, he will be able to do slightly better than his hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan. I hope that, rather than say that he cannot give a commitment, he will give a commitment from his party to one, or at least one, aviation support ship. He is able to give commitments about expenditure that he says he will save from the Trident submarine programme, so surely he can give us a similar commitment in respect of our amphibious forces which, as I said, are one of the most important elements of our defence forces, not least because it is the only out-of-NATO area offensive capability that we have, which is disproportionate in its capability as a deterrent to tie down a large number of opposing forces.
I now refer to our surface fleet numbers. I wonder what the judgment will be on the United Kingdom by the study of the major NATO commanders into maritime force requirements. That study is continuing. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to let us know when it will be completed. The United Kingdom makes by far the largest contribution to the NATO surface naval presence in the eastern Atlantic and the Channel of any European NATO member. That contention must not in any way be used as an excuse for any reduction in the size of our surface fleet.
Of any nation, we have the most to lose by having an inadequate fleet. We are an island people whose livelihood and salvation has been based on the sea. Other European NATO members are continental land powers. We are a maritime nation and we must not lose sight of that. I hope that any comparison of the size of fleets between ourselves and other European NATO members will not be used as a persiflage or covering to show that we should have a fleet of a parity with other European NATO members which have traditionally been land-based continental powers rather than sea-based powers. We must continue to
770
conduct our defences as a sea-based power, for the reasons which hon. Members have advanced so ably this evening and which I do not wish to reiterate now.
The size of our surface fleet within the coast constraints which must necessarily follow—we are beginning to see the constraints for the first time this year after the continuing NATO commitment of a 3 per cent. real increase and we are now having to face some hard facts—may depend on our new frigate. Will it be a specialist frigate such as the type 23 with its towed array sonar, or a more general purpose frigate? I hope that we are considering the latter.
If we are considering a more general-purpose frigate, I trust that, notwithstanding the fact that we may have lost the first battle in the campaign, the whole campaign has not been lost for the S90 short fat hull, which was referred to earlier. That hull may not have been appropriate for the type 23 frigate. I accept that now, although I argued strongly that it should have been a contender for the type 23. The type 23, with its specialist role, its quietened hull, high engine to diminish noise levels, and its very specialist role, was not especially appropriate for the S90. That hull is far more appropriate for a general-purpose frigate.
However, the House should know that no evidence was presented to the Marine Technology Board that the performance of the S90 frigate when operating with the towed array sonar had been addressed. In effect, that consideration was not made, although most of us accept that the S90 was probably inappropriate for the type 23. The fact that it may have been inappropriate for the type 23 with its specialist role, does not in my judgment invalidate the S90 for consideration for a future frigate programme.
The Lloyd's Register of Shipping under the chairmanship of Mr. Macleod has agreed to conduct an inquiry into hull forms for frigates and destroyers. That report should be ready in six months or nine months time—at least that was the judgment of my hon. Friend the Minister of State in December. Perhaps he can update us and give a more precise date of when that study will be completed.
Together with seven other NATO nations, the United Kingdom participated in a 15-month joint feasibility study completed towards the end of 1985 called "The NATO Frigate Replacement Programme (NFR90)". The results of that study have been evaluated and we are moving towards the next phase called "project definition". A decision is expected by the middle of this year.
Will the United Kingdom put forward the concept of a short fat hull in view of its equal seaworthiness, larger weapons platform, larger radar horizon and cheaper cost? I appreciate that we must await the result of the inquiry into hull forms. If that inquiry comes forward with a good bill of health for the S90, I hope that that will be carried forward by the Government into "The NATO Frigate Replacement Programme (NFR90)" in the project definition stage. I believe that the S90 would be a cost-effective way of providing a future frigate for this country and for the rest of NATO.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), who mentioned the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to the General Council of British Shipping, I welcome my right hon. Friend's new-found enthusiasm for finding answers to the problems of our merchant marine. But that new-found enthusiasm is due almost exclusively to the consistent pressure from speeches, and now publications, of my right

771
hon. Friend the Member for Taunton. As a classical scholar, he will recall that, 2,000 years ago, Senator Cato consistently said the same thing: "Delenda est Carthago"—Carthage must be destroyed. That is the only thing for which he will be remembered. Carthage was indeed destroyed, so the message got home. There is much to be said for one constant message. My right hon. Friend has been responsible for one constant message; and it looks as though it is getting home.
I shall not deal with the statistics or the analysis of decline of our merchant fleet but merely offer two solutions. The first must be fiscal. In the Adjournment debate of 25 November 1982, initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, entitled "Merchant Fleet", Mr. lain Sproat, whom the whole House will welcome back after the general election, used this as his first and most important argument in relation to what the Government were doing to support our merchant fleet and to secure its future:
"We have a corporation tax regime that encourages investment in shipping."—[Official Report, 25 November 1982; Vol. 32, c. 1106.]
That was said in 1982; the encouragement was removed in 1984. The central argument that was deployed in that debate in 1982 was removed by subsequent fiscal legislation.
In 1985, the British Shipping Review said this:
"To those in the industry one of the most frightening features of the last decade has been the degree of apparent indifference to and lack of understanding of the future of the shipping industry shown by the nation, public and politicians alike. In a world in which most major shipping countries—including those most wedded to free enterprise—afford considerable support to their shipping industries by way of tax concessions, subsidies and cargo reservation, successive British Governments have done little but express sympathy. Indeed, the Budget of 1984 actually cut heavily into the special capital allowances which were the only significant support the shipping industry had previously enjoyed. Happily there have been signs in the past year of a reawakening of public and Government concern…Nevertheless, time is running out and early and decisive action is needed to put British shipping on a par with its competitors and so generate the flow of future investment required to enable the British merchant fleet to equip itself with the ships that will be needed in future years. The essential point here is that with capital costs sometimes representing half the cost of running a modern ship, fiscal regimes matter enormously in the competitive equation, especially when, as in the UK, other forms of aid and protection are lacking."
The ninth report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities, which has already been mentioned in the debate, advocated assistance to encourage the provision of special features during the building of ships which would make them more readily adaptable or suitable for military purposes. What is being done about that? What Government input is there at the design stage as well as at the building stage of merchant ships to ensure that they are more readily adaptable or more suitable to undertake a military role in the event of their being called upon so to do?
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East summarised some of the reasons for the decline in our merchant fleet. He mentioned the problem of oil tankers. I can speak from personal experience because in Anglesey, in my constituency, there is a single buoy mooring half a mile off the port of Amlwch. That single buoy mooring was positioned to accommodate super-tankers that could not get into port to discharge their oil. Unfortunately, at the time it was introduced, it was almost immediately
772
redundant, and hung by a slender thread for years thereafter. Shell has now decided to close it down altogether. That is particularly sad for my constituency, because the quid pro quo basis for that single buoy mooring was an annual payment to the Ynys MÔn borough council of some 0·5 million. With that money, the Ynys MÔn borough council built leisure centres on the island and many other assets that presently are enjoyed by residents and visitors alike in my constituency. It is a major loss, but it was inevitable because the day of the supertanker was doomed, for the reasons that were advanced by my hon. Friend.
A tremendous number of old hulks are rusting, lying up, and unable to be sold. Again, I can speak from personal experience because the port of Holyhead is owned by Sealink. Mr. Jim Sherwood himself is suffering a grave disadvantage at present because of the number of rusting hulks that are laid up.
All the problems of the decline of the merchant marine fleet cannot be laid at the Government's door, but the stimulus for recovery can and must come from the Government. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will say something about that matter when he replies. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, Carthage finally was destroyed—the prophecy came true—because its continuance was regarded as inimical to the very survival of Rome. In a positive way the continuance of our merchant fleet is just as critical to the survival of the British people. We must act now or face the inevitable consequences.
9.17 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: This debate has had four themes: the rapid decline of our Merchant Navy, the sterile debate between the Government and the alliance about Trident, the concern about the royal dockyards and their future and, finally, the funding of the Royal Navy in particular in relation to the type 23 frigate and, of course, the amphibious northern flank commitment to Norway. Many hon. Members have spoken about the decline of the Merchant Navy. The right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann), my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) and other hon. Members made strong and important speeches. This is the third or fourth Navy debate in which speeches of that kind have been made, as well as during debates on the Defence Estimates. Nothing has been done by the Government. It is not a party matter, as was pointed out. The decline goes on, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth pointed out with the figures that he put before the House.
I am told that the Channel tunnel also could accelerate the decline of the merchant fleet if it replaces shipping in the Channel.
In an interesting speech, the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) set forth various measures that need to be taken. I do not think any hon. Member is under the illusion that it will be easy to arrest the decline. It requires a combination of defence, industrial, commercial, and financial policies. The hon. Member also mentioned capital allowances. As he knows, it was his right hon. Friend the then Chancellor who did away with capital allowances and exacerbated the problem. The problem is that there is no co-ordination and no lead Department.

773
The Ministry of Transport cannot be the lead Department. The only way to arrest the serious decline of our merchant fleet is by co-ordination.
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces spent a considerable amount of time on the latest open document on Trident, and the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) tried to answer the Government's arguments about Trident, but what was said about Trident related more to votes than to defence. The Government attempted to justify their purchase of Trident, although everybody knows that they have no option but to buy the latest submarine ballistic missile from the United States. At one time it was to be the C4, which, it was said, would be splendid for our purposes. Then the production line for the C4 ran out and we had to buy the D5. Again reasons were found for purchasing the D5. If the Americans were to decide tomorrow not to have the D5 but something called the E6, the Government would buy the E6 and there would be another open document to justify the E6 as the best alternative for Britain.
It would be much more honest if the alliance were to say that they too favour Trident. The alliance is trying to save the face of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who came out strongly against Trident. Perhaps he regrets doing so now; I do not know. The alliance's attempt to find an alternative—either an Anglo-French missile or a version of cruise—is dishonest. The honest course for the alliance would be to say that it favours Trident.
Does it make any sense for Britain to go for a third generation of British nuclear weaponry? I do not believe that it does, for many reasons, including the fact that whatever alternative is chosen would not cost much less than Trident and the money would still have to be found from a declining defence budget. The choice has to be made between a weapon of so-called last resort and a conventional capability within NATO. That choice cannot be fudged, nor should it be fudged.
My hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), the right hon. Member for Devonport and the hon. Member for Woolwich referred to the dockyards. I am unable to understand why it is not possible to run the dockyards within the public sector as a commercial organisation by means of a trading fund. A trading fund worked well for the royal ordnance factories. The Royal Mint probably operates by means of a trading fund. Small amendments may be needed to the Act relating to trading funds so that it can be applied to the dockyards. That would allow for the commercial discipline that a trading fund could provide within the Civil Service. It would not be necessary to go as far as having a public limited company. In that case it would not be a trading fund; it would be simple commercial accounting. There is no magic about a trading fund. It would provide commercial funding and a profit and loss account for the operation of the dockyards. I hope that the Government will think again. Not to do so would not make any sense.
The right hon. Member for Devonport said that there was no sense in splitting the ownership of assets away from, the use of those assets. That is a fundamental argument against the Government's case. We are not dealing with the franchise of a fast food chain. These enormous assets will not be owned by the users of those assets. There will
774
be no incentive, therefore, for the users, whose contract will come to an end within seven years, to prevent the depletion of those assets. They should work the assets for all they are worth and create an income profit, knowing that it is not necessary to replace the capital assets, especially if the contract is not renewed. The Government should think. They should not go ahead, but decide that it is possible to run the dockyards through a trading fund.
The consultation which the Act demands has not taken place. There has been no discussion with the trade unions on the economic and social consequences of what is to happen. In an earlier debate the Under-Secretary of State said that there could be no such consultations because the issues were confidential between the Government and the company that would take over the dockyards. Under the Act the Government have an obligation to consult the trade unions and employees on the social and economic consequences. The Government are shielding themselves behind confidentiality, but they have a legal duty to consult.
Mr. Douglas: Is my hon. Friend aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and myself met the Prime Minister last Thursday when we received an assurance that she was concerned about not disclosing to the trade unions, particularly at Rosyth, the impact of possible redundancies?
Mr. Davies: I was not aware of that meeting, but I am aware that the obligation under the Act is clear. The Government cannot transfer, hide behind or shift their legal obligation by saying that the matter is confidential between themselves and the contractors. I hope that the Under-Secretary will deal with the matter, if not tonight when we debate the orders, because it is causing anxiety to employees.
The figures for savings are dubious. For the same reasons as the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport gave, I do not believe that there will be any savings. I believe that the cost will be more because the contractor will be in a monopoly position and be able to demand from the Government a higher price for emergent work—for work which no one thought would be needed. At the end of seven years I think that the dockyards operation will have cost more.
My next agrument is about the funding, or under-funding, of the Royal Navy. The hon. Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall) was interesting until he came to the political knockabout. I tend to agree with him when he bemoans having the service debates towards the end of the financial year, a long way from the publication of the Defence Estimates which we debate close to the beginning of the financial year. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the public expenditure White Paper. It does not set out the different funding requirements of the services, but that White Paper, which was published about a month ago, makes one fact crystal clear—there will be cuts of £1 billion over the next three years in the defence budget. They will not be cash cuts but real cuts, after taking the inflation rate into account. Perhaps the figures are optimistic, since it is always different to work out which inflation rates should be applied to defence expenditure.
It appears that spending will be reduced by £1 billion over the next three years. If a Tory Government admit in an election year, perhaps, that they will impose cuts amounting to £1 billion in the defence budget, what will

775
they do if they are re-elected and they are faced with the enormous problem of trying to fund the Trident project with a declining budget?
How much of the cut of £1billion will come from the Navy's budget? Perhaps we shall find the answer to the question when we read the new defence White Paper. Leaving aside Trident, the Navy must face the prospect of declining expenditure and cuts in various areas of its budget.
My hon. Friends the Members for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and others have talked about the type 23 frigate. I shall quote paragraph 98 of the report of the Select Committee on Defence of 1986, which states:
"In view of the decline in resources it will be remarkable if this average"—
that is the average of ordering three new type 23 frigates a year, and we are already way behind it—
"is achieved for a force of 50 vessels in five years' time."
No one really believes what the Government are saying about this ordering programme. I do not think that even Ministers believe that the Government will be able to maintain in the 1990s a 50 escort, frigate and destroyer modern Navy that is based on the ordering pattern for type 23s that the Government have talked about.
Several economists have come to the conclusion that by 1990 or 1991 we are likely to see defence expenditure fall back to about 4·5 per cent. of gross domestic product. They have come to this view having studied the Government's figures. Defence expenditure currently is 5·2 per cent. of GDP. If the economists are right, how will the Government be able to fund Trident and maintain the expenditure that will be needed for a 50-warship navy? I do not think that anyone believes that it will be possible to do that.
The House will remember that one of the consequences of Sir John Nott's defence review was that Chatham dockyard was closed. I have considerable sympathy for the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), who has said that the Government closed the dockyard in his constituency and are now considering dumping nuclear waste in that area. The various options that are before us were with us in 1980 or 1981, and I should like to know the cost now of a type 23 frigate. It is probably about £125 million, and there are many who say that it is even higher. In June 1981, Sir John Nott said:
"Secondly, we can maintain our surface fleet at its present full strength only through a continuous programme of refits and major mid-life modernisations, requiring a huge and costly dockyard infrastructure. Typically, it can now cost £70 million"-—
I do not think that that was the correct figure—
"to modernise an old 'Leander' frigate, which is actually more than our target cost for the new type 23 frigate."—/Offical Report, 25 June 1981; Vol. 7, c. 389.]
That is a quotation that 1 used in my speech on 19 July 1982.
What is the cost of a type 23 now? Is it £125 million, £130 million or £140 million? It was designed as a throwaway frigate, a frigate that would not need mid-life modernisation, but that was because the dockyards would not be available to carry out that sort of modernisation. Who will throw away a frigate that cost £125 million? We shall hang on to the frigates, even the ones we have now, and they will become older and older and less effective because of the Government's policies. I shall not give the type of commitment that the hon. Member for Ynys MÔn (Mr. Best) wants. It certainly appears that Fearless and
776
Intrepid need to be replaced and that there needs to be some type of air support. I do not know how much that would cost. Indeed, I do not think that the Government know. The Government will not be able to pay the full price of those orders and have 50 frigates and have Trident. A choice will have to be made.
I fear that we shall resile from the Norwegian commitment, just as we are resiling from the Danish commitment. Our commitment to Denmark may not be major or considered very important—I raised this point during the speech of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces—but it is a commitment to the Baltic approaches. The Government are negotiating about reducing that commitment. We are told that nothing has been done unilaterally—of course not.
Mr. Best: I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman cannot give me a commitment about Fearless and Intrepid and an aviation support ship. However, can he give a commitment that the Labour party will not resile from the Norwegian commitment?
Mr. Davies: I can give that commitment, because I believe that it is possible to fund that commitment with a budget if Trident has been cancelled. I do not believe that it is possible fully to fund that commitment and have Trident. That is our position.
I do not think that any Government have faced up to the question of what role the Royal Navy, especially the surface fleet, should have. The Navy cannot possibly have the type of blue water role, with power all over the world, that some people romantically want. Clearly, the Navy would occasionally have a role in the Gulf, a Belize guardship role and obviously a role in the Falklands, but it must have a role in the European theatre. So long as the Government and NATO subscribe to a defence policy—we considered this in the Army debate—that foresees a six-day or seven-day conventional war in Europe, which then becomes nuclear, there will be question marks over the role of the surface fleet. If that war is to be so short, one of the Navy's traditional roles—to protect supplies crossing the Atlantic—will not be needed. We must face up to that. If our defence strategy is flexible response and forward defence and nothing else, people will ask, as Sir John Nott in effect did in his defence review, "Why on earth do we need a surface fleet?" Of course the submarine navy performs a different role. We need to think in terms of moving from the idea of battlefield nuclear war in Europe to the idea of—God forbid—a longer conventional war. In that case, of course there is a need for the Navy to protect the sea routes and do the type of work that it is has provisionally done for Britain. That fact will not be faced this side of the election, but it will have to be faced after the election. If the Conservative party wins, the Navy will be decimated in terms of its surface fleet. We are buying Trident and the logic is that, by subscribing to the battlefield role in Europe, we do not need a surface navy of the type that I believe we should have. For all these reasons, the Navy's future under the Conservative Government is not happy or rosy.9.38 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Archie Hamilton): It gives me great pleasure to close my first Navy debate. The hon. Members for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), for Woolwich

777
(Mr. Cartwright) and for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) have referred to the royal dockyards and it would be remiss of me not to respond. As we have said on so many occasions, there have been several studies over the past two decades, under successive Administrations, of the organisation of the dockyards. The right hon. Member for Devonport made a point about the Mallabar report, which suggested that we should have a trading fund. It is significant that we do not have a trading fund. One point that has not been disputed in all that time is that we need fairly fundamental changes in the way in which the dockyards are run.
We have seen Administrations come and go; we have seen the studies come and go; and we have seen the years come and go. There has, however, been comparatively little real change in the dockyard organisation. Still, there is general agreement—even from the trades unions—that there is a need for change.
We can either go on debating change for the next two decades, or we can take the view that, if change is to be made, it should be made now. That is the view the Government have taken, and it remains our view. As the House knows, we have now signed a contract with Babcock Thorn Ltd. for the operation of Rosyth dockyard over a seven-year period from April this year. So far as Devonport is concerned, we have announced Devonport Management Ltd. as our preferred contractor for the future operation of Devonport dockyard. We have, however, taken no final decision on Devonport, and will not do so until after we have carefully considered any views the trades unions wish to put to us and until we have had a meeting with them on 13 February.
To hear opponents of the scheme talk, one might be forgiven for thinking that they, and they alone, had an interest in the needs of the fleet and in the nation's security. The Government's record on defence is second to none, and we need no lessons from the Opposition. As for the needs of the Navy, Opposition Members may have heard from the trades unions that at their meeting with the Navy Board recently, they were told that the board saw commercial management as the best way forward, not only for the Royal Navy but for the dockyards and their work forces.
Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Minister confirm that no report, other than the Levene report, has recommended the option that he is now proposing? Will he further confirm that in his paper on the Government-owned plc, the Ministry of Defence envisages a reduction in the standards of refits, and lengthier gaps between refits, for some of our major naval vessels? Will he now tell us how many jobs he has signed away in the contract between the Government and Babcock Thorn?
Mr. Hamilton: As we have made quite clear, the Government-owned plc would have led to the loss of jobs because of the fall in work load. In fact, Babcock Thorn has said that it can improve on the Government's forecasts.
What is the response of the Opposition to such a clear commitment to commercial management from the most senior officers in the Royal Navy? Quite simply, they ignore it, as they have ignored much of the supporting
778
argument we have presented over the many months. Instead, they claim that the dockyards are being sacrificed on the alter of dogma.
By careful negotiations, we have secured arrangements which we believe will produce over £320 million in savings to the taxpayer over the next 10 years, with more thereafter. We have taken steps to ensure that our strategic interests are protected, and that includes safeguards on foreign control. We are providing for a realistic separation of customer from supplier, and for maximum competition between the two dockyards and with the private sector generally. We are allowing local managers the freedom to manage, without public sector constraints. We are providing for the dockyards to become more efficient so that they can compete for, and I hope win, commercial and naval work. In that way, they will secure jobs which—let there be no doubt—will not be secured by the declining naval refit and repair programme.
If it is dogma to want to make the dockyards more efficient; if it is dogma to want to save taxpayers' money; if it is dogma to want to see new work introduced to the dockyards and to minimise job losses—I for one plead guilty to dogma.
Finally, I refer to the Dockyard Services Act. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is perfectly well aware of his obligations under the Act to inform and consult the unions. He made it quite clear, when, on 27 January, he announced the contract with Babcock Thorn, that he was satisfied that it complied with such duties as the Act imposed upon him. It is notable that the noble Lord Denning, in another place, who pressed for the inclusion in the Bill of the provisions relating to informing and consulting the unions, has commented that there had been intensive consultation on the options, that we had done all that was reasonably necessary and that, on the choice of contractor, we had gone through all the proper information and consultation procedures.
Mr. Douglas: The Minister will have heard my intervention in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). Can he say when the unions at Rosyth can expect to be given accurate figures for redundancies under the Babcock Thorn contract?
Mr. Hamilton: That is the responsibility of Babcock Thorn and I should have thought that the company would open negotiations with the trade unions quite soon. All that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman about is that those redundancies will be fewer in number that we forecast under the Government-owned plc.
Mr. Gordon Brown: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for intervening again. However, will the Minister tell us whether, as part of the contract between the Government and Babcock Thorn, the Government have agreed to fund a number of redundancies, and if so how many?
Mr. Hamilton: We do not reveal the precise number, although we have agreed that there will be a certain number of redundancies.
It is time to stop arguing and to look to the future. We must work to make commercial management a success in the interests of all concerned, the nation, the Navy, the dockyard, the work force, and the regions. My hon. Friend the Member for Drake raised the issue of COMPEX. The COMPEX comparison exercise that was announced in the Government White Paper was to open up the market to

779
help the Government to gauge the likely size and capability of the market and compare the performance of the commercial yards during the refits with similar refits being undertaken in the dockyards. It will' be at least another year before the final results are analysed, but some comparison of the frigate refits should be available shortly.
I should be doing very badly, Mr. Speaker, if I did not refer to the Merchant Navy, because I know that that has raised considerable interest in the debate, especially from the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) and also from my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann), who, I know, has a great interest in the future of the Merchant Navy. Many other hon. Members have also referred to the Merchant Navy and its importance to our defence. Hon. Members have asked about the defence implications of the falling tonnage on the United Kingdom register. Therefore, I shall deal first with the defence requirements.
The Government monitor closely the availability of merchant shipping to meet defence needs and, for the present, there are still sufficient ships to meet that demand in time of war. Our main concern has been the number of trawlers suitable for mine countermeasure purposes. Our studies into the alternative ways of meeting the requirements have shown that perhaps the task could be undertaken by suitably modified offshore support vessels.
However, right hon. and hon. Members have taken the discussion much wider than the issue of the needs of the armed forces, into questions of civil supply and war and economic shipping. Of course, those are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, and my officials work closely with his Department. I am glad to see that I have the support on the Front Bench of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport. The House will have to forgive me if I add nothing new but merely remind hon. Members of what the Government are doing.
During the past decade there has been a substantial reduction in the number of ships on the United Kingdom register, basically as a result of transfer and sale and not of low investment. United Kingdom shipowners are continuing to sell vessels or transfer them to other registers. However, a growing number are going to dependent territory registers. Such transfers do not mean that ships are lost to the nation's needs. The Government already have the power to requisition, in time of tension or war, ships of dependent territory registers, as well as United Kingdom registers. The Government are giving considerable attention to the question of foreign registered vessels. The Department of Transport is having discussions on that issue with three major open registry states.
Mr. O'Neill: Can the hon. Gentleman advise the House how willing the crews, who in the main will not be British, will be to participate in such an exercise as the defence of the United Kingdom, no matter how desirable we consider that to be? Where shall we get the men to look after and support those ships?
Mr. Hamilton: On the issue of manpower and redundancy, I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth found the announcements of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on 10 December 1986 to be limp. My right hon. Friend is consulting shipowners and the seafaring unions about the
780
ways in which the Government could help with training and with the cost of transporting crews to and from vessels that operate away from this country. He also announced the Government's intentions to create a Merchant Navy reserve. That means financial support and, where necessary, legislation at the earliest opportunity. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
My hon Friend the Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall) and the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) raised the question of ship orders—
Sir Edward du Cann: Although I appreciate that this is the first Navy debate that my hon. Friend has had the opportunity to reply to, in the context of what he has said—which, I regret to tell him, I do not think that the House will find satisfactory—will he be good enough to ensure that the debate is reported to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who has not been able to be present during the debate, with a view to considering everything that has been said on the subject of the merchant service? In spite of what my hon. Friend has said, it remains the view of the House that the position is extremely serious and that urgent Government action is needed to rectify it.
Mr. Hamilton: I take the point. The House has expressed considerable anxiety and I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, who is present, will report back to the Secretary of State for Transport. I am sure that the debate will be read carefully' to pick up all the points that have been made. Today we can consider seriously only the defence interests of merchant shipping and that is what I have tried to do.
On ship orders, there have been many inquiries about the type 23. Orders were placed in the summer for three type 23 frigates and it would be premature to take decisions on the size and timing of orders for further follow-on ships. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) mentioned Vosper Thornycroft and minehunter orders. Tenders for four follow-on single role minehunters were invited last month and no decisions have yet been taken on the timing of the orders for fleet minesweepers. Orders placed in 1986 were worth almost £2 billion. Twenty-six ships and submarines are currently on order, including the first of a class of five new vessels, that is the type 23 frigate, the single-role minehunter, the AOR, Trident and Upholder.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley suggested that the Government had moved from a commitment of 50 destroyers to "about" 50. This is a misunderstanding. "The Way Forward", Cmnd. 8288, in 1981 stated:
"We have at present 59 destroyers and frigates declared to NATO. We shall now seek to sustain a figure of about 50."
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) returned yet again to the AOR order. Harland and Wolff's bid was scrutinised originally by two independent consultants- PA on costing and Three Quays on ship design. The building cost is to be monitored by a third. Touche Ross. I apologise if this profusion of independent advice led me to refer to the latter in the wrong context earlier. The plain fact is that Swan Hunter, an admirable yard in other ways, lost the order on technical merit as well as on costs. However, it has been given a special chance for the second ship and I hope that it will take it.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: If that is the case, why do the Government insist that scrutiny will be through the

781
Northern Ireland Office, which is clearly partial in its judgment on this matter? Why does the hon. Gentleman not allow all the issues involved in the debate to be scrutinised by somebody who is completely independent, not the Northern Ireland Office or a direct agent of the Government?
Mr. Hamilton: Those independent consultants will be most insulted to hear that they are for some reason not independent. They are set up to give independent advice.
Mr. Garrett: Would it not be possible for the reports of the independent consultants to be published? Could we not have a publication of the comparative technicalities to allow citizens such as ourselves to use our common sense and our judgment?
Mr. Hamilton: I do not think that it is our business to publish all independent consultants' reports, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that progress on building the AOR will be monitored by Touche Ross.
The hon. Members for Clackmannan and for Wallsend and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) raised the question of CACS. The programme to develop the complex computer-based automated command system for surface ships has suffered problems with delay and cost overrun, especially in software development. Vigorous steps have been taken to address those problems and to determine a sensible way forward. In the case of CACS4, it has recently been decided that work to develop and produce the command system for the new type 23 frigate will be put out to competitive tender. That is in line with our policy of introducing competitive tendering where possible and will afford the opportunity of considering the application of the latest computer technology in the type 23 programme. Invitations to tender have been sent to four consortia and bids are due in mid-April.
Mr. Sayeed: Is my hon. Friend sure that there will be no delay in the building of type 22 and type 23 frigates and is he certain that CACS will be ready in time?
Mr. Hamilton: I am quite sure that there will be no delay to the type 23 building programme, but I cannot guarantee that the CACS will be ready to go into those frigates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley talked about the cost-effectiveness of the Royal Marines. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys MÔn (Mr. Best) and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East also referred to the great value of the Royal Marines and the need for amphibious shipping. On 9 December my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the Government had decided to retain an amphibious capability in the longer term.
As a first procurement step, we have now placed a contract to the value of under £250,000 to Swan Hunter for feasibility studies into the option of extending the lives of assault ships Fearless and Intrepid. We have also sent letters to firms that might be interested in participating in studies into the option of building replacement ships. HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid are currently planned to remain in service until the mid-1990s. There is ample time for us to pursue whatever option proves to be the most cost-effective.
Mr. Best: My hon. Friend will recall that I pointed out that with regard to the replacement of HMS Fearless and Intrepid there would be a study that would conclude in the summer of 1988 and it would be a further year before there was an evaluation of the proposals. Does that mean that the Government cannot come to a decision as to whether to replace or extend until the summer of 1989? When will the decision have to be made to ensure that there will be a continuance of an amphibious capability, bearing in mind what the Minister has said about the lives of HMS Fearless and Intrepid coming to an end in the mid-1990s?
Mr. Hamilton: We will certainly have the continuity that my hon. Friend is seeking and we shall certainly have the life-extended ships or new ships by the mid 1990s. That is all I can say.
The hon. Member for Wallsend and my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon mentioned the saga of the short, fat ships. As announced in another place, we are fortunate to have secured the services of Lloyd's Register of Shipping to conduct the inquiry that will be considering the report by Lord Hill-Norton on hull forms. Lord Hill-Norton has said that he regards Lloyd's Register as being fully qualified to conduct an independent enquiry. We welcome the opportunity to resolve this long-running controversy. The inquiry will consider the conclusions of Lord Hill-Norton's report and we will not miss the opportunity of improving the Royal Navy's capabilities or the possibility of reducing costs.
It is up to the chairman to decide how he will conduct the inquiry, but it is the intention that he should produce an unclassified summary of his report for publication. Whatever the outcome of the inquiry, the type 23 is the only frigate design that has progressed sufficiently to be considered for series ordering by the Ministry of Defence in the next few years.
Mr. James Callaghan rose—
Mr. Hamilton: I am sorry; I must get on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) raised the difficult point about the dumping of medium-level nuclear waste at the Royal Naval dockyard in Gillingham. I apologise to my hon. Friend but I have answered his query and that answer is probably sitting on the board at the moment.
The residual nuclear storage facility—known as MOD Gillingham—consists of a storage facility for radioactive materials, contaminated equipment and a disposal site for low-level radioactive waste. The latter was used for the disposal of waste up till the end of last year, but there are no plans for its further use. The storage facility was used for contaminated equipment when Chatham dockyard was in operation. Now it contains intermediate-level waste awaiting disposal. Its use for the storage of containers of radioactive material and contaminated equipment from other dockyards is being considered. Items may be transferred, temporarily, from Devonport and/or Rosyth pending an extension of their own storage facilities. There will be no hazard to members of the public from the storage of such items since the radiation levels just outside the buildings will be such that no special restrictions on movement will be required. I must stress to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and to my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame Peggy Fenner) that the storage will be only temporary.
Mr. Couchman: Would my hon. Friend care to say what "temporary" means?
Mr. Hamilton: That will be the time that it takes to construct the facilities at the other dockyards.
There seems to be some confusion about how the Trident savings are made up. The net real cost reductions on Trident are £546 million and the change in the exchange rate produced savings of £598 million, making a total of £1,144 million. The effects of inflation added on £540 million, making net savings of £604 million.
I should like to go on about Trident—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

The Royal Navy
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
    That the draft Agriculture and Fisheries (Financial Assistance) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 13th January, be approved—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
    Question agreed to

    WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
    That the draft Weights and Measures (Carriage of Solid Fuel by Rail) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 12th January, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
    Question agreed to
    Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the three motions in the name of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection.

    DEFENCE
    Ordered,
    That Sir Humphrey Atkins be discharged from the Defence Committee and Sir Hector Monro be added.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    ENERGY
    Ordered,
    That Mr. James Pawsey be discharged from the Energy Committee and Mr. Robert Jackson be added—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    TREASURY AND CIVIL SERVICE
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Tony Banks be added to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

School Building (Lancashire)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
10.1 pm
Mr. Peter Pike: I welcome the opportunity to raise a subject which is important for hon. Members who represent Lancashire constituencies. This is not the first time that I have raised the issue in the House, but the situation facing us is more critical than at any time in the past few years. If we do not get an adequate response tonight from the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, I shall continue to raise the issue, time and again, until we get what the people of Lancashire are entitled to.
During the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill on 24 July I was called to speak at 7.58 am on the Friday morning, with only two minutes available to me. Of course, I was not able to develop my case, but I threw out a challenge to the Under-Secretary to see for himself the problems in Lancashire. The hon. Gentleman readily accepted that challenge, but in the end the Secretary of State made the visit. We welcomed the fact that the right hon. Gentleman visited Lancashire, but we should have been equally glad to welcome the Under-Secretary of State.
We believe that the problem is there for all to see and that it speaks for itself. That is why we are appalled at the situation facing us. The capital allocations were announced in January. My first reaction when I met the county council's chief executive, Mr. Brian Hill, and the leader of the council, Mrs. Louise Ellman, was that the figure must be a mistake. If the Minister will tell us that the figure one should be placed in front of the allocation of £5,994,000, I shall sit down and not pursue the matter.
I was a member of the all-party delegation that put the case to the previous Secretary of State last year. The county council presented a video showing that it needed £44 million of extra resources over the next five years to deal with the problem of Lancashire's crumbling schools.
We have two main problems. The first is that many of the county's schools were built before 1914 and, because of their age, are deteriorating rapidly. In many cases, it is an expensive uphill battle to keep them in use. The county council is doing a magnificant job, but it is not the easiest of tasks. I believe that the county council is sometimes forced to waste money because it is not able to deal with the problem in the appropriate way. In many cases there is a need for new buildings rather than renovation of existing premises.
The second problem is with school premises with flat roofs built in the 1950s and 1960s. The House will be aware that flat roofs cause problems throughout the country. After a number of years, problems occur internally as a result of that kind of structure. In many cases the roofs require fairly expensive treatment to remedy the problems. In Lancashire, where the rainfall is slightly above the national average, flat roofs can cause even more problems than in some of the more fortunate parts of the country.
I believe that the figure of capital allocation announced must be a mistake. The county council capital allocation bid for 1987–88 was £18·8 million. As I have said, the allocation is £5,994,000. That is 32 per cent. of the figure that was bid for. It has to be said that the figure for 1986–87 was £12,538,000. In cash terms, that is the largest

785
reduction for any local education authority in the country. After the representations made, I believe that even this Government cannot be serious if that is the allocation.
If a mistake has been made, whether it was a mistake by the county council or the Department, let us get the matter cleared up and agree that more resources are needed so that we can solve the problem. If the Government really believe that the allocation that they have made is sufficient to meet the problem, it is an insult to the people of Lancashire and it is an appalling and despicable way in which to treat that county. I will be generous and say at this stage that I believe that some mistake has been made and that additional resources must be made available.
The problems from area to area are not necessarily always the same. In some areas the aided schools are the biggest priority. Sometimes it is the primary schools and sometimes it is the high schools or secondary schools. That is partly for historic reasons. Burnley was a county borough and concentrated first on the renewal of secondary and high schools. Most of our aided schools are in good condition. The biggest problems in Burnley are the county primary schools.
I have made the debate cover a wider area than Burnley deliberately because I recognise that the problems differ in other boroughs and districts in Lancashire. The capital allocation for aided schools to enable the governors to do necessary work has gone down. In 1985–86 the figure was £2,244,000. It has now gone down to £1,302,000 and it is £793,000 for 1987–88. That will create a problem for the parts of the county where the aided sector needs to take priority.
In my borough early last year Burnley Wood school had to be closed. I visited that school during the Christmas recess, just before Parliament reassembled. I wanted to see the scale of the problem. I was appalled. In spite of the fact that the county had tried to keep it presentable and attractive, dry rot had taken over so that large sections of the school were quarantined and could not be used. Shortly after that visit the school premises were closed. Burnley Wood school still exists but is now in different premises. Part of it is in Fulledge at Todmorden road school and part is in Coal Clough primary school. That is not the best solution and it cannot be allowed to continue. Yet the capital allocation places the scheme for the renewal of premises in jeopardy. I believe that the county council has decided that the project should still go ahead, having reconsidered the matter closely. It may be subject to county council confirmation at a full meeting. But it is an expensive project, and for every project that one leaves in, others have to go out. Whether it is Burnley or other parts of the county that have to exclude other schemes, it is an equally appalling and unacceptable state of affairs.
When the Secretary of State visited Burnley during the summer recess, he looked at Stoneyholme county primary school, which occupied two buildings adjacent to each other. There is a dry rot problem. The county is spending money trying to deal with it, but it is unable to eradicate it permanently. In addition, the school is in a growing population area and urgently needs new premises. If the county council decided to spend money on modernising those premises, it would be wasting its money because it would not be able to combat the prevalent dry rot in the in the building. Even if, for a moment, we assumed that
786
it could, we are still faced with the problem of the old-fashioned premises, the insufficient capacity to meet the needs of the population and insufficient resources for the staff who have to work there.
Other schools in Burnley with other projects are also placed in jeopardy. Hargher Clough county junior school needs a replacement kitchen. Burnley Wood Top Church of England school needs a scullery and Burnley Barden county infant school is in need of a connecting passageway and the refurbishment of its toilets. Several projects need to be done at Burnley college. The same can be said throughout the county. There are projects at Rawtenstall Alder Grange county secondary school for extensions following secondary reorganisation. I could read out a lengthy list of all the schemes that are placed in jeopardy at present.
All those schemes, wherever they are in the county, are urgently needed. We need more resources. Only the Government can help us to deal with the problem. I know that in theory the county is able to spend 30 per cent. of its capital receipts from disposal of premises, but it is not a solution in an area such as Lancashire, where land values are low and the disposal of such sites yields only a very low income. It could be said that even if the council could spend 100 per cent., which could be fully justified, it would still fall short of helping Lancashire to deal with this pressing problem.
I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will recognise the seriousness of the problem. I know that Conservative Members are as concerned about the issue as my hon. Friends. It is an important issue. We look forward to receiving a favourable response and to action being taken to deal urgently with the problem.
10.13 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) for the way in which he has led the campaign for improved allocations for school buildings in Lancashire. I thank him for this opportunity to speak briefly in this Adjournment debate.
The Minister must explain why Lancashire has been so discriminated against in the allocations. Let us take Essex as an example. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley extracted the figures from the Minister in a written answer. Essex is of a similar size to Lancashire. Its allocation has been around £11·6 million for three years, including next year. Lancashire had £15 million in 1985–86 and £12·5 million this year. It will have £5.9 million next year. That is the biggest cash cut as well as the greatest percentage cut, second only to Northamptonshire. Why have Lancashire's needs not been recognised as they should be? It is a well-administered county. There is no fat to cut in the county. Building workers are out of work there. There are people who need work. Work is crying out to be done in Lancashire's crumbling schools.
It is simply crazy for the Government to refuse to make the allocations available to Lancashire. Only a Government who cared more about cutting tax for the better off than about ensuring that our school children had decent accommodation could have reached such a ridiculous decision. I hope that we shall hear tonight that the Minister will increase the allocation for Lancashire, as he should.

787
10.14 pm
Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on raising this important issue in this Adjournment debate. When the announcement was made it was greeted with incredulity by all the people in Lancashire, who thought that £5.9 million was simply unacceptable. We could not understand it at all. The press and television blamed the Government and it seemed that once again Government cuts were responsible. However, it now appears that the truth is that the county council has been grossly negligent in either making the applications in the wrong categories or filling in the forms incorrectly.
Money was available if the council had applied for it correctly. That fact should be stated. There should be an inquiry at the county council at the highest level to put the matter right. Millions of pounds more were available. That money could have gone to our schools, but it will not because it was not applied for.
The Department of Education and Science is not without criticism. Two years ago my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) led a deputation to the Secretary of State. Last year I led a similar deputation. We asked to see the Secretary of State when the allocation was £12·5 million. Therefore when an application was received for £5·9 million, someone must have realised that something was wrong and inquiries should have been made.
Surely these applications are not dealt with by a junior clerk. They must be dealt with by an official who really should have had the intelligence to realise that something was wrong. He should have queried the application. Apparently, that did not happen and the Department allocated all that it could in the circumstances.
Whoever is to blame, Lancashire school children and Lancashire ratepayers will suffer. We should have an urgent meeting of everyone involved—the Department, the county council and the Members of Paliament representing Lancashire—in an attempt to sort matters out because this is a monumental cock up.
10.16 pm
Mr. Kenneth Hind: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science for allowing me to take part in this debate. I find it disturbing that there should have been a massive piece of crass incompetence by the officials in the way in which applications were filled in for capital grants to the Department of Education and Science.
Too often, Labour councillors in Lancashire have been quick to blame the Government, and in this case they went straight to the media and complained. When we consider the application carefully, we find that two thirds of it is filled in in non-priority areas, knowing that two thirds of the current year's grant was provided for in priority areas. As a consequence, in the first area—with regard to school capital grants—when the Government told Lancashire 12 months ago that it could have £5 million, it only applied for £2·8 million. With regard to new work, in the current year the council applied for £1·5 million, but for 1987–88 it only applied for £62,000. It is no small wonder that when we trace the application through, the matter of the low figure comes to light. The council did not make a correct application. Because of that, I fully support
788
the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves). There must be a detailed inquiry in Lancashire county council to deal with the matter and heads must roll. This must not be allowed to continue. If nothing is done, every child in Lancashire will suffer as a consequence of the incompetence of these officials and councillors.
I must stress to people in Lancashire that the chairman of the education committee is not a Conservative. I appreciate the difficulties that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science faces in helping us in this matter. However, will he do all that he can to try to find additional money to get Lancashire out of the mess that it has created for itself?
10.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) for raising this matter tonight, and I listened with interest to the speeches of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and my hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) and for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind). I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) here to support the debate.
There are strong feelings in Lancashire on this topic. There is also a good deal of misunderstanding about the Department's procedures for making capital allocations for education and about the way in which Lancashire education authority's allocation was determined. Therefore, I am pleased to have this opportunity to clear away those misunderstandings and to put the record straight. The hon. Member for Burnley mentioned the shortfall in Lancashire's capital allocation for 1987–88 compared with that for the current year, and I shall explain in some detail why the authority's allocation for next year is so much lower. But before I do, it might be helpful to the House if I spend a moment putting Lancashire's position in context.
As hon. Members will know, allocations in respect of prescribed capital expenditure on education are made annually to all local education authorities under the provisions of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. Education is one of five services for which authorities receive block allocations; the others are housing, transport, social services and other environmental services. An annual allocation is also made specifically for the urban programme.
The total net provision in the Government's capital spending plans for education in the local authority sector has increased by some 18 per cent. over the 1986–87 plans. The total available for allocation in respect of education capital expenditure in 1987–88 has, however, in common with the totals for other spending blocks, been fixed at a level which takes account of the increased spending power from receipts by which authorities may supplement their allocations and of other flexibilities in the system. Overall, there is an estimated £2·8 billion spending power from receipts available to authorities in 1987–88. In consequence allocations have, across the board, been fixed at a level which would, if trends in the use of available spending power continue, bring local authority capital spending up to the cash limit.
For education, individual authorities' allocations are calculated by assessing their capital expenditure plans,

789
which they supply to the Department each year in a common form, against a consistent and well-publicised set of criteria. The purpose of this is to ensure that authorities receive equitable treatment. The criteria have been drawn up with the aim of encouraging local education authorities to recognise national priorities, for example in removing surplus school places; they are also designed to ensure that no local education authority which observes those priorities should be unable to fulfil its statutory obligations.
The annual allocation made to an individual local education authority does not, therefore, represent our view of what that authority's capital expenditure on education should be. It is the authority's share of the education element of an overall figure which, together with available receipts, provides total spending power for local authorities of more than double their total allocations.
Lancashire's allocation for prescribed education capital expenditure in 1987–88, for schools and further and higher education, was £5·994 million. This compares with a figure of £12·538 million for 1986–87. With regard to the schools part of the allocation, this reflects a change, not in the way the Department compiles allocations, but in the composition of the authority's plans. I hope that hon. Members will bear with me here if I go into some detail about the nature of Lancashire's bid for 1987–88 and about how it compares with its plans for the current year, since it is only by doing so that this alleged injustice can be explained.
First, let us look at committed expenditure—by which I mean the second and subsequent years' spending on projects which have already started. When we wrote to Lancashire a little over a year ago to tell it of its 1986–87 allocation, we also told it, in line with our normal practice, that, other things being equal, we should be prepared to include in its 1987–88 allocation rather more than £5 million worth of such expenditure. Commitments of this order would be what we would expect to flow from a schools building programme of the size suggested by our allocations for 1985–86 and 1986–87.
Mr. Hind: Does that mean that when the money was paid for the current year Lancashire was aware that it would be entitled to £5 million for that part of the programme? Despite the fact that it knew that, it applied for £2·4 million, thus losing about £2·5 million of potential grant.
Mr. Dunn: That is quite right. We expect commitments of about £5 million to flow from a schools building programme of the size suggested, as I said, by our allocations for 1985–86 and 1986–87.
When the Lancashire authorities submitted its plans, its commitments for schools were shown as only £2·8 million. Plainly, we could not allocate more than the authority had asked for. In effect, Lancashire lost over £2 million.
Right hon. and hon. Members may be as surprised as I am that an authority should conduct its capital programme in a way that guarantees that the allocation is over £2 million less than it might have been. I am bound to say at this point that this low level of commitments also suggests that, despite the authority's continuing complaints about the inadequacy of its schools allocations, it
790
may none the less have chosen to divert part of those earlier allocations to other purposes—in my view, a surprising strategy in the light of its present protestations.
Referring now to Lancashire's allocation for new work starting in 1987–88, I have to say that once again the shape of the authority's plans was markedly different from those that it submitted for the current year. For example, it told us that in the current year it intended to expend over £1·5 million on new projects which would remove surplus school accommodation. This, as the House knows, is work to which we give high priority, not only because it results in savings in local authorities' current spending, but because, by removing some of the worst buildings from use and bringing others up to standard, it helps towards the achievement of a higher quality stock of school buildings. Lancashire's stated priorities thus coincided with our own, and its allocation for the current year reflects that. But its plans for new work in 1987–88 show expenditure of only £62,000 for this type of work—a drop of 96 per cent. Again, we could allocate only what the authority asked for.
The allocation also covers virtually all the authority's planned expenditure on new projects designed to meet "basic need"—that is, new or expanded schools in areas of population growth.
These three categories are the ones to which the Department must give priority in formulating allocations, as they involve statutory or contractual obligations upon authorities. Of Lancashire's plans for 1986–87, around two thirds of expenditure fell into these categories. Its plans for 1987–88, however, placed two thirds of expenditure into lower priority categories. In allocating in respect of this work, the Department distributes what remains by means of a formula that takes into account both the local education authority's expenditure plans and the incidence of substandard school accommodation in its area.
As for work at voluntary aided and special agreement schools, Lancashire fared much better this time around than last time. In fact, it did very well indeed. The allocation for 1987–88, as well as meeting in full the authority's plans for committed expenditure, also meets over four fifths of its plans for new major building work, including the projects at Blackburn St. Bede's Roman Catholic school and Blackburn Our Lady and St. John's Roman Catholic school.
Mr. Pike: I carefully listened to the figures that the Minister gave. Obviously, this is the first occasion I have had to consider the figures. If a delegation from Lancashire county council seeks to meet either the Secretary of State or the hon. Gentleman to discuss these issues, will he be prepared to meet such a delegation? I am sure that the county council has another version of what the hon. Gentleman has put to us.
Mr. Dunn: I know Lancashire. I am a Lancastrian by birth, or at least I was born in that part of the area known as Greater Manchester. I hope that what I have said satisfies the House that Lancashire's allocation was a fair one that took the fullest possible account of the authority's plans as represented to the Department.
Mr. Pike: Will the hon. Gentleman meet a delegation?
Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman must contain his eagerness.
I am concerned that the Lancashire local education authority should have been so surprised by the size of its

791
allocation for 1987–88, bearing in mind the nature of its expenditure plans. Therefore, I have asked officials of the Department to discuss with Lancashire various aspects of its capital expenditure plans so that, if possible, we can
792
avoid compounding the authority's difficulties in future years. I shall bring the request of the hon. Member for Burnley to the attention of the Secretary of State.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

ENERGY
  Power Stations
  Power Stations
  British Coal
  British Coal
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Schools (Basildon)
  Schools (Basildon)
  Science Teachers
  Science Teachers
  Pupil Numbers
  Pupil Numbers
  Broadacres School, Hixon
  Broadacres School, Hixon
  A-Levels and GCSE
  A-Levels and GCSE
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Capital Expenditure
  Capital Expenditure
  Examination Results
  Examination Results
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
PRIME MINISTER
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Legislative Procedures
  Legislative Procedures
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Drink-Drive Campaign
  Drink-Drive Campaign
  Police
  Police
  Crimes of Violence
  Crimes of Violence
  Myra Hindley
  Myra Hindley
  Cardiff Prison
  Cardiff Prison
  News International, Wapping
  News International, Wapping
  Devon and Cornwall Police
  Devon and Cornwall Police
  North Wales (Detention of Persons)
  North Wales (Detention of Persons)
  Criminal Inquiries Compensation Scheme (Railwaymen)
  Criminal Inquiries Compensation Scheme (Railwaymen)
  Police Widows
  Police Widows
  Sinn Fein (Visit to Wales)
  Sinn Fein (Visit to Wales)
  Mrs. Cherry Groce
  Mrs. Cherry Groce
  Vauxhall Tavern
  Vauxhall Tavern
  Lambeth (Reported Crimes)
  Lambeth (Reported Crimes)
  Mr. Mehmet Karipinar
  Mr. Mehmet Karipinar
  West Midlands (Passport Office)
  West Midlands (Passport Office)
  Wrexham Prison
  Wrexham Prison
  Armley Prison (Prisoner's Petition)
  Armley Prison (Prisoner's Petition)
  Mr. Ray Buckton
  Mr. Ray Buckton
  Customs Clearance (Dundee)
  Customs Clearance (Dundee)
EMPLOYMENT
  Asbestos Regulations
  Asbestos Regulations
  Employment Measures (Statistics)
  Employment Measures (Statistics)
  Hazard Legislation
  Hazard Legislation
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Sheltered Placement Scheme
  Sheltered Placement Scheme
  Restart Programme
  Restart Programme
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
  Electronics Industry
  Electronics Industry
  YTS
  YTS
  EC (Labour Statistics)
  EC (Labour Statistics)
  Tourism
  Tourism
  New Workers Scheme
  New Workers Scheme
  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
  Industrial Tribunals
  Industrial Tribunals
  Gas Mains
  Gas Mains
  Availability for Work
  Availability for Work
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Entry Clearance
  Entry Clearance
  Central America
  Central America
  General Sikorski
  General Sikorski
  South Africa (Oxfam Workers)
  South Africa (Oxfam Workers)
  EC (Unemployment)
  EC (Unemployment)
  Channel Tunnel (Passport Control)
  Channel Tunnel (Passport Control)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Nigeria
  Nigeria
  Falkland Islands (Conservation Zone)
  Falkland Islands (Conservation Zone)
  SADCC (Gaborone)
  SADCC (Gaborone)
  Mozambique
  Mozambique
ENVIRONMENT
  Canary Wharf Consortium
  Canary Wharf Consortium
  Nuclear Accidents
  Nuclear Accidents
  Water Pollution
  Water Pollution
  Allotments
  Allotments
  Consumer Safety
  Consumer Safety
  ReChem International
  ReChem International
  Owner-occupiers
  Owner-occupiers
  London Zoo
  London Zoo
  Local Authority Work (Competition)
  Local Authority Work (Competition)
  Homes Insulation
  Homes Insulation
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Housing Land
  Housing Land
  Defective Housing
  Defective Housing
  Urban Development Agency (Birmingham)
  Urban Development Agency (Birmingham)
  Nuclear Installations (Radiation)
  Nuclear Installations (Radiation)
  County Halls (Sale)
  County Halls (Sale)
  Council Housing (Loans)
  Council Housing (Loans)
  Trafalgar Square (Students' Meeting)
  Trafalgar Square (Students' Meeting)
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Thames Barrier
  Thames Barrier
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  British Telecom (Strike)
  British Telecom (Strike)
  Rolls-Royce plc
  Rolls-Royce plc
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  Cordless Telephones
  Cordless Telephones
  Emergency Services (Radio Frequencies)
  Emergency Services (Radio Frequencies)
  Radio Bands (Allocations)
  Radio Bands (Allocations)
  EC (United Kingdom Presidency)
  EC (United Kingdom Presidency)
  House of Fraser
  House of Fraser
  Reed Corrugated Papers, Coatbridge
  Reed Corrugated Papers, Coatbridge
WALES
  Welsh Water Authority
  Welsh Water Authority
  Home Education
  Home Education
  General Certificate of Secondary Education
  General Certificate of Secondary Education
  Cot Deaths
  Cot Deaths
  Unemployment Costs
  Unemployment Costs
  Urban Development Corporations
  Urban Development Corporations
  Loft Insulation
  Loft Insulation
  Housing (Disabled Persons)
  Housing (Disabled Persons)
  Housing Renovation Grants
  Housing Renovation Grants
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Departmental Review
  Departmental Review
  Coast Protection
  Coast Protection
  EC Budget
  EC Budget
  Surplus Food (Distribution)
  Surplus Food (Distribution)
  Radioactive Discharges
  Radioactive Discharges
  Dairy Quotas (Compensation)
  Dairy Quotas (Compensation)
  Foodstuffs (Levies)
  Foodstuffs (Levies)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Breach of Confidence
  Breach of Confidence
  Crown Prosecution Service
  Crown Prosecution Service
  Fraud (Prosecutions)
  Fraud (Prosecutions)
  Barristers' Fees
  Barristers' Fees
  Northern Ireland (Cash Limits)
  Northern Ireland (Cash Limits)
  Zircon Satellite
  Zircon Satellite
DEFENCE
  Nuclear Storage
  Nuclear Storage
  Convoy Accident (Wiltshire)
  Convoy Accident (Wiltshire)
  Dangerous Cargoes
  Dangerous Cargoes
  Royal Air Force, Binbrook
  Royal Air Force, Binbrook
  Radioactive Materials
  Radioactive Materials
  Ex Gratia Payments
  Ex Gratia Payments
  Major Projects (Expenditure)
  Major Projects (Expenditure)
  L/Cpl. S. J. Cockton
  L/Cpl. S. J. Cockton
TRANSPORT
  Bus Services
  Bus Services
  Pennines (Major Roads)
  Pennines (Major Roads)
  Driving Tests (Impersonation)
  Driving Tests (Impersonation)
  One-man Buses
  One-man Buses
  National Bus Company
  National Bus Company
  Road Schemes
  Road Schemes
  Manchester Airport (Rail Link)
  Manchester Airport (Rail Link)
  Motorways
  Motorways
  London Regional Transport
  London Regional Transport
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Heathrow-London (Traffic Flow)
  Heathrow-London (Traffic Flow)
  Motorways (Speed Limits)
  Motorways (Speed Limits)
  British Rail
  British Rail
  Lifeboats
  Lifeboats
  British Rail (Privatisation)
  British Rail (Privatisation)
  Lay-bys (Caravan Cafes)
  Lay-bys (Caravan Cafes)
  A13 (Southend)
  A13 (Southend)
  Rural Areas
  Rural Areas
  Woolwich Ferry
  Woolwich Ferry
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  Railways (Electrification)
  Railways (Electrification)
  Bypasses
  Bypasses
  East London River Crossing
  East London River Crossing
  Trunk Roads
  Trunk Roads
  Stoke-Derby Road
  Stoke-Derby Road
  Manchester (Rail Links)
  Manchester (Rail Links)
  Search and Rescue Helicopter (Western Isles)
  Search and Rescue Helicopter (Western Isles)
  Civil Aviation Authority
  Civil Aviation Authority
  Buses
  Buses
  M4 (Lane Closure)
  M4 (Lane Closure)
  Modbury-Bigbury Road (Car Count)
  Modbury-Bigbury Road (Car Count)
  Traffic Census
  Traffic Census
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Railway Level Crossings
  Railway Level Crossings
  Regional Airports
  Regional Airports
  Birmingham International Airport
  Birmingham International Airport
  British Airways
  British Airways
  Channel Fixed Link
  Channel Fixed Link
  BR (Rolling Stock)
  BR (Rolling Stock)
  Dim-dip Lighting
  Dim-dip Lighting
  M25 (Traffic Flows)
  M25 (Traffic Flows)
  Cash Limits
  Cash Limits
SCOTLAND
  Teachers' Salaries
  Teachers' Salaries
  One-parent Families
  One-parent Families
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Land Use
  Land Use
  Surplus Food (Distribution)
  Surplus Food (Distribution)
  Kymmene-Stromberg Paper Mill
  Kymmene-Stromberg Paper Mill
  Building Regulations
  Building Regulations
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  Development Area Status
  Development Area Status
  Banff and Buchan (Employment)
  Banff and Buchan (Employment)
  Dalgety Foods Limited
  Dalgety Foods Limited
  Student Support
  Student Support
  Teaching Staff (Joint Negotiating Committee)
  Teaching Staff (Joint Negotiating Committee)
  Butter and Cereals Prices
  Butter and Cereals Prices
  Intervention Storage Costs
  Intervention Storage Costs
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Deutschmark
  Deutschmark
  Tobacco
  Tobacco
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Income Tax and National Insurance Contributions
  Income Tax and National Insurance Contributions
  Fishing Vessels (Capital Allowances)
  Fishing Vessels (Capital Allowances)
  Hospitals (Funding)
  Hospitals (Funding)
  EC Budget
  EC Budget
  Channel Tunnel (Customs and Excise)
  Channel Tunnel (Customs and Excise)
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Customs Staff (Dundee)
  Customs Staff (Dundee)
THE ARTS
  Royal Opera house
  Royal Opera house
  Victoria and Albert Museum
  Victoria and Albert Museum
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Benefit Fraud Teams
  Benefit Fraud Teams
  Health Authorities (Staff Qualifications)
  Health Authorities (Staff Qualifications)
  Organ Transplants
  Organ Transplants
  Tobacco
  Tobacco
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Regional Health Authorities (Construction Expenditure)
  Regional Health Authorities (Construction Expenditure)
  Basildon (Population Projections)
  Basildon (Population Projections)
  NHS (Health Hazards)
  NHS (Health Hazards)
  NHS (Occupational Health and Safety)
  NHS (Occupational Health and Safety)
  Nurses (Back Pain)
  Nurses (Back Pain)
  Health Expenditure
  Health Expenditure
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Irradiated Food
  Irradiated Food
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  NHS Representatives (Business Interests)
  NHS Representatives (Business Interests)
  Severe Weather Payments
  Severe Weather Payments
  Breast Cancer Screening
  Breast Cancer Screening
  Meningitis
  Meningitis
  University College Hospital (Special Trustees)
  University College Hospital (Special Trustees)
  Primary Care
  Primary Care
  Accident and Emergency Departments (Doctors' Posts)
  Accident and Emergency Departments (Doctors' Posts)
  Mortality
  Mortality
  Adoptions
  Adoptions
  Artificial Limbs
  Artificial Limbs
  Perivale Hospital
  Perivale Hospital

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

Local Authority Audits
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state the number of local authorities which have so far failed to submit their accounts for the year ended 31st March 1986 for external audit, as required by law and which are now more than three months overdue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the Audit Commission has responsibility for local government audit. I understand from the commission that at 31st December 1986 12 authorities had failed to present balanced accounts for the year ended 31st March 1986.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, has my noble friend's attention been drawn to a sentence in the National Audit Commission's report which states that large parts of London appear to be set precisely on a course which will lead to financial and administrative breakdown? Further, does he agree that, while there may be some obvious villains around, nevertheless there has been too much squabbling on this subject and too little thinking? Perhaps my noble friend would care to say now whether the Government have any proposals for reforming the block grant system? From the point of view of complexity it is surely a monument and from the point of view of unpredictability it is as near as we shall ever get to a national lottery. May I further ask my noble friend whether he will take action—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am copying other examples, my Lords. Will my noble friend take action to curtail the number of councillors who in the name of democracy harass their officials and usurp their functions?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my noble friend in his supplementary questions has ranged very wide indeed on subjects which I suspect will principally be covered in the debate in your Lordships' House on Wednesday. However, for the moment I would say this. The Local Government Finance Act 1982 is the legal base for the current arrangements. When it was going through both Houses it was believed that there was no need for a sanction beyond the auditor's powers of surcharge, which indeed are powerful. But quite clearly from the figures I have given and from what we are told by the Audit Commission the situation has now changed. That is why this matter was a major consideration in the Widdicombe Report. I do not accept that the Government are sitting on their hands.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that two of the authorities which have not submitted their accounts are residuary bodies set up at the time of the abolition of the GLC, and that it is the GLC residuary body and Tyne and Wear which have not submitted their accounts? Can he explain why this is, as these bodies were set up in order to show how effective management could be?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no, I cannot tell the noble Baroness and the House which authorities are among the 12 that I reported on in my original Answer because the Audit Commission is barred by statute from revealing details of individual audits to any third party, including the Government.
Lord Mellish: But, my Lords, the commission's report, which has just come to hand and which has had a lot of publicity, is a very serious one indeed. According to the allegations a large number of councillors, particularly in London, have been grossly misspending ratepayers' money. Now I ask a straight

3
question. I understand that there is to be a debate on Wednesday. Are the Government going to spell out then what they intend to do, and if not will the noble Lord spell it out now?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, clearly the Audit Commission's report, to which the noble Lord refers, is a damning indictment of inefficiency and waste which cannot be tolerated. That is all I should like to say for the moment, but I shall return to the subject on Wednesday.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say, having said that the situation cannot be tolerated, whether the Government are contemplating introducing more effective sanctions against local authorities which defy the law?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. As I hope I have alluded to already, this is something which is very much in our minds in considering the responses by local authorities and others to the consultation paper on the Widdicombe Report.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that we also welcome the debate that is to take place on Wednesday, and the opportunity to answer some of the charges that have been made? Does not the Audit Commission report refer to certain boroughs? Therefore, is it not amazing that the Minister has not been given the information about the two residuary bodies for which my noble friend Lady David asked?
Lord Skelmersdale: No comment, my Lords. I do not think it is in the least amazing. What the commission chooses to do is totally within its own remit. That is equally the case if it does not think that it is profitable to answer the Government's questions, or indeed the noble Lord's questions, and that is perfectly above board.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, has my noble friend seen reports that the original report of the Audit Commission was much stronger and that it has been watered down into an expurgated edition which is the one being published? Those alterations, I understand, were put in following representations from the local authority associations. May we have a copy of the original report put in the Library before Wednesday's debate?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I doubt it very much. Certainly I have seen reports to the effect, but the Audit Commission would be the people to approach in this matter. I will ask them, but I doubt it very much indeed.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend finally whether he will do his utmost to ensure that the Audit Commission really has powers to do this job properly and to bring home the problems to the public?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is quite clear from the Audit Commission's report—the most recent
4
report and previous reports—that it has plenty of power and the equipment to bring the matters it finds necessary to report upon before the public.
Baroness David: My Lords, if I am correct in saying that the GLC and the Tyne and Wear residuary bodies are late with their accounts, can the Minister say whether the Audit Commission will have the right to report on them as well as on local authorities?
Lord Skelmersdale: That is a hypothetical question, my Lords.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does the Minister not find it very sad that we are discussing and asking questions about 12 authorities which have not submitted their reports or have bad reports? Should we not take into account all the authorities in England and Wales which have done a good job?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Audit Commission's job, as I see it, is to conduct investigations and to help the financial health of local authorities. Obviously, it will turn its attention first to those it considers need that help the most.

Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
2.45 p.m.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to encourage neighbourhood watch schemes.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, recent steps to encourage schemes include the first national neighbourhood watch conference which was held in Newcastle on 8th December last and the launch, on the same date, of a new quarterly magazine, Good Neighbour. The third phase of the "Magpies" television advertising campaign which commences later this month will encourage members of the public to join neighbourhood watch schemes.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for that answer. Can he confirm that some local authorities have been making a charge for the exhibiting of the signs that watch committees demonstrate from time to time? If so, can he say which authorities are concerned?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, those authorities which have taken an obstructive line with residents who wish to set up neighbourhood watch schemes include Greenwich, Newham, Haringey, Hackney, Lambeth and Manchester, the well known hard Left councils. I can tell my noble friend that the Department of the Environment is currently considering whether deemed consent could be given to neighbourhood watch street signs thus removing the need for planning permission and planning fees.

Unemployment Statistics
2.47 p.m.
Lord Molloy: 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 were the levels of unemployment for the year ending 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1985.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, as the reply contains a statistical table, I shall, with permission, arrange for the full reply to be published in the Official Report. In December 1978, the seasonally adjusted level of adult unemployment in the United Kingdom was 1,166,600 and the corresponding estimate for December 1985 was 3,132,500. However, in December 1986, seasonally adjusted unemployment stood at 3,116,400 and is thus now lower than a year ago.
Following is the table referred to:
The seasonally adjusted levels of adult unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom in December of each of the years 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1985 were as follows:

1978–1,166,600

1979–1,121,700

1980–1,898,400

1985–3,132,500

Note: Estimates allow for discontinuities and are consistent with the current coverage of the claimant count.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, which shows clearly that in the last six months under the previous Labour Government unemployment was falling. Would it not be worthwhile for the Government to conduct very exhaustive research into why there has suddenly been the most dramatic increase since the end of the war in unemployment in this country? As regards schemes that have been introduced and that might have some effect for about six months in reducing unemployment, is it not the case that the job training scheme was taken from the United States of America and really means that people who are unemployed will have to work for the dole? It will be related to supplementary benefits. However, if supplementary benefits are reduced, as they may be in April, will those on the job training scheme also have the money that they draw reduced?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, although the statistics will show that unemployment fell between 1978 and 1979, they will also show that it has fallen twice as far in the last five months. I hope that that trend will continue. I do not believe that there is any intention by the Government to introduce the type of system operating in the United States, to which the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, referred, known as Workfare. What we have is a job training scheme available to those out of work for more than six months who are able to take existing valid vocational certifications on benefit levels.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the Secretary of State agree that the figures show that under any government the unemployment figures tend to fall for the few months before an election?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I wish that were so, but I did not notice that before the last election.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the figures he has given, supplemented by those he will no doubt circulate, show that under this Government unemployment has increased by at least two million despite the fact that the election campaign of 1979 was fought on the basis of Labour being the party of unemployment? Will the noble Lord supplement his information by indicating to the House just what the unemployment figure now would be had it been based on the same statistical basis as before, prior to the 18 adjustments downwards of the registered unemployed made under the auspices of this Government?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very surprised at the moderation of the noble Lord's language—only 18 adjustments. I thought by now the mythology was that I was up to the low 20s. I have made one major change. But it may interest your Lordships to know that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has itself revised the unemployment statistics. No doubt noble Lords opposite will claim that it is also in the process of fiddling the figures. It announced two weeks ago that it has adjusted the percentage of unemployment for the United Kingdom; for the United Kingdom it is 11·3 per cent.—that is precisely the percentage which we announced last month—while for Great Britain it is 11·1 per cent.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the Secretary of State agree that the press release from his department on 12th January showed, I think, that a further 16,000 people in the manufacturing sector had been made unemployed? Does he accept that the most disturbing continuing trend in all the unemployment figures is that employment in manufacturing industry continues to fall?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the press notice on unemployment statistics which I released on the 15th January showed that the number of employees in manufacturing industry decreased by 14,000 in October. It went on to say that the rate of decline in manufacturing is considerably slower than it was in the period between 1980 and 1983. We have seen a decline of about 8,000 a month in manufacturing occupations over the past three years. It is important to remember that throughout the period between 1966 and 1976 we saw a decline of 10,000 a month. In almost every industrialised nation in the world we have seen a continuing decline in manufacturing employment and I suspect that we shall continue to see it until the end of the first quarter of the next century.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether the Prime Minister really said last week that there would be jobs for all? If so, does he agree with

7
that and does it mean the end of unemployment? When does he think we shall reach that happy condition?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the Prime Minister did not say it in that way. She said she was convinced that we were working towards a period in which full employment would again be possible. I would define that, as I believe we all would, as a period in which there would be as many vacancies as there are those seeking vacancies. I am quite sure that if we can continue to follow the Government's present economic policies, we shall in the fullness of time arrive at that situation.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, recognising that the figures of unemployment are very disturbing, particularly for those who are out of work and who have been so for months if not years, can the noble Lord say, in order to take a more realistic approach, what are the figures for the same years of those who are actually working?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, in the United Kingdom of all adults of employable age we give employment to 65 per cent., which compares with a European average of 58 per cent. Our nearest competitors are France and Germany, with 59 per cent. and 60 per cent. In fact we give more worthwhile employment to all our citizens than any other large country in Europe.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is part-time employment reckoned as a single unit or as a part of a unit?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I have not found any way of dividing up a human being. We are talking about people, and 65 per cent. of all adults of employable age means individual people.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister accept that unemployment is not merely a matter of statistics? The figures published include a would-be breadwinner who has been unemployed for a few years, who has a number of children, some of them at school, and whose burden of debt is increasing to an alarming degree. Is he prepared to consider that a lot of people believe that the sudden upsurge of activity by the Government is actuated and engendered by the fact that the political atmosphere is becoming redolent with the prospects of a general election rather than by deep concern for the misery of the unemployed which has wrecked and racked this country over the past four years?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I wish to assure the noble Lord that a general election is inevitable every five years. Whatever any government do at any time is done with the prospect of an election in the future. Last week when I announced programmes for the job training scheme and the changes that we are making to Restart and other programmes, I was referring to the early 1990s—a period during which I anticipate that this Government will have control of our economic fortunes.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his statement a short while back relating to employment in this country and in other countries will be subject to further scrutiny?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am delighted to think that my statements will be subject to scrutiny. However, I should be very much happier if the noble Lord could read the Statement, follow what is said and come to believe it, because I am sure that would tend to put him right.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he could give us one figure he has not yet ventured? How many pople in this country are unemployed at present?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the figure which I gave was 3,116,400. That is the number of people who are unemployed at the present time. Let me say in passing that I am delighted that we should have had a Question on unemployment. The last time we had one was on 16th July 1986. I remember this time last year that there were two or three a week. I wonder what has happened over the past six months to diminish the ardour for asking Questions about unemployment.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the fact that there has not been a plethora of Questions has not diminished our deep concern about the unemployment position in this country? Is he further aware that although the number employed in manufacturing industry in Western countries generally has declined, the decline in this country has been far greater? Will he confirm that first of all, and will he also say what policies the Government have to deal with the situation, or have they decided that this country is no longer to be a competitive manufacturing country?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is only as a result of the policies followed by this Government that at long last this country is becoming competitive; at long last this country is winning export orders; at long last this country is producing goods of good quality and design and at economic prices. There is no question but that we were grossly overmanned in 1979. We had a nationalised industry sector that was grossly overmanned and inefficient. Today we have lean and efficient manufacturing industries, with a healthy and prosperous future ahead of them.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the main cause of this country having heavier unemployment than others was that strange but not uncommon avian occurrence—featherbedding coming home to roost?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I defer to the noble Viscount.

Vietnamese Refugees in Hong Kong
2.58 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: 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 are able to offer any assistance in finding permanent settlement for the 8,000 refugees from Vietnam now being maintained by the Government of Hong Kong at the cost of some £10 million a year.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, we are very conscious of the burden which Hong Kong has borne since 1975 and of the growing concern in the territory at the slow pace of overseas resettlement. We are considering what more can be done to help Hong Kong and will announce what we have decided as soon as we can.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, is not the situation grossly unfair to Hong Kong? It has to keep a rigid control on its frontier to prevent the Chinese getting in, while immigrants, whether political or economic, force their way on to its shores from Vietnam. The Vietnamese are fine people and should not have undue difficulty in being accepted in other countries.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think we all recognise what the Hong Kong Government have done in this particular circumstance. I am aware of the letter from Miss Dunn from Hong Kong expressing concern over the Vietnamese problem. As I indicated, we are looking for ways of solving this and thereby easing the burden on Hong Kong.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, was not the former Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, highly successful in convening a pledging conference at which there could be a sharing of the burden throughout the whole of the world community. Is it not best for multilateral action to be taken to solve the remainder of the problem of the Hong Kong refugees? Would the noble Baroness suggest to her right honourable friend that the best way forward would be to invite those countries which took part in the former pledging conference to see whether they can deal with the remaining small residual problem?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I entirely appreciate the point that the noble Lord makes. In fact, over 1,200 extra resettlement places were secured as a result of the United Kingdom's decision to accept some 500 more family reunion cases. We are very grateful for the other countries' responses and we hope that they will continue to do what they can to help.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while I appreciate the acute problems which this matter has created for the Government of Hong Kong, I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she will confirm that there are now behind barbed wire 8,000 Vietnamese who have been there for from three to six years. Will she also confirm that the lead should be
10
taken by Her Majesty's Government—that is, by this country—and not by any other country, and that an example set by us may well be followed by others? I welcome what she has just said about a Statement, but could she tell the House when a Statement will be made because we have been waiting for it for quite a long time?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I can confirm that the total figures for refugees in Hong Kong are 8,000, both in the closed and in the open camps. In 1986, 3,816 refugees were resettled from Hong Kong, including 474 in the United Kingdom. Arrivals totalled 2,074, which was a sharp increase, but the total refugee population fell from 9,443 to 8,039 at the end of the year. As I indicated, we have accepted 474 refugees in this country. That has set an example to others and we are grateful for the numbers that they have taken. In answer to the noble Lord's last point, of course we shall get an answer on this matter as soon as we can.
Baroness Denington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the policy that has so far been used for housing the refugees was a policy of dispersal, and that this has caused not only great misery and unhappiness for the refugees but also concern to local authorities? There have been great problems, because the extended family, which is the family pattern of these people, has been broken up. They have felt isolated, miserable and disorientated. They have therefore struggled to regather their family units, which has meant a great problem for the big cities of London Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool. They have congregated in London, in four south London boroughs which have a terrible housing problem of their own. Yet the boroughs are doing their utmost to help those poor souls who now have all congregated in those areas in order to get their family units together——
Noble Lords: Speech!
Baroness Denington Baroness Denington—and the boroughs have tried to provide facilities for them. Therefore will the Minister consider having consultations with leaders of the Vietnamese and representatives of the big cities to avoid this problem happening again?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I note the point that the noble Baroness has made and I will draw it to the attention of my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that a very substantial number of those who arrived in Hong Kong and are now behind barbed wire have very close relatives in Britain whom they wish to join? Can the British Government be slightly more generous in promoting family reunions than they have been so far?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think our record on this matter is a good one, and we have in fact accepted into this country some thousands of refugees. Furthermore, we do not examine newly arriving boat people in Hong Kong in order to determine whether they are refugees under the terms of the 1951 convention. We

11
and Hong Kong continue to base our treatment of them on the international understanding reached at the 1979 Geneva Conference on Indo-China, that all who left Indo-China illegally were to be treated as refugees.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether the Vietnamese Government show the slightest penitence at the brutality they are creating for other people?
Baroness Young: My Lords, we have been very concerned about the situation on human rights in Vietnam and that continues to be one of the problems which is causing the outflow of refugees.
Lord McNair: My Lords, does the noble Baroness fully appreciate the symbolic importance of what is done by us? Is she aware that there are other countries where there is an actual need for immigrants, which are looking to us? Therefore even a semi-generous gesture by the British Government might lead to a solution of this problem once and for all.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we have accepted nearly 20,000 Indo-Chinese, including 12,000 from Hong Kong. We took a further 470 from Hong Kong last year and we have used this initiative to encourage other countries. We are considering actively what more might be done.

John Ernest Rolfe and Florence Iveen Rolfe (Marriage Enabling) Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. In so moving, if I may very briefly speak to both Bills standing in my name, this, as your Lordships will be aware, is the first time, technically and indeed literally, that these Personal Bills have been proceeded with under the new system. I should like only to pay tribute to my noble friend the Chairman of Committees and his very hard-working Select Committee, who reported with such expedition, such thoroughness and such clarity, and to draw your Lordships' attention to their recommendation that the Bills do now proceed with no further ado. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time—(Lord Morris.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I should like from these Benches to take this opportunity of commending the new procedure and of saying to the House how much more dignified this is than the old procedure that we had, when all the facts of these at times rather sad matters had to come before us in open session.
I too pay my tribute to the Lord Chairman of Committees for the way this has been arranged and look back with some amount of pleasure to the times when from these Benches, and from other Benches, something like this new procedure was suggested. I think we can congratulate ourselves that it has now
12
been set in motion, and this is, I believe the first time that such a Bill has come before us in this new form.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like to say from these Benches, and particularly on behalf of my noble friend Lord Meston, who put through the relevant legislation, that we are delighted that this new procedure is apparently working so satisfactorily and expeditiously.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

George Donald Evans and Deborah Jane Evans (Marriage Enabling) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Animals (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
3.11 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I should like to thank your Lordships for your interest in this Bill. The measure itself is modest. It is promoted by an imminent period of change in British broadcasting motivated by far-reaching technological developments. The implications of those developments were considered in the report of the Peacock Committee, which examined the future financing of the BBC. As your Lordships will know, the committee made a number of recommendations which go to the very heart of the existing framework for broadcasting in this country and how that framework might develop in the light of technological change.
The Bill has two purposes. First, it extends the maximum duration of a DBS contract from 12 to 15 years. This will provide a contractor with a reasonable period in which to recover the high initial investment. Secondly, by in effect extending the period for existing ITV contracts by three years, the Bill seeks to leave open the options for such changes as may be considered necessary in the light of proper consideration of some of the major issues arising from the Peacock Report. Your Lordships are familiar with these issues; they include competitive tendering, the separate selling of Channel 4 advertising and the possible introduction of subscription services.
In the course of your Lordships' consideration of this part of the Bill, some concern has been expressed about the nature and extent of change and the risk that it may have a detrimental effect on the standards of broadcasting in this country. It is precisely because of the importance we attach to maintaining these standards that the Government have brought forward this part of the Bill. What it provides is a breathing

13
space in which to take sensible decisions about the future, and to put in hand any necessary preparatory arrangements.
As to what changes might be considered, I have said that, before making up their mind, the Government want to take proper account of the views of all interested parties on the possibilities canvassed in the Peacock Report. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, suggested on a previous occasion that one approach might be for the Government to publish a Green Paper on television. We shall certainly keep that possibility in mind. If, in the event, changes in the existing arrangements are deemed to be necessary, new legislation will be required. Your Lordships will therefore be able to consider any revised arrangements at that time.
The Bill as a whole does not make any substantive changes in the existing contracts arrangements, nor does it commit us to changes in the future. What it does is to provide an opportunity for change, if it should be considered necessary. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Beaverbrook.)
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his remarks. Nevertheless, in the light of the issues arising in this Bill I am not yet convinced that the extension of the franchises was necessary. I am also extremely disappointed that the whole question of a Green Paper on television, which the noble Lord received with enthusiasm at Committee stage, has not been accepted. It seems to me a simple, modest and sensible idea.
Once again the Minister has stated that the Government wish to take proper account of the views of all interested parties. It seems that it is quite impossible to do that on the basis of a very large report such as that of the Peacock Committee. I do not believe that any of us are convinced that there is any reason for delay. As we know, a Green Paper on radio has been agreed by the Government and is about to appear. It seems to me that to take the same step as regards television would be a step in the right direction.
I am disappointed that the Minister has not been able to agree to that today. However, perhaps when the Bill goes to another place that will be one of the results of the consideration it receives there.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Inner City Problems
3.14 p.m.
Lord Scarman Lord Scarman rose to call attention to the continuing problems of the inner cities and other urban priority areas and to the case for a partnership between authority and the people who live and work in them; and to move for Papers.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the depth of the decline and decay of our inner cities and other deprived city areas of the Kingdom is well known and well researched. I shall therefore not spend much time in describing the horrors of that decline
14
and decay. But let us never, at any stage during this afternoon's debate, forget that the shadow of that decline and decay hangs over the nation at large, introducing into what is on the whole a happy and sunny place a very dark and dangerous shadow. Indeed, the menace has to be defeated if we are to retain the quality of our civilisation.
With those preliminary words about the horror of the background of this debate, I shall pass to the Motion which I am introducing to the House. I shall invite your Lordships—and I know it is an invitation which will be eagerly accepted—to think constructively about the problem and to suggest, even in mere outline, solutions for consideration by government and others.
In putting the Motion forward, I have three immediate objectives. First, I wish to emphasise what I suggest are three paramount needs to be met if we are to achieve a solution. Those three needs are, first, a sufficiency of resources, including finance, to be made available to meet the scale of the problem; secondly, policy to be formulated at a level and in a way appropriate to meet a crisis in our national affairs, which must be taken very seriously and considered at the very highest level; and, thirdly, co-ordinated action by all those concerned to implement that policy. By co-ordinated action I mean partnership—a partnership between central government, local government, private enterprise, the voluntary and the charitable organisations and the people who live and work and try sometimes to play in the inner cities and who suffer directly the disadvantages of which you and I, for the most part, merely speak.
The second immediate objective which I hope to achieve by introducing this Motion is to provide the House with an opportunity of discussing those long-term problems. I am delighted to see that this House, as I should expect, takes this subject so seriously that 28 of your Lordships have put your names down to speak in this debate. Three Lords spiritual, led by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, will be speaking, and we shall have the benefit of two speeches on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. This must surely indicate, if it was necessary to do so, and I do not think it is, that in many respects this House is the conscience of the nation.
There is a further advantage. I hope that I can exercise (what for a lawyer and a Law Lord is very difficult) a little self-denial and abstain from too long a speech. This is difficult because I feel strongly about these matters; it is difficult because I have been trained to jaw, jaw, jaw. But it is a temptation that I shall seek to resist, a habit that in old age I shall seek to discard. At this stage, having mentioned the Lords spiritual and having indicated how glad, I am sure, the nation is that they are here in such strength, perhaps I may say a word or two of praise for the report of the Archibishop's commission, Faith in the City. Whether or not one agrees with its proposals, or with all or any of them, it is the finest face-to-face analysis and description of the problems of the inner city and of the other urban priority areas where those problems exist that we have yet seen. In the long-run, it will take its place, I believe, as a classic description of one of the most serious troubles in British society.
The third objective of the Motion—and I know that this will be achieved—is simply to obtain an indication of the Government's thinking, their strategy and their policy.
I want to say a word or two about the history of policy and action in this field. I suggest to your Lordships that we should forbear from a fine slanging match at the expense of either Labour or Conservative governments in their efforts to solve the problem of the inner cities. I shall have certain points to make but, by and large, since 1969 successive governments have been all too aware of this hideous problem on their very doorstep. The trouble with policy and action over the years since 1969 is a typical piece of the British disease. We have not looked at it in principle but we have attacked it pragmatically. We have taken it step-by-step not quite knowing where our steps are leading us.
Of course, it was seen in 1969, and it may still be seen, as a local government problem; as a problem to be solved within the confines of local government and local governmental finance. At the start, as many of your Lordships know, there was seen to be a case for channelling into local government hands further funds in support of the rates. The first piece of urban programme as such, known as the traditional urban programme (now phased out, wisely, I think, although it was very important in its time) was completely local and area based. It merely provided for grant aid to local authorities faced with expenditure on special social needs; social needs in the local government context. I doubt whether even today we have got away from what I suggest is the error of regarding the problem of inner city decline as a local government problem or as a problem that can be handled within the confines of local government finance.
This error was not wholly overcome in the climacteric Government White Paper of 1977, a paper which made some extremely sensible and very wise proposals of policy and a paper which is not yet out of date. One is interested to see here in the White Paper the use of those terms which I have already used in my introductory remarks. I refer to terms such as unification, co-ordination and partnership. These terms become part of the vocabulary used by those concerned with the problems. The White Paper did indeed propose that there should be a unified approach. That, of course, is my point on co-ordination. It proposed that there should be special partnerships with local authorities. And partnership is part and parcel of the message I am seeking to convey to your Lordships. I am however saying rather more than special partnerships with local authorities, as I have already indicated.
The White Paper also proposed—this was a most fruitful proposal—the establishment of partnership areas, programme authorities and designated districts. The other development in 1977–78—I think I have my history right—was the transfer of responsibility for the urban programme, again, rightly, to the Department of the Environment.
These were magnificent proposals but they suffered from being exclusively area based. It was partnership with selected local authorities. It was selecting certain
16
authorities—and not others—to be programme authorities. And, like the traditional urban programme which preceded it and co-existed alongside it, the whole thing was seen and action taken within the field of local government. This concept of partnership with selected local authorities is, in a sense, the most revealing indication of what was thought to be the scale of the problem. They thought they were dealing with plague spots. I doubt whether it was then appreciated that this was in fact a national disease that could be fatal.
In 1978, the idea of central government using their funds to bring in the private sector, the financial institutions, business and commerce, and so forth, had barely gained any recognition. Partnership at that stage was partnership with local authorities and then only with certain local authorities. Funding was support for the rates where necessary or grants for specified developments in the partnership areas or to programme authorities.
In 1979 there was a change of government and the Conservative Government brought with them a new and valuable initiative. That was to use public funds to mobilise private enterprise in the task of dealing with the decline and decay of the inner cities and with the problem of the regeneration which was necessary. Here, for the first time, we had the idea of partnership extending from the government and local authority to the government, local authority and private enterprise. This initiative of the Conservative Government has proved, I think, to be invaluable.
Unfortunately it has been weakened, and it has been weakened by being subject to the Conservative Government's national policies on cash limits, cash restriction, and so on. I am not here to discuss the wisdom or otherwise of the national financing policy of Her Majesty's Government. I am here to indicate that when those resources come to be distributed between the various needs of our country—the needs which we are discussing this afternoon; the needs of the inner cities and the other urban priority areas—they will be on a national scale. The remedies and relief should be financed upon that scale. The financial problem should not be studied in a merely local government context.
Let us not forget, in this history, the year 1981. That was the year of the riots, particularly in Brixton and Toxteth. I have no doubt that those riots really shocked the government of the day. I think it is fair to say that governments should react to such serious matters as public disorders on that scale. Those riots encouraged Her Majesty's Government and in particular the then Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment to expand the range of opportunities for private involvement and investment in the inner cities. They have, since that time, recast the urban programme.
No doubt in this debate we shall hear much about the urban development corporations, urban development grants, urban regeneration grants—which are of course grants direct from central government to private enterprise—enterprise zones and employment task forces. The mere list is confusing and one is still wondering what they are achieving.
I am not here to say that they are achieving nothing—it is probably too early to know—but this is, on paper, an impressive list. It shows that the Government have set up a structure or set of mechanisms designed to tackle the problem as a whole and enlisting over the whole field of this probem the resources of the private sector. So there we are today and not much yet achieved, though something. Where has it fallen down? I am not saying that it is devoid of success or that it is a cynical paper operation. I am saying that it is not as yet as succesful as the nation needs it to be.
Briefly, there is first of all a failure, and the real failure is that not yet has the financing of the campaign against inner city decay and decline been taken out of the local government field. We know that today the main financial support in the battle against this decline and decay is through the rate support grant—back among the rates and back among local government finance. We know that the urban programme, with all that plethora of agencies, is intended as a supplement to a programme put through local government channels and subject, inevitably, to a great deal of local government financial restrictions.
So much for what I think is the failure. There is an omission. We now have a partnership between central government and, to some extent, local authorities; though I am very apprehensive about the relationship between central government and local authorities. I do not wish to use worrying language, but we must re-establish a confidence between central government and local authorities, particularly in the inner city areas, if we are to achieve anything like the partnership of which I am speaking. The Government seem a long way away at the moment. But there is, on the record and formally, a partnership there. There is a partnership between those two governmental authorities and private enterprise.
But where is there any partnership with the people who live in those areas? Where and how are they consulted? Are there any community groups comparable, for example, with the the police community relations committees and liaison bodies to consider housing, facilities for leisure and recreation, and to consider the creation of job opportunities? Believe me, the people who live in those areas have plenty to contribute. I do not think that we shall succeed in resolving these problems in the inner cities unless we extend the partnership of authorities and private enterprise to include the people who live there and for whose benefit these measures are presumably being established.
I have already extended by three minutes the time that I intended to take and therefore I will, if I may, come straight to my conclusion. I ask myself in your Lordships' presence and for your consideration: why is partnership with the people so important? There is one simple answer. These people who suffer these disadvantages—a suffering which is greatly enhanced by the existence in many of our inner cities of racial disadvantage and prejudice—are in danger of being alienated from the mainstream of British society. If we allow alienation to develop so that it becomes a sturdy weed in our society I fear for the future of the country. To be more specific, taking the inner cities, unless one
18
involves the people of the inner cities, the more energetic, creative and skilled residents will move away, leaving the place to the less skilled and such. That of course is a way of enhancing decay and decline and certainly not of arresting it.
We shall not solve the housing problem—and it is an horrendous problem—unless we involve the people who live in the area and who are to occupy the houses. We shall fail to solve the problems associated with the necessary development for job creation, as well as for leisure and recreational facilities. Unless we consult the people, none of us will know the depth and the dangers of racial discrimination and disadvantage within the inner cities. I agree with the overall conclusion of Faith in the City that in our inner cities there is a situation of grave injustice and grave disadvantage and that if the injustice is not overcome hopelessness will be added to anger and the mix will be explosive.
I finish on a personal note. Perhaps because I am retired this year I happen to be president of the United Kingdom Council for the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, and therefore I have made it my business to see something of homelessness. I said that I would avoid harrowing and distressing descriptions, and so I shall; but let me indicate just two aspects of homelessness—not the most serious—which are prevalent in the inner cities, and I shall end having given your Lordships a complete illustration of the wretchedness that can persist in these areas.
Let us consider bed and breakfast accommodation for homeless families, of which there are thousands in London alone, each costing local authorities £200 per week. Alongside these miserable, squalid hostels and hotels stand empty and unused houses that are decaying through lack of maintenance and of use. Why on earth have we not done something about those empty houses? Why have we not set up community groups and arranged for people to repair them so that they can be let for people to live in? No doubt that sounds radical and imaginative but something like that has to be done. Why do we not have a register of those empty houses?
Then there is the terrible problem of the capital receipts of local authorities on the sale of council houses. There is a capital fund which is derived from housing, but because of some local government convention, practice or rule—I doubt if it is a rule of etiquette or a rule of law, but it is something which they think is correct practice—that money is not available for investment in housing or for the repair of houses. However, there is a housing repair bill which runs into billions of pounds. That fund is not available. I think that so far Her Majesty's Government have succeeded in providing this year something like £75 million, but we are dealing with a problem which requires billions. Those are just two tiny indications of what is wrong.
I leave with your Lordships the hope that this debate will encourage ideas to be put forward which may help the Government and all of us to take steps to save the quality of civilised life in the United Kingdom. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Young of Grafham: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for the whole House in thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, for initiating this debate. He has brought to bear on the deep problems of the inner cities great personal experience, knowledge and commitment. I very much hope that during our deliberations it will be possible to achieve some degree of common ground on what is becoming more and more a universal problem.
The state of the inner city is not unique to the United Kingdom but appears to be an unwelcome by-product of the aftermath of the industrial era. Our inner cities have been deteriorating throughout the second half of the 20th century and there appears to be no easy solution. It is vital to achieve a measure of common ground if we are to build on the progress which is being made and translate our analysis into action.
Our concern during the debate today is with the small urban areas that are marked by a high degree of deprivation. They are found in the North and also, if not as frequently, in the South. These areas are often surrounded by growing wealth and are often near the hearts of our great commercial cities. We do not have to travel far to reach them. Within three miles of your Lordships' House there are at least three such areas which are deserts of unemployment surrounded by an oasis of opportunities. The problems of poor education, bad housing, high unemployment and high levels of crime feed one on the other to produce the deprivation which we call the inner city problem.
Indeed, over the past few weeks we have heard much of the so-called North-South divide. That there is a real divide is beyond dispute, but it is not where the most recent commentators have put it. No, what we suffer from is an urban-suburban-rural divide: on the one side the inner cities and on the other the prosperous suburbs and rural areas. It so happens that more of these deprived inner city areas are in the North, but so are many wealthy areas of our country.
We also find that the most severe problems exist in quite small districts. The solutions for these problems must be localised too. Partnership is vital if by "partnership" we mean that all who are concerned and all who can help can agree on a programme of action which will tackle the real problem. But I confess to some doubts about concentrating the partnership between authority, of almost any description, and the people. I believe that authority is the people. The existence and the strength of authority depend upon the simple fact that it has been given freely by the people. I see as one of the tragedies of our society that people have come to view authority as something separate. They have grown to depend upon authority. Indeed, some people appear to have adopted it almost as an alternative faith. They have relinquished their powers of individual action and even their belief in individual enterprise. But that authority has failed them.
Even worse than that, however, is that in some cases a remote and distant authority has been run at best by so-called professionals or at worst by politicians who came to believe that they knew better than the people who lived and worked in the inner cities and that they alone knew what needed to be done. What better
20
example exists than that stagnant breeding ground of all these troubles—the town planners' dream of the 1950s and 1960s, the municipal madness of the tower blocks and soulless housing estates? What a distortion of the dream of Ebeneezer Howard, and how far from the spirit of the first garden cities.
It is that very combination of a lack of personal responsibility and initiative coupled with social engineering guided by distant professionals that has created the problems of the inner cities.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale will talk later about housing and the urban programme. But I should just like to draw a contrast between housing in Britain and in our Continental neighbours. There local authority housing is much less important—3 per cent. of housing in Germany and 14 per cent. in France compared to 27 per cent. here. Is there a relationship between the size of the municipal housing sector and the state of the inner cities? In Europe, the private rented sector and housing associations are much the more important. I believe the way to tackle inner city problems here is much less of this so-called authority, particularly in housing, not more.
I certainly believe that partnership and community are central to tackling the inner city problem. But I want to give power and responsibility to the people of the inner cities and reduce their dependence on so-called authority.
Indeed, the existence of inner cities as they are today follows a period of considerable intervention by state authority, not just the activities of local authorities in providing many services including housing and the activities of planners but also rent control, educational priority areas and a whole panoply of policies. The result is that individuals are left without direct responsibility, but, even worse for their future, companies were displaced by controls and ever-spiralling costs.
Some other central government policies also made the inner cities more vulnerable. The development of new towns moved jobs and mobile workers out of the inner cities. Planning controls, again with well-intentioned motives, prevented the location of new industries in areas such as the East End of London. Planning blight delayed adjustment to change. Wholesale clearance destroyed the social fabric and created not only social disaster areas but often architectural disasters too. The net effect was to shift many job opportunities and many skilled workers and move them out of the inner city; and once away they did not return.
I recall my first task upon entering the Department of Industry in 1979. It was to find a method of restoring all the under the arches accommodation that was such a haven for people who, often livng in the inner areas, started up their own new or small firms—all gone, all destroyed by the planners of the 'fifties and 'sixties. Small wonder that the number of new companies declined and declined until this decade.
I also recall a meeting I had during that period. It was with a number of officials of the GLC. It was a day or two after the putsch that put Mr. Livingstone in power. They were very interested in work that was being done to encourage new small workshops; but not, I was told, in Southwark. There, rates were

21
already so high that no small firm could afford them, let alone the rent. That was back at the start of this decade and today the position is even worse. Has this particular authority helped those who are unemployed in Southwark today?
The problem has not been a lack of policies, nor has it been a lack of money. Central government are spending money on the inner cities—over £700 million this year in the inner city partnership areas alone—on employment, environment and industry programmes. Local authorities are spending vast sums too. How well and how wisely I am content to let the Audit Commission judge. Conflicting policies and priorities were criticised in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. I agree that we need better partnerships with authority for a start, and better partnerships with central government. We have set better targeting and co-ordination of central government programmes as one of our objectives. That is why the city action teams were set up. I should like to see the objectives of different policies run by different departments targeted more on people as individuals than we manage to achieve today.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord that we need better partnerships between central and local government. Most work quite happily with us. I regret the fact that some, in the name of some obscure political theology, reject the hand of partnership and spurn programmes which we believe can make a major contribution towards tackling the problems of the inner cities.
It is not right that ILEA should have continued to reject TVEI (the technical and vocational education initiative) which would have given it many millions of pounds in each year to provide technical and vocational subjects for the inner city schools. As it is, the very lack of education in many of these schools contributes more to inner city decline than almost anything else.
It hardly helps the situation that Liverpool City Council should reject out of hand government assistance towards the support of voluntary organisations. And I have few words for those authorities which refuse community programme schemes run by voluntary organisations which could renovate housing.
We need better partnerships between local authorities too. Inner cities covered by a number of local councils have lacked a coherent stategy to tackle the problems; sometimes years of neglect and decay have followed. In some areas we have had to decide that the only way to get things moving is to take some powers away from local authorities and to give a new body, urban development corporations, powers over planning and development.
We can all still recall the bitter wrangling by the five boroughs over docklands. The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, will no doubt be able to tell us something of the success of docklands. Does anyone seriously maintain that without the London Docklands Development Corporation we would ever have seen what is perhaps the most exciting redevelopment area probably in the entire world? And few who have visited the Albert Dock complex in Liverpool, soon to be the home of the Tate of the North, or visited the
22
garden festival, will be unaware of the changes being brought about by Merseyside Development Corporation in that city. These successes have led us to announce four more urban development corporations in Trafford Park, Teesside, Tyneside and the Black Country. In other areas we have developed enterprise zones to free people from planning restrictions and red tape. The emphasis in these policies is to bring private enterprises into partnership with government to get things moving on environment and industry.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord that the key to success in tackling inner city problems lies in concentrating on the people who live there and in involving them directly in those decisions. We are pursuing that involvement in a number of different ways. First, we should like to see a greater involvement of tenants in the running of their own estates. We should like to see it through greater home ownership which will help develop pride in the environment. We should like to see greater involvement of parents in the education of their children—for example, by increased representation on governing bodies—and direct involvement in our inner city initiative.
My right honourable friend the Paymaster General has been developing initiatives in eight inner city areas over the past year. They reveal our belief in local involvement and our willingness to experiment in many different ways. The task forces in each area include private sector and public sector secondees. They have built up contacts with voluntary organisations and developed community participation in projects. Some task forces have an advisory group of local people to help guide them in their work.
After just a year of this initiative we are seeing new commitment, enthusiasm and co-operation. Over 60 projects are already organised. The key to these projects is helping people to help themselves. This does not mean that government stand back and say, "Do it all for yourself". It means that government listen to the difficulties which local people say they are facing and act on those difficulties. Then local people can create their own projects and own their own new businesses.
A major problem for people in the inner cities is the difficulty of raising even small sums of capital to start up new businesses in what are seen as problem areas. Special development funds are being set up for each of the eight task force areas. They are the outcome of partnerships between government and the banks.
In St. Paul's, Bristol, a £100,000 venture capital fund has been set up by the task force and has the support of the National Westminster Bank and the Bristol Black Business Association. In Leeds the Yorkshire Bank has combined with us to set up a special development fund for small businesses. We are tackling the complaints of inner city people that they cannot get capital investment for good business loans.
New ventures are also held back by difficulties in arranging insurance cover. The Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers Association are co-operating with us in setting up new arrangements to help overcome difficulties in the eight task force areas. That close co-operation is another example of the constructive public and private sector partnership which marks this inner city initiative.

23
We are paying particular attention to supporting projects which promote the development of businesses by ethnic minorities. Projects in Birmingham and Bristol have already been set up. A whole range of voluntary organisations are involved in the projects which we are developing. I shall give only a few examples but they illustrate how many organisations are participating with us in this initiative to find new ways to create enterprise.
The Industrial Society's Head Start programme is giving an introduction to business training to 3,000 inner city youngsters in six of our task force areas. We are working with the Cleveland Youth Business Centre to help young entrepreneurs in Middlesbrough. The National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders has set up a special inner cities crime prevention development unit. That unit will work with our task forces on programmes to tackle crime and fear of crime. The range of voluntary agencies, both national and local, which are helping to develop this initiative is immense.
These initiatives are built on a whole series of partnerships. At their heart lies a flexible policy approach which invests in people. It concentrates on developing self-reliance and personal initiative. Individual commitment and responsibility are crucial. The projects and the schemes will fail to make lasting changes unless they are owned by people in the local community. It must be their scheme, their programme and their responsibility for success or failure, not some distant authority which can never fulfil that role. We need to tackle the lack of skill, experience and enterprise which lie at the root of inner city problems with education, training and work experience. We need to encourage new direction, particularly self-employment and small businesses.
I do not say that because I believe each individual has it within him or herself to run a business or even that the way to solve inner city problems is self-employment for all. What I believe is that the self-confidence and dynamism of people who successfully run small businesses would go a long way to improving the inner cities and that many more people could run businesses today than ever contemplate it.
Our aim is to put confidence and pride back into those who live in the inner cities so that they can work there too. We are putting resources in. But just pumping money into projects is not the answer. Pride and confidence do not come from state payments handed down from some greater authority but from being given the skills, the self-awareness and some support to create your own success and your own life style.
The Labour Party sees local authorities as the engines of growth in our economy. John Prescott claimed not long ago:
"Under Labour, local authorities will be the engine of growth in our economy".
The plan drawn up by Southwark Council is a model for Labour Party plans—a model, alas for unemployment. Three-quarters of the jobs created would be people working for the council working for authority. It is not just the costs and knock-on effects on rates and jobs which make that approach
24
unrealistic but that a quarter of Southwark's existing white-collar jobs are currently vacant. What would the rates burden on the inner city then be? The Labour Party's belief is that the quickest way to get people back into work is new local government jobs. I believe that to be the very antithesis of what is really needed to tackle the problem of the inner cities.
I look forward to hearing contributions from noble Lords during the debate. I look forward to hearing the contribution of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and wish to pay tribute to the work already done by Faith in the City. Since that report was published the Government have extended their programmes for the long-term unemployed and many in the inner cities will benefit as a result. There was much in the Statement I made in your Lordships' House last week which will provide a real source of help and hope. Tackling the problems of the inner cities needs the participation of many people and the use of many ideas, and I shall study carefully all that is said here today.
I firmly believe that any approach that will have any chance of success must be bottom up and not top down. Participation—and by that I mean local participation—is essential. There must be a sense of ownership by all who partake in schemes, programmes and ultimately in the very new businesses that will start in these areas.
Surely the great lesson of history is that society will only benefit from putting its faith and trust in individuals, giving them personal responsibility and in the end by trusting them. That applies to social progress just as much as economic progress. My tradition has a saying, "Give a man a fish and he will soon be hungry. Teach him to fish and he will never starve". Our aim must be to develop the skills and confidence of those who live in the inner cities. I put my faith in the people.
4.6 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, we have been waiting for over a year for the opportunity to debate Faith in the City, so highly and rightly praised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. It is of particular satisfaction that the noble and learned Lord introduced the debate today not only because of his personal knowledge of inner urban areas because of his report on Brixton but also because he is the UK's president of the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless.
The noble and learned Lord has given the House a broad survey and wise suggestions. He has impressed us all with the seriousness of the situation for the nation as a whole. The problems are now all too well known. It is 10 years since the study of three inner city areas—Birmingham, Liverpool and Lambeth—led to Peter Shore's White Paper, Policy for the Inner Cities, published in June 1977. It was the first public recognition—and this the noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned—that the new towns policy of removing people and industry from the overcrowded cities to green field sites and expanded older towns like Northampton and Peterborough was leaving behind the least able to cope—the unemployed, the elderly and the less skilled—and that a rapid deterioration in their way of life and their environment had to be halted.

25
The Inner Urban Areas Act 1978 put some of the proposals in the White Paper into legislation. Peter Shore said "The engines of exodus have been reversed". Partnership areas were set up. Fifteen other authorities were earmarked as deserving special help. Grants were to be given for land purchase and help to industry. The present Government have used and extended the powers made available in that Act. I made my maiden speech at the Second Reading of that Bill.
I was amused to see on looking it up that I said that if the arrangements proposed in the Bill did not work as intended, the Government should produce an old towns Act setting up old town development corporations to get things moving. The results hoped for—alas!—have not been enough and we now have two urban development corporations and four more to come. We suspend judgment on how those will work. I hope that there will be participation among local authorities, private enterprise and those development corporations and that they will work.
There is no doubt, as the introduction to Faith in the City says, that:
"Things have worsened rather than improved since 1977. All the signs are that by a vicious circle of causes and effects the decline of the quality of life in what had been designated as urban priority areas is continuing. The underlying factors are the same: unemployment, decayed housing, substandard educational and medical provision, and social disintegration".
Those conditions are caused basically by poverty and poverty means powerlessness.
In one speech there is not time to cover all the factors and I shall concentrate on housing. A home is the most basic need. The report says that decent housing means a place that is warm and in reasonable repair. It also means security, privacy and sufficient space; it is a place where people can grow, make choices and become more whole. Such a home hundreds and thousands of our fellow human beings do not have. There is an overall shortage: 1.2 million people are on local authority waiting lists. Billions of pounds are needed to repair houses in the public sector and even more billions of pounds are needed for those houses in the private sector.
The figures have appeared in report after report, including the DoE's own, and seem to have convinced everyone but the Government of the need for further resources. Increased spending could not only give employment to many in the construction industries but could reduce the ever-increasing sums that hard-pressed local authorities are having to find for bed and breakfast accommodation in hotels. Sixteen London boroughs spent just over £3 million in 1981–82 and nearly £11 million in 1984–85. The figure will be very much higher now. It is an idiotic waste of money and intolerable for those suffering those conditions. As the Archbishop's report says:
"The word 'hotel' conjures up images of holidays and luxury living; in fact, as we have seen, these places are usually cramped, insanitary and a fire risk".
I decided that I must see for myself something of what was happening on the ground to try to save some of the people from that fate, and also to save the waste of resources. Therefore, last Tuesday I went to Brent and I was shown what Brent People's Housing Association was doing in co-operation with both the
26
council and private enterprise. I went first to the large site and office block which Oxford University Press had left a few years ago. It was bought by Brent council, sold to the housing association in 1984 and became the site for an innovative scheme.
The first phase involved the demolition of industrial buildings to provide 91 fair rent two-, three- and four-bedroomed houses, all with their own gardens. They were ready in July last year and they were extremely nice looking, well designed houses. The second phase will transform the six-storey office block into one-, two- and three-bedroomed self-contained flats. There will be a day nursery, laundry and social services office, and a recreation centre. These flats will be ready in the autumn. There will be a resident warden and caretaker. I climbed up to the sixth floor—there will he a lift in the future—where the view of reservoir, playing fields and common land was superb.
The scheme makes financial sense. Keeping 50 families in bed and breakfast costs an estimated £250,000 a year. This conversion will pay for itself in seven years. However, well over £250,000 will be paid to the Treasury in the form of VAT on conversion works. That sum could convert 15 permanent units for rent. Must the homeless subsidise the Treasury? I ask the Minister: can some sense be brought into this? There is a large supply of redundant office or factory accommodation in many urban areas. Given the right conditions, conversion to residential use could be done more often.
I also visited a house in Wembley that had been licensed from the public sector. It had been empty, improved and converted into two flats. I met the charming black mother and baby who lived in one of them. They were thrilled with their home after living for a year in a bed and breakfast hotel, even though their fiat was right next to a very busy railway line. The mother was now near her job and child-minder. We must remember that the homeless are not always jobless.
My third visit was to a flat that had been licensed from the private sector in a big block owned by property developers. The flat had been empty for some time. The owners were not going to renovate it—it was being kept empty—but they were happy to lease it to the housing association for three years and let them put it in order. Again there was a happy tenant. The sad thing was that in two years they would have to move and no one knows how good will be the council accommodation to which they go.
It is doubly ironic that this year will be the 21st anniversary of the first showing of the film "Cathy come Home". We wonder whether Cathy's children will find it any easier than she did.
The imaginative and energetic director of the Brent housing association, John Keene, and Peter Hibbert, the manager of the emergency section, would naturally prefer to be building flats and houses for permanent occupation. However, to move people out of the soulless bed and breakfast hotels, even into temporary homes, makes sound human and financial sense. The projected expenditure in 1986–87 by Brent council on their homeless is just over £3 million net. The gross expenditure, which includes housing and supplementary benefit and charges, is over £6 million.

27
The Brent emergency section provides a service not only for Brent but for the neighbouring boroughs of Ealing, Enfield, Harrow and Westminster.
Not only are the increasing number of homeless to be thought of, but also those in houses in multi-occupation. Over 90 per cent. of these are in urban areas and the big cities. Conditions can be as appalling as those in bed and breakfast hotels. Last Friday the DoE published a major report: the final findings of their national research on HMOs. It confirmed the message of the Archbishop's commission and revealed that, if anything, conditions are much worse than was previously feared. The following are a few key points: 2.6 million people are living in them; 81 per cent. lack satisfactory means of escape from fire; overall conditions are described in the report as "exceedingly squalid" and,
"an indictment of national and local government housing policies over many years".
Members of this House have over the years expressed deep concern about these issues: when the Housing Act 1980 was before the House, and recently when the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, introduced a short Bill to tackle these needs and give tenants protection. It passed here but there was no time for it in the Commons. Here the Minister said that the Government would wait to see the results of the DoE research before considering legislative steps. They now have the research and the report, and I have warned the Minister that we want to know what they intend. First, will they support Donald Anderson's Bill, having its Second Reading in another place on Friday, 13th February? I hope that that is not an unfortunate date.
However, the press notice from the DoE is not encouraging. I quote from it:
"The report indicates that houses in multiple occupation do a useful job in many towns and cities. They provide relatively cheap furnished accommodation and a lack of restriction which is popular with some tenants. But standards in the sample of 550 HMOs surveyed for our research were often low. Some needed major repairs"—
two-thirds need major repairs—
"others lacked amenities"—
two-thirds lack amenities.
"Many needed improvements in their fire escape arrangements".
As I have said, 81 per cent. need such improvements. "Local authorities already have duties"—
but very few—
"and extensive powers to take action to improve standards in appropriate cases. But the research suggests that practice is patchy".
I would say that that is the understatement of the year. The press notice continues:
"We shall be recruiting an Environmental Health Officer to advise the Department and to help prepare and publicise examples of good practice.".
There are 431 authorities with housing responsibilities and I think that one environmental health officer at the department will not do very much good.
The Government's record in housing is, I am afraid, abysmal and also dishonest. I hope that when the Minister responds he will not seek to justify his department by saying that there will be an increase in gross provision for housing of £390 million for 1987–88 as compared with 1986–87. This suggests
28
that housing authorities will have £390 million more to spend next year, but that is not so. First, the Government have increased the amount that they hold back from authorities' accumulated capital receipts from the sale of houses and do not allow the authorities to spend. Secondly, the Government have made the quite unwarranted assumption that capital receipts for the current year will increase, although they are at least as likely to decrease. The net effect of all this has been a reduction of £99 million, or 7 per cent. in cash terms, in the HIP allocations for next year.
However, that is not the end of the story, for there are further substractions to be made from the total HIP allocation of £1,366 million; namely, £75 million for the UHR Unit; £14 million for assistance with the housing defects Act; and £2 million which is being held by the DoE against overspending on the home insulation scheme. The result is that the HIP allocation for 1987–88 is no more than 80 per cent. of the basic allocation for 1985–86.
As regards home insulation, I hear that there are to be sweeping cuts to the scheme which will be presented as new regulations in Parliament during February. Everyone will be excluded from eligibility except those claiming housing benefit or supplementary benefit. On top of those restrictions the DoE has announced a cut of more than 40 per cent. in the total amount of money for the scheme—a reduction from £26 million to £15 million.
Of the 20 million houses in the United Kingdom, 85 per cent. are not insulated to current building regulation standards. More than 2 million still have no loft insulation and I am sure that we can assume that the vast proportion are in our UP areas. Insulation provides jobs that are environmentally useful in their energy-saving capacity and give comfort, warmth and smaller bills to the householder. Saving here is a very false economy. I wonder whether the rumour is true that Mr. David Hunt, the energy Minister, is hardly on speaking terms with Mr. John Patten, the Minister for Housing.
Changing my tack, I should like to say a little on the management of housing, which can make all the difference to the happiness of people living in the houses. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said that it is the enthusiasm of local people that counts. I believe that the more local people are involved in the choices and decisions to be made, the happier the community will be. One way in which to provide choice is to decentralise management.
Islington is perhaps the most advanced borough as regards decentralisation, and decentralisation not only of its housing services. It had 15 neighbourhood offices by the end of 1986, and nine more will be built or converted to such use by the end of this year. Islington is the first authority in the United Kingdom to provide a network of computerised neighbourhood offices—computerisation being the key to the successful implementation of the policy. Each office has direct links with the mainframe computer installed centrally. The system allows officers to deal immediately with requests for housing repairs, payment of rent and rates, administration of housing benefits, applications for council accommodation and transfer and to advise

29
on environmental health, social services and planning applications.
It is difficult to relate to a bureaucratic central town hall which has little in-depth knowledge about particular areas and their problems. However, people relate to their local community. The ability to cope with rent arrears, voids, relettings and transfers much more quickly leads to much better management and use of housing stock.
The offices are proving very popular. They are friendly, attractive places, more like community centres than places of work, and are designed for people to be able to deal with all of their council business. Islington is decentralising power, not simply localising administration. The neighbourhood forums that it is establishing will have authority to allocate their own budgets for local improvements under the partnership programme. They have already attracted the interest of external agencies such as the metropolitan police who are working with them, and ILEA has indicated that it will do the same.
To my mind that all underlines the importance of devolving and involving. The impersonal has to become the personal if our urban areas are to prosper and to be places where people want to live. I believe that that it is part of the co-ordinated action for which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, asked.
It is interesting that the recent Audit Commission report, which in many ways is very critical of a number of London boroughs, has praise for the decentralisation policy of Islington and believes that it will lead to much greater efficiency. The Archbishop's report in its chapter on urban policy stresses the need for local people to participate. At paragraph 8.74 it says:
"Not only must they feel that positive things are happening; they must feel part of the process. The powerlessness felt by people in the UPAs must be addressed. Local people must have greater opportunities to participate".
Later, at paragraph 8.89 it says:
"Attempts at devolution and decentralisation have been made by a number of UPA local authorities … To implement such schemes effectively will require patient effort and dedication: yet we consider the establishment of neighbourhood offices to be vital if local government is to improve its service delivery to the UPAs".
This is not only the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. From 21st March it is also the European Year of the Environment, and the United Kingdom committee will mount a national programme focusing on three themes, one of which is the improvement of the urban environment. Sir Peter Harrop is the chairman and in writing of this he refers to:
"Removing eyesores and reclaiming derelict buildings and land and greening towns and cities".
It seems that widely different approaches in different countries faced with different problems have all come to the same conclusion; namely, that environmental measures are a net creator of jobs—I have already spoken of insulation. Those jobs will often use largely unskilled and semi-skilled labour, with a high proportion of the jobs occurring in the inner city areas of high unemployment.
The base case—that is, loft insulation, draughtproofing, wall insulation and heat
30
controls—would create and maintain an average of 50,000 direct and indirect jobs for 10 years. The maximum case—that is, adding a greater depth of loft insulation and double glazing—would create 124,000 jobs. The Association for the Conservation of Energy calculated that the base case could save an average of £400 million per year.
There should be a dramatic move to the greening of the city environment at the same time as the insides of buildings are improved. There could be a rebirth of the idea of garden cities within the UPAs. It is better to have greenery around us than at arm's length in the parks. It could mean an expansion of jobs in gardening, landscape design and so on. In the recent EC competition to find the most beautiful city in Europe, our best was Norwich, in 19th position, and we comprehensively brought up the rear.
The Labour Party is producing a policy document entitled Jobs and Environment, which will make a sound case that environmental policies could create 200,000 jobs. As the report says at paragraph 9.65:
"We must confront the implications for society of a belief that the manufacture of rubber ducks for export increases economic welfare, but job-creating public expenditure on environmental improvement or caring for the elderly does not".
I should like to echo that.
I have said nothing about the recommendations that the report makes to the Church, because it seemed more appropriate that the right reverend Prelates should speak to that. However, I wish to say how very much we welcome the report and how much we hope it will have effect. It is a courageous document. I may well be wrong, but I think of the Cof E having its main sphere of influence on congregations in rural areas and not in the cities, where perhaps the Methodists hold greater sway. However, in the report real insight is shown into the needs of the UPAs and the appalling consequences of inaction. It is a practical document.
I fear that the Government remain complacent and I am afraid that listening to the Minister's speech just now I did not get a feeling that he was getting hold of the problems. He gave a list of what was being done. It did not have much vision. In my view the Government are not yet aware of the disintegration that is not that far off—the loss of hope and morale particularly among the young. The resources that they are putting into the solving of the problems are pathetically inadequate. I hope that this very important debate will at last bring the Government face to face with reality and persuade them to initiate the measures that alone can stave off what I fear could be terrifying consequences ahead.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, we must all join in thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, for giving us the opportunity today to discuss problems of our inner city areas. I join him in congratulating the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury on the magisterial report which his commission produced. I hope that all of us will not merely read, but also act upon it in so far as we can.
I agree with the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, on finance. It is ludicrous to suppose that the problems facing the inner city areas

31
can be properly solved or even tackled effectively without a major infusion of central government finance. I share also his fears that members of minority groups, most of whom have settled in inner city areas, are in grave danger of alienation from our society.
I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Young's speech with great interest and attention. I found his analysis of the causes of our inner city problems rather peculiar, to say the least. Unless I misunderstood him, he seemed to be saying that the difference between the amount of local authority housing on the Continent and in this country had some bearing on the acuteness or otherwise of the inner city problems in this country. I hope that I am not misinterpreting what he said. The noble Lord seemed also to imply that central government's intervention in local authority housing had been almost uniformly unsuccessful.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit, I drew attention to two points. First, we have far more local authority housing in this country than our Continental neighbours. It is salutary to remember that nearly 80 per cent. of local authority housing is postwar; yet the 80 per cent. that is postwar requires £20 million spent on it, which does not give one much confidence to put money in that direction. That was the main point I was making.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord greatly, but I thought that the implication was, nonetheless, that in some sense this was related to the problems of our inner cities. I can only say that if that was the case, it seems to be misguided. The shanty towns in France must be seen to be believed, and the inner city problems of Naples are unspeakable; just to mention one or two places. It was curious that in talking about the consequences of local authority ownership of housing and of central government and local government planning, the noble Lord did not refer to the United States of America. There is singularly little federal or state planning in the major cities of America. As far as I know, there is a tiny percentage of public housing. The inner city problems of Chicago and New York are the model which we hope to avoid imitating.
The noble Lord also said that it was no good pumping money into projects. That is a repetition of the old criticism of throwing money at problems. It is a funny one to come from the Conservative Party. After all, the private enterprise which it so admires does nothing but pump money into projects. That is exactly what it does. The pumping of money into projects depends on whether you pump it wisely or unwisely; it is not something which in itself should be avoided at all costs.
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for demolishing the Government's housing policy, to which I need no longer address myself. I must confess that this is not a new topic. Inner city problems have been with us over the centuries from the rookeries in 18th century London, to the Dickensian slums of the 19th century, to the housing crisis of the 1890s which led to the protofascist League of British Brothers. Today, massive unemployment, whatever anyone may say, and the loss of two million
32
jobs, as well as cutback in local authority housing from 107,000 in 1978 to 33,000 in 1985, with no compensating increase in the private sector—to mention but two factors—are the elements which have led to the crisis.
I would draw noble Lords' attention to some passages in the Audit Commission's paper which are highly relevant to what we are discussing. In paragraph 3, it reads:
"There are very disturbing parallels between the situation in parts of London and that in parts of New York and Chicago … There, a combination of poor housing and education, high crime rates much of it drug-related, large scale immigration and associated racial tensions, an exodus of jobs and the more well off to the suburbs, high youth unemployment … Once such a situation develops, it is extraordinarily difficult to retrieve, as American experience over the last three decades demonstrates".
The Audit Commission goes on to point out that many of the factors responsible for creating an underclass, as it calls it, in the United States are, in fact, present in large parts of inner London. There is the decline in opportunities for skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled employment; the number of jobs in manufacturing and construction has fallen between 1982 and 1986 by 126,000. Unemployment was 21 per cent. in Greater London in October, but that means 34 per cent. for men between the ages of 20 and 24 and probably double that for people of Afro-Caribbean descent. Forty per cent. of our families are in council houses, one-fifth of which need renovation; 5,000 families are every night in bed and breakfast accommodation; and so on.
The indicators conform almost precisely with those in Chicago and New York. That is something which should alarm us very much. In the face of this evidence, I was glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Young, did not deny that what we have is a Disraelian two nations as well as a geographic two nations—two nations around us in one society, not merely a difference between the standards of living in the North and the South.
Reinforcing the Audit Commission's report is a remarkable report from the Home Affairs Select Committee Bangladeshis in Britain which is also a report about Tower Hamlets—a classic example, if you like, of urban deprivation. Tower Hamlets has always been a borough of immigration. The Huguenots arrived at Spitalfields after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes; the Irish arrived in the 18th century. In the 1870s, Jewish immigrants from eastern Europe settled in Tower Hamlets among other places; and in the 1950s and 1960s the Bangladeshis began to arrive in one of the poorest boroughs in this country. Today, about 20,000 have settled in Tower Hamlets, where there is 29 per cent. unemployment and where four-fifths of the housing stock, that is to say, 50,000 houses, is council property, much of it in need of major rehabilitation, modernisation and repair.
There is a waiting list of 9,000. In 1984–85, there were over 1,200 homeless families, and one can add to that a mismatch between the housing which exists and the housing which is needed. The Bangladeshi community is the most recent of immigrant communities in this country. As a consequence, it consists of a large number of single men, and when families are united, there are large families. What is required is accommodation for single people on the

33
one hand, and large houses for families on the other. Neither is available in the quantity required. As a consequence, in the borough as a whole, there is substantial overcrowding and 10 per cent. of the dwellings have more than one person per room. However, in St. Mary's ward, the ward where most of the Bangladeshis have settled, the percentage is 50 per cent. In addition there is homelessness. The cost of homelessness for a borough of this kind is very substantial.
In 1986–87 the expenditure was £20 million; the gross cost, after recovery, was £13 million. In 1987–88 expenditure is expected to be of the order £30 million. This is not expenditure that the borough can avoid. It has a statutory obligation to house the homeless. There is not sufficient housing. Bed and breakfast is at present the only resource open to it. That is not a kind of expenditure that the authority can control. I would add that of the homeless, 90 per cent. are Bangladeshis.
If you want to produce racial tension, arrange for high unemployment and a shortage of housing in an area of mixed population. It is not surprising that in Tower Hamlets there are, and have been for many years, a disgraceful number of racially-motivated attacks. An account of one was given in the Independent this morning. It took the police far too long to recognise that these attacks were widespread, and it took them far too long to decide to do something about them. It is no good everyone deploring racial hatred but refusing to accept responsibility for the conditions that foment it.
The responsibility, as has been said before, for these conditions in the cities is a responsibility of us all. It is no good pretending that it is simply the responsibility of any single government or of any single party. It is of course the prime responsibility of the present Government, and I hope that they have forgotten that most chilling of political slogans, "There is no alternative". There must be an alternative to letting things continue in boroughs like Tower Hamlets until the forecast made in the Audit Commission is fulfilled.
Central government have a responsibility in these matters for boroughs in the position of Tower Hamlets, and they can help in a whole variety of ways. One is by encouraging better management on the lines suggested in the Audit Commission report; a second by concentrating available resources where they are most urgently required and enabling boroughs like Tower Hamlets to increase expenditure on housing and, above all, on housing improvements. To follow such policies would mean a change in existing government policies. Between 1979 and 1986 capital allocations to local authorities dropped from £1.5 billion to £500 million.
Tower Hamlets is, in addition, ratecapped. Its budget of £123 million was reduced to £121.6 million of which, as I have already said, some £13 million is expenditure on bed and breakfast which it cannot conceivably avoid. It is impossible for boroughs in that position, without substantial resources being made available to them from central government, to answer the needs of their people and to tackle the huge and overwhelming problems, as they seem to people on the spot, which confront them.
34
It is important to mobilise people in support of those policies, and, of course, the kind of partnership that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, suggested between the local authority and the people is only to be encouraged and devoutly to be hoped for. It is possible that the absence of that partnership between local authorities and the people they represent is because the people do not think that they are properly represented by the electoral system at present available to them. I believe that the mobilisation of partnership that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has suggested might be assisted by a change in the electoral system.
It is an irony that Tower Hamlets and the City of London lie cheek by jowl. The only characteristic that they share is that neither is notably law abiding. Whereas one is extremely poor the other is conspicuously rich. Whereas one has suffered from neglect at the hands of the present Government, the other has basked in the sunshine of their approval until it went a bit too far.
The values that the Government have sedulously propagated, the cult of cupidity, are well expressed in the account of the views of a leading City figure which appeared in the Guardian:
"He has concentrated on one thing: the performance earnings per share. The aim is simply to make money … the view is that it's society's job to worry about the poor and the old".
Need more be said? The two nations lie side by side, the City and Tower Hamlets, and it is not a pretty picture.
4.45 p.m.
The Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, I join with others in welcoming this debate and in expressing gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, for initiating it. I pay tribute to his long-standing commitment to the solution of urban conflict and deprivation. He has brought to that task a powerful combination of lucidity and practical compassion, and the nation owes him a great debt for it.
As the noble and learned Lord showed in his speech, one of his most notable qualities has always been to avoid partisan polemics and to focus instead on human need and what we can do constructively to meet it. It is typical of him therefore that his Motion before us today makes no criticism and offers no blame. It seeks to point a way forward, and I hope that our debate will be conducted in the same spirit. I personally see this debate as an attempt to articulate and respond to a widespread national concern that transcends all boundaries of sectional interest and political affiliation.
In identifying that concern I can now speak with some confidence in view of what has followed the publication of the report of my commission on urban priority areas, Faith in the City. I do not mean the immediate fireworks, which though spectacular were short-lived, but the subsequent year of solid study, discussion and action. The report touched a national nerve. Indeed the title, Faith in the City, has been taken up as a symbol of a shared concern, a desire to be informed and a wish for something to be done. I have myself taken part in constructive discussion of it in the City of London, in universities, in the Weald of

35
Kent, and on a Leicester housing estate with a strong mixture of races and creeds. It has, I know, been taken seriously by many local authorities, including some not exactly renowned for their support of organised religion.
Why is this? Largely, I think, because of one simple conclusion.
"It is our considered view",
say the commission,
"that the nation is confronted by a grave and fundamental injustice in urban priority areas".
So far as I am concerned that statement wholly vindicates the Church's initiative in calling attention to these issues, and I am completely unrepentent in having done so. The report marshalls some impressive and objective figures. I do not intend to repeat them here. But, as a member of the commission put it to me:
"the problem was not finding the facts; the real challenge for us all is how we respond to them".
In essence, Faith in the City paints a convincing and worrying picture of a divided society and one in which divisions are widening. There is, as has been said already, a comfortable Britain where living standards rise, financial institutions and retailing thrive. There is also another Britain where economic decline, physical decay and social disintegration are combining to produce bitterness and apathy. Contrast Surbiton or Sevenoaks with what a clergyman told me of Skelmersdale, where major retailers have withdrawn, some banks closed their branches, several manufacturers have shut down their operations. The projected population was once 80,000; it is now 40,000.
Partly this is a North-South division, as I believe the Government's own publication Social Trends concluded last week. But the two Britains also co-exist on each other's doorsteps, notably here in London. We have had a vivid picture of that. Despite that, they often do not communicate and have little knowledge or experience of each other. Frustration, lack of hope and a sense of powerlessness form an inflammable mixture that can be ignited all too easily. Our society is in real danger if a significant group within it comes to feel that the only way to obtain change is to opt out of the written and unwritten rules and relationships that maintain our social fabric and succumb instead to the forces of unreason and despair. Such a condition runs directly contrary to everything the Church stands for.
Faith in the City addressed 38 recommendations to the Church and 23 to the nation. Noble Lords may properly ask how the Church of England has itself responded. What is it doing in urban priority areas? To put it quite simply: we are there; we intend to stay there and we shall strengthen our resources there. I could give a catalogue of specific actions, but above all we place the leading questions of Faith in the City on the agenda of every part of our Church. Wherever possible they have been shared with other Churches and faith communities.
You do not change the Church by central diktat but by patient discussion at every level and by a multitude of small decisions. I believe the Church has much to offer our inner cities and the soulless outer housing
36
estates which so concerned my commission. But I am not starry-eyed: Faith in the City speaks clearly of a Church which is often clinging on by its fingertips. Committed priests and lay people with much to offer can be ground down by pressures of inappropriate buildings, lack of money and the sheer weight of human need.
Our response has been, first, to embark on a major drive to redistribute the historic resources of the Church so that they are shared more fairly between dioceses. This will benefit urban priority areas. We are also establishing a Church urban fund and the Church Commissioners are seeking powers to give £1 million a year to it. We shall be launching a drive for funds throughout the Church and nation. All this will have the specific and identifiable effect of requiring parishes in the suburbs and rural areas, themselves not without problems, to pay more towards the salaries of their own clergy so that we can give more help to the inner city. I am confident that the Church will accept these costs, but they will be real and sometimes difficult.
If we succeed, the readiness of the Church in comfortable Britain to support these steps has lessons for other institutions as well. If we do not succeed people may well say of us, "Physician, heal thyself".
One of the things that worries me about any debate on our inner cities is the danger of painting the problems in such apocalyptic terms that there is no room left for hope. I do not believe my commission fell into that trap. As they put it themselves:
"Nothing we say in this Report should be interpreted as evidence against our firm belief in an urban future of which all citizens may be proud.".
Like them, I believe that action is possible and I look for all our Churches, strengthened in ways I have described, to play their full part.
I believe we have much to contribute to building the partnerships for which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, called. We have experience; we have a presence; we have increased professionalism in pastoral care and I think we still enjoy a large fund of local good will. Our clergy are often uniquely placed by virtue of their role in the community. Unlike most professional middleclass groups who work with the poor, the clergy also live alongside them, enjoying similar wages and many of their social conditions. And the combination of theology and experience means they do not judge the nation's prosperity by the mortgage rate, taxation level or dividend returns as other influential groups are bound to do.
Our parish system is founded in the idea of a local community, and despite the division and dispersal of communities in our cities the Church remains a force for bringing people together and building neighbourhood partnership. We can operate at a genuinely local level, listening more closely to individuals than is possible for government itself. Moreover, we are known to do this as an independent body owing no allegiance to partisan ideologies, and yet we also have the potential at least to cross all boundaries of class, wealth and race.
There is of course an element of vision in that picture. I am not repentent about that, but I believe that like all powerful visions it is grounded in realism and in building on strengths that already exist. It is the

37
basis on which as a Church leader I have hope for our cities and the future.
But what my commission found demands national action. Like our Victorian forebears, we too are facing "a condition of England" question, though of course it is a United Kingdom question. That is why I believe Faith in the City was right to address recommendations to government and nation as well as to the Church. We confront an urgent situation that will not be resolved simply by throwing money at it, though it must be said that it will not be solved without more money being made available.
It seems to me that many different kinds of resources are called for if our cities are to be won back from what some of them are today, many different kinds of talent and innovation working in harmony—the financier and the architect, the businessman and the philanthropist, the legislator and the planner, the policeman and social worker, the churchman and the educationalist, the landscape artist and the civil engineer. Such an approach has implications for housing, education, health, employment, law and order, and the creation and distribution of wealth. Other noble Lords, including my fellow bishops, will discuss these in more detail. But the length of that catalogue itself shows that no one sector of society can tackle the issues alone. They are not the responsibility of the centre, of local government, of private sector finance. They are the responsibility of all of us.
It is in that spirit that I want to conclude by saying something positive about cities and their renewal. First, I believe that our cities have an intrinsic energy and vigour which has to be rediscovered and worked with, while there is still time. As the report puts it:
"We confidently assert that the planned resurgence of the British city is both possible and desirable in the immediate future".
Secondly, we are a comparatively wealthy society—far wealthier materially than when we built the new towns and did the urban renewal of the 1950s and 1960s. We also have the wealth of our human resources, including those in urban priority areas themselves. We need to apply this wealth. The experience of the 1980s must surely convince us that there is no automatic trickling-down process that ensures that increased wealth will benefit the poor. But I believe that concern for wealth creation and for its fairer distribution do not need to be mutually exclusive.
Thirdly, we have substantial evidence from opinion polls that many people would be prepared to pay more taxes and forgo tax cuts in order to help divert resources to the poor. The response to my commission's report has confirmed this. I believe that if we are to have faith in the city, we must also have some faith in comfortable Britain. I do not regard it as axiomatic that such a Britain is basically selfish, uncaring, greedy and vindictive.
There is a deep fund of good will and altruism which can be tapped. Let me give but two brief examples. In my own archdiocese a group of salubrious seaside towns on the South coast have combined to provide what I was told was really needed in three day centres for the mentally handicapped in London—regular and consistent holiday places for the summer. At the new
38
Homerton Hospital in Hackney, which I visited for a day last week, I found the very best that Bans could give in medicine and medical care was being invested as a contribution to the deprived inner city.
Any cynicism that ignores such work is not only a counsel of despair but is also alarmingly infectious. I do not think it is a false hope to work for a society in which compassion is seen as a strength and not a weakness, and a sense of social responsibility and concern for one's own community is recognised as a proper, even necessary, accompaniment of success.
Finally, we have learnt some lessons, albeit painfully and at a great cost. Others have already spoken of this We now see the need to listen to people in local communities before seeking to help them. We want to do things with people, not for them. There are signs of this in all sectors: government initiatives, decentralisation within local government and imaginative projects supported by commerce and industry.
Our voluntary sector has never been larger or more flourishing. The phrase which has been used—build from the bottom up—is in danger of becoming a cliché, but that is because of repetition, not because it is wrong. For me, such an approach reflects a profoundly Christian understanding about the infinite value and dignity of each individual human being, whatever their outward circumstances. A public policy which starts from that must be grounds for hope.
All of us in this House want to rebuild community and create a stronger sense of fellowship in a deeply divided society. But successful social engineering will not be enough to rekindle this. If I may trespass briefly into the territory of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, we need justice as well as equity and we need to offer rights as well as to provide opportunities. We need to sustain our commitment to a vision of common citizenship and to living as one nation under God.
That is the real thrust of my commission's report. As Professor Donnison has wisely commented:
"Faith in the City … showed a determination to rebuild what might be called fellowship … or the capacity of the community to take purposeful, humane, collective action … When their more detailed proposals have been forgotten, the Commission's conviction that by working together good people can make the world a better place may prove to be their most lasting gift to us all."
5.3 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, after that powerful tripod, if I may so describe it, of Church, law and Parliament, I am afraid I stand before you as a complete amateur. I would say that I represent the voluntary sector and for a period of six years I was fortunate enough to hold two appointments; first, from a Conservative Secretary of State for the Environment, Michael Heseltine, and, secondly, from a Socialst Secretary of State for the Environment, Peter Shore. However, in the appointment I had there did not seem to be any political differences at all. It was to chair a body which we affectionately called an "ango" in order that we might have some form of self-perpetuation. It was called the Greater London and South-East Council for Sport and Recreation.
Our brief was to try to recommend things to do and to look after people when they were not working or

39
sleeping, on the consideration that they would probably retire earlier, possibly even start work later and would have more spare time. Over a period of six years we completed report after report on what was wrong. We analysed again and again other people's reports. We used to write and say, depending on who was the editor of the day: "the Government should do this", "the local authority should do this" or "the private sector should do this". We forgot that within our nation we have people who really do care. They are called the voluntary sector. We have those who when they are successful in life wish to give something back. We have those who understand far more than any bureaucracies.
When I gave up this job I found to my amazement that I had been dealing with some fairly bright people. I had been putting forward the concept that private and public money should actually come together to fund and develop recreational and sporting activities. I can tell your Lordships that this was a form of heresy. But when I retired two bodies came to see me. One of them was the London Docklands Development Corporation and the other was my own council. They said, "You have been volunteered". I found myself in a situation where we were proposing to deal with the inner city, to deal with London. I shall come to what Disraeli said about London in a moment—but what a mess it was in!
One forgot there were some 6 or 7 million people involved—2.7 million households and an area of city twice the size of Pans. Those were the basic things. London had declined. As our trade had disappeared, so London had declined. Once upon a time a third of all the trade in the world went through the London docks. Now there is none. Over a 30-year period since the war a million jobs disappeared. There are now 3 million jobs. The rate of unemployment in London has grown almost more quickly than in any other city. London now has the greatest concentration of unemployed in any industrial nation of the world. This is not a recipe but a part of a recipe.
Secondly, we look at ethnic minority groups, and 50 per cent. of all such groups in the United Kingdom are in London. That is effectively the same size as the total population of the city of Birmingham. Within those areas of the ethnic minority groups we have a very high rate of unemployment—an average of 20 per cent. But for some, and particularly for the young black West Indians, it is often two and half times that. In some London boroughs there is unemployment of 60 per cent. That is another part of the recipe. Then we have other aspects which we tend to forget about. In London there are 400,000 disabled, of whom something like 225,000 are registered—roughly the same size as Bristol.
When I was volunteered for this, people said "We need something in London; we need a big centre in London". Studies were done and it was found that we are one of the greatest athletic nations in the world: we hold all middle distance records in the medium scale. We had only an old hangar to run in. We found that little things happened. One day the Sunday Times said, "Get up early in the morning and run round the park for fun"—and 5,000 people did. Others said,
40
"That is not enough: get up even earlier and queue for a long time to run 26 miles through the streets in the rain". And 16,000 people entered the London Marathon. I can think of nothing more painful, but I think 16,000 people enjoyed it.
From this background came an idea which the London Docklands Development Corporation advanced when it had plenty of space, before the tremendous success of the enterprise zone had led to the development of offices right across the board. It gave us a shed. It is a banana shed, but I am not allowed to call it that. It is empty because nobody will produce bananas any more. I am reminded here of the way in which people do not want now to produce things around the world. We created with the help of a wide range of people what I think is the smallest private venture company in the United Kingdom. It has spent 50 per cent. of its share capital and has £1 left.
We created, too, a philosophy which said, "Let us get some money from the public sector but let us not swallow it and consume it. Let us use it and if it works let us try to give it back". Then we asked "How many different people can we get together to work on this concept because it is becoming quite an amusement?". In this area I ended up quietly in Black Rod's office with a note. Your Lordships' House is really the equivalent of a moderate-sized tennis court. Our shed (of the same height) when it is finished will be the equivalent of 30 tennis courts. Within that, we intend to have fun for the people of London.
In putting together our package we come once more to the voluntary sector. The voluntary sector is not to be found in the street. It is within local authorities, within government, within Parliament, within the large corporations and, perhaps most interesting of all, within the police force. It may not be widely realised how many members of the Met do a lot of voluntary work for sport and recreation out on the streets. Every year the Met sponsors the Metropolitan Police five-a-side football match, with 7,000 teams of which 743 are women or girls. We needed somewhere to hold these finals so we needed a shed.
Then, believe it or not, we had a lot of support from one great body, the GLC, which was very keen on doing this. We thought it may be possible to get a Conservative Government into the same structure and organisation as the Left-wing borough of Tower Hamlets, together with the GLC, perhaps together with the Sports Council and perhaps with other aspects of Tower Hamlets and the City—the private sector. I feel embarrassed at the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, because I work in both the City and the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. After his comments I feel suitably proud. But there is a coming together in these environments.
What we did was with the help of Members of your Lordships' House. There was the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, who will speak shortly, and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, who sold his flat in Albany and moved down to Docklands, because many of us found that in an area where there is regeneration there is also fun, excitement and enthusiasm because there is change. The point is how you kill off the bureaucracy. This is very difficult. You have to approach it from

41
inside. We found the most successful voluntary workers that we had all worked in the public sector. They knew their way through the corridors.
We came to the time where a Conservative Government handed over to us £2 million, the Sports Council handed over to us £500,000 and the London Borough of Tower Hamlets put its own money into the same pot as a Conservative Administration and it did it willingly. More than that, it realised fairly quickly that the success for Docklands was such that before long it would be the richest borough in the country in terms of rates. It then had the misfortune that, because it was being so successful with all the new businesses starting down there, it switched political allegiance. I think there was a majority of two, and it turned out that one of the councillors was under age, which caused tremendous problems, and we found that our supporter, the borough, was hidebound at that time.
We then set sat down and asked whether it would not be right and proper if the private sector put in the same amount. The private sector did not want to know. A few people said that they might give us some charitable donations. They said what a good idea it was and they would sponsor things. But then with the help of individuals—again, volunteers—we set up a strange structure. We said: would it not be nice to have a bank? So the Barclays Bank Group came in, and an American bank, Security Pacific, also came in. The Americans are used to things of this sort; they have them all over the place, with the coming together of the public and the private sectors. An old merchant bank, Arbuthnot Latham, came in. We then thought: would it not be nice to have Lord Weinstock's company, GEC? It came in and invested. Then there were the P & O group, Bovis and lots of individuals.
We then looked at the sporting and entertainment world and I found to my amazement that there were people in the promotions world who, unsung, had raised over £100 million for Band Aid to help the world. There were others such as the trust of His Royal Highness the Prince with some £4 million raised voluntarily to help people in the inner areas.
The problem is that we have this enormous building and we start rebuilding in a month's time. We have £3 million from the public sector and £17 million from the private sector, but we do not have any staff. We have an elderly dog that guards the place and the tremendous good will of lots of people who want to participate. I do not believe that the problem is money. I believe that the problem lies somewhere between the public and the private sectors. There needs to be some form of structure which is called the voluntary organisation.
In Tower Hamlets, you will find an interesting area known as the Mudshoot, where 32 acres of land were converted some time ago. Bees live there, people play and there is a farm with animals. But all the time when the volunteers are there they do not have the powerful organisation and resources to resist progress, to resist the demand for increased intensity of office developments. But in our cities and in the middle of London there are vast waterways. The City could be superb.
I find with considerable happiness that there is now a mood. The mood comes not just from throwing
42
money and from charitable donations. You have to create a climate where people see the chance of prospering. This is what the Government have done by the enterprise zones. I think they did it without realising, but enterprise starts with one and then with two. In these areas, I find great hope.
We hope to move the London Federation of Boy's Clubs down there for its 150th anniversary. It is trying to raise £1·5 million. It may have done it already. It is the 150th anniversary of St. John's Ambulance, which is also there. If you ask a hotelier, "Would you mind placing orders, so that someone can start a new bakery?", he says, "Yes, we will not have an in-house bakery". It is the same with a Chinese laundry. People will respond if they are asked.
There is one thing which I do not think government ever take into account. They always assume that everyone is after their money, as do local authorities. But often it is the good will of government and of ministers that counts more. If government, the Church, the law or the local authorities would ask individuals, there are many who would like to help.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, of all the elements in the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, for which I am grateful, none is more conspicuous than his penultimate comment that here is an imperative need and that it is our business, as best we can, to seek to provide some measure of encouragement that the need will be met. I believe that this is the function of the debate, and I should like to contribute something towards that end.
I am grateful for the conspicuous appearance of spirituality on the ecclesiastical Benches. I wish that I could command a similar number representing Nonconformity. What I can say to the most reverend Primate is that there has been a welcome, which I think is unprecedented in its nature, in the Nonconformist and other Churches that are not established, for a compendious document which I am still in the process of reading and which, at the same time, is one of the most perceptive and all-embracing presentations of an ever-increasing difficulty, to which your Lordships are invited today to give some care and attention.
I begin by declaring an interest in the simplest sense of those words. For the last 60 years, I have been working in the inner city, and your Lordships will allow me therefore, anticipating any failure on my part, to be humble enough to make no comment that would appear to be dogmatic. I am concerned with many problems to which I cannot yet find the answer, but I have a conspectus over those 60 years of what has been happening in the inner city. I shall delay your Lordships for but a little while to describe it.
I began in the Old Kent Road. On one side was Rivett Street, of grinding poverty. On the other side was a trim and neat area of houses in Glengall Road, committed to what I suppose would be called a lower middle-class gentility, not oppressed by too many problems and apparently fairly stable. That situation did not materially alter, except with the emergence of the welfare state. Of course, it was in cold storage during the second world war. Afterwards there came

43
the changes which I believe are germane to an understanding of what we are discussing.
First, there was the increase in unemployment—progressive and equally dangerous as it progressed. Secondly, there was the coming into the inner city of racial groups, initially in ones and twos and now in tens or hundreds. Thirdly, there was what is conspicuous in the Archbishop's report—an increasing sense of decay. It is to that aspect that I would draw your Lordships' attention. The most conspicuous element that I find in the inner city today is the decay and the consequences that flow from it.
I should like to describe one of the consequences. I was recently sitting on a bus which was caught in a traffic jam near the Elephant and Castle. Through a window, I saw a young boy with a hammer smashing a piece of furniture which was adjacent to a window in a high-rise block of flats, and thereafter smashing the window itself. I suppose that it was an understandable part of the exuberance of youth. However, what bothered me was that there were a great many people passing by who took not the slightest notice. That incident—reinforced by many another episode—struck me as showing that it is the inevitable consequence of decay that one loses a consciousness of improvement and gives it up as a bad job, so that it does not matter what one does with it. I regard that as one of the most impressive and dangerous elements in the inner city today.
In the inner city of today, I believe, the constructive elements of belief and confidence in progress have been eroded by a procession of events which have denied to so many people the opportunity of thinking that things could be better. As I say, they have given it up as a bad job. It is unquestionably true that the Christian Church has in many respects disappeared from the inner city. That is a general statement. There are special examples of magnificent churchmanship and I am not prepared to stand here and have the Church blamed for all the problems in the inner city. However, I am prepared to say, and I conjure your agreement, that there has come into the inner city evidence of anonymity. Nobody now seems to belong, as once many did belong, to the Church.
One fact which, in my judgment and experience, has not been mentioned as it should be, illustrates that point. In earlier days, Sunday school was a cementing influence in home life, vast numbers of parents sending children there while they slept under the News of the World. They were committed to a family life which has disintegrated with the decay. With increased mobility, young people leave the inner city in order to find what they hope will be enjoyment and pleasure elsewhere. In my judgment, this is the outstanding defect in the inner city. Nothing has taken the place of the sense of belonging which, with all its disadvantages, was an element in the city as I knew it when I grew up and as I worked in it for many years.
I do not listen with any continuity to "East Enders". Occasionally, almost by mistake, I switch it on. I believe that it is watched by 23 million people, and I find that a most unfortunate thought. However, what surprises me is that there is not enough attention being paid to the fact that "East Enders" and similar
44
presentations give the impression that, whereas the Church no longer is the focus of public life in a community, the pub is.
I do not believe in an alcohol-orientated civilisation. At the moment, I am not banging the teetotal drum, although I think it does matter in what orchestra that drum happens to be thumped. If one cannot thump it today in the Band of Hope, as I was brought up to believe, one can at least recognise that the assumption that the public house represents a focal point of unity in the civilised life of a community is a monstrous nonsense.
I must delay a little to say a further word on that subject, and I hope that your Lordships will not assume that to be a piece of teetotal arrogance. It is the measure of my 60 years' experience in endeavouring to combat some of the problems to be faced in the inner city. Therefore, the contribution that I seek to make very briefly is this. We have allowed the city, in its inner life, to decay to the point at which most people think it irreparable. I do not. I do not know what will be the shape of the cities of the future. What I do know is that there is a paramount need at the moment to do things in the Church and in the community alike. There is a need to do something to alleviate the situation.
Let me begin with the Church. I was interested for long enough in running a hostel for recovered alcoholics. That was fairly cheap to do, in the sense that the scientists did not know very much about such things and we were dependent upon all sorts of quack medicines which did almost no good. But we were able to give to the alcoholic a sense of belonging and to take him out of the pattern of an irresponsible and stupid life that he had not only elected for himself but to which he attracted a great many other people.
Today an effective measure to deal with the increasing problem of alcohol demands an infusion of capital for scientific and proven methods which were not previously known but which are now a part of the general curriculum of recovery. There are many voluntary associations which desperately need the funding to meet the technical demands of those jobs to which they are committed. I do not believe that there is any lack of vocational sense; I do contend that there are many such organisations today which are impoverished to the point of being ineffective precisely because there is no recognition that what they need is money. They can do a great deal out of their experience. However, they cannot do a great deal without the apparatus and the tools.
Furthermore, as has been advocated in your Lordships' House this afternoon, there is an absolute need for an infusion of public money into the job of making the inner city look better than it does. Only when that money is available and has been expended do I think it is likely that we shall be able to go on to the next step and see to what other commitments we ought to be encouraged as a result of that expenditure of public funds.
It is no good saying that there are already public funds available. Of course there are, but they are not nearly enough. I still repeat, even though it may be over-simplistic, that what we need above all in the voluntary efforts of the Christian Church, of which I

45
have some experience over the last 60 years, is the encouragement that can come from the belief that if we set about these tasks with due understanding and devotion, we shall not be hamstrung by the lack of money to carry them through.
Finally, we are concerned today not only with immediate and proximate programmes. We are concerned with an ultimate conviction, and I shall sit down after I have said a word or two as regards that. Within the Christian faith, we have learned how much we need to enlarge our vocabulary in order to be honest with our doubters and with our declarations of faith. I find no place in the vocabulary of Christianity for the word "privatisation". There is no place whatever.
I believe that privatisation is the very denial of what we may perhaps call socialisation, responsibility, fellowship and the companionship of labour. I do not use the word "socialism" too easily today. There is a current attempt to discredit it altogether, and if your Lordships read yesterday's Sunday papers, you have seen a most discreditable attempt to do that. Christianity, if it is socialistically committed, as I believe it to be, can be regarded not as something which has been practised and found impossible to carry through, but as something which has been found difficult and abandoned.
Simplistically again, I appeal for that kind of community which can be built up in intention long before it comes to fruition in actuality. We are now in so many respects a separated and alienated community, and nowhere is that more present than in the inner cities which have lost touch with the broad sense of belonging to other people. Only in such a new sense of companionship do I believe that that can be affected. That is why privatisation is no help. I do not want people to be told that they must do what they have to do on their own initiative, because so many of them need the inspiration and help of their fellows if they are even to start on a programme of self-reliance.
It is the provision of a decent opportunity to be good which is the prerequisite of any achievement of good in the community as a whole, and not the isolation of the idea of probity and worthwhileness to the individual and the failure to see that in so many respects we are the children of our environment. Only when we begin to change that environment radically can we expect the fruits of our inherent goodness.
That is a matter of theology. I believe it could not be ignored in the conversation to which we are committed today. I have the liveliest hopes that there are more and more people who, listening to what has been said already, will believe that we need a moral readjustment in the kind of society which brings us together in hope and enables us to live together in faith.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I join the whole House in thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, for his Motion and for the speech he made today. He will forgive me if I say that, as one who listened to him very carefully, I think the most important thing was not what he said but what he did not say. With great
46
respect to him, anyone can put forward a Motion which speaks of,
"the case for a partnership between authority and the people who live and work in them".
We could all put forward such a Motion and know that it would have universal support, but the noble and learned Lord did not tell us how to do it. He did not tell us how it should be achieved. How do we get the partnership of which he spoke?
I put this question to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. With every good intention you want to regenerate the inner city area. A body is set up. You work very hard and you get the representatives of the three local authorities concerned to become members of that body. They do and they play their part; and then after they have served their term of office they have to leave the body. The local authorities refuse to nominate successors. What do you do? How do you get partnership? How do you get people claiming to represent those who were elected if they will not even attend? Letters are ignored. In living the life that I have led over the past 10 years, in dealing with what I call the frustrations of our democracy and in being ignored virtually by many of those who claim to know all the answers, I find this not only disappointing but absolutely frustrating. It is against this background that I want to get involved.
One of the speeches that most impressed me was that of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon. He will not be surprised to hear me say this. He spoke of a section of the community that appeals to me considerably. I refer to the voluntary sector. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said one thing that was worth listening to so far as I am concerned. He said that the belief that this is a local authority matter is false. I hope that those words hit these Benches hard because that is absolutely right. If anyone believes that everything should be done by the local authorities, as was done in the past, he is stark raving mad.
They are not capable of doing it. Even with all the funds in the world they cannot do it. The larger the housing stock the more difficult it is for them to manage. It is a fact. There is nothing beautiful in something being big. In my humble view the worst mistake that was ever made was when Sir Keith Joseph, the Conservative Minister at the time, reorganised local government. That was the worst thing he ever did. The small local authorities which knew their people and knew what it was all about were made into vast enterprises. The real local touch was destroyed. How can the poor wretched local councillor today get his voice heard when he represents a borough that is three times the size it used to be. That is the reality. I have great affection and respect for the Church. I am not a member of the Church of England but it means much to me; it is my faith, my belief. But I cannot stand pious resolutions. I cannot stand resolutions that have no backing and no reality.
I put this point to the most reverend Primate. It has been mentioned before and I shall repeat it. In docklands we started with eight and a half square miles of dereliction, an absolute disaster area. After the development corporation was set up I went on a tour with the chairman. We went all around the area in a car. When I came back I was almost in tears. There

47
was desolation as far as the eye could see. Because the government of the day were Conservative they immediately earned the antagonism of the three local boroughs. The boroughs would have nothing whatever to do with us because we had been set up by an evil Tory government. That was the start. I was sneered at and jeered at and called a Right-wing Fascist by some of these people because I had the temerity to join it. What was my purpose? My purpose was to regenerate docklands and not to let it go back to what it had been before.
I read the Daily Telegraph today. There are some remarkable articles about docklands in it. One of them is by a character who will be well known certainly to those who work in the East End of London, a character named Jack Dash. I know Jack very well. Listen to what he says:
"We casual workers, dockers and stevedores—tee, they called us—would hitch lifts on lorries from one dock to another and hang around for three or four hours hoping for work. In the Royal Docks you'd have 600 to 800 men on the stones. They'd be fighting and kicking to be picked, like seagulls battling over scraps. Accidents were frequent. On average, dockers needed medical attention four times a year. When we did get work, it was 10 hours a day, seven days a week. There were often times when everything pawnable was pawned".
The one concession he makes to the reorganisation of docklands is that the people today are unlikely to suffer the hardships and humiliations of the past.
My father suffered those. That is why I do not want docklands ever to go back to the days of yesteryear, to be governed by resolutions that are passed which are not realistic. That is why I knew from the very beginning of the story that the only way docklands could survive was to get private enterprise involved. I knew that it was no use waiting for government money. That would never do it. As the noble Lord, Lord Soper, rightly said, government money is not the only answer. You have to get the people involved who will provide the services.
Because I was an MP for 38 years, and a docklands MP at that, I know a bit about these problems—not by passing resolutions but by living, seeing and feeling them. Let us take homelessness. The way to deal with the problem of homelessness is not to start praying. That will not do us any good; it will not do us any harm but it will not do us any good either. I shall tell your Lordships what we have to do. We have to have a body whose whole purpose, whose entire purpose and whose only purpose is to deal with the homeless in London.
I leave this thought with the Government. The GLC could have been that kind of regional authority. We need a body to look after the homeless. That body should have certain powers—the power of acquisition of certain properties, powers with regard to finance, the provision of homes, working with voluntary associations and the churches, the Salvation Army, the Methodists and so on. They are not going to be sneered at and jeered at because they do not happen to belong to a political party. We have to cut out the political argument in all this. That is a way in which the problem of homelessness can be tackled.
The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, referred to the venture with which he is associated. The voluntary
48
sector is now to provide sporting facilities in docklands. Something like £20 million has been assembled, mainly through the tremendous efforts of the noble Lord in getting the money provided. It will be the finest sports centre in the whole world. There is no doubt about that. It will provide facilities for East London kids. There is no doubt about that either. But there is the time factor. It will take five or six years. During that time you are sneered at, jeered at, criticised and told what you should do, and so on.
I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman—and I have always believed this—you do not judge people by what they say; you judge people by what they do. With regard to Brixton, I put this to him—and I know a little about Brixton; not as much as the noble and learned Lord does, but quite a bit. Is it not a fact that the goodwill expected from the local authority in Brixton is not forthcoming? That being so, it is very difficult for him or anybody else to go there and say, "These are the solutions", when the local authority in particular will not do anything about it.
Lord Scarman: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I do so as the only honourable member of the Brixton Domino and Social Club. We have just opened new premises financed, repaired, renovated and refurbished entirely by the members of that club. The indications of active community life that one finds there, with sheer happiness bubbling over even in this terrible weather, lead me to think that perhaps the noble Lord believes that the rest of us are more bankrupt of ideas than we really are.
Lord Mellish: I hope the noble and learned Lord is right. All I know is that Brixton will be judged on its merits. It will be judged on what actions are taken; not what is said but what is done by the local authority.
Lord Scarman: I am paid for words, but I am actually taking action.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord is paid for words and that he is good at it. I simply make the point that we judge people by what they do, not what they say. That is why I now turn to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon.
I believe that what the noble Lord is now proposing is the sort of realism that the whole of docklands wants to see. What he said about the voluntary sector is right. In the community there are hundreds of decent people who would willingly come forward and back you up. The question is how we get at them. How do we get these people to come forward for what is mentioned in the Motion—
"a partnership between authority and the people who live and work in [the areas]"?
I put this to the noble Lord. I am sure he agrees with me. How do you find the people who live and work in those areas? For example, does he know that the people who live in the Isle of Dogs regard a person who lives in Stratford (which he should know quite well) as a foreigner? Anything that is done for people who do not actually live in the Isle of Dogs is regarded as an affront.

49
We set up a training scheme. Over 60 people, albeit youngsters, are being trained for full-time jobs. They will be guaranteed jobs when they finish their training. But there is no praise for that as they are considered to be foreigners. They come from Barking, from East Ham and some come from Plaistow, but none comes from the Isle of Dogs, and so we are not considered to be doing a good job of work. One cannot win this argument. I put it to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, that someone has to be realistic and tell these people that their argument is not valid.
I say this to the Churches. There is much good will in that area. The churches themselves want to help but they have to understand that they must stand up against what I regard as some very irresponsible criticism by a few people who are not speaking for the whole. However, the churches often seem to side with them and express a view that is hurtful and harmful, especially to those of us who have been trying to improve the situation for a long time.
Finally, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Soper, that because we were concerned with the local people and because we wanted their co-operation, in docklands we appointed a community liaison officer. Seven people applied for the job. One of them was a Methodist lay preacher. He turned up in a dog collar.
Lord Soper: If he was a lay preacher he was not entitled to wear the collar.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, he turned up in a dog collar and we were so impressed that we gave him the job, dog collar as well. I can only say that he has been an enormous success. Over 1,000 meetings have been held in one year to try to get the local people involved. But does he get any credit?—Does he, heck. He gets sneered and jeered at by all the professional groups who do not represent the local people. That is what I beg this House to understand. We put forward a simple resolution, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has done concerning a partnership with the people who live and work in these areas, but it is not as simple as that. You must go out of your way to find out who these people are and then try to get them involved. You must remember that they will be attacked, and the moment they are attacked they resign because, unlike me, they are not prepared to take it.
I end on this note. I believe that there is great hope for the inner cities and for regeneration provided always that when we speak of involving the local people we ensure that we are speaking of the voluntary sector; people who are prepared to come forward in their own specialist and human way to do a job of work. We do not need to plan for the whole city or the whole of the area. There is no need to replan Canary Wharf, to replan this and that, spending all our time abusing democracy, with delay after delay, so that nothing is done by anybody except pray—pray for a great world that never happens. Someone has to get on with the flipping job.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, this has been a remarkable debate encompassing both the morality
50
and, as we have just heard so eloquently, the practicality of a topical and profound political issue. I shall follow the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, by speaking about one of the practical aspects, although a different one which has not yet been raised in this debate; that is, the extent to which crime, and the fear of crime, disfigures and diminishes the quality of life in the inner cities.
I take as my starting point an extract from a Home Office working paper on Criminal Justice, published in November 1986, which reads as follows:
"The risk of crime is not evenly spread amongst the community. The British Crime Survey shows that people living in inner city areas face a risk of being burgled between three and six times greater than residents of other neighbourhoods. Though high-risk communities comprise just over a tenth of households in England and Wales, residents of these areas were the victims of a third of the burglaries, a quarter of the car thefts and a third of street crime."
The figures are based on the British Crime Survey, the importance of which is that this survey estimates levels of actual offending rather than simply those incidents which are reported to, or recorded by, the police.
Why is it, therefore, that crime is so disproportionately concentrated in the inner city areas? It is a complex question and a difficult one to unravel. Housing policies have a great deal to do with it. I had thought of a short exposition on the natural history of problem housing estates and why it was that these estates—some of them built as recently as the past 10 or 20 years—had become difficult to let and what happened when they became difficult to let. Once estates became unpopular, for a variety of reasons, only those people who were desperate for housing were prepared to accept accommodation in them, and the people who were desperate were the ones who had social problems. Therefore a disproportionate number of one-parent families, of homeless people, ex-offenders, and people with physical or psychiatric disabilities, came to be concentrated in these areas. The so-called good tenants did not like it and they began to move away. Therefore unbalanced and atypical communities grew up in certain estates.
It was not just a matter of housing design, housing conditions, the remoteness of housing management, or the lack of repairs. All of those things existed and were important, but it was also the residents, how they had been allocated and the resulting social composition of the community that contributed to the problems. That is all that needs to be said at the moment, in summary, about a very large subject on which there is a good deal of special knowledge. I do not think there is much controversy attached to the analysis.
One result was that in 1981—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, did not give a figure but referred to the fact in his own speech—24,000 local authority dwellings in England and Wales had been standing empty for over a year. Many of them were vandalised, often boarded up, and some were occupied by squatters. The number exceeded 24,000 at a time when the demand for housing was so great. By the late 1970s the situation was met by both public and private responses.
The Department of the Environment joined with local housing authorities to launch the priority estates project, which will be familiar to some of your

51
Lordships. Then in 1976 NACRO (which has done such outstanding work on the problem estates) began its work with the crime prevention units. I understand there are now 60 NACRO units working in 40 local authority areas. The president of NACRO, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, will speak later in the debate, so I shall say no more.
Although there are some differences between the NACRO and other voluntary schemes and the priority estates project, fundamentally they are similar in that they attempt to harness the energy and good will that exists among the residents on rundown and difficult housing estates to participate in managing the estates, planning improvements and, once the improvements have been carried out, maintaining and protecting the property. Crime prevention and reduction are now regarded as essential components of housing policies. As the Motion urges, partnership between authority in its various forms and the people who live in crime-prone urban areas is crucial.
Let us pause to think for a moment what we mean by crime prevention. We need to appreciate that a large volume of crime, particularly in relation to property, is opportunistic. Such crimes take place on the spur of the moment. The opportunity presents itself and is taken. That does not excuse an offender once charged when he appears in court, but it is relevant to the situation in which the offence takes place. That being so, we need to examine how the opportunity arises and to evaluate the situation in which the potential offender finds himself.
Can the situation be altered to his disadvantage, and therefore to the greater protection of the potential victim? Yes, it can. It can be altered for example, by the provision of better lighting and the installation of alarm systems. It can be altered by the presence of caretakers, who at one time were a dying breed on local authority housing estates but who are now being reintroduced, by the installation of entry phones to flats, and by improved physical security, such as better locks, stronger doors, and windows that are bolted. All these measures can reduce the chances of a crime taking place.
Situational crime prevention, as it is called, is based on the premise that some types of crime can be discouraged by the management, design or manipulation of the immediate environment in which they may occur. This approach, backed up by neighbourhood watch schemes and other forms of community action, has already produced results. I regard as one of the most significant developments in criminal policy in recent years the fact that there are now as many as 17,500 separate neighbourhood watch schemes in England and Wales. That was the total in December 1986, but the rate of increase is so rapid that the number may be higher today. It has been a phenomenal growth, the total having more than trebled in 1986. It has largely been a spontaneous movement, encouraged by the police and others, but with the thrust coming from the grass-roots, just as the victims support movement before it, and it has now achieved its own momentum.
The concept of neighbourhood watch has expanded beyond its original emphasis on locks, bolts and
52
alarms, backed up by a system of informal surveillance and reporting to the police. It has now enlarged its appeal with a strengthening of community bonds; more mutually appreciative relationships with the police, and, most important of all, the creation of habits and attitudes which are hostile to crime.
The next step, which is a crucial one in terms of this debate, is to see whether neighbourhood watch, particularly with the added values to which I have just referred, can break out of the fertile soil—the more stable and comfortable areas—in which the schemes have flourished so spectacularly to date, and find out whether it can penetrate the urban housing estates where the need is greatest. It would be a tragedy if this form of community action were to be rejected as an alien transplant in exactly those areas where it is most needed. It would do a great disservice to the residents if they were to be denied opportunities of taking part in such potentially valuable self-help schemes because of animosity between the local authority and the police.
There are some encouraging signs. Recently I visited one of the police divisions in North London in order to discuss crime prevention. In the annual report of N Division of the Metropolitan Police, based at Kings Cross Road, which is placed in libraries and other public buildings, the division recorded in 1985 a reduction in all reported crime in its area of 16 per cent. compared with the previous year. The most prevalent crimes of burglary and auto crime—that is, theft of or from a motor vehicle—were reduced by 22 per cent. and 24 per cent. respectively.
The police attributed the reductions to more uniformed officers patrolling the area and a significant increase in community initiatives, especially neighbourhood watch. By 1st December 1986 the number of watch schemes had grown to 29, taking in some 24,000 people out of a total resident population in the police division of about 90,000. So it seems that a start has been made, and there are some results from which I think one can take encouragement.
There are many other speakers to follow, so I shall conclude with one final observation; namely, that crime prevention is sometimes thought of as being relevant only to property offences, such as burglary and theft. That is where the main emphasis has been placed up to now. It is, however, too restrictive. Crime prevention is also applicable to crimes of violence against the person which commonly occur in certain settings. Violence may be encountered at work; for example, in social security offices, and housing offices and by people who are in direct contact with the public in banks, post offices, building society branches, places of leisure, especially licensed premises, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and late night public transport.
The Standing Conference on Crime Prevention published an important report in November last year by a working group on The Prevention of Violence associated with Licensed Premises. The group was chaired by a magistrate, Mr. Ewart Boddington, who was chairman of the Brewers' Society at the time. It included police and local government representatives as well as licensed trade interests. At about the same time, a report on Crime on the London Underground

53
set out a range of measures that should be taken for the greater protection of those who use the London Underground, especially at night. The report was commissioned by the Department of Transport, and carried out in conjunction with the London Underground, the Home Office, the Metropolitan Police and the British Transport Police.
The relevance of crime prevention is not merely to be judged by its effects, important as those are; it is a demonstration that crime is not inevitable in the inner cities or anywhere else. It is not something to suffered, endured and feared. Nor is crime to be left to the police and the courts to deal with.
Private individuals living in adjacent dwellings can join together to form watch schemes. They can keep an eye on one another's homes and have contact with the local police. In so doing they are not only helping to reduce crime in their own immediate localities; they are fulfilling the timeless role of the good neighbour with all the social and personal satisfactions that that can bring. Thus policies aimed at preventing crime have a value that goes beyond the purely functional one of reducing the incidence of criminal offending. They represent a polarisation of what is good and what is evil in society, and a strengthening of the idea of community.
6.3 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has given us the opportunity this afternoon to contribute towards making the life of the residents of the inner cities an asset rather than a grinding battle against an ever-declining standard of living.
I was interested when the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, told us of some of the categories of people whom local authorities rehouse. It is important for the House to understand that there are other categories which the noble Lord did not mention. Battered wives increasingly form a category of people who become homeless. Noble Lords must recognise that in the main they are helped by local authorities, charitable organisations which have specialist agencies and the Housing Corporation. It is rare for private enterprise to come forward to build a hostel for battered wives or for those coming into care in the community.
We must remember all the time that we are thinking about the inner cities. Those people will in the main be looked after by the local authority, which I hope in the future will receive closer co-operation from the Government. As someone who has spent many years—more years than I care to remember—in local government, it worries me to see the war of words that goes on between local government and the Government, with the Government having the ultimate sanction of cutting expenditure.
The Government must clearly recognise that in a democracy we have local government. There is always criticism in this Chamber about certain sections of local government. I shall not mention them because they are mentioned too frequently here. We must recognise that there are other local authorities with problems. They are attacking them in different ways, and ways on which they can be commended.
54
Birmingham has the largest ethnic population of any local authority, the largest amount of council housing, I suppose, and private sector houses in serious disrepair. I was interested in one thing that the noble Lord, Lord Young, said. I was not interested in much else. I do not want to be rude to him. I was looking forward to the dynamism that we generally have from him. I thought that we were going to have many schemes thrown at us, not just task forces but others that we would have to remember. They are normally the same people doing the same job in the regional offices. However, that is by the way.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord speak about factories under the arches, which are now all forgotten. If he comes to Birmingham I can take him to some factories under the arches which are working well. My noble friend Lord Stallard reminds me that Camden also has enterprise under the arches. Perhaps all is not lost.
I want to disagree fundamentally with what the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, said about co-operation. I say that because Birmingham pioneered what is called enveloping work. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is nodding his head because he has heard me say this before. Birmingham pioneered the scheme, and it is now accepted national policy. Enveloping is when a local authority takes over the whole of one or two streets in its development area. They are housing action areas or general improvement areas. The street is designated.
Two large caravans go into the street. Residents can see in them the plans of what is envisaged. They see that the whole frontage of their houses will be completely refurbished. In Birmingham, one sees a whole street of houses with new roofs. That is generally the main task that needs to be done. The whole of the outside of the property is refurbished. In the main the people living in such houses are private tenants; they are not corporation tenants. The whole street is refurbished with different street furniture. Instead of having cars parked on both sides of the street day and night (because it is an inner city area) the street furniture breaks the street up. That makes it extremely difficult to use the street as a free parking area.
To make these schemes successful a partnership takes place. It starts first with the residents in the area being told exactly what will happen and being asked whether they want to participate. When the outside of the premises is involved nobody objects. The inside of the premises are dealt with under government improvement schemes. This is where more difficulties arise because normally there is insufficient money in the improvement schemes to apply to all the properties of those residents who make application. It is unfortunate that when the Government start upon such schemes as the improvement scheme or heating insulation they apply them for a limited period, everybody surges forward to take advantage of the scheme and the money is quickly used up. Very often it does not go to the most needy.
The improvement grants apply to the inside of the properties with the local authority working closely in conjunction with the residents. Then along come the building contractors. These are not odd job building contracts. It is the large firms which come in to do

55
these major enveloping schemes—Wimpey and that type of builder. All the people who are working on the scheme have to liaise closely together. It is very difficult to live in one's house when it has no roof, especially if the workmen have not made it sufficiently waterproof during the period when there are no slates. There is this constant liaison. In all honesty, there are never any criticisms about this kind of refurbishment. The city has been tackling its urban renewal programme in this way for the last 10 years.
A lot of these schemes will be taking place in the Houndsworth area. I do not want to repeat the unfortunate happening that took place in Houndsworth. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, may be pleased to hear that in that area a training enterprise workshop is being set up by the local authority to give basic skills in building. In the future, in order to give greater opportunities to the local residents who are unemployed, it will be a condition of all capital contracts, such as the major envelope schemes, that a percentage of the labour must be drawn from the areas that are part of the schemes. That is what one calls partnership. I fail to understand the thinking behind the observations of my noble friend Lord Mellish on situations where people cannot co-operate. Quite obviously co-operation breaks down if Government funding does not come quickly enough.
I understand that there is a criticism that Environment Circular 26/84 is inflexible and much too concerned with detail. What began as a simple, straightforward approach to improving the environment by enveloping has now become extremely complicated because of this new circular. I ask the Minister whether he or his department can ensure that subsidy approval is given according to the timescales that are stated in the circular. I understand that there is considerable delay, which not only worries the residents, who are all keyed up for their enveloping schemes to go forward, but is also disastrous for the builders who are waiting to move in.
If we take note of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and others have said this afternoon, there is this desperate situation of unfit housing, overcrowded families, lack of facilities and the complete physical degeneration of certain areas. It can be helped only by the Government recognising quite clearly that it is no good saying that private enterprise, the building societies and the banks can do something. The lead must come from the Government with increased financial help. As the noble and learned Lord said, it is not a problem of Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool or any of the boroughs in London, but a national problem. Quite obviously it is a scar on the whole of the country.
We talk about tax cuts. As has already been said by noble Lords, there will be some living in the more affluent parts of towns—and I know that Birminghm has more affluent parts than many cities—who will say that it is important for the city to look good so that they are proud to live there, instead of it being recognised as an area that has inner city problems. I feel that co-operation can be achieved and that it can be helped along a little more by the Goverment.
56
I close with a remark on finance. It is important for us to recognise quite clearly the reductions that take place in local authorities. I have information from Birmingham, which produced this very fine document. I know that it is in the hands of the Minister. It is a 10-year programme and includes all the problems and all the details that could possibly be needed. The civil servants accept that it was well prepared. The authority had a well-argued case in the submission. It submitted a request for £280 million to be spent on capital programmes for the year. The Government have restricted not only Birmingham but all housing authorities to 80 per cent. of the amount allowed this year. In the case of Birmingham, for 1987–88 it is being given £49.77 million, compared with £58.23 million this year. If that is not a cut, I do not know what is. The Minister cannot say that the housing programme is not being cut when one has these figures. I am not making them up. These are figures that have been supplied to me by the local authority.
Perhaps I may finish by quoting the words the authority uses after giving the figures:
"Without the necessary resources we are losing the battle.".
That is referring to the housing department. I say in conclusion that it is the residents in the inner cities who are losing the war.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the noble Baroness will forgive me if I do not follow her directly but I shall refer to Birmingham in due course.
I should like to look at a matter which has not been studied very much today. It concerns the work which has been started, what is being done and—something that we are talking about most of the time—what ought to be done. I propose to relay to the House some of the reactions of people actually working in government schemes which are mostly community projects, in some of the inner city areas where the black problems are particularly severe. In this way we can see how the very considerable effort, which, I certainly agree the noble Lord has put into this, is beginning to work. I shall report some views from ACAFESS in Birmingham, which is a black organisation: from NACRO which has, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said, some 60 subsidised community projects; from Community Service Volunteers, who are mainly concerned with black problems and who introduced Ted Watkins to this country, about whom I shall say something later; and from the Apex Trust which specialises in employment for offenders and people in difficulty, and which is also heavily involved in the jobs problem for the black population.
The Secretary of State has said that his approach is based on a "people philosophy" and a confidence and desire of people to improve their own circumstances. At Toynbee he said:
"You cannot create enterprise through special government programmes, it needs a change of attitude."
Of course it does, and that is right and true. However, by offering opportunity, government can change attitudes, and Ted Watkins showed how this could be done in Watts, Los Angeles, after the Watts riots 25

57
years ago. I have spoken to your Lordships about him before but we still have much to learn from him. Through the CSV he has paid a number of visits to this country, has spoken to a number of black communities and in the course of his visits was honoured by a meeting with the Prince of Wales.
In a few sentences, what he did in Watts was to gather together the unemployed and anti-social youngsters who had spent their time throwing stones at the police, and set them tidying up the place. He extracted some money from his union to give them pocket money. He got skilled colleagues to teach them simple building techniques and used them to help rebuild houses in which the community could live. They persuaded the local authority to provide 36,000 trees which they planted themselves. They began to take a pride in what they had done and to be prepared to defend it against vandalism. In fact, they grew up to be citizens with a pride in their home. They then found that even the police were on their side, and the change was complete.
Things are not the same here as they are in America. However, mutatis mutandis, this is the line which I believe the Government should pursue, and there is some evidence that they are trying. However, I fear, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, said, that most of the repair and development in these areas, on which a great deal of money is being spent, has been and is being done by outside contractors rather by local co-operatives. One can see that outside contractors would be the easiest solution; but, as the noble Baroness said, it should at least be a condition of any contract to employ the maximum number of local workers. In Watts the work was organised by a black for the blacks and I think that that had a good deal to do with its success.
Through Ted Watkins and CSV last year my noble friend Lord Hunt and I visited a government-assisted black for the blacks enterprise in Birmingham, which was teaching skills with a view to starting small businesses by and for blacks. We were most impressed by what we saw. Some 60 unemployed blacks were being trained and a number of individual businesses had been started, housed and, so far, were doing well. It was run by a Birmingham-born black called Gus Williams. He was clearly an exceptional leader of men who admitted that it was a great help to have, as he had, a solid Birmingham accent.
I received a letter from him this morning in which he says that the ethnic unemployment in the area is out of all proportion, amounting now to 80 per cent. or so. There is an increasingly large reservoir of young blacks who are becoming extremely alienated not only from the black community but from society as a whole. As long as this persists there is a real risk of riots. However, he thinks that the existing organisations in the area could cope if certain changes were made. He is not quite so clear on the changes that he wishes to be made and so to enable me to go through his letter in detail. However, I shall certainly ask the Minister to get in touch with him because I think that he is on to something fairly serious. First, he says—and somebody else mentioned this earlier—that insurance companies are now doubling and trebling their premiums for small businesses in the area and
58
that drives them out of the inner city. He wants to see the task force on a permanent basis instead of its present temporary funding. It should be responsible to local committees under the overall responsibility of the Minister.
There is a particular problem about night clubs and places of entertainment from which the young blacks find themselves barred (I suppose that that is because they are not wanted, but one can make up one's mind about that) so they start their own illegal shebeen and drinking clubs. In spite of a dramatic increase in the number of black police, of which everybody is in favour, there is still a good deal of racial abuse. I am afraid that most of us from what we have heard, can say that the police do not yet have things right, though they are moving in the right direction.
I turn now to retail what I have gathered from three of the voluntary bodies which I described earlier. As the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said, NACRO's particular contribution has been concerned with crime prevention in the community projects, and the Apex contribution there has been largely on the jobs side. The petty crime, which the noble Lord described in detail, is ruining the area, as it ruins almost every city area. It is so very much worse for people in these conditions than it is for us in quite modest buildings in Battersea where we have more confidence that we shall not be broken into. The flats are particularly horrifying to go round until they have been tidied up.
However, the people in community projects get together with the local people and set up a steering committee which starts with the residents. They then invite the relevant local agencies, including the police and the Church, and a plan of action is agreed and carried out. As the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said, it includes mending windows, putting up lights, paying particular attention to multiple occupation housing (which is almost the worst evil there), rewiring flats, and so on.
All these things are affecting the neighbourhood in a very agreeable way. The residents' association becomes busy, effective and popular. All this really works. There is a real change. The places look fresher and cleaner, petty crime reduces and each of the societies I have quoted have impressive figures for "before and after". I shall not bother the House with the figures now, but the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, gave some from one place.
The CSV is almost exclusively concerned with the black problem. It particularly stresses that it is essential for the blacks to feel that they are in control and are doing things for themselves. I must say that in their place I should feel the same. However, difficulties can arise, as anyone who saw last week's BBC2 programme on the "Struggle for Stonebridge" will only too easily understand. Apex, which MSC help, has started workshops in Leeds and Wallasey and, as the noble Baroness said, the local council are staffing one in Birmingham, which is a very good thing. Training centres are being set up in Leeds, Chapeltown, West Birmingham, Hackney, Haringey, Hounslow, Lambeth and Wandsworth.
The experience of these three voluntary bodies, which are covering a likely percentage of the problem area, agree entirely with Gus Williams and his small

59
but rather effective unit. The partnership between the MSC, the voluntary bodies, the residents, local agencies and the police in the chosen areas is the right and probably the only way forward. This is the point which most people have made. We want to be sure that this way forward will be followed. The workers—and this is important—feel that they are doing something useful and effective, but each reports that he could do more given more support. The saddest aspect is that the MSC is now being cut back. One of my informants said that it was a despairing decision.
The community projects about which I have been talking are really beginning to accomplish something and this cannot be the time to cut them back. The 255,000 places have been cut to 245,000, which is demoralising. Added to that, the MSC annual payment of £440 per head has not been increased since 1983, so the community projects have to cut back to meet inflation which, though less than it was, is not nothing over four years.
There is another point on which all are agreed. I think it is one on which so far most speakers in the debate are agreed. The partnership must be at neighbourhood level and not only at borough level. Services must be de-centralised and the people providing the local services must be in charge of what they are doing. Constant attention must be given to insisting on decentralisation and the avoidance of the heavy bureaucratic hand.
There are many difficulties. Voluntary bodies are themselves notoriously tricky to deal with. But it must not be forgotten that almost all the useful innovations in the social services and penal reform have been thought up and begun by voluntary bodies. They may be touchy and obstinate, but they are dedicated and immensely hard working and—useful in this context—anti-racist to a man, or perhaps I should say "to a person". They are people who see something wrong and optimistically think that they can put it right; and they are contemptuous of bureaucratic caution—although not always rightly, I have to confess. The noble Lord must learn not to play for safety but must take some risks and expect some failures.
Even so, I think that I am the first person taking part in the debate today to offer the noble Lord some congratulation on what he has done, so long as it does not stop here. All my reports are hopeful, but wanting more. As these experimental areas seem to be giving hopeful results, he must back his own glimmerings of success by enhancing and spreading what is being done and not fiddle about with a cut here and a reduction there. I believe the problem, particularly as it applies to the blacks—and most people have said this—to be of vital importance to this country. What is going on shows enough hope to warrant much fuller backing, and I hope that the noble Lord will persuade his colleagues to let him give it.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Alport: My Lords, it is not simply the formal courtesies of our House which make me wish to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, for
60
initiating the debate, but far more for the role he has played over recent years in alerting public opinion in this country to the dimensions of the major social problem of our times.
It may well be that the noble and learned Lord's report had some influence in causing the Church of England to produce the study of urban decay entitled Faith in the City, to which reference has already been made. What astonished me was the immediate denunciation of that document by leading politicians in the apparent belief that the bishops and the Church have no right to speak on politico-social problems.
Even if Great Britain is no longer a Christian country in the 19th century sense, its community life is based on the Christian ethic. It has been for more than 1,000 years the Church to which the poor and disadvantaged have looked for help and support—to the monasteries in the Middle Ages and to the missionary movements like the Salvation Army in the last century. Not only have bishops and clergy the right to speak out publicly on these issues; they have the undoubted duty to do so.
Faith in the City says:
"We recommend that the Church and its Bishops should play a full part in the debate about the type of society present economic policies are shaping.".
One of the clearest impressions I received when I visited Liverpool last year was that in the most deprived areas and where social and racial tensions were greatest it was the clergy of various denominations who provided the most effective leadership and whose pastoral work was most successful in relaxing those racial tensions. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, the Catholic Archbishop and bishops and clergy everywhere would be failing in their duty if they did not take a full part in the debate about the type of society present economic policies are shaping, and in that their influence can only be for the good.
What is the shape of that society? It is one in which, according to the Central Statistical Office report outlined in the Daily Telegraph last week, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The share of income received by the poorest two-fifths fell from 10 to 6 per cent. and the top fifth's share rose from 44 to 49 per cent. between 1976 and 1984. I am told that at present 15 million are calculated to be living on what is officially the poverty line.
If there is an income divide, there is—whatever my noble friend Lord Young may say—a geographical divide between Northern England and primarily the South-East. Most of the black spots designated in the United Kingdom Regional Development Programme 1986–1990 submitted to the EEC last October are in the North: Merseyside, Humberside, Manchester and Tyneside. Moreover, it is in those areas of high density population that the inner city decline is most marked and it is only paralleled in the South by certain parts of London.
However, there is a third divide. A Leicester University team has just issued the results of a survey of employment opportunities in Sunderland. It says:
"In Sunderland we discovered whole communities for whom unemployment was the norm and among whom a new 'culture' was emerging".

61
It went on:
"People who have to exist on social security have a different set of values. Morality starts to change. Small-scale thieving is seen as part of everyday life … They become cut off from the world of work … Holding educational qualifications does not significantly increase a person's chances of obtaining employment … The division between the employed and the unemployed is becoming more important than that between the working and middle-class".
I am sure from my own observation of the situation in Liverpool that much the same conclusions would be drawn there. It may well be that the same situation is also apparent in the ex-mining villages of South Yorkshire, where high unemployment exists and which I hope to visit in the spring. Deprivation as a result of unemployment is not confined to the inner cities.
The common denominator which links all the great areas of urban deprivation, and some small ones too, the so-called urban priority areas, is large-scale and prolonged unemployment. Last week we heard about the Government's plan to mitigate the problem. I always feel that my noble friend Lord Young is like a man with a leaking rowing boat. As soon as he plugs one hole and does some frantic bailing, the water seeps in somewhere else. What is perhaps significant is the fact that, despite the efforts of the Secretary of State for Employment, the Government's Regional Development Programme assumes that by 1990 unemployment will still be well over 3 million.
Last week the Prime Minister is reported to have said that we shall again enjoy full employment as a result of technological progress. Apart from the fact that technological change has been the major factor in creating unemployment in the last 20 years—for instance, in the agricultural and energy industries—what does that mean? A solution for mass unemployment by the year 2000, by the end of the 21st century, by the next Parliament or when we are all dead?
It is difficult not to conclude that the Government have ceased to believe that, apart from giving the Secretary of State for Employment another bucket with which to bale out the boat, we must put our trust for some solution to the problems of urban regeneration and unemployment in factors over the timing and nature of which we have little or no control.
Faith in the City says:
"The critical issue is whether there is any serious political will to set in motion a process which will enable those who are at present in poverty and powerlessness to rejoin the life of the nation".
Political will is an instrument which can convert ideals and moral values into action. No one supposes that in an era of decline and transition such as we are experiencing at the present moment solutions are easy or success can be assured, but of one thing I am quite certain. Unless we can mobilise the moral willpower of the nation, no government will be able to persuade the affluent majority, the comfortable classes, to accept the sacrifices which any attempt to do more than tinker with this national problem must entail.
I cannot agree for one moment with my noble friend Lord Young that money is not the main problem. I agree with the most reverend Primate that money is needed for this. It is not right to suppose that the reason rates are high in Liverpool and other such
62
areas—which prevents people from investing and setting up their businesses there—is the lack of responsibility, although no doubt there is lack of responsibility, of the local authority. The reason is a very simple one. Local authorities do not have sufficient resources and they have tremendous demands on their resources which they cannot meet without a high level of rates.
The price of allowing situations such as exist in Sunderland and Liverpool to continue is increasing militancy, class alienation and race alienation, leading to lawlessness, to violence, eventually to new forms of repression and to the gradual erosion of the basic morality on which the institutions, the individual freedoms and the unity of the nation have developed over many generations.
I believe that in spite of all the changes which have taken place in this country in my lifetime—here I agree with the most reverend Primate—there is a deep and permanent reservoir of fair-mindedness, good humour and a sense of moral values which can be mobilised to tackle even the most deep-seated and difficult social problems such as those with which we are faced at the present time. The established Church has acknowledged its responsibilities by its commitment to the pastoral work outlined in Faith in the City. Now it is a challenge to the Government and the various political parties whether one or other of them can mobilise the moral will of the nation and transmute it into political will. We may not be able to solve all the problems of unemployment and urban deprivation, but we shall have given to millions of our fellow citizens who live in poverty and powerlessness the hope of a better future and the assurance that those who enjoy power, possessions and influence are at any rate trying to do something about it.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I too join with those who have spoken in thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject, which always engenders such considerable feelings. Frankly, there is so much to say that the mind boggles; one wonders where to start and how to keep one's observations to a reasonable length, not least because there are so many others who wish to speak. Unlucky, indeed, are those who have to come at the very end of the list, though they often make the best speeches.
My noble friend the Secretary of State, Lord Young, outlined some of the many steps which the Government have taken or are taking to deal with the situation. I listened to him with much interest because in the years when I was responsible for the urban programme many of those initiatives started. Therefore I am gratified to hear that they continue. I watch their progress in the press and elsewhere, and by and large I am happy with that. I have always said that the problems did not arise overnight and they certainly will not go away overnight. If we try to pretend that there is some palliative, that there is some magic wand which can be waved which will make it happen, then we live in a dream world. That is certainly not going to be the case.

63
If I may mention just one scheme as an example, I am encouraged that the urban development grant scheme, with an investment of public money of just over £100 million, has now produced projects actually working on the ground of over £500 million. That points a direction.
I also bear in mind—here I pick up a point which the noble Lord, Lord Soper, touched upon—that there were (and so far as I know there still are) three priorities for allocating funds under the urban programme. When I was responsible for the programme they were, first, economic regeneration, which meant anything that would help to provide jobs and employment; secondly, the physical environment; that is, anything that would make the place look better, that would clean it up, tidy it up, repair it, make it so that it did not have the appearance of dereliction; and, thirdly—your Lordships can have your own views as to which order you prefer—help to voluntary bodies. I can tell you that as part of my job I burnt the midnight oil personally going through the details and approving moneys for thousands—I repeat, thousands—of individual schemes to help voluntary bodies.
It is tempting to make a speech which concentrates solely upon the benefits that come from partnership. Almost all who have spoken have said how desirable that is, and no doubt other speakers will say the same. However, I should like to say something about a factor which I believe to be at least as critical as most of the matters which have been raised—perhaps more critical. I should like to talk about attitudes and priorities. If we do not get those right we shall get nothing right. In my view, these are at their worst where the problems are at their worst. I want to show how wrong policies can exacerbate existing situations and mitigate against their improvement.
It is no coincidence that in those cities where the problems are bad social engineering has a high profile. Here I disagree with my noble friend Lord Alport. In those authorities which have high rates and poor educational achievements, which are known to be obsessed with anti-police postures, with homosexual propagation in the schools, and so on, why would people want to go to live and work and take employment? Why would they do that when there are often many options open to them? We do not help the cities which have those problems if we turn away from such problems and try to pretend that they do not matter.
They matter a great deal. If your Lordships doubt that they matter, go and speak to the people, to the employers, to those whom you would like to establish businesses in Liverpool or in some of the inner London areas. Ask them, "Why don't you go there?" They will tell you. I do not need to do it. Ask any of the estate agents who want to get premises for these people. I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. Only the other day I read that he too complained that it does not help the people in Liverpool if policies are adopted which turn people away.
We talk about the spending of money. How far is this a priority? If one had said in 1979 that the
64
Government were going to put forward a billion pounds—a thousand million pounds—in grants into inner cities specifically, as opposed to rate support grant, everyone would have said, "Marvellous. At last we are getting some real money". Here we are, seven and a half years later, and £2.2 billion has gone in direct grants of that kind, specifically into selected areas where the problems are at their worst. How much is enough? Has it solved the problems? Of course it has not solved the problems. It has made an important contribution. Go round the areas, as I used to do as part of my job, and you will speak to many local authority people, Labour as well as Conservative, who will say, "Well, that has done a great deal for us". But solve the problems? Certainly not. Your Lordships can have your own views as to how much is enough. I have mine.
If public spending was indeed the answer then why is it that the worst problems, the worst inner city areas, are those where there is the most spending? I hope no one is going to say, "Ah, because that is where the problems are the worst". The fact is that you can go and see authorities in this country—I could take you to them—where similar problems at the beginning were every bit as bad and yet today there is dramatic improvement.
I am so sorry that those who produced the excellent analysis in the Faith in the City document chose not to go to Wandsworth. There they would have seen what, seven or eight years ago, was bad by any standards, and they would have seen the difference that there is today. It is all very well talking about faith in our cities. I have that. I have faith in the cities. I have faith in the people who live in them. I come from them. That is my whole background. What I do not have is faith in the people who run and control so many of them. In that I have no faith.
How can they talk about caring—and this whole debate is about caring—when they refuse to collect rents; when they allow houses to be in dereliction; when they say they have no money; when they allow over 100,000 public houses to be empty? How can they say they have no money to repair them when they spend vast sums of money—millions, and tens and scores and hundreds of millions—on inanities; on things that all of us would say were a waste of public money? It is all about priorities. Do not let us say that we are talking only about small sums of money. Do not say that if you add them all together it would be, as someone said, £20 million. If you allow houses to be empty when you do not collect rents, do you think that it really helps the people who live there if you do not collect the rents?
We are not talking of a million or two here and there. I could name now—they are on the record to be seen by everybody—many of the inner London areas where the problems are at their worst, where you have £10 million or more outstanding in rents. Is it right that we should say that they can do nothing, and that the Government have to provide more when they will not help themselves? The most reverend Primate will forgive me if I say that I was brought up to believe that the Lord did help those who helped themselves. I still believe that is true.

65
I used to be told by noble Lords opposite—I rarely was told by noble Lords on my own side of the House—that high rates did not in fact keep people from opening businesses. Events show, as I have just mentioned, that if you really want to know, go and talk to the people. The recent Audit Commission report—even the expurgated version—referred to what has happened in American cities where local authorities humped up local taxes and businesses and jobs simply left. I have been more than once to south Bronx. I have been to Bedford Stuyvesant and the south side of Chicago. Yes, it is absolute devastation. It is a nightmare scene for all to see. I look at what brought it about, and I see the terrifying likeness in what we are doing here in so many areas.
I have also—and I want to say this because so few people today have touched on a hope note—been to Baltimore, Boston, San Francisco, and to parts of Washington and New York where there has been transformation. Why has there been transformation? It is because the authorities there have cut their local taxes. They have got the public and private sectors together. The Federal Government have joined in. Yes, the partnership that we all talk about has been at work. Today Boston in particular is a transformed city. It is true that many of the jobs there come from the service sector, but I happen to be one of those who think that that is no bad thing at all if we face the realities of what the world is going to be like in the next 20 or 50 years. Yes, there are possibilities and opportunities.
However, we delude ourselves if we believe that it can all be done without change of attitudes. The partnerships of course are basic. They are essential. I am a great advocate and always have been—I suppose I would be, would I not? I introduced the legislation—of the urban development corporations. I am thrilled—and that is the only word—with what they have achieved. The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, could tell your Lordships about it far better than I can, but I am proud to have been one of the architects of that scheme. If it does not do everything in the way everyone would like, all you have to do is look at what was there before, and that tells you the whole of the story. Remember it as it was. There is no one solution. It is not the whole answer. Nor will the other urban development corporations set up be the whole answer, but they are part of it and and they are a contribution and a vital one, too.
The various private sector initiatives, Phoenix, business in the community, inner city enterprises, the hundreds of enterprise agencies now round the country, the Chambers of Commerce and all of them are splendid. I am all for them. No one would say other than that that is the direction. No one of them is going to solve the problem, but collectively the contribution they make is significant.
We need the local authorities to take enlightened planning attitudes, to make land available, to bring in the private house builders, to renovate the old and bad estates; and if they have to have incentives to do it, well, give them incentives to do it, but make things happen. it is not good enough just to bemoan our fate and look at the thousands of empty houses and say, "The Government won't give us more money". There
66
are some actually making it happen, and we should look at them. I am interested in the idea of a national urban development agency. I am for it. It should be government sponsored. It should be run by single-minded people. It should co-ordinate and pull things together. It should have just one task to do, and it should be made to go to work without any delay in time. That is something we really must do.
Finally, I come back to my overriding theme, that I want to see local authorities focusing their spending on where there is real need. They can find the money if they are willing to cut—not services; do not cut services—the cost of provision of services. The Audit Commission give loads of examples. They say that £2 billion more can he saved if we improve our efficiency and cut the cost of provision of services—another £2 billion. How can authorities say, "We have not got the money to repair our houses" when they refuse even to look at the opportunities that exist to get their services provided at a lesser price?
They will not even look, for example, at the private sector taking over some of the services there because it is against their innermost feelings. But there are authorities round the country who are doing it. Why should it cost twice as much to collect refuse in Lambeth as it costs in Wandsworth? There are many more examples such as that I could give your Lordships. Their overall total is massive. The Audit Commission say it is £2 billion. By any standards that is a lot of money.
I want to see—and I finish on this—authorities enticing back the people who have left and encouraging the people who want to stay, and doing it by having priorities for education. Education is what matters to the young married people, and they are the driving force. They are the lifeblood. It is education that is free from political indoctrination, that does not preach homosexual equality with heterosexuality. I have never in my life heard such nonsense as that, but it is there. Bring back into the schools the parents. Involve them all, and stop the nonsenses. Let us have numeracy and literacy once again as the priorities.
I want businesses to be encouraged by keeping rates down. I have given examples of where that works, and works very well. I want local government officers, good officers, to be encouraged to come in and not to feel that they can no longer manage. The examples round the country in the inner cities in the main are there to be seen because that is where the worst of it exists. Good officers will not stay in very many of the local authorities, and without good professional officers the amateurs will be running things. That is why in Lambeth there are over 100 committees and sub-committees. I ask the House to think of it—a population of a quarter of a million people and they have over 100 committees and sub-committees. What are they trying to do? They are trying to do in an amateurish way what the professionals ought to be doing properly.
I want there to be a true commitment to law and order by backing the police and not by harassing them. Does the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, know—I know of his interest in Brixton—that in Lambeth town hall staff have to get permission before they can call in the police or help them with local

67
inquiries? I want the police to be in the schools, becoming friendly with the children and talking to them to let them see that the police are not ogres. That is an investment we could make.
It may all be a pious hope, but if we do not get the attitudes and the priorities right we shall never do it. The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, talked about realities. Yes, it is about realities. The most reverend Primate and Faith in the City of course point us in the right direction. The report was marvellous on analysis, but at the end of the day it has to be about making things happen. Everybody's heart is in the right place in your Lordships' House, but I say again that if we do not make it happen, if we do not do it together, we just live in a dream world.
7.2 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, even though he is speaking these days from the Back Benches. He was a part of the life of all of us for a long time. I remember on one occasion I asked him how often he had spoken. He had not been in the House for very long and he said 2,000 times.
Lord Bellwin: More than 2,000.
The Earl of Longford: It was more than 2,000. When I used to come down to the House in the middle of the afternoon and ask who was speaking it was always the noble Lord, and so something has gone out of my life now that he is no longer here. But he did his bit today. He spoke as a fervent and, if I may say so, a slightly fanatical Conservative. I am glad of that, because I intend to speak as a fervent and slightly fanatical member of the Labour Party. I hesitated in such a dispassionate debate, but the noble Lord has given me an excuse.
I agreed with one thing, and one thing only, that the noble Lord said. We must all congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman—when I can obtain his attention. When you get two great lawyers talking together you do not expect the conversation to come to an end very quickly, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, reminded us earlier. I think he is putting the blame elsewhere, but I shall not accept that. The noble and learned Lord spoke in just the way the occasion required and we are all grateful to him.
The right reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury also spoke dispassionately. If I may say so with respect, the prayers of all of us are joined with his at this time. I am afraid I cannot speak dispassionately. Whether the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool spoke dispassionately I do not know because I had to miss his speech.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: I have yet to speak.
The Earl of Longford: I shall have no excuse to miss it now anyway. I start again with the report. I am a great admirer of the report of the Church of England. I have said so elsewhere, even in a book. But I must not begin propounding the merits of a book I have written about the work of the bishops. The report is a noble
68
landmark in the whole social history of our country. It will always be remembered. But I cannot imagine that anybody who is an out-and-out supporter of Mrs. Thatcher could have welcomed it.
Mr. Tebbit had the right idea, though he expressed himself a little intemperately, if I remember rightly, at the time. He did not welcome it at all, because it is impossible to reconcile that report with what I can only call Thatcherite principles. I hope I can use that word without any personal offensiveness. We speak of Gladstonian principles, Asquithian principles—if I may say so in the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot—and of course Churchillian principles. Therefore I do not see why we cannot speak of Thatcherite principles. I do not think that any student of history will deny that the course of social policy for good or for ill in the last eight years has been dominated by the ideas of Mrs. Thatcher. Therefore I think we can use that word for good or for ill without it appearing to be derogatory.
The Church of England report informs us that too much emphasis has been laid by the present Government on the individual, while it recognises the importance and the vital necessity of the individual. We are told in the Gospels that we must love others as we love ourselves, which means that we have to love ourselves. I do not go quite as far as what I think the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said, that as long as one looks after oneself one is looking after the nation. Did he not say that? That is the impression I gained.
Lord Bellwin: I hope the noble Earl will read Hansard tomorrow. I am sure I shall be vindicated, as I did not say that at all.
The Earl of Longford: I apologise if I have misquoted the noble Lord, but I think the general drift of his remarks was of the kind I indicated. I take another principle of the Church of England report, that of equality—I do not say total equality, but more equality. No one supposes Mrs. Thatcher's Government have come out for more equality. But everyone knows that they have promoted inequality. That is known to everyone who understands these statistics. The noble Lord, Lord Young, is puffing out his cheeks. I do not know whether that is approval or disapproval, but it is a striking gesture.
Anybody looking at the figures will see that the rich have got much richer and the poor have become—I do not say poorer, because it would be difficult for any government with the advance of science to make sure that any large section of the public became poorer—relatively poorer. There has been a considerable increase in inequality. No one disputes that and it is part of latterday Conservative doctrine. I shall not say the doctrine of Lord Stockton, Mr. Ted Heath or Mr. Rab Butler. The Thatcherite doctrine is that of wanting more inequality. That is what we are getting. If, heaven forbid, the Conservatives were returned to power, I am sure we should see more and more inequality; and they hope that the whole country will grow richer accordingly. That is the way it has gone in the last few years.
Some years ago Mrs. Thatcher was introduced to the teachings of Adam Smith. I do not know how many

69
noble Lords have been brought up on Adam Smith. In case anyone does not know his Wealth of Nations came out in 1776 and even octogenarians were not alive at that time. His teachings were introduced to Mrs. Thatcher. Adam Smith believed that there was something called the invisible hand. If you looked after yourself—in the way I thought the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, was suggesting—you certainly benefited the country. This invisible hand may or may not have been nonsense then, but it is something of a nonsense now.
In these days much of the economy is controlled by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am afraid I have no special confidence in the doctrines applied by the present Chancellor, even though he was my pupil a good many years ago. Perhaps I should have had more confidence had he not been my pupil. No one can pretend that he just lets things take their course. He would then hardly earn his salary. He plays a very active part in controlling the economy.
So much for social philosophy. When we come to actuality, everyone speaks with his own brand of knowledge. I must offer mine, which may be less first-hand than some people's but more first-hand than others. Twenty years ago when I left the government I started a centre for young people in Soho. Now it employs some 10 social workers and sees about 3,000 people a year. I have recently retired from the chairmanship of the centre. No one in touch with those young people could possibly doubt that their conditions have worsened over the last 20 years, and particularly over the last few years. The noble Lord, Lord Young, may be awfully pleased with the way things are going, but if he came to talk to some of these people I am afraid the smile would leave his face.
There is a great deal of human tragedy and it is getting worse. We all know about unemployment, but these are not only youngsters from central London. They have come from all over the country and as such they reflect conditions in other great cities such as Birmingham and Liverpool. There is more unemployment. It is harder for them to get accommodation—to no small extent as a result of steps taken by the Government. Accommodation is certainly harder to come by. They are moved on when they have been drawing social security for a certain period. The amount they are able to pay for bed and breakfast is limited, and in various ways less accommodation is available. I shall not dwell on that. The housing position has been discussed brilliantly by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and others. However, I emphasise that the situation is getting worse the whole time.
What can we hope for? We can of course hope for a change of government. We could hope for a change not in the sense of the Conservatives being hurled from power, but of Mrs. Thatcher deciding to retire so that principles closer to those of the then Mr. Macmillan, Mr. Heath or, for all I know, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, could be applied. It is possible to imagine principles that are not Thatcherite being applied; but that must be left in the lap of the gods.
While Thatcherite principles carry on the only thing I can venture to suggest to the Government is that far more tax incentives should be provided. A start was
70
made last year and I would not like to disparage that. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, told us of various forms of voluntary work which had been encouraged by the Government, directly or indirectly. All that is to the good; but far more tax incentives should be offered and they should be more effective and more imaginative so that we can help to make it more profitable and less difficult for businesses to contribute to voluntary bodies. Whatever is done in that direction, no one can relieve the Government of their supreme responsibility for rebuilding the lives of people in the inner cities. I speak from a knowledge of what young people are suffering now.
7.14 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, one of the great and unexpected services the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has done for me has been to give me a first taste of that heady freedom on the Back-Benches to tear up one's speech and say something else. I should like to thank him for that as well as for the very important debate which he has stimulated.
The subject is indeed a big one and engages almost all the elements of government. I encountered aspects of it when I was a junior Minister at the Department of Health and Social Security, both in my own responsibilities and those for which I answered in this House. I encountered it again in the Home Office in both capacities. I was brought up to it again, not in my own responsibility but answering for it, in the Department of the Environment; and for a time I answered for the Department of Education and met it there.
My noble friend Lord Bellwin has addressed the problem of organisation. As he and others of your Lordships who have been in government will know, there is great difficulty co-ordinating a budget between departments. Each department is committed not only to the combined objective of, in this case, the inner cities but is also dedicated to the objective of securing its own Votes for its own programmes. While I would not presume to judge my noble friend's suggestion of an urban development agency on a national level, it is at least something which might be looked at as a means of addressing this particular problem.
What is the problem? The landscape which has been drawn before us is scattered with derelict industrial sites. Its most talented people have left, some of their places remaining vacant, others taken by those who are less talented. Some of them feel, rightly or wrongly—this is rather dangerous—that they are already disadvantaged in ways other than where they live.
The landscape has schools in which the balance has been upset by the decline in the school roll and the decline also, very often, in the general ability of pupils. Pupils, as they approach school-leaving age, begin to feel that there is no point in acquiring skills if there are no jobs to apply them in. Your Lordships may not have that view of education. But the pupils do, and that is what matters.
Some of those young people—an increasing number, I fear—when they come out into society, see no purpose and some perversity in supporting a society in which they see no constructive role for themselves.

71
They see an economy which urges them, through all the media, to acquire things which they can only acquire by theft, burglary or debt. That is the dark side of the coin that we have been shown. I propose only to pick up one or two references because I think your Lordships and others reading Hansard will find a wealth of practical advice and an overall view which it would be an impertinence for me to try to supplement.
However, I would say one thing about breaking into this vicious circle. Let me start with the Home Office, because, for a time, I was responsible for the police. I know what an enormous strain the policing of the inner cities is, not only in the dramatic and open ways which precipitated the noble and learned Lord's most useful and constructive report but also in the policing of the community before then. Where you have a community which is in doubt as to its loyalty to society, as I have described, then the policeman is not only the law enforcer but also the ambassador of society.
Young people who are disaffected in the way I have described, sometimes understandably—I do not condone it, but it is sometimes understandable—want to throw a brick at society. But society is an amorphous thing that you cannot pin down. You can see the social worker; you can see the supplementary benefits officer; you can see the teacher; and above all you can see the policeman, because he wears a uniform. So the embodiment of society is involved in keeping order and at the same time—since it represents society—selling it to the community.
That is a fundamental conflict of roles. My first observation is that it calls for astonishing probity and strength of character. I, for one, salute the achievements of the police. We read about the disasters; but the ongoing slog that has gone into Brixton, Toxteth and so on, for year after year, is admirable. The noble and learned Lord was good enough to pay tribute to it in an earlier debate when I was on the Front Bench, and I thank him for it now.
However, probity, careful recruiting and even initial training are not enough to cope with the problem. If we are to talk about the movement of resources, one small movement I would support is towards the in-service retraining of the long-service, middle-ranking policemen whose attitudes and conduct actually give the flavour to the service because it is followed by the younger ranks and the tradition of the senior. I think that would be useful.
I look then at the children, I have taught for 10 years. I was for a time answerable for the Department of Education, and for two-and-a-half-years had responsibility for education in Northern Ireland. The subject engages my very close sympathy. I see the landscape that I described, the schools that I described and the disaffection that I described. I recall teaching, for a couple of years only, in a slum clearance estate in the Midlands—not as bad as we are discussing, but enough to sap the spirit and to make demands on the morale and emotions of the teacher, as well as on his physique. It seems to me that it is necessary that people should be encouraged to teach in these conditions, because it is not enough to have a love of children. You must also have a secure home and
72
future, and some inducement to go on year after year, so that the schools do not have a turnover of 45 per cent. of staff, as some of them do.
I am as anxious as anyone—more anxious perhaps than the noble Earl, Lord Longford—to take a non-partisan line. I hope however that the Opposition will recognise the collective responsibility of their Bench, and that when we come to the Report stage of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill they will explain why, if they continue to do so, they are resisting tooth and nail the efforts of my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Education, to make it possible to give preferential pay to people teaching in difficult places who have the skills especially needed there. That is something to be encouraged.
I shall, I trust, fulfil my promise to myself to be brief. But we are talking about two matters that I must mention. One is housing, which is in itself enough of a subject for an enormous debate. I should like to chime in with the noble and learned Lord and say how absurd it is to have very large numbers of people—100,000, I believe—in bed and breakfast accommodation. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will explain the breakdown of those figures between those who are immediately housed and those who are not. Also, if he has time—otherwise, perhaps he can write to me—could he quantify the amount of that resource which is taken up by people coming from the Irish Republic straight into local authority accommodation here, with no particular filter to come through?
I agree that the existence of 112,000 local authority and 540,000 private sector empty dwellings is far more than is needed, either for turnover or for refurbishments. I should like to applaud, as it is now appropriate to do, the £20 million provided by the Department of the Environment for housing associations. Whatever the effect of last week's debate on rent control initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, on your Lordships' opinions regarding abolition of the Rent Act, it was crystal clear that there is enormous need for more good non-local authority housing authorities and that is one way of producing them.
We are debating, tacitly, as it were, not a Motion but the report of the most reverend Primate's commission. So much has been said about it that I think I have to say something. I have no comment to make on the report, or on its theology, except to endorse what has been said about its analysis and the very important contribution it has made to this debate, which of course goes far wider than the proceedings in the Chamber this evening.
I hope that your Lordships who have spent the day talking, generally speaking, about large organisations and large movements will not belittle the work of the Church of England on a smaller level, and particularly the work being done where it really matters, minute to minute, among the very poor and the very distressed. I recall with joy and sorrow a very lovely man who died recently, and who served in his latter years as the Vicar of St. Anne's and All Saints in South Lambeth—John Colchester. I do not know what he would have made of our plans and theories this afternoon. But I know that part of his training as a mature candidate for ordination, having served as an

73
officer in the Indian Army, was to sleep rough among the homeless in a cardboard box under the arches. He never lost his compassionate and vigorous support for those unfortunates from that day to his death.
I heard much when I was Minister responsible for town and country planning about redundant churches—a subject dear to many hearts on the episcopal Benches—the expense of maintaining them and the sacrilege of pulling them down. There is a church at the other end of Waterloo Bridge which is very soundly built and warm, of which the congregation requires only a very small part for a very short time each week. During the last very cold spell of weather, the rest of the church was open through the night—when I visited it—to people who otherwise would have been sleeping rough on the Embankment and at the Festival Hall. That parish, like John Colchester's, is, in fact, under an interregnum, but the remaining clergy and congregation have given a very practical demonstration of the way in which the resources of the Church can be deployed in aid of the poor people whom we are discussing.
I recall that it was—was it not?—in the wake of the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, on the riots at Brixton, that a crucial development was the establishment of the Community Police Relations Committee. That was a very difficult thing to do. Let us not forget that the courageous man who took the first step and sat in the chair for its first years was a canon of the Church of England. Let us not forget these people and let us hope that, like the poor, they will always be with us.
7.27 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, when I saw from the list of speakers that I was to follow the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I thought that I might say some things about the role which he has so often played in your Lordships' House. Then, after the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, spoke, the noble Earl did so in a manner with which I have no intention of trying to compete, of celebrating the years on the Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has often been in that role, where he has replied with unfailing warmth and courtesy to our debates, not least not long ago in that excellent debate in this House on the inquiry held by the Duke of Edinburgh into housing, when I congratulated him on his speech and he said that he had put away his brief and had spoken from his heart.
I had the privilege of serving for two years on the commission of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury on urban priority areas. With all our customs of mystique initials, ACUPA has been heard around the place. As members of the commission, we were charged first to go and listen and see for ourselves what both church people and those outside the churches said and experienced in urban priority areas. We were charged to make recommendations to the church and to raise questions of public policy. I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, for introducing this debate and indeed for the generous comments he made about our report, Faith in the City.
Because the Church of England has a parish base in every neighbourhood, and because other churches
74
were wonderfully co-operative in every city, we were able to step over many of the barriers which divide groups as perhaps no other body could have done. There was nothing denominational in how we looked or what we saw. We set out as concerned Christians not to identify special problems in the abstract, but to look at how people live today. We were a commission with very mixed experience and we came to a unanimous report after two years.
The commission did a great deal of its work in smaller groups who made many visits. The whole commission paid 48-hour visits to five major cities. We stayed not in hotels but in people's homes within urban priority areas. That made for an immediacy of impressions. For example, I had seen on paper the facts and figures of the sudden collapse over four years of manufacturing industry in the West Midlands. Those facts and figures were brought much closer to reality when I stayed for 48 hours with an unemployed family next door to a vandalised house on an estate outside Wolverhampton.
I make the point that we have often lapsed in this debate into speaking about the inner cities. Perhaps we chose the clumsy phrase "urban priority areas" because we were anxious to say that a major issue is to be found in the great outer estates. Indeed, in Merseyside the numbers of urban priority area people are two to one as regards those living in the outer estates and in the inner city.
This report is about people. A woman in Bow, in East London, told me that the terrible thing about unemployment was that whereas going to work had always been the way in which one joined the adult world, young people now remained with their own age groups only. In the Borough of Knowsley last year, only 5 per cent. of school-leavers went into jobs. A young black man told members of the commission: "I felt put down at school. I felt that I could not excel at academic subjects. My teachers used to tell me not to bother too much with lessons and homework, but to concentrate on sport and athletics".
We saw that putting labels like that on black people, or indeed on white people from unfavoured addresses, is a hidden but powerful influence in excluding far too many people from the good opportunities which the majority of people in Britain take for granted.
Since our report was published, inequality of opportunity has continued to increase, not decrease. In many outer estates, as well as in older inner city areas, large numbers of people face the worst deal, not just in one area of life, but in a destructive and interlocking mix. They have the worst deal in jobs, housing, schools, health care and transport. That spells out a very frustrating experience of poverty.
Faith in the City charts the impact of the fundamental social and economic realities of our time. It charts the impact of unemployment, the crisis of national wealth creation, the polarisation of power and powerlessness, the hardening of dividing lines in the geographical structure of communities and the fragility of great cities in economic terms. Yet at the same time as we saw those dehumanising and dispiriting influences at work, we indeed saw faith in the city. We saw hope kept high against all the odds.

75
We saw models of success different from what the Church usually looks for. Instead of crowded churches from which many go off to their often individualistic and family concerns, we saw many congregations which were smaller and yet had a mighty sense of belonging, of looking outwards into the community and of joining hands in partnership with other churches and community groups. We saw much for the church in comfortable Britain to learn from. We were repeatedly made aware of human talents and intelligence, often trampled on at school and through unemployment.
One of the most heartening responses for the report in Liverpool is what we call the Group for Urban Ministry and Leadership. A good number of parishes are negotiating courses and developing confidence and gifts for Christian discipleship and leadership in people in urban priority areas, both within the Church and in the wider community. The Commissioners' Gallup survey showed a higher proportion of clergy satisfied with their job serving in urban priority areas than in the rest of the country. We affirmed the courage and creativity of wives of clergy who, unlike other professional families, live on the spot. Because they are often blamed by those who have little knowledge of urban priority areas, we affirmed too the resilience of so many at the sharp end—social workers, teachers, police officers and probation officers. We saw what a major role voluntary bodies can play if they can be set free from the wearing and wearisome need to lobby and plead for grants up to the brink of a financial year, with all the added stress that that brings.
On the Commission we repeatedly told each other that we were examining not just what was happening in urban priority areas but also the health of the whole church and the nation. We often quoted to each other St. Paul's words on the body:
"We are members one of another".
The symptoms in these urban priority areas reflect a disease in the whole body.
Relating to the nation, we believed our task to be, as one might say in Biblical terms, that of being a watchman, restating the vision of one body and one nation, and warning those in comfortable Britain of what we had seen and heard. We tried to tell it how it is. We did not think that would be very popular. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for his reminder that it is indeed our duty as bishops and clergy to engage with issues which leave so many people poor.
We were charged with raising issues of public policy. We made it clear that there needed to be substantially increased government expenditure. I make no apology for coming back to this issue, for that has to do with priorities in a nation. We cannot decide on how to rate particular priorities until we have had a very careful look at the scale of the needs confronting us. Therefore, the first question about our report ought to be: "Is it true and is the scale what it is said to be?" That question should be asked before arguing with its proposals or dismissing them as naive.
It is often said that you do not solve problems by throwing money at them. The noble Lord the Minister has spoken of "pumping" money. Do we tell that to a
76
family on supplementary benefit whose pipes burst two weeks ago, who have no insurance and who are desperate about how they will ever catch up and get out of debt? Do we tell that to an efficient housing manager whose housing stock has been decaying with a huge backlog of repairs for 20 years? I should not like to say to them, nor to the voluntary bodies whose stresses I have mentioned, that you do not solve problems by throwing money at them.
I believe that Michael Heseltine, who was the first Minister with responsibility for Merseyside, is right in the response which he made first privately to us from Faith in the City, and which he followed with a series of speeches. He has said repeatedly that the scale of resources needed to turn around the decay of the old cities is far beyond the capability of the private sector alone. He says that there needs to be much more substantial help from the public sector to make the conditions right before the private sector will bring in the resources which we so badly need.
At the time of the launch—or perhaps I should say the pre-emptive leak—of the report, Faith in the City, I was confronted on television with a costing which had been made of all the recommendations in the report. The figure was revealed as if no sensible person could possibly argue for it. It turned out to be an increase of 4p in the pound on income tax. Of course no account was taken or could have been taken of the increased earnings resulting from a healthier, more productive, back-at-work and more united nation. But never mind that, my Lords. My response is that if the running sore in the side of the nation of massive unemployment and urban deprivation could be healed for only 4p in the pound on income tax, we should thank God and get on with it. Indeed, 4p in the pound is exactly the amount by which some people are urging the Chancellor to reduce the standard rate in his forthcoming Budget. If that is the choice, can there even be two ways about it? Not only would it be right but also, I am glad to say, opinion polls suggest that higher spending on services for the needy would be more popular than lower taxes.
My noble friend the right reverend Primate was right to say that we have faith in comfortable Britain. We say that voters will not only be won by appeals to their sectional interests. I know that it is argued by some that a cut in the standard rate of income tax would help those of comparatively modest means and they criticise an increase in taxation for hitting them. However, it does not have to be so. For over 20 years we have been moving away from a progressive tax system in which those with larger incomes pay a larger proportion in tax. Another very recent church report, Not Just for the Poor, spelled out carefully how tax rates on the highest incomes have been reduced to 60p in the pound. The more prosperous taxpayers benefit more than the less well off from a wide range of tax reliefs and allowances which have been rightly called the tax allowance welfare state. This has enabled the more prosperous so to reduce their tax liability that only 3.5 per cent. of taxpayers in Britain pay tax above the standard rate.
We were criticised for commending, as it was said, tired policies from the 1960s and 1970s which had not worked. Perhaps I may try to explain what we thought we were doing. What we did was to focus particularly

77
on the Government White Paper of 1977, produced by a Labour Government but following the very thorough inner areas study set up by Peter Walker and affirmed by the Conservative Government in 1979. It revealed a scale of problems created by at least 100 years of history, not simply by the policies of one government. I somewhat regretted that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, seemed to miss the spirit of this debate in that he responded by attacking socialist policies and explaining how they had caused the problems that we face.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I was not attacking socialist policies; I was attacking, though—and I stand by every single word of it—people who planned out the living areas of our cities into those soulless tower blocks which have contributed so much to this problem. Of that, I repent not one word.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I accept that. I felt that the series of remarks the Secretary of State made were about planning, intervention, government resources and that the real help was all to come from self-help. Our argument is that both have to feed each other.
Critics of the report referred to tired policies which had not worked. Perhaps I may draw a parallel from a comment of G. K. Chesterton on Christianity. He said that it was not that Christianity had been tried and had not worked, but that it had been found difficult and never tried. I would say the same about the policies of the 1977 White Paper. They were found difficult and were never tried. Before 1979 the Government were shrinking from the policy it called for which was to bend mainline funding in favour of the cities and to top up with an urban programme for fresh projects. Since 1979 the mainstream funding has been drastically reduced, far outweighing the benefits of the urban programme, which is itself now cut in real terms. We shrank from the cost before 1979 and have subsequently shrunk further from it, because we do not give a high enough priority to healing these very grievous wounds in the body of our nation. The shortsightedness is that in the long-run we pay a far higher cost in welfare benefits, unemployment benefit and the escalating costs of residential care of prison and the growing apparatus of law and order.
We also looked at the 1977 White Paper because it stressed the importance of partnership which has been much mentioned. It set out to find ways of partnership between government departments—much needed in big cities—between public and private sectors, between public and voluntary bodies, between central and local government. Instead of partnership, we have lived through much confrontation. A city like Liverpool has suffered greatly from confrontation for which I believe both Westminster and certainly Liverpool town hall bear some major responsibility. We urgently need to find a more co-operative way forward in all our cities. My Lords, can we not get the partnership arrangements on the road again?
Our report argues that partnership is the key to so much. The inner city partnerships began to lose their way when they were seen simply to be concerned with the icing on the cake instead of being an integral part
78
of a rather different cake. This is the point I made about bending mainline programmes. The real disaster for the cities has been that we have been left with the icing. We have to go on asking: what became of the cake? The cake was the rate support grant. This has diminished and diminished, setting the scene for so much of the bitterness and confrontation of the past three years.
When the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, comes to reply, I hope he will respond to this point. I hope he will recognise the deep frustration which is felt in many parts of your Lordships' House when serious questions about mainline funding are answered by referring to the increase in the urban programme without at the same time giving us the figures of how much the rate support grant has been reduced. We readily acknowledge that the Government have continued very substantially what I might call project funding. We have been told about many of those splendid, positive projects. It is very important to see new initiatives appearing. But Faith in the City raises questions that require a broader and deeper answer. The heart of the problem is this. How do we manage reduced but renewed cities to make them good places to live in for the many people who undoubtedly stay there?
Earlier in our prayers we said Psalm 122. It is about Jerusalem, "built as a city":
"Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.".
At those words I always pray literally for Jerusalem, but also for the cities of our own country. Last night I completed a three day visit to the small deanery of Liverpool. I had been walking the streets of the old inner city for those three days. I am afraid that I did not see peace. One young man, full of questions and energy, talked to my wife about this debate in your Lordships' House. He said, "They wouldn't listen to me". Then he asked, "Do they listen to him?" I am grateful for the way in which your Lordships have listened and how you have entered into the debate concerning Faith in the City. I hope that we may turn the good will there is to Faith in the City into action.
In preparation for this debate I shared my draft of my speech with Alfred Stocks, as distinguished a figure in local government as any in this country, who retired as chief executive of Liverpool last Easter. I want to underline my plea to get partnership on the road again by quoting what he wrote to me. He said:
"I feel that we are still engaged in a kind of trench warfare as regards urban policy, lobbing points at each other like mortar shells, while the places we care so much about get to look more and more like Flanders every year, with their share of walking wounded staggering aimlessly around. The time has come for armistice and for positive peace making. This means that the parties involved need the space to sit down and map out together just what kind of cities we want in the future".
This report is about holding in front of Church and nation the vision of brotherhood and sisterhood of all being able to participate. If we are to make that vision come true we must give quite different priorities to the urban priority areas that we have described; and we shall need a new willingness for partnership in many forms.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, it seems to have become fashionable in this debate to start off by saying what

79
one did about it when one was on the Front Bench. But this would take me back 15 years when I was your man in the DoE, when we were commissioning the first inner area studies. By the time they had been completed each one concerned a small area—in Lambeth, Birmingham and Liverpool—and each one was 18 inches high. Heaven knows the weight of study that has gone into this subject since.
My noble friend Lord Elton tempted me to throw away my brief when he mentioned redundant churches. I am responsible for them to the Church Commissioners and gave evidence to the Archbishop's commission on that subject. But I shall not be tempted to go off in that direction; I shall stick to the brief I have given myself. That starts only three years ago when I was writing on behalf of the South-East Regional Planning Conference—that is the 32 boroughs and the 12 Home Counties—to suggest to the Secretary of State that it was time we had an up-to-date regional strategy for the South-East. That culminated last June when he wrote to me. A few paragraphs from that letter set the scene for the topic which we are discussing today. He said:
"I endorse the three major strategic objectives which you have identified for the Region's development:
(a) fostering economic growth":
and we have certainly been talking about that—
"(b) revitalising the older urban areas; and
(c) accommodating new development while conserving the countryside".
That is not just a policy for London but for the whole of the Home Counties as well. I turn to what he said in more detail about those three items. In paragraph 10 he writes:
"The challenge for the future is to find ways of accommodating economic growth and development in ways that conserve resources and protect the environment. One way in which this can be achieved is to ensure that the fullest possible use is made of existing infrastructure, buildings and unused land in the less prosperous eastern parts of the Region and in the older urban areas.".
Then, more specific to the topics we are discussing today, he adds:
"Local authorities"—
the Secretary of State says this, but not everyone here today has said the same—
"have a major part to play in reviving these areas, and other older urban areas elsewhere in the Region, through their land and development control policies and through provision of infrastructure and services."
I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Employment has left the Chamber because that is in some conflict with what he said at the beginning of our debate.
What I am now quoting are the views of his colleague, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. Nicholas Ridley. Mr. Ridley goes on to say, at paragraph 14:
"This emphasis on the full use of urban sites and the recycling of urban land will assist the preservation of good agricultural land and conservation of the countryside, maximise the use of existing infrastructure, and provide homes for those who may prefer this type of location with easy access to shops, transport and other facilities, and shorter journeys to work. In this way I would expect a significant proportion of the region's new housing needs to be met in the urban areas including the metropolitan area".
That is what the Secretary of State wrote in June.
80
Since then, in September, the South-East planning authorities have issued a further paper RPC 630, setting out how they propose to implement that regional strategy. Last month, only 10 days ago, I sent the Secretary of State a further document RPC 700, in which a working party for the same authorities, led by the chief planning officer of Kent, have indicated in more detail the development potential all the way down the Thames, on either side of the estuary from the docklands. That ends up by listing what the next steps might be. They are:
"determining strategic priorities in the light of the cost of the schemes; identifying the powers and resources necessary to achieve a promotional and/or environmental impact; the development potential of land not yet allocated; the characteristics of the land readily available for a promotional campaign, including which sites may suit different types of economic activity".
Then comes the important point:
"The preliminary work which has been carried out should assist this process but it would be appropriate, now that the scene has been set for the implementation of a programme of action, for the lead to pass … to [those] whose powers and resources must be engaged to bring it to fruition".
When the Secretary of State responds and we respond to him, using those words, we have varying expectations as to what may happen next. If we look at the docklands we see about 2,000 hectares of land—huge amounts of which were derelict a few years ago—a population of 50,000 people and we see that £60 million per annum has been spent since the Urban Development Corporation was set up. If we look at Hackney—an area of about the same size having the highest index of social deprivation anywhere in London and with a population of over three times the size of docklands—we find that it has been supported to the tune of £12 million per annum. That is one-fifth of the docklands support. All of that £12 million has been taken away again in changes in the rate support grant, and through penalty, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool said.
At the same time as the docklands have been getting £60 million a year, Hackney has been losing that same amount in various forms of holdback of housing grant and housing benefit. It is no wonder, therefore, that we see success on one side with the attraction of private finance and, on the other side, the state of affairs in Hackney which everyone knows about.
One way or another we have to deal with this huge decaying sore in eastern and inner London, as we have to do in other great cities elsewhere in the country where the situation is similar. All agree that it must be dealt with. The whole of the South-East, not just the London boroughs affected, but the outer boroughs and the Home Counties, all agree that this is now their priority. These things will not respond, as several noble Lords have said, to a single, isolated initiative like the docklands, successful though that has been; both successful in itself and in showing how to set about it.
The treatment accorded to that area, and to those people, must be extended elswhere, improved and continued at a high level over a number of years with a consistent set of policies behind it. Financial resources on a similar scale to that in the docklands must be invested and consistently applied elsewhere. If that is not done private funds will not be attracted in. The great benefit of spending that scale of public

81
money is, as more than one speaker has said, that that amount of public expenditure attracts four, five or six times the amount of private investment. It is important that public expenditure should be continued for that reason.
However—and this is where we must have a change from what has happened in the docklands—the powers and the resources of the elected local authorities, and the aspirations and the skills of local people, must also be engaged far more efficiently and effectively than they have been in the past. It was good to see the Secretary of State say in his letter to me that that is something which he now recognises.
Of course in boroughs like Southwark, Hackney and several others, there is enormous mismanagement, and the Audit Commission have recently highlighted that. Today's leader in The Times draws attention to that and we have another debate on Wednesday which will go into it so I do not want to spend time on that subject now. However, I recognise that there are some local authorities where the partnership that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, rightly asks for is simply not at present possible or practical. That does not mean to say we need to abandon all hope of ever achieving co-operation and partnership with as many authorities as possible.
Therefore this revitalisation calls not for a bypassing of the local authorities but a far better use of the familiar structures of local government and of the human resources latent even in the deprived communities. It calls for less, not more reliance on novel and complex government schemes and initiatives which have been dreamt up and imposed pell-mell and piecemeal from on high—top down, as the Secretary of State said in his speech. I am glad to hear him recognise that there is so much more merit in the bottom-up approach.
All this then calls for more and better patterns of partnership, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said, at the outset. That is the key word; not ignoring or despising strengths in our urban communities but building them up and training and harnessing the talents which are latent in them. That is the point on which the report Faith in the City is so clear and strong. But none of that obviates the need, so clearly shown in the docklands, for the sustained, coherent, consistent contribution of large amounts of public funds to attract even more private investment.
In the next few weeks I hope to take a delegation from SERPLAN to the Secretary of State to discuss how best our members, spearheaded by those bordering on the Thames—the London boroughs and the counties of Essex and Kent—can help to implement the prime task of the whole of the South East: the revitalising of the eastern and inner parts of London right down from the docklands to the mouth of the estuary. I am confident that together we can find a few better and fairer ways of tackling this problem in the capital city at the very heart of our nation. This debate will certainly have helped and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, for it.
8 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman,
82
for giving us the opportunity of showing our faith in the city. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I concentrate on London. As my speech progresses it will appear to follow the theme of the previous speaker, but the fact is that I know London best. For 16 years I sat in one of Hackney's seats in County Hall and played a small part in London's administration.
The moment man creates a city he creates problems. That is trite but self-evident. The congregation of large numbers of people in one place generates tensions, which in turn create problems. At every stage in its development a city poses problems for those who live in it, work in it and take part in its administration. London is no exception.
The truth is that although London has a long and ancient history it suffers from the consequences of the 19th century's worship of growth, when size for its own sake was regarded as desirable and urban planning was based on growth. Few questioned that notion and few regarded it as anything but desirable because it seemed the answer to so many problems of that time. Today we are reaping the whirlwind. Our cities are faced not only with the environmental and social problems inherited from that mad rush of over-rapid urban expansion, but in its wake has come the legacy of urban blight and decay and there is an ageing infrastructure that must be made to serve the changing needs of the present day. Moreover, these problems must be tackled at a time when the economic growth on which the prosperity of cities was based no longer exists.
London is experiencing a decline in population. From the 1930s onwards the signs of social stress and the inhuman conditions that were emerging were recognised as characteristic of uncontrolled urban growth. Action was taken which was designed to check urban spread. The establishment of new towns was intended to act as a countermagnet. The London County Council, of which I was a member for the last four years of its existence, played a notable part in this movement. It was reasoned—I think quite rightly—that it would ease the pressures in the large towns and conurbations which had grown up around the cities and provide scope for urban renewal. The policy worked.
Today, however, the situation has changed once again. Since the 1960s, which was a period that coincided with the commencement of my active part in its administration, London has been losing its population. This loss of population was not planned. People have been moving out of London of their own accord—not because there was any planning—in order to find more pleasant living conditions for themselves and their families. That is one of the current headaches, because with people goes wealth; industry chases a diminishing workforce and the process accelerates to leave behind an unemployment problem. Moreover, it is usually the skilled workers who leave and the unskilled and the aged who remain. As London has been bled of its resources, so it has become more difficult to solve the problems of decay and deprivation that have been left behind.
Such an unsatisfactory situation exists in many deprived areas of London, where there is an assortment of associated problems and not just one problem. Not only are there housing problems of the

83
very worst kind in many parts of London but there are also problems of local unemployment, low income, lack of open spaces, educational difficulties, overcrowding and other problems of a social, economic and environmental nature. These problems need to be tackled and we must tackle them together if they are to be overcome. They require the combined efforts of central and local government and need the support of statutory and voluntary organisations.
Of course there should be private and public finance, but as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has just shown, there is the need for adequate public finance in order to attract private finance. One starts with the need for a supply of public capital.
Not only has the population of London fallen, there has also been a reduction in employment. One effect of the decline in both population and employment has been that the growing burden of rates necessary to solve London's problems has fallen on a decreasing number of people, firms and organisations which are less prosperous. In a nutshell London's problem is that more money is needed—I stress the word. More money is required to deal with the problems confronting those who are least able to deal with them. London needs large resources to meet the enormous problems which must be faced by those who no longer have the resources themselves to meet them and cannot provide such resources. There is therefore a real need for recognition of the true situation in London and, as I mentioned earlier, for co-operation between central and local government as well as other agencies.
I am trying to be brief because time is passing quickly. As I said earlier, it is not the housing situation alone which is bad. London also has the problem of people travelling long distances to work and the subsequent traffic congestion that is created. There are not only bad environmental conditions but a further problem in that unless one is careful London will grind to a halt. During the years I was at County Hall, we spent all our time trying to prevent that happening.
There is more traffic because we have built more and more offices. People who live outside London come here every day to work. The provision of adequate means of getting to and from work is a big problem. We urgently need a planned population and employment structure to enable London to flourish economically and to provide sufficient resources to improve the environment. That would enable more good homes to be built and would give the people of London the public services and facilities that they need. At the same time we must show concern for the weaker sections of society and those at risk.
Over the centuries London has changed out of all recognition as it has expanded into the world city that it is today. With the physical evidence of change, such as the new pattern of London's skyline, the people have changed. Although London's population is now steadily dipping, newcomers still flow in from other parts of the United Kingdom and abroad, attracted by the wide range of opportunities that London offers.
During the past 40 years there have been settlers from the Caribbean, the Asian sub-continent and Africa. They are the latest stage in a process that has
84
been continuing for centuries. Some parts of London have attracted successive groups of migrants who have overlapped one another and who can still be traced by those curious enough to look for them. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, instanced the history of settlers from the advent of the Huguenots, through the Russian and Polish Jews, to the present generation of Bangladeshis. He drew attention to the danger that could arise from racial discrimination and harassment. I endorse what he said.
Unless the racial discrimination experienced by the ethnic minorities is vigorously combated and overcome, we may suffer a further subdivision of our cities along racial lines, with the increasing alienation of the younger members of those communities and with much unrest. I speak with knowledge of what goes on in such communities. This is an issue which requires a great deal more attention than it is receiving. I pray that we shall take that on board.
London's problems require the combined effort of central and local government and the support of statutory and voluntary agencies. I repeat that because it is important. Unfortunately the Government have taken a doctrinaire approach to the City and are prepared to leave it to market forces. They have rigidly controlled public expenditure. The Government regard private expenditure as good but public expenditure as sinful. The restraint of local government expenditure is their most important goal. Moreover, they have used the control of expenditure on housing—this is most unforgiveable—as the most important weapon in their economic armoury. That is wrong.
The Government are prepared to allow local authorities to spend millions of pounds carrying out their statutory duty of housing the homeless by putting them into bed and breakfast hotels, but they forbid them to use their capital funds to build the houses required. That is a bad policy. The rate support grant, which is central government's contribution to local government expenditure, has been steadily reduced. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool for his remarks on that point. Housing expenditure has been reduced more than any other item of public expenditure.
The Government have adopted a method of controlling local government expenditure by the use of targets and penalties. That has had the effect of escalating rate increases in the most deprived areas. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for drawing attention to that fact. Having done that, the Government decided to limit the level of rates which those deprived areas could charge. Instead of the resources for those most deprived areas being increased, they have been deliberately reduced. Moreover, in the distribution of the rate support grant there is a bias against London. That has always existed. I spent all my years in London government battling with Labour and Conservative governments over the issue. The present method of distribution has made the situation worse.
The resource allocation working party for National Health Service resources, associated as it is with the continued underfunding of the service, has created more problems for London. The reduction in the resources available to local authorities which are

85
responsible for providing services for care in the community has meant that additional hardships have been imposed on those people less able to bear them. London's plight is serious. It has been made worse by the policies that have been followed by central government and by some local authorities. A realisation of the seriousness of the situation and a change of policy geared to deal with it is urgently required. I hope that our debate will help in that.
I was impressed by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and with the commission's report, Faith in the City, but I was disappointed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Young. I am sorry that he is not in his place. His speech was disappointing because it suggested that the Government do not understand the problem. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, replies he will help to relieve my present depression.
8.19 p.m.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, I venture to speak as a practitioner on the ground in the subject about which we are talking. That may seem a strange claim by someone who is the chairman of a new town up in Shropshire. In fact the new town of Telford is a vast reclamation project. Telford was a bit of clapped out Britain (UK) Ltd. It had all the signs of the collapse and decay that worries those of us who are interested in the inner cities. The southern two-thirds of the town were blighted by thousands of acres of derelict land and the decaying communities scattered on that land. In 21 years of work pulling that area round we can claim some successes which are relevant to the inner cities and at the same time some lessons learnt.
In Telford we still have 19 per cent. unemployment. It comes from the collapse of all the old, heavy metal industries in the area. We have lost something like one in two of the indigenous heavy industry jobs that were in the area when the new town was designated. But despite the 19 per cent. unemployment and all the initial dereliction—and I say this to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman—we have social peace. There is a lesson here which I think is worth looking at.
For example, we now have vast growth taking place in Telford every day. Everyone can feel the momentum, despite the 19 per cent. unemployment. There are a million square feet of shopping in the city centre. There are new amenities such as a tennis centre, an ice rink, a privately financed 10-cinema complex on the way, and a great training centre for one of the banks, offices, industry and commerce moving into the city centre on a scale that has made us run out of land. We have 7 million square feet of new factories occupied and thriving. In our enterprise zone we have used £55 million of government money—if one takes the full expected expenditure in 10 years of the zone—to draw in at least £210 million of private money; one in four leverage. That is the right way to do it.
We have over 60 foreign companies. We have beautiful campus sites created out of dereliction. They were formerly coal tips. On those campus sites we now have four of the big Japanese companies, for example, each on over 40 acres, ready to expand and provide jobs for a century. That is the extent of the planning for
86
the future. With over 40 acres each that will be a lot of jobs.
Most important of all, in an area which was very poor indeed, very derelict, very decayed and very disheartened, with a collapsed spirit, we now have middle-class housing going up. In an area where one formerly had houses costing a maximum of £20,000 to £25,000 we are now selling middle-class houses costing £80,000 to £100,000. People who chose to live outside are now choosing to come back to live in the area.
Perhaps I may give one figure of importance. If one takes the level of employment in Britain in 1980 as 100, with the same figure of 100 in Telford and the West Midlands, the West Midlands and the UK figures are now 92 and 94. We are 104. That means that we have turned the corner. We are the fastest growing part of the West Midlands, built on a reputation of reclamation, a sense of hope and a sense of momentum which are giving us the dividends that I have been describing.
What are the lessons? First, one cannot do this in little areas. One has to take fairly big areas in order to create the sense of improving a whole community, improving land values and getting the economic spiral turning back the other way. Secondly, one has to have environmental regeneration on a vast scale. We have greened Telford, and many of the unemployed—who the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, may think would be some of the difficult people—are the guardians of the green area. They protest when I have to use green land to build some more factories. They are proud of their environment; they are not anxious to desecrate it even further.
Thirdly, one can do this in partnership with the local authority. My development corporation, although a statutory organisation with great powers, works happily with the local authority. Indeed, as I have told many people many times, the chief executive of the district council sits at my board meetings and speaks almost as a member of it. We therefore work in happy partnership with the local authority. Lastly, one must use government money. It is not often that I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Young, so totally. He is wrong to keep saying that one does not have to throw money at this problem. One has to throw money and make sure that it brings the leverage of private money afterwards.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord in full flood, but a number of noble Lords this evening have accused me of saying something that I did not say. Let me repeat the words I used. No doubt it can be checked in Hansard tomorrow. I said that the problem has not been a lack of policies, nor has it been a lack of money. I went on to talk about the vast amounts of money which are being spent by government with precious little result. I did not say that one should never throw money at problems—at least not on this occasion.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. Like many others I had the wrong impression this afternoon. However, it enables me to reinforce the point. The basis of all this must be government money. I very much take the point made by the noble

87
Lord, Lord Sandford, about Hackney and the docklands, which is a similar comparison. One needs the start-up money from government—and goodness knows how much has gone into the docklands as well as into my own new town. Then one must make sure that it is used in the way that brings the right leverage.
With those lessons, what can we say are the prospects for progress in the future? I for one welcome the arrival of Mr. Nicholas Ridley at the Department of the Environment. He has come with a burning mission about the inner cities. There is no doubt about that from all my talks with him. That is a good thing. He is quite right to say that the new towns must be phased down and that the resources that went into them must go into the inner cities. We have the basis right. He has now taken power for urban regeneration grants, which means money given direct to private enterprise to get things going. Also the powers to have simplified planning zones will make the whole project more easy to work.
I support very strongly his decision to set up four urban development corporations—which are modelled on the powers of the new towns—in the most intractable areas, and he has chosen to use what little money he has for that purpose. However, we must now look at the wider parts of urban Britain which still need some action in order to rescue them from urban decay. I wish to give an example. If I am again not misinterpreting what the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, it perhaps alters some of the pessimism which seemed to go through his speech.
I should like to give the example of what is happening in Birmingham today. There is a very good attempt by the city to start up its own inner city regeneration. It proposes to set up a new development company, an urban development agency. I quote from the prospectus:
"It will act as a vehicle for the receipt of urban regeneration grants. It will be a private, market-led, profit-seeking, creative development business".
This is a Labour authority.
"It will be … market-led, profit-seeking creative development business.
It will be private-sector led and will operate with the active participation of the local authority who will also facilitate the redevelopment".
The city has chosen the area of Aston and Nechells as the first part of inner city Birmingham for regeneration. It has the support of the Conservatives on the local authority. It has brought in private operators such as Douglas, the civil engineering contractor, Bryant Holdings the builders, Gallifords civil engineering, George Wimpey the builders, Citibank, Lloyds Bank and Touche Roche. Here is exactly the partnership that we all hope to see as a means of bringing together the private and public sectors in order to begin to get one city on its way towards inner city regeneration.
The first thing that we have to hope is that the antagonism which has built up between the Government and local authorities in recent years will be reduced and that we shall begin to co-operate in an imaginative venture such as that proposed by Birmingham. If in this sort of partnership we can
88
succeed in Birmingham, we can at least begin to sweep away the decay on which the social collapse and the social degeneration about which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, spoke grows and festers.
We must not lose sight of the bigger strategy in the debate. We must move on to the large-scale regeneration of our cities. It is this kind of partnership, in ways in which Birmingham is leading, between the public sector and the private sector which is the means of getting the increase in values and the wide enough application of the principle to enable the sense of a new community to emerge and social peace to take over from social disorder.
In this process we should not consider that we must keep densities at the same level in our cities. It is wrong for people to pretend that we can carry out this work while confining people in the inner cities on the present scale. I was very pleased to hear Mr. Jeff Rooker, the Labour spokesman in another place, say recently that the time had come for us to realise that there has to be a better balance between the city and the surrounding green in future housing developments.
My last point concerns the role of the house builders. As your Lordships may know, I am chairman of a company formed by the big house builders mainly to build new towns in the South of England. However, they are already working very hard indeed in the inner cities. Recently I had to cross swords with His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales when he hinted that the big house builders preferred the easy pastures of greenfield building to helping the inner cities. This is just not true. It was the big builders who asked for the publicly owned Land Register and have been pressing governments to force more of it onto the market.
It is the big builders who have pioneered the reclamation, refurbishment and resale of the rundown and abandoned huge blocks of flats owned by local authorities. Noble Lords should look at Minster Court in Liverpool which has won a design award. It was completely abandoned and derelict. It has been done up by Barratt's and sold at very modest prices to owner-occupiers. Noble Lords should look at Stockbridge Village, which a Labour authority almost begged developers to take away because it did not know what to do with it in terms of the collapse of the public sector housing there. They should look at Regent's Park, at St. Stephen's in Salford and at Priesthill in Glasgow. There are partnerships with housing associations up and down the country to provide properties for rent as well as properties for sale.
The big builders are prepared to do their share and are carrying out these pioneering efforts in the inner cities. I had to tell His Royal Highness that he was wrong to say that inner city decay was in some sense their fault. I do not know whose fault it is, but it certainly is not theirs.
In all the circumstances I have some optimism. I believe that we have now crossed the point where despair is uppermost. We are now at the planning stage as regards bringing all our resources to bear on the inner cities. I believe that if we follow the lessons to which I have pointed and which arise in my own new town, if we look at the possibilities of partnership with the local authorities in the way Birmingham is doing,

89
if we can make that a success and spread it to other areas and if we can show that a little bit of government money attracts a lot of private investment, we shall get even some of the recalcitrant local authorities coming along and saying: "All right, we shall have a go too because we are missing out on something".
Finally, we must look at the possibility of building into the whole of this a partnership with the builders and the developers. My first-hand experience of them is that they too are very anxious indeed to play their full role in finding as much private finance as possible to help the new crusade to rescue our cities.
8.35 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I am pleased to follow the interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord who opened this debate for his understanding speech and to say how worthwhile this debate has been.
We have two very helpful documents in regard to the problem. First, Faith in the City and, secondly, the 1985 Physical and Social Survey of Houses in Multiple Occupation in England and Wales, which was published on Friday. I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady David, for mentioning this fact.
The report of the Archbishop's commission says:
"It is not charity when the powerful help the poor, it is justice".
It is very good to have that in mind. On tenancy, the report says that people who live in had housing have to live in a mistake. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark is mentioned as being helpful. The report says:
"But too often debates in the Lords are not reported and the bishops' voice is unheard outside the Upper Chamber".
That is, I believe, only too true.
In 1980 the Bishop of London and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster issued a joint pastoral letter on helplessness in London. This was read out in all the churches. I wonder whether they could possibly do this again as I think it was very helpful. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, will be pleased with the document as he was one of the first to introduce a Bill in the Upper House to try to rectify the difficulties. On 13th February another Bill will be introduced by a Member in the other House, and I wish it success.
On reading the second report one realises that the situation is extremely bad. It is a very strong report, summed up in the words:
"There are some exceedingly squalid conditions within HMOs, and their existence is an indictment of national and local government policy over many years".
For a government report to be so outspoken in its criticism of Government policy is very unusual. The conditions are appalling. The report says that 81 per cent. of houses in multiple occupation lack satisfactory means of fire escape; 80 per cent. are unsatisfactory in at least one respect relating to management, occupancy or amenity provisions and 25 per cent. are unsatisfactory in all three. Sixty-one per cent. have inadequate essential amenities. In 44 per cent. of HMOs, according to the report, management was unsatisfactory while 59 per cent. were in serious
90
disrepair and 10 per cent. were unfit for human habitation. The total cost of disrepair and upgrading, it says, is £3,600 million.
As regards tenants, the report says that 81 per cent. of HMO households are single people; 40 per cent. are under the age of 25; 65 per cent. are under 35; and 35 per cent. are women. But information on ethnic origin is woefully inadequate. Only 40 per cent. of tenants have full time jobs. Mean gross weekly income is £90. One third are on Housing Benefit. Mean weekly rent is £27. The poorest tenants live in the worst conditions. Half do not have a rent book. Seventy three per cent. are not registered on local authority or housing association waiting lists, and 73 per cent. said that it would be difficult to find elsewhere to live. Knowledge of rights is very low. Only 8 per cent. of tenants had ever contacted the council about any problem connected with their house. Ninety per cent. of tenants would prefer to live in self-contained accommodation.
"Local authority action is very low. Only 36 per cent. of HMOs had notices served on them. 38 per cent. of landlords said their property had not been inspected by the local authority within the last five years".
I hope that some action will be taken when the Bill is introduced in the other place on 13th February.
It is very unusual to find a government document containing a conclusion in the terms of paragraph 7.102 which says:
"The results of the HMOs show that housing conditions within the sector are generally unsatisfactory. There are properties in very poor physical condition; properties without adequate facilities; and properties where the physical safety of tenants is at risk. There are tenants living in poor conditions, some paying high rents for a room in filthy and depressing property, owned by landlords who at best fail to maintain even the very minimum standards of hygiene, cleanliness and safety, and who sometimes actively harass or intimidate their tenants".
I shall say no more about that because it provides a great deal of ammunition for the person who will be putting forward the Bill on 13th February.
However, I should like to mention one subject which has not been mentioned so far; namely, hostels. I am very keen on hostels for young people. I started what was known as the London Centre at the request of the police, especially police women who were trying to protect the young women who came down on trains from the North and who were found on St. Pancras or other stations in need of homes and care. We managed to start three centres, two for girls and one for boys. The centres were all small and catered for under 20 people. The first was opened by Princess Anne.
They were very successful and functioned well. However, we had to give them up because we could not get enough money to run them. We tried everything possible. We needed good attendants to look after these young people as well as good people to cook for them. They must be looked after well because otherwise the hostels would be unsatisfactory. We managed to obtain jobs for most of them. Indeed, a couple of marriages took place. The whole venture went very well but unfortunately we were unable to continue due to lack of money.
I am glad to say that two of the hostels were taken over by St. Christopher's which has done a great deal of work in this area and has a great deal more

91
background money than we had. I still take an interest in those hostels and hope that we shall be able to provide help for hostels in the future. I do not know whether your Lordships read the article which appeared the other day, but such hostels are essential for young people in various parts of London, particularly South London, who have nowhere to go at night. We found that when we placed them in a hostel it was easy to get them a job. That is what we want to do. They were not always grand jobs, but they were jobs and gradually these young people became independent and came to grips with the idea of looking after themselves.
We must face the fact that many of these young people cannot continue living with their parents. They are single young people who have difficulties at home but who make good in hostels. I hope that we can do something about this aspect in the future.
Finally, I should like to ask the Minister about inner city housing. The Department of the Environment's Urban Housing Renewal Unit is now called Estate Action. It was set up in June 1985 to work with local authorities to tackle the problems of the rundown council estates. Since that time the unit has visited some 120 local authorities in England and it is developing proposals with them for a range of measures, including joint ventures with private developers local estate based managements on the lines of the priority estates project and community refurbishment schemes.
In August 1986, Estate Action's homeless initiative was launched to help local authorities to take quick, effective action to bring empty council property back into use for homeless people. The first approved scheme was in Newham. That brought 23 council flats back into use. In October £3 million was earmarked for the improvement of 10 rundown estates in Hounslow, Southwark, Sunderland, Salford, Nottingham and Walsall. I believe it is anticipated that 4,000 homes will be improved.
In December £119,000 was made available to refurbish a 1920s block of flats in Islington to provide homes for 15 homeless families. That brought the total number of schemes approved in 1986 to 88, involving £31 million of government support and benefiting about 45,000 homes. I shall be grateful if I can be told whether that is a correct record and whether the scheme is going well.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, the most cheerful and encouraging speech in the debate so far has rather surprisingly come from this side of the House, from my noble friend Lord Northfield. I thought for a moment that he was going to say that what Birmingham thinks today, Manchester must think tomorrow. However, he then went on to tell us that Salford has participated in these benefits, and of course Salford is part of the Manchester-Salford partnership.
The last time that I saw Ardwick there was a large tract that was an abomination of dereliction. Of course
92
this part of the city of Manchester where I spent my boyhood, and from which I take my name, was on its way down even 60 years ago. The first instinct of those who prospered was to move out of its dismal smoke into a leafy suburb on the Cheshire side. In fact, that was the behaviour of all successful people in the whole of the inner city. That was why I rejoiced when the Greater Manchester Council was established. I thought that those people would again have to take responsibility for the city where they earned their wealth.
The squalid Manchester of the 19th century described by Engels and other writers had been much improved. Yet even in my mother's day, one Manchester child in four died in its first year. This was one of the great cities of Europe, the Manchester of the Hallé orchestra and the Guardian, of Owens College and the grammar school; the Manchester which had built a canal to bring oceangoing ships to its docks and had bought a lake in Cumberland from which to pipe its water.
But for the poverty and unemployment and the decline of the cotton trade between the wars, Manchester might have renewed its decaying heart. Instead, it built perhaps the finest garden suburb in the country at Wythenshawe. Therefore, it could not do very much about the interior. However, in the Second World War hope was born again, as it was in other cities, when the Beveridge, Scott, Uthwatt and Barlow reports created a vision of an attainable, post-war, brave new world.
The picture of Manchester as it is today contrasts tragically in my mind with the picture we were given at the end of the war by the city corporation. It was so exciting, so impressive, so hopeful and so elegant that I devoted an entire issue of the Manchester Evening News to drawings of the promised new inner city. We were told that the task was a mammoth one, that one house in three in Manchester would have to come down. Indeed, that part of the promise has been fulfilled: 85,000 houses have been demolished. It is the use made of the vacant land left after those houses have been pulled down which is so appalling.
However, what went wrong in Manchester went similarly wrong in other great industrial cities despite the post-war years of plenty and full employment. The patterns are so similar and extend over such a period that one cannot blame any single council or government, or any single political party at national or local level for the poverty, squalor and deprivation that are being suffered today.
The failure is a national failure—indeed to some extent an international failure—and can be rectified only by a national effort. To bring our inner cities even to a reasonable standard of seemliness is a task far beyond the time limit of a Parliament and one which will require a sustained national will. I think Faith in the City is playing an important part in the recruitment of that will. If I may mention a tiny matter, if you will excuse a professional bias, this report has created a new specialisation in journalism. The newspaper the Independent has an inner cities specialist correspondent who indeed foreshadowed our debate in today's issue.

93
Our sense of post-war failure should not be too acute. We have done many great things since the war. We have built new towns and splendid new schools; we have new and expanded universities; and there has been one miraculous achievement—smoke abatement—which makes a good life in the inner city a real possibility. Yet in a way our failure in the inner cities is in some part a product of our success. The new towns we have built and the overspill development around our cities attracted the young, the strong and the skilled away from the city centres, leaving behind too high a proportion of the old, the weak and the unskilled. As this report makes clear, there has been a philosophic failure. In Britain we have too little regard for the merits of an urban culture and too much for the countryside, which for most of us must mean the half-way house of the suburb.
The garden cities, Britain's contribution to world town planning, are aesthetically pleasing but rather socially stifling with their segregated shopping centres and meeting places and their deliberately created dearth of inns, cafés or anything else which might give some animation to the scene. I speak from experience, having lived in Welwyn Garden City and Hampstead Garden Suburb. Yet the garden city has been the pattern, a perverse pattern in a way, for the bleak suburban corporation estates which people have never really liked and which could not be a pattern for inner city development. For that we have gone to various parts of the Continent, to produce tower blocks and other fortresses likely, as we now know, to produce despair and delinquency. A planner's dream became a resident's nightmare.
A fiendish combination of influences has afflicted the inner cities. Unemployment grew slowly at first and then with a rush after the oil crisis. We are back to the grim 1930s. The 1960s were an era of something called system building which governmental authorities, offering grants, persuaded municipalities to adopt because they were the last word in efficiency and chic. The systems have proved a disaster. To add to our problems we imported a drug culture, and this mixture of drugs, deprivation, permissiveness and increasing inequalities with very high unemployment among the young has been accompanied by an increase of crime and violence, to the distress particularly of the old and the weak.
However, perhaps the most significant phenomenon has been deindustrialisation. The process has meant the removal of large factories and small ones and a decline of the service industries dependent upon them. In addition, all this has an effect on the ethnic problems of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has spoken so sensitively and humanely today. To reverse all these influences, this combination of influences, is a mighty task which so many people have said demands the wholehearted and eager co-operation of national and local government, and the recruiting of the energies of people who work in voluntary bodies and indeed of ordinary citizens themselves.
Manchester City Council's own reports tell a sad story composed of facts and figures. The newpapers on which I have worked use more emotional language.
94
For once they are justified. A writer in the Observer, for example, has described the district of Hulme as:
"A vast concrete encampment of seven storey crescents lying back to back … in the middle a wilderness of miles of other housing estates. The buildings are riddled with all the faults of the common housing estate—system built from start to finish—there are cracks, leaks, mould, condensation—tenants could not afford the electric underfloor heating and got cut off. This dreadful place, a disgrace and a danger to any city, must qualify for demolition under the Government's projected study."
Then there is Fort Ardwick, as the locals call it, which that writer said was as bad as Hulme, while Fort Beswick, another concrete monstrosity, bearing the name of my noble friend, has already been demolished. Fort Beswick, a Guardian writer said, was a dead loss from the beginning, and she interviewed a tenant who told of his ordeal plagued by cockroaches, maggots, bugs and fleas and a black and green fungus in every corner. This writer puts graphically—though I think with exaggeration—Manchester's dilemma:
"It can't afford to build anything new. It can't look after what it's got. It can't even house people on the waiting list because it has so many decants to house, and it can only do that slowly as existing places become vacant".
The policy reversals that would be needed to restore our cities were put with force in the White Paper of which we have heard so much today, the White Paper of 1977. Two years afterwards the Conservatives became the government and have been in power ever since. This generation of Conservatives do not bear responsibility for causing the present plight of the cities, but one is entitled to ask what they are doing to reduce it and what they plan to do. I may say that we have had a good deal of ingenious schemes, useful schemes that the Government are undertaking. What one worries about is the scale of their effort compared with the immensity of the task. Manchester's housing repairs alone would cost something like £700 million.
I should like to quote some facts from an official account of policy objectives for the inner area of the Manchester-Salford partnership. Unemployment among men stands at 33 per cent. in Manchester and nearly 34 per cent. in Salford, but in Hulme the rate is 58 per cent. About one-third of the unemployed have been out of work for two years or more. Unemployment is up by 130 per cent. since 1979. Forty per cent. of Manchester's unemployed are under 25 years old. In inner Manchester 375 acres of land are still derelict. There are 21,000 system built tower block dwellings in the inner area of Manchester and Salford which have tremendous structural, managerial and social problems. There is a great deal of work for Lord Northfield's friends to do.
The number of people on supplementary benefit has increased by 50 per cent. since 1979. Death rates for people in the inner city under the age of 65 are over 75 per cent. higher than the national average. In some areas today the infant mortality rate is more than twice the national average. Both the Association of Municipal Authorities report and Faith in the City mirror the view expressed by the Town and Country Planning Association that overall conditions in Britain's inner city areas have deteriorated at an accelerating rate.
There are obvious tensions between the city and the Government, tensions which one must regret, tensions

95
which must be overcome. There is no room for doctrinaire views to be taken either by the Government or by the people who are running local government. The council complain that the city action team initiatives do not comprise a concerted strategy and they argue that the urban programme alone cannot tackle urban deprivation. Resources are needed from every government. I quote:
"The urban programme is less than 2 per cent. of all expenditure by local authorities, and since the real value of total exchequer grants to local authorities was cut by over 12 per cent. between 1979 and 1985 these cuts have been far in excess of any expenditure under the urban programme".
I shall leave my noble colleague on the Front Bench to go further into this report, if he so wills. He was once the leader of Manchester City Council and he shares my affection for our poor old city. With all its vicissitudes I cannot believe that it has lost the traditional courage and will that it has always had to face and conquer adversity. But, as I have said, the complete solution is beyond local effort and requires the continued, long-term generous collaboration of the Government.
I should like to give a final and gloomy quotation from the annual report 1985–86 of the Manchester and Salford Inner City Partnership:
"Despite all the activities of local authorities, central government and the private sector, the situation on the ground in the inner city is still deteriorating. Levels of unemployment are increasing (job losses outstrip those created through the urban programme activity). Environmental improvement does not keep pace with industrial dereliction and the services are unable to cope with manifestations of increasing poverty."
9.1 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, the diocese of Ripon, of which I am bishop, has within it great extremes of rural and urban neighbourhoods. At one extreme are the high moorlands of the Yorkshire Pennines, as wild and remote as anything in England. It is possible to live over 20 miles from a secondary school and nearly 40 miles from the local hospital. Coming down from the moors one encounters, first, the villages and market towns of James Herriot country; then the commuter villages near the great urban areas; and finally the suburbs, residential neighbourhoods and estates and the inner city wards of the city of Leeds at the opposite extreme from the remote and distant hills.
The two extremes feel like two different worlds, yet it is the same dynamic which determines the characteristics of each of them; a dynamic in which each one of us is caught and for which each one of us in small part is responsible. At the one extreme the inner city is emptying as people press out towards the suburbs, from the suburbs to the surrounding countryside, perhaps eventually to the ideal of a dales holiday or a retirement home.
At the rural extreme the rise of house prices, the emphasis upon conservation and restriction of housing and industry results in families having to leave the Dales to find employment and housing elsewhere. The average age rises, children leave, schools are closed,
96
transport facilities are withdrawn, post offices and shops struggle to survive. Unemployment in rural Richmond in North Yorkshire is, at nearly 14 per cent., higher than the average of Leeds. At the rural extreme the deprivation is clear, but it is even more clear at the inner city extreme.
In the inner city the scale of numbers involved is different. A village may have perhaps 20 or 30 pensioners living on their own. The City and Holbeck ward of Leeds has over 2,000 such pensioners, a quarter of all the households in the ward, and nearly 1,000 of them are over 75. Moreover, the intensity of deprivation differs. It is the experience of multiple deprivation which gives quite a different feel to inner city and housing estate life. That combination of low pay and unemployment, poor housing and high crime rate and a high proportion of single elderly and single parent households gives to life in an urban priority area its distinctive ethos.
The problems of these areas are in the end experienced by individuals; people coping with a multiplicity of difficulties, any one of which would daunt those of us who live in other areas. In the end I am left marvelling at the resilience of the human spirit which enables people to survive, cope and enjoy life in such circumstances.
Above all there is the sense of powerlessness which these factors induce—the feeling that one does not know where to turn for help, one has no power of choice, no say in decisions that are made and no way of changing one's life. Those who can leave, as Faith in the City pointed out, are the younger men or couples with more skills, more confidence and higher incomes. It is the old, the poor, the unskilled, the single-parent families, the sick and the unemployed who are the more likely to be found in these urban priority areas. That is why these communities are so graphically called the communities of the left behind.
The report of the Archbishop's commission on urban priority areas describes their characteristics. A more local version of the report entitled Faith in Leeds gives in considerable detail the figures, the statistics, which make it evident that for all its great sense of civic pride Leeds is a divided city. Of the 33 wards in the metropolitan district of Leeds 12 are wholly or partly urban priority areas. Here live some 200,000 people, 28 per cent. of the district's population. Among that 28 per cent. are to be found 75 per cent. of the city's housing needing repair, 60 per cent. of its unemployed, 60 per cent. of its supplementary benefit claimants and 55 per cent. of the crimes reported, and here also live two-thirds of the Asian and Afro-Caribbean people of Leeds, the bulk of them in four wards where the levels of unemployment and overcrowding are particularly high. It is a striking and convincing portrait of division and polarisation.
This local report, Faith in Leeds, has been produced by the churches of the city working together. The churches are possibly the only group with the overview of the whole city and the support throughout it necessary to the production of such a report. To understand its thrust it is necessary to read it. To those who criticised Faith in the City my first question was

97
always, "Have you read it?". A reviewer of Faith in the City, Paul Hodson of the urban unit of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, referred to it as a report,
"whose clarity and detail amazed me, and whose honesty sometimes made me shiver. If only for the quality of the authors' writing, read the whole report".
Those who have read it have, I believe, been convinced by the portrait that it paints, and many of them—certainly in my part of the world—from all backgrounds have been asking what kind of response can be made. The Motion before the House underlines the importance of partnership in such a response, and I believe that the churches are well placed to share in such a partnership.
First, they share simply by being present—present in the form of a local priest or minister who lives in the area and is often the only professional person to do so; present in the form of a building and a worshipping community. Faith in Leeds speaks of the creation of living, breathing and loving communities; of faith at the local church level as the foundation of all other responses which the churches might make. Such local worshipping communities need financial resources which for the poorer neighbourhoods have to be found in part from outside. As the most reverend Primate has already commented, the Church has found ways of doing this both at national and diocesan level.
The presence of a worshipping congregation, however small, can affect the life of a neighbourhood. One of the consequences of feeling powerless is a lack of confidence in tackling situations. A committed group of people with a professional figure among them can recover confidence in themselves and share that confidence with others. In the recent cold spell one such congregation on a housing estate in Leeds found sufficient confidence, because of its community life and a professional in its midst, to knock on doors, discover needs, approach the local authority officials and to provide meals for those unable to cook them and facilities for shelter and drying out for those whose homes were damaged by burst pipes. The neighbourhood received a lift from a small group that had sufficient confidence to engage in this operation.
A further contribution that the churches have to make is in the use of their buildings. Many churches are now coming to realise that their buildings are a great resource not merely for worship but for the neighbourhood. I can think of building after building in my diocese now converted for use partly as a worship centre but partly also as a community building. Two new buildings in Leeds have been constructed, one with an advice centre and one with sheltered housing as part of the building. This is another way in which the churches play their part in urban priority areas.
A further contribution is in the share which churches play in projects. I listened earlier to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, who talked of pious resolutions and their emptiness. He also talked about the way in which we are judged by what we do and not by what we say. It seems to me as I look at the Church, certainly in my own part of the
98
world, that plenty is being done. In almost every parish I can point to some activity in which the Church is sharing. That is an example of partnership, partnership not only between authority and locality but partnership between different authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, referred earlier to the project in Seacroft inspired by the national charity Apex. The workers in this organisation are ex-offenders who would otherwise almost certainly be without employment. The work they do in repairing furniture, furnishings and other items is for the benefit of pensioners and other special categories on the estate. The project began when the local vicar offered his church hall as a facility within which it could take place. As a result a community project has developed where pensioners come to this workshop twice a week to view the work being done. A bingo session is offered to them; there are parties for pensioners and parties for children. The consequences for the neighbourhood are considerable—less loneliness, less crime and a greater sense of belonging to the neighbourhood. That was all brought about by a partnership among different kinds of authority within which the Church played its part.
I think again of a project in Bramley, Cats Mill, in which an old mill was purchased and is now used for a variety of events—community theatre, space for small businesses, a local restaurant and a community centre for the whole of Bramley. It is of considerable significance and gives a lift to the whole area. The vision for this was provided again by the local vicar and the whole initiative is Church inspired although helped considerably by charities and trusts.
The cost of such programmes is considerable, but it is worth pointing out that the costs of not undertaking them is often as great. The cost of unemployment benefit, together with the hidden costs to the social services, the health service, the police force, the prisons and the judicial authorities may outweigh the actual costs of a project. That is without taking into account the priceless advantage of people who are given a purpose and satisfaction in place of despair and disintegration.
What is now needed in place of this rather haphazard approach at present evident is, as many noble Lords have already said, a co-ordinated approach to urban policy so that all those concerned with urban priority areas—public and private sector, central government, local authorities and voluntary bodies—can work together to produce a strategy which is effective in responding to the needs of people living in these areas. We have experience already of what works. We can build on good practice. I hear time and again the cry that what we now need are the resources to enable us to do that building. At the same time we do not want a situation in which resources from elsewhere—as, for instance, the rate support grant—are removed, thus undermining work which is already being done.
Change is possible and situations can be altered. People want to feel that their neighbourhoods are worth living in. One such neighbourhood—that of South Seacroft—has produced figures to show that over an 18-month period the number of people

99
wanting to move into it has risen by some 38 per cent. from about 450 to nearly 650. People can be made to feel differently about their neighbourhoods. The causes of that change are probably manifold—repair work on houses, the installation of proper central heating, the policy of moving management and maintenance staff on to estates and the Apex project
100
already mentioned. All these things can give people a sense that they can have a worthwhile life in a worthwhile neighbourhood. Given the political will, the sensitive awareness of needs and skill in meeting them with adequate resources and partnership, people's lives and neighbourhoods in our urban priority areas can be changed.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, for giving us the opportunity today of this debate which is of great interest to so many of us. I know how delighted most of the Members of your Lordships' House will be that we have reached the point where I am the last Back-Bench speaker in what has been a very long debate.
My interest in this matter stems from the 18 years from 1968 to 1986. Just last year I finished as an elected member of London's local or regional authority. During that time I have seen many changes in London. Some policy decisions made before this time had a very dramatic effect and in the long term they have proved to have disastrous consequences, especially for inner London.
It was as a result of a regional authority decision that we saw the deliberate forcing out of London of so-called nonconforming industry. This took employment out of London. I can clearly recall cases as varied as firms of musical instrument makers and a small ice-cream factory. They were both classified as nonconforming industry and undesirable in London—the very kinds of things that we are now dying to have back here.
Later the Location of Offices Bureau was too successful in moving businesses out of London. Always job opportunities and frequently skilled people went with those firms. In particular, the loss of manufacturing jobs within London has been disastrous because of the effect on young male unemployment in London today. In London, surveys have shown that there is a mis-match of people's skills and job vacancies. There are high numbers of job vacancies and applications by employers for staff often receive the reply that no one is available or that there is no hope of finding anyone for a particular job. I have had such replies myself, and I have heard about them from others.
The education system of inner London has failed the people of this capital. It has its good points in terms of special schools—I would not complain about that—but it is not ensuring, let alone enabling, each school-leaver to have the basic education in reading and writing that is essential for them to cope with the new jobs now becoming available. In the most deprived area of London 35 per cent. of the 15 year-olds who ought to be at school are truanting. Those are the current figures from the report of the Audit Commission.
The education system also fails in developing an interest in a wide range of jobs. Tourism is a major industry in London now, and the restaurant trade is an important part of that. But how many young men born in London become waiters? Outside London, English waiters and waitresses are the norm, but not so in London. Some prejudice seems to exist against applying for these jobs and others in the service industries. With high youth unemployment, there is a need to look to today's jobs, to approach them with a constructive attitude and to throw away those old-fashioned ideas of "Upstairs, Downstairs".
102
In the area where I have my dental practice the major employers were in printing and bespoke tailoring. Recent years have seen a great shakeout in both those industries, and there were many redundancies. However, after some years of stagnation new industry is moving in now. The area is improving, the buildings are being upgraded and many new firms are doing well. There is an enthusiasm and a feeling of confidence that were lacking for years.
In that area two different types of local authority housing were built just next to my surgery. The first were high-rise tower blocks—the concrete type—and the later ones consisted of four-storey brick buildings, each comprising two maisonettes, the lower with a garden and the upper with a terrace. The tenants in the later units are very happy and the gardens are a mass of spring and summer colour in this part of London's inner city. The tower blocks have extensive underground garages which no one dares to use because the risk is too great for car or driver. The council officer sent on duty to those taller blocks must always wear a safety helmet as he faces a real hazard of empty bottles being thrown at him from high windows.
Clearly these different environments have had an effect on the people in such housing, but there is an excessively and unnecessarily violent reaction to the well-built flats in the tall blocks. These could never be described as hard to let properties. They are in an excellent position and many of the people in homeless accommodation would seize the opportunity if they were offered flats of this type.
Homelessness in London is a major problem and I wonder what research has been done into where the London homeless come from. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, mentioned this point. Most inner London authorities now find themselves in a situation where they have no hope of rehousing anyone from their normal council housing list, because every bit of accommodation that becomes available goes to homeless people who then jump the queue.
In June 1986, in Bayswater hotels there were 1,182 homeless families. They were sent from boroughs all over London simply because that is where the rooms were available. Brent had 156, Camden 220, Tower Hamlets 300. Westminster 315, Haringey 56, Lambeth 35, Newham 25, Hackney 25; and there were an unidentified 50. These figures have come to me not through homeless accommodation sources, but because the London Tourist Convention is rather worried about the loss of the 1,182 rooms as that was the least expensive end of accommodation which they were relying upon for visitors.
But that proportion of homeless families is simply the tip of the iceberg. Those are the number that cannot even be accommodated in whatever homeless accommodation exists within their own boroughs and they are being moved into what is tourist accommodation. I might add that the accommodation is of a far better standard than that described by the noble Baroness, Lady David.
Where do these people come from? Is it the breakdown of family life or the urge to move to

103
London? The city, after all, seems large and exciting. There certainly is a loss of the family as we know it and knew it. In inner London, 31 per cent. of children born in 1984 were to single parent families. In Lambeth, the figure was 42 per cent. Over one-quarter of all those aged 18 or less live in a household where there is only one parent. Because we are a free society people have the right to live where they choose. There are other parts of this country where there is surplus housing. Surely it would be better to bring up a child in a house with a garden out of London than to live, sometimes for a long time, in unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, made the point that not all the homeless are unemployed, and I think that is true. But many are unemployed and where a family is in receipt of full financial support from the DHSS and has no job prospects in London it must be wise to consider moving to a more attractive place. I appreciate that we do not and would not direct anyone to a particular place to live, but I wonder: is there any central register of available surplus accommodation, and are local authorities in inner cities able to suggest such alternatives?
There is an amazingly high turnover of occupancy in London. I think Members of this House may be surprised to know that of the 1,600,000 consumers in the London Electricity Board area, 350,000 change every year. That is a turnover of 21 per cent. and it is an indication of how difficult it would be for London local authorities to maintain registers for the newly proposed domestic rates or for their replacement.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, passed a remark about the rates in London and how the burden is falling more and more on those who are left behind. But the fact is that inner London domestic ratepayers only meet 17 per cent. of the cost of services, and commercial ratepayers meet 49 per cent. of the cost of those same services. Therefore the costs have fallen very heavily upon the commercial ratepayers in London.
The decline in the Church itself must be a factor in the breakdown of the family. I notice that in the very frank report Faith in the City it is stated on page 33, speaking of attendances per parish, that the lowest attendances are in council estates and in inner city residential areas. There seems to be a relationship, therefore, between the strength of the Church and these areas. On page 73 it also mentions that the survival of the Church itself may be threatened in some areas. I therefore welcomed the statements of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, who told us of plans to make funds available from other sources to help the more deprived areas. I am sure that that will be appreciated.
Paragraph 4.2 of the report states:
"Although we were encouraged by the positive view of UPA ministry taken by respondents to our Clergy Survey, we have to report that many people we spoke to claimed that unless the Church of England acts quickly and decisively it will cease to exist in any effective form in many UPAs".
The report continues:
"We were reminded by others that this warning was not a new one, and that the parochial system has a remarkable capacity for ensuring survival against the odds".
104
Perhaps we can leave that concern to the right reverand Prelates to deal with.
The breakdown of the family is, I believe, one of the major causes of today's problems. Years ago my surgery was surrounded by small terraced houses 300 years old, often with only one cold water tap on the bottom floor. The buildings were bad—perhaps one could say they were very bad—but the community spirit was strong and I believe that that meant much more than the physical surroundings. Greater affluence and better buildings have not retained the valuable neighbourhood feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Soper, referred to so clearly.
There is also a great move now for care in the community, and this is throwing a tremendous burden on to local authorities. It is extremely difficult because the resources are not adequate for such community care. There is a great tendency for all governments to pass legislation in vast quantities giving more and more statutory responsibilities to all local authorities but never providing the means that match the extra responsibilities.
The Audit Commission's Occasional Paper No. 2, which I referred to earlier, draws our attention to the management problems of the eight most deprived London Boroughs, five of them in inner London. It is a very revealing document and it makes clear that efficiency in local government can mean almost 20 per cent. difference in rent collection; 20 weeks to re-let a property or, if minor repairs are required, over 26 weeks; and further interesting facts such as that jobbing roof repairs in London cost 70 per cent. more than they do outside London. Page 11 of that report, which I will not go into, contains proposals for improvement.
This debate calls for a partnership between local authorities and the people who live and work in inner cities. Government will to see improvement is probably the easiest to obtain. Finding members of the local community who are prepared to join in and give their time to such a partnership is not easy. However, it can be done. In many cases it is necessary to have a paid organiser to find recruits and co-ordinate efforts of local people until their level of interest and involvement is raised to a point where a community feeling is generated and they can carry on spontaneously. The right reverend Prelate who spoke shortly before me mentioned this in his speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, told us of the community liaison officer in the docklands. We have all seen the great success of the LDDC. There, public grant of £289 million has been accompanied by private money to the extent of £1·5 billion and 8,000 new jobs have been created. I have seen the Beckton wasteland which was under my planning control at county hall now turned into an area full of delightful family homes.
The Audit Commission's paper makes a number of excellent recommendations about councillors. It recommends a single flat-rate allowance for all members for the totality of their work to discourage unnecessary committees and meetings. I support that

105
view very strongly. We heard earlier how some councils have proliferated to 100 committees and multiple sub-committees.
At the moment local councillors receive an attendance allowance of £12·70 for up to four hours or £16·70 maximum a day, which is taxable. It is understandable that some are putting in more and more meetings in order to bring that level of remuneration up. It is not appropriate that members who are saddled with huge financial responsibilities should be given what is really a derisory sum for such hard work. It is interesting to hear, as I do from many London councillors, that outer London boroughs are finding very little extra work post-GLC but inner London councils are finding an enormous added burden.
I do not accept all the recommendations of the Audit Commission. It recommends fewer elected members. It compares London with Atlanta, which is not a fair comparison because in the United States local government is mostly well paid. It would be quite different to have well paid elected members there full time. We have always believed in getting our local government through elected councillors on the cheap. Although this has worked well in the past, it is becoming more difficult. The Audit Commission confirms that there is a dearth of experienced councillors, and especially in the deprived boroughs less than 20 per cent. of the councillors had been in office for more than four years.
I listened to all the earlier speeches in the debate and I was impressed by the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Soper, for a return to family values; by the very practical grass-roots comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mellish; and by the awareness of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that communities in the inner city must develop support schemes to protect themselves and one another. Those who live in the inner cities imprisoned in their own homes by fear—and I refer particularly to the elderly—will be freed by feeling secure, safe to travel and safe to go out into the community. Above all, we must develop the necessary interest and will. What we have to overcome is that apathetic feeling of giving up which has been referred to in this debate. If we can generate enough of the enthusiasm and hope that the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, gave us today, this partnership will work.
9.33 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, when I first began to give thought to what I would say in your Lordships' debate today my mind went back to a chill morning at the end of last year when I made my way up to Muswell Hill to take part in the memorial service to Police Constable Blakelock. It was a surprise engagement. I was replacing somebody much more important than I. I was to represent my party on the platform on that sombre occasion.
The family and the people on the platform met in a small cafe. I was immediately struck by the decency of the bereaved family of Police Constable Blakelock. There is little you can say to people in that state of shock, even though it had been some time since that tragedy. When we were on the platform the police bands played hymns and a very cold wind blew
106
through our clothes. I thought to myself, I have lived 51 years and what a pass this country has come to. Surely the end has been reached. This was the first time I had been brought face to face with the tragedies of our inner cities and the violence and the unreasoning hate which are now evident and are now a danger in our society.
I pondered on these matters. After the service I met police officers, local government officials, ambulance drivers and all kinds of other people, and we had a drink together. I learnt something of the problems of the breakdown of community life in the area which led to that horrific tragedy. I considered that for some time. If community life has broken down to the extent that people have this blind, unreasoning hate so that it is impossible to police them and to get the co-operation one normally expects in a community with self-policing, a feeling of responsibility and a feeling that you belong, something radical and innovative has to be done. That is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, is calling for today. He is calling for suggestions, but it is difficult to make them.
When I was driving back from that sombre occasion I wondered how the situation had arisen. It was not always like this. How did it build up? What happened to the post-war vision which even I knew about as a boy? We were to have a brave new world, a country with equality, a new classless society, the welfare state and a new feeling that everyone would participate. That was a praiseworthy dream which went wrong, no doubt frustrated by all kinds of external causes. Profound world economic changes forced us, I suppose, to take a more pragmatic view, a more short-term view, and many of those initial aims were lost. With that perhaps began the decline of our communities, particularly those in the inner cities. At all events, there was a remarkable misappraisal and a remarkable misunderstanding of what community life is about. I think that there is a remarkable misunderstanding in the country today though not in your Lordships' House. We have heard today, particularly from the Bishops' Bench, an enormous understanding of what a community means and how it works. The question is how we get back to it.
There were unprecedented population dispersals in the 1950s—some 3 million people between the 1950s and the 1970s. Much of that movement was out from the city centres to the surburbs or the new towns and most of it from the upper end of the socio-economic scale, which left a residue of poor people. We talk in modern terms, but these were poor, disadvantaged people. They were joined by the immigrant groups, who have been described so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter, and there was an alienation of people who came into communities which were breaking down anyway and who found no place for themselves.
Therefore, we had this movement and the breakdown of communities. But, I suggest it was not only in the inner cities. There was also a breakdown of community feeling outside the cities, in the areas to which people had moved. This applies even in the prosperous South-East, which we glibly compare with the North. Although there are great differences I believe that community life has to some extent broken down in the prosperous areas from where commuters

107
travel every day to London, leaving behind shopping centres and families without much real community life. That was the situation I began to contemplate.
Just before Christmas I had the opportunity of visiting Manchester, my interest having been aroused. I spoke to the chamber of commerce in that area and I was taken on a tour of the city. I knew Manchester quite well in the early 1970s and I was appalled to find the desolation that now exists. There is a lack of energy and a dispirited look in the faces of the people in that town. My guide explained to me why that exists.
I refer also to Liverpool, which I knew very well when I worked for a shipping company. It is now a forbidding place to visit. It is forbidding because of its ill-kept multi-storey buildings. There does not seem to be any rush hour, and there is huge unemployment, most of which seems to be in the public sector. Moreover, since I was there in the early 1970s there has been the very unusual and noticeable loss of edge from the sense of humour of the Liverpudlian which was legendary in our country.
Some of the problems of the 1950s, the misunderstandings and misconceptions of that time, as the Minister pointed out, stemmed from the madness of the high rise blocks, which were dehumanising and provided a high technology environment which was totally miscalculated. Those high rise blocks were supposed to be cheap, easy to maintain, designed to save land and to have all sorts of other benefits. On each of those criteria they failed. Above all they failed in the community because, funnily enough, they went up in the air. I found that in Battersea where I live. In a community, as in olden times, the highest buildings of the town or city are the church and the civic buildings, because they represent the religious and civic rituals of the community that in some way reflect its objective moral values.
I think that sentiment was totally left out of the calculations of the planners. Exacerbated by the influx of ethnic minority groups and the poor, disadvantaged people who remain in the cities, this situation has produced problems such as resulted in the terrifying tragedy of which I was reminded on Muswell Hill that cold morning.
It is difficult for us to think of any solution. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, talked about attitudes and I agree with him absolutely that new attitudes are required. He did not amplify that suggestion any further or suggest how we should achieve these new attitudes. I suggest that it will be by radical and creative thinking on an enormous scale.
If I may be allowed to take up the invitation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, to offer suggestions, I suggest that we need a totally new view of post-industrial land for a start. Perhaps we could take one, two or possibly three well-chosen cities and make an effort to take the whole or part of each city and recreate a community in an environment in which people could work and live within reasonable distance of that work, make a place where people could recognise landmarks and feel that the buildings were on a human scale. This idea may not be fashionable today or concurrent with modern taste but I think that people need something to which they can relate and
108
that has gone from our urban life. We must replace it, regardless of expense.
I am not interested in a cross-Channel tunnel or tax cuts but I am concerned about what happens to people, to my children and to the environment in which they live. How can one live in this country surrounded by the possibilities of violence such as we have seen in recent times? What one identifies in such areas of uncontrollable growth in crime is that there do not seem to be any voluntary controls or standards. I find that situation to some extent in the area in which I live, although it is getting better.
I should like to praise the police in my area of south London because in the past year or so they have begun to walk around in pairs, talk to people in the corner shops and make themselves known in the community. Such is their policy and it encourages me to see it. The police have made a positive effort in Wandsworth, which is my area of London, to make a constructive attempt to enter into the life of the community and I think that is an encouraging sign.
It is easy where I live because there is no immediate danger of the kind of conflict that we have seen in other areas. There are great dangers because crime causes a further exodus from the cities. Those people who can get out will get out. We are then left with more and more disadvantaged people. The problem escalates. We cannot hope that it will just go away. Urgent new research is needed. I do not know how that is set up. I do not know whether it starts with committees, Royal Commissions or in some other way.
I was slightly dispirited by the drift of the Minister's speech. I agreed with his points about the causes of our problems. However, one gets the feeling that the Government are preoccupied with success. He mentioned success several times. He mentioned individual success. Our community is full of people who will never be successful but they are still people and part of our society. The people in the inner cities are those who need enormous help to get back into the mainstream of society. That was the drift of the Church's excellent work, Faith in the City. That was an enormous step forward.
There are some hopeful signs. However, I should like the Government to make a more positive statement and show more positive good will, because we need good will at every level. I was encouraged by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who with his customary eloquence, free from the constraints of briefs and so on, gave us some positive ideas. He mentioned John Colchester in his box. It is helpful to be told that there are people who are prepared to spend time under the arches with deprived people. He is right. Teachers should be encouraged to go into deprived areas. Those are the actions which create the new attitudes about which the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, was talking.
That is my humble contribution to the invitation given by the noble and learned Lord. We need new research programmes regardless of cost, because the costs are minimal when compared with what is expended on other useless enterprises. I do not wish to harp on the Channel tunnel, but when we have problems of this magnitude to talk of such expenditure

109
on something which few people want is an insult to one's intelligence.
The debate has been exceptional. I feel it a great privilege to have taken part in it. It would be invidious to pick out any of the points that have been made because they have all been so good. I was struck by the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, on density. Density is a two-way thing, is it not? Density is a problem, as they found in France. I believe that the Peyrfitte Committee in France found that any city of over 250,000 people produces an extraordinary escalation of social pathology. There was five or six times the average amount of crime in some areas. In France they have tried to keep the population levels in cities below that figure.
We must not forget, however, that density also creates cultural and economic energy. Density and the height of buildings are two important factors. To reduce the size of cities too much takes away the advantages of a city that works well—cultural activities, professional services and other opportunities which it is uneconomic to provide elsewhere.
I understand that the main drift of Faith in the City is that we must find the will to bring the disadvantaged and the poor back to the mainstream of life and that the only way that we can do that is by radical and innovative action and a concerted effort by all involved. That includes bringing in the people themselves. We ought to seek the views of anyone who can help with this problem. Otherwise this country will not be the place in which we want to live.
With the kind of turmoil in the cities that we have today, there is also a great danger of infiltration into cities of people who have a reason to make the agitation there worse. This is very dangerous. We have seen violence and agitation in the cities. It has happened too cleanly and too automatically. There is also a great danger of subversion. I hope that we can build on the optimism which I hope I have brought to a rather desolate picture and produce some radical and innovative steps in the future.
9.50 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I should like to commence by expressing my appreciation to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, for moving this Motion and to the lucid and compassionate way in which he brought his talents and his attention to what I am sure many noble Lords will agree is one of the most difficult social problems facing us as a nation. I should also like to express my appreciation to the right reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for initiating his report and for the tremendous amount of research that has gone into it in order to make people aware of the damage being done on an increasing scale in our big cities and large conurbations.
Certain noble Lords have today called for further research. However, the problems are well identified in the report. It is a little regrettable that the report was in a sense attacked almost before the ink was dry on it. Those who did that have lived to regret it because it was an objective document and not from a political source. I know that noble Lords in general welcome this report and the chance to debate it. There is no
110
question that matters can be allowed to continue as they are. There have to be some new initiatives otherwise our inner cities and inner London will die.
I speak as perhaps one of the last people to join your Lordships' House who spent the majority of his life, until I became an MP, living in an inner city. I took the name Beswick because in the 1950s the Beswick area of Manchester and Moss Side were the two most heavily populated areas of Europe. What makes me disheartened—and I have brought this point to the notice of your Lordships before—is the despair that is now reaching those areas. My industrial experience is of a later date than that of my noble friend who spoke previously. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, lived in almost the same area but not at the same time. When I started work in the 1930s trade was on the upswing and the massive engineering factories in Manchester were starting to become active once again. The war was foreseen. In the late 1930s, and just after the war, if one drew a 10-mile radius around Manchester one encompassed more engineering works and engineering employees than any other area in Europe, including the Ruhr. That included Trafford Park, where there were 25,000 people employed in one factory.
However, my Lords, what is happening now? The total area is desolate. What frightens me—and again I have said this before—is that people who normally turn to what I call the responsible political parties are now turning to extreme policies. Unfortunately, we have seen this happening on an increasing scale. They have been warned about this. I do not suppose for one moment that I would agree with all that the present city council in Manchester are doing. However, had I stayed as its leader, I do not think that I could have done anything different, given the scale of the cuts that have been inflicted.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool talked of rate support grant cuts. We know the rate support grant is the main lifeline of a local authority. An authority raises its own rates by poundage; but when this Government took office, 61 per cent. of the RSG was met by government funding. It is now down to 44 per cent. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned the fact that this year the Government were pumping £700 million into the economy in various inner city enterprises. If the rate support grant that was being paid in 1979 was continued, local authorities between them would have had to share a total of not £17 million but £17 billion. That is the scale of what has been taken from them.
The same issue arises in relation to housing. The total public sector housing bill as funded by the Government has been cut by nearly 40 per cent. I must refer to a small part of the report dealing with housing. On page 197 under the heading "Poverty, Employment and Work", it says:
"It is the poor who have borne the brunt of the recession, both the unemployed and the working poor. Yet it is the poor who are seen by some as 'social security scroungers', or a burden on the country, preventing economic recovery. This is a cruel example of blaming the victim.
Much of the rise in welfare spending is a direct consequence of specific government policies. For example, between 1978/79 and 1983/84 central government housing subsidies to council tenants were reduced by 60 per cent.".

111
Since 1979 council house rents have increased by 150 per cent. At the time I made the point in another place that what was happening was that the increasing number of people were qualifying for benefit, but an increasing burden was falling on the 50 per cent. of council house tenants who had to meet the full blast of that particular increase.
My noble friend Lady Fisher spoke about the housing investment programme, and this is another denominator. Your Lordships will know that in this House I persistently question the Government's funding of housing investment programmes. The funding has been progressively reduced each year, despite debates in your Lordships' House prior to this on housing, the Duke of Edinburgh's Commission, etc., showing the need for more funding. However, once again this year it is less in real terms and considerably less in percentage terms.
My noble friend Lord Northfield, and other noble Lords, spoke of the new towns. I do not say this in any detrimental manner, but I wonder how many of your Lordships understand the magnitude of the job which faced the big cities in this country after the war. I happened to be involved, and in a small way I helped to run the City of Manchester. I was an elected member, not as an officer, and I helped to start the demolition of 80,000-odd houses. However, because of reducing densities, Liverpool and Manchester had to decant a quarter of a million people from their borders. One of the unfair burdens was that they did not receive the generous treatment given by successive governments to new town developments. Liverpool and Manchester were not allowed to develop to that standard.
I should like to refer to one particular item which graphically illustrates the difference between the new towns and the city councils; namely, landscaping. The maximum that Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield and the London boroughs were allowed to spend on landscaping was £15 per house; but the new towns were allowed to spend five times that amount. People then wonder why we did not do so well in the cities regarding landscaping.
Let me deal with the monstrosities that were built. I hope that I misunderstood the Minister, but I thought that he was trying to apportion blame to particular governments. It was not long ago that in this Chamber—and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who is present, was Minister at the time—I said that I did not blame the Conservative Government for the monstrosities any more than I blamed the Labour Government, because they were both guilty. The sad fact is that in order to achieve numbers, there was a diminution in quality. However, there was not a diminution in price. Industrialised and semi-industrialised building was forced upon local government by arm-twisting. My noble friend Lord Ardwick referred to a fort. It was I, who as a young councillor coined that word. When I saw the buildings, I said, "Good God! We have a fort in Beswick; all we are short of is Beau Geste!" The newspapers picked it up. The damage was so predictable.
There has been mention of the development in Hulme. The Hulme-Moss Side development in
112
Manchester was the biggest single continuous slum clearance in Europe. It was too big for our city architect so we brought in a firm called Wilson & Womersley who had an international reputation for designing new towns and universities. I hope that I am not mistaken but they were certainly involved in those type of activities. They designed the four crescent-shaped blocks. It was beyond belief. They said that they were like the beautiful crescent development in Bath. We reached a situation where when we supplied transport and took elderly people to vote we had to take them back to their own doors because they could not find their way home on their own. It is unfair to attribute that situation to any particular government because successive Conservative and Labour Governments followed that particular line of thought despite the warnings of local authorities.
Lord Young of Graffham: If the noble Lord reads my speech tomorrow in Hansard he will see that I carefully blamed not one government, but the system.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I accept what the Minister says. However, my Lords, what is the answer? It is not only housing that is the problem. When my original factory closed down, I was able, by virtue of the fact that I was a skilled engineer, to travel across Manchester and find another job. I doubt whether I could do that now; I doubt whether the opportunity would be present if I was still in that area. However, that was the situation at the time. There is no possibility of people switching employment because there is no employment.
I must point out to the Secretary of State that while I accept that there is something very desirable in training youngsters for two years for a job, there could be nothing crueller than to inflict upon them the delusion that there is the guarantee of a job at the end of their training. When I heard it said that two years' training may guarantee a job for life I thought that it was the ultimate in ridiculous nonsense.
What worries me is that I and people like me moved only about three miles from that particular area, but it made a world of difference. It was a totally different environment. I was above it. However, because I was the secretary of the Labour club in the area, I used to spend my political life there and I could see it slowly swealing away and nobody bothered.
Like other speakers—some on the Government side—I say to the Government that there is no point in their pursuing any policy unless they accept the fact that large sums of government money will be made available to act as a catalyst to the private sector causing them to act—to use the words of the noble and learned Lord who opened the debate—on a partnership basis. I also have to say this: while I accept there may be some case for enterprise areas and urban development corporations, one needs to be a little careful about that if one is excluding local authorities.
I am here because I lost an election. In opening the debate the noble and learned Lord made reference to the fact that this is perhaps the best forum for this particular type of debate. He may well be right. Your Lordships' House is something of a contradiction, because there are Members of your Lordships' House

113
from every sector of the community. It might be said that I come off the lower shelf, but I am not ashamed of that. But the noble Lord has not been elected here. He took an elected Member's name from somewhere else.
The noble Lord mentioned the name of Mr. Livingstone. I do not think I have ever spoken to Mr. Livingstone although we are members of the same party, and I do not support most of the policies that he, as Councillor Livingstone, initiated across the river. In fact, I was surprised when I knew he had left office and left £170 million in the kitty. If I had been running Manchester, as any sensible person would in any other authority I would have spent that money on services. It would not have been left to anybody else.
The Government have to realise that some 35 per cent. to 40 per cent. of the electorate vote in local elections. They vote for councillors. If a government thinks that because the voters do not elect the council the government like, they will act in an autocratic manner and impose an urban development corporation, that is a very dangerous precedent indeed. In the distant fututre the situation may swing the other way and people may just as well disregard the fact that certain councils have turned Conservative.
I remember during the lifetime of the last Labour Government a small education authority in Manchester, Tameside, took on the Government and won its case. The Labour Government accepted the victory of Tameside. They did not immediately bring in a Bill to change the law to what they thought the position was before the case started; they accepted the verdict of the court. So it is a very difficult situation that we face. I do not see the urban development corporation as a total entity. One has to have regard to the local authority irrespective of who it is.
It may be that by a strange coincidence I have implied criticism of the present Manchester City Council. But I did not elect them; the citizens of Manchester elected them. It is strange that over the past few years the Conservative Party—who were always a substantial body in the Manchester City Council, and for four years from 1967 to 1971 were actually in control—are now almost completely non-existent. I wonder why that is. Those who are running Manchester City Council did not vote themselves in; the electors did so. One has to be very careful in a non-democratic forum such as this when saying what people who have voted somebody into office should do. I do not think it would do our reputation good in the long run to be seen to be interfering in that.
Whenever I have been asked to speak on democracy I have always said that democracy is marvellous, but it is better when you are winning than losing. You have to accept the fact that you are going to lose. I suspect that the Government are not acting in accordance with those beliefs. There is no doubt at all under the existing Government centralisation has become more the order of the day, and it is bad. It is bad for the people, who then begin to understand that they have nobody to complain to because they are not in control of the situation.
I have spoken about unemployment. I have made my way out of the centre of the city of Manchester; but what worries me is that other people are still trapped
114
there. The point was made that the younger ones who are still there and able to work are carrying a tremendously unfair burden looking after an ageing population. That is not something that, as a society, we ought to be proud of, because it is an awful situation to be placed in. I cannot see it improving unless there is a dramatic rethink of the condition as a whole.
I take the view that the City of London is the heart of the nation and that the main conurbations are the vital glands in the nation as a corporate body, and they are grinding to a halt. These are not my figures. They are available to anybody who wishes to get them from government sources. Through the cuts that have been imposed the Government stand to be accused of switching off a large part of the life support machine that the inner city of London and the other conurbations require to keep them going.
10.12 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this has been a thoroughly useful and thought-provoking debate, just as one would expect from one introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. It was remarkably apolitical until we heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dean. I estimate that if I covered all noble Lords they would get rather less than a minute each, so with your Lordships' permission I shall not. Your Lordships' speeches have brought out the fact that the problems of our inner city areas are complex and deep rooted. I must say that I very nearly packed up and went home when I heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mellish. I hope that what I have to say will be relevant to parts at least of every speech.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me? Why did he want to pack up? Did the noble Lord think that I had finished the argument, or what?
Lord Skelmersdale: I meant, my Lords, that I was able to rip out great sections of things that I should have liked to say.
Lord Mellish: That is fine.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, now that we have disposed of that particular matter, I agree with the noble and learned Lord that too many of our urban areas are disfigured by the results of the misdirected solutions of past years. It was the most reverend Primate who mentioned Skelmersdale. This was a new town on a greenfield site and one, not surprisingly, that I have visited on several occasions. The government of the day tried to persuade businesses to go to a place they did not want to go to in the first place. Some businesses were attracted, it is true, but it was the first place where those who did go sought to make cuts when they rationalised in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Not only businesses but all too often the solutions of the past left people out of the equation and substituted social engineering for free will and enterprise. I believe that this came to an end at roughly the time that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, was engaged in writing his report on the tragic and shameful riots

115
in Brixton. We are now, I equally believe, reversing this process by extending home ownership; by encouraging retraining and self-employment; by making our children's education more relevant to their needs in the world of work; by re-emphasising the need for effective law and order; by encouraging the people of our cities to play a full part in building their communities; and by giving them tenant power in management of their local authority estates. I agree straight away that there is still a long way to go.
I can tell the noble Lords, Lord Alport and Lord Dean, that although I sometimes dislike things that are said by other people—Faith in the City not excluded—I would defend to the death their right to say them. You cannot build brick without straw, and the straw of employment is training. Of course there is unemployment in our old industrial centres, which by definition are mostly in the North. But I should also include such places in the South as the Medway towns, Bristol, which I know rather better, and Cardiff.
It is there, wherever these decayed inner cities are, that restructuring has been needed, as my noble friend Lord Young said in his opening speech. Furthermore, the oft-maligned rate support grant redistributes about £1 billion a year from rich London and the South-East, as it is often described, to the North and the Midlands. The message of Faith in the City, which most noble Lords have had at least in the back of their minds in their contributions to this debate, is that we must not allow prosperity to pass by our inner cities and their residents. That is why we are taking positive action to restore the competitiveness of these areas.
My noble friend Lord Selsdon is quite right. We shall not do this by injecting vast amounts of public money into these areas in the hope that this of itself will pull these areas round. Nor shall we achieve regeneration by directing firms where they do not wish to go. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, that firms need to be obliged to take a certain percentage of local labour, yet this suggestion was made at the very time when the Government are committed to acting on restrictive practices in local authority contracts. These approaches have not worked in the past and I cannot see with the benefit of history how they can be expected to work in the future.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the Secretary of State made it perfectly clear time and again—and we all agreed with him—that it is essential that people should feel they are doing these things for themselves. That is the point. If you have contractors in and outside people doing the work, that is completely lost. What the noble Lord has said is absolutely wrong.
Lord Skelmersdale: Right, my Lords. Perhaps the noble Lord will in future not describe me as a grey Minister who never puts his head over the parapet.
As Faith in the City reports:
"The real need is for a thriving local economy to be developed which can offer employment".
My noble friend Lord Young outlined what his department is doing to bring this about. This approach
116
is at the root of our employment policy and the range of urban initiatives we have developed since 1979.
I only wish that our efforts to secure urban regeneration and the cost-effective use of resources were matched by those of local authorities. The Faith in the City report says that the reports of the,
"Audit Commission provide sufficient evidence that there is wastefulness and extravagance in the way some (not all) urban authorities meet local needs. Clearly this needs remedying".
That I must point out was written well before the Audit Commission report which was published last week and which we shall consider as part of our debate on Wednesday.
Your Lordships can hardly have missed it. The Audit Commission's recently published report draws attention to the wasteful and incompetent way in which eight boroughs in London are conducting their affairs. They happen to be Labour-controlled, but as an independent body of the highest professional standing the commission is impartial, and the Government would have been equally condemnatory had these councils been controlled by any other party or even hung. Nonetheless, it is inevitable that political capital will be made out of it.
The commission, though, is above politics. Its responsibilities are for the audit of local government acounts and for helping authorities to achieve better value for money. Its words are studied and careful; yet the picture which emerges from this report is one of gross inefficiency and appalling mismanagement seriously compounding the problems which these inner city areas already face.
Tonight is not the time to go into details. Suffice it to say that the auditors have already drawn the attention of councillors in these boroughs to the serious problems and identified specific opportunities for efficiency and improvements amounting to about £100 million per year. That is £100 million per year to reduce the need for borrowing or to spend on better services. This money is currently being wasted on gross inefficiency. As the commission says, firms will not invest where they lack confidence in the local authority's management, and more public funds will not generate returns. There simply will be more waste.
I listened, not for the first time, with rapt attention to my noble friend Lord Bellwin describing the American experience in some but not all of their inner city areas. I have not been there but I can hazard a guess that they are the areas where the "can do" attitude is most strongly developed. That is what we must somehow generate in Liverpool and other inner city areas.
I was interested to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, say that it is a failure—I think I got his words correctly—that financing has not yet been taken out of the local government field. My noble friend Lord Bellwin and the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, referred to the urban development corporations. Next week I shall be introducing in your Lordships' House the order setting out the first of four new urban development corporations; that in Trafford Park. Nothing shows so vividly what can be done to bring back life to an area than the transformation of London's docklands. Through the London Dockland Development Corporation we have restored to

117
productive use nearly 900 acres of derelict land. We have built nearly 4,000 houses and flats, and another 3,000 are on the stocks. And, my Lords, that is being done without the local authorities; so perhaps there is a lesson here.
Returning to those houses, 40 per cent. are for local people, who, as the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, regularly points out, are almost begging to be able to live there. This proves the point that unless you can motivate people, not one penny of public investment will do the slightest good. So the Government have done exactly the right thing by investing about £275 million of public money in the area along with, arguably, the best leverage of any scheme anywhere in the country. Private investment so far is some £1,600 million.
No one would pretend that the transformation of the London docklands can be reproduced everywhere up and down the land, but there are lessons to be learned from its success that can be applied elsewhere. It is vital to win the confidence and co-operation of industry and commerce in reviving urban areas. With their help, morale can be boosted and investments attracted to the point at which success is self-sustaining. That is an objective of the new town corporations.
It need not take massive spending to achieve this goal. In Birmingham's jewellery quarter and in Nottingham's lace market, for example, the Government have helped local authorities to turn round rundown commercial areas into thriving business communities, largely by improving the environment and helping firms to upgrade their own premises. Companies quickly respond to this sort of small-scale initiative. This is done principally, but not entirely, as we know, by using the urban programme which is designed to direct specific grant to benefit the local authority, to improve the local environment and to encourage self-help.
No, my Lords, the urban programme has not been cut; I can assure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool about that. It has in fact doubled in real terms since 1978–79. I can also tell the noble and learned Lord that it is not being phased out. It is true, however, that the management of the programme has been radically overhauled over the last two years. Each project requires performance indicators, measurement of financial and other inputs and financial and other outputs. And targets must be set.
Emphasis has shifted to supporting projects that require capital rather than current expenditure, that are part of a coherent local strategy and that are combined together so that different aspects of an area's problems are tackled simultaneously. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon will know, such projects adapt that most valuable of resources, the church buildings, to what our Victorian ancestors would have called perhaps less conventional uses.
I believe that the urban programme is now one of the best managed Whitehall spending programmes. About 12,000 projects are supported at any one time and there is an annual turnover of about 3,000. This year, 1986–87, the urban programme is providing 26,800 jobs, 1,680 new industrial starter units, 29,000 training places through as many as 12,000 projects in
118
nearly 80 areas. This is a success story in anybody's book.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, and the noble Lord, Lord Dean, argued that increased special funding for inner cities was more than offset by cuts in rate support. I suggest that this is not borne out by the facts. The metropolitan areas stand—
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Is the Minister saying that a cut of £17 billion since 1979 has had no effect on the inner cities?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I ask the noble Lord please to wait for the argument before he starts to criticise what I am saying. The metropolitan areas stand to receive £240 million more rate support grant next year and London £100 million more than in the current year. The share of grant going to inner cities has also increased. Authorities with urban programme partnership and programme status get 24 per cent. of national block grant compared with a steady 20 per cent. between 1981–82 and 1985–86. It is not just in terms of rate support grant that the Government assist deprived areas. Taking one example, central government assistance to Merseyside is running at over £1 billion a year.
The right reverend Prelate said that urban problems will not be resolved without more money, and that is exactly why we have increased resources in real terms through, for example, urban development grant, derelict land, urban development corporations, and, the most exciting one of all, the Housing Corporation, which has had a real increase of 9 per cent. since 1979. Two-thirds of Housing Corporation support is now given to housing associations in hard-pressed urban areas, which is exactly what this debate would call for.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked me not to mention the additional £390 million for local authority housing next year, but I simply must disappoint her. The planned level of local authority capital spending on housing for 1987–88 is £2.92 billion, which is £390 million more than the corresponding figure for 1986–87. That is a genuine increase—
Baroness David: My Lords, will they actually have all that to spend or is it, as I am told from every side, that they will have 80 per cent. of what they had in 1985?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, when the noble Baroness says that the HIP programme for this coming financial year is 80 per cent. of what it was last year, she is absolutely right. But the point I was making was that the total amount of spend on local authority housing is going up by £390 million and that is an undeniable fact.
Various noble Lords mentioned support for the voluntary sector, which has increased greatly through a range of government programmes. For example, under the urban programme nearly £80 million will go this year to support projects run by voluntary groups for the benefit of local people. This reflects one of the Government's urban policy objectives, which is to

119
strengthen the social fabric of the inner city and reduce individuals' dependence on public services. We have to help people to help themselves. In passing, I make the point that I cannot envisage the day when any government of any political persuasion are told that they have overprovided for the voluntary sector.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, in a wide-ranging speech, said that improving our inner cities is not just a question of bricks and mortar. It is about winning the hearts and minds of the people who live there. We would all agree with that. This is particularly true for those members of the community who, for one reason or another, and often a combination of reasons, are at a disadvantage in the jobs and housing market. Racial disadvantage still exists to a marked degree in our cities and in all walks of life. Rooting out prejudice is a long-term task and not one that can be accomplished solely by legislation or by introducing new programmes.
Nonetheless, I am proud of an amendment that your Lordships put into last years' Housing and Planning Act to outlaw racial discrimination in the planning system. We are considering how we can extend this into the field of housing. That amendment was based on a simple government policy—to enable all groups in our inner cities to compete on an equal footing and to give individuals a stake in their community. This means supporting the efforts of voluntary groups which do a great deal, often unsung, to promote self-help in our inner cities.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, reminded me of my own visit to Broadwater Farm some eight months before PC Blakelock's tragic death to see community work in action—the local rent office, the youth common room, the community shops and so on. I think it is a salutary tale for us all that events there proved that all this is not always enough. It is a salutary lesson indeed.
Several noble Lords referred to the problem of homelessness. People become homeless for a variety of reasons, but there is no doubt that it is a particular problem in some of our inner cities—particularly London. Although we all know the story of Dick Whittington, London's streets are not paved with gold. It is by no means automatic that a job will be forthcoming. Indeed, without the skills that are in demand, it is unlikely, to say the very least.
My noble friend Lord Elton, and indeed other noble Lords, asked about the breakdown of the figures for homelessness. I had the honour to make a speech recently in your Lordships' House when I described that matter fairly fully. But I should say that a survey of homelessness in the third quarter of 1986 discovered from 56,450 inquiries that 6,480 were in bed and breakfast accommodation. That is about 11·5 per cent. However, I suspect that further research will discover that this is a smaller percentage than is actually suggested.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, totally misunderstood the central Thrust of the speech of my noble friend Lord Young. We shall only solve the housing and homelessness problems by seeing to it that public expenditure on housing by local authorities and housing associations is realistic and targeted and
120
that all finance, whether public, private or charitable, is properly used. The Audit Commission has again brought out the considerable improvements in the management of housing stock which could be undertaken by local authorities.
We have to encourage local authorities to carry out their responsibilities effectively by concentrating and maximising their resources. It must be wrong that rent arrears in England stood at over £200 million in the middle of last year—5·7 per cent. of the annual rent collectable. Arrears of this magnitude are an affront to the homeless.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, if the noble Lord reads paragraphs 57 and 58 of the occasional paper of the Audit Commission, he will that find that, while it recommends that the better management of local authorities is a matter of great importance, capital expenditure by government—central expenditure—is essential if the problems of local authorities with homelessness and other housing problems are to be solved.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not denying that; I have tried very hard not to deny it. What I am saying and have been saying all along is that what we should look at is not the expenditure of one sector or another. We should look at the total expenditure being made. That comprises the whole mass, and I do not think that we can look at any particular part in isolation.
I must conclude shortly, but the noble Baroness, Lady David, took us to task on our first reactions as a result of the department's survey on the homeless.
Baroness David: It was houses in multiple occupation.
Lord Skelmersdale: The noble Baroness is quite right. She took us to task for saying that we shall be recruiting an environmental health officer to advise the department and to help prepare and publicise examples of good practise, suggesting that that was the only environmental health officer in the country.
Baroness David: No.
Lord Skelmersdale: That is what it suggested to me. There are, as the noble Baroness pointed out, 431 local authorities in this country and they all employ environmental health officers. The complaint has been that the Government have not understood what environmental health officers are telling them. Who better to advise government than one of their own fraternity, so to speak? It is absolutely right that we should employ one such officer.
The problems of our inner cities did not spring up overnight, nor can they be instantly tackled. We have to develop a series of carefully targeted initiatives such as I have described to bring back life to urban areas by attracting industry and commerce and reviving people's morale. Events like the garden festivals in Liverpool and Stoke and on a smaller scale the Notting Hill carnival show that urban areas possess the vivacity and dynamism which are a prerequisite of regeneration.

121
But grand designs and unbridled spending are not the answers. Equally, as His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh said, you cannot go on a bender and not expect a hangover. We are still living with the effects of that hangover—the so-called comprehensive planning experiments of the 1960s and 1970s. As my noble friend Lord Bellwin said, we shall not cure them overnight. Thank goodness we have got away from the nanny state and have put people back into the equation.
Lord Scarman: My Lords, after the political exchanges of the past 35 to 40 minutes I am returning thankfully to intone a quiet lullaby in the presence of the Lords spiritual before I go to bed.
When I opened this debate I said that I hoped it would provide your Lordships with an opportunity to put forward suggestions and constructive ideas for resolving this very difficult problem. I have sat throughout the whole of the debate and have heard everything except one remark by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, when most unfortunately I was being detained in conversation by a member of his own party, a former Lord Chancellor. With the exception of that one comment—and I shall seek through the usual channels to find out what it was—I have heard everything, at least everything that my somewhat impaired hearing enables me to hear or to choose what to hear and what not to hear.
I must say that your Lordships have leapt splendidly to the opportunity of expressing suggestions and ideas for solving this problem. Not only should we all be grateful for a debate as interesting as this but I think that there will be much in the Official Report of this debate to interest the citizens of our country, all those—and there are very many—who are interested in getting a solution to the problem of urban decline and decay.
The other hope that I expressed was that we should get some indication of government policy in the long-term and government actions and proposals. We have has substantial speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Young of Graffham and Lord Skelmersdale, and we are able now to consider, perhaps critically, at our leisure how the Government see the problem and how they are dealing with it. The debate, therefore, has been a successful one. It has certainly been a long debate.
I was hoping that at one point we might have in this Chamber a majority present of Lords spiritual, but we never quite got there. I had hoped that the dinner hour might take away the more wordly laymen and leave the Lords spiritual, me and the noble Lord on the Woolsack, but that did not happen. However, the presence of the Lords spiritual has been of great symbolic importance. They, by their presence here, have represented the pastoral care of the Church for the people of the inner cities. I happen to know that pastoral care is a reality in the inner cities. Christian churches and the leaders of other religions are ceaselessly at work trying in their way, pastorally, to build up that community of people which so many speakers have emphasised.
The Church has a great function to play. The voluntary organisations have a great role to play; and
122
I think that the House was particularly impressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon. They are the local leaders who can build or rebuild the communities that we want. I do not see why the teaching profession should not make it a dedicated purpose to live more or less in the places where they teach and to take part in the social life of the families whose children they teach. I do not see why the professional people, the business people, should not live there and play a social part.
In order to get such a community going, great resources and great skill and thought have to be developed by central government, local government and private enterprise towards the physical restructuring of the inner cities, improving their appearance and their efficiency. It is indeed a complex problem, rebuilding a community in an old, decaying but often beloved neighbourhood. It can be done if we have the partnership of which the Motion speaks and of which all your Lordships, irrespective of party or view, temporal and spiritual, have acclaimed as the ultimate necessity, even though, as the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, pointed out with a little acid reality, one has to give some detail as to how one is to get it.
I have given an indication as to how that might be done. It does mean a co-operative element by everyone. We are concerned with places, but only because in those places there are people. It is people with whom we are concerned. It is the quality of the community of those people which will ultimately be the salvation, if it is to come at all, of our inner cities. As Faith in the City says, who can tell what Brixton or Toxteth will be like in 30 or 50 years?
One thing is certain. We will make no progress unless people in the inner cities get our confidence and our support. I do not think it is necessary, after so exhaustive a debate, for me to move for Papers. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  NORTHERN IRELAND ENTERPRISE INITIATIVES
  NORTHERN IRELAND ENTERPRISE INITIATIVES
  IVEAGH BEQUEST
  IVEAGH BEQUEST
  COMMON LAND FORUM REPORT
  COMMON LAND FORUM REPORT
  SITES OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST
  SITES OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST
  EUROPEAN COUNCIL OF MINISTERS: BUSINESS
  EUROPEAN COUNCIL OF MINISTERS: BUSINESS
  PROTECTION OF ANIMALS
  PROTECTION OF ANIMALS
  DEER SLAUGHTER
  DEER SLAUGHTER
  HOSPITAL AMENITY BEDS
  HOSPITAL AMENITY BEDS